Diego_Sideburns Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Don't know why everybody is suddenly sprouting on about finances now after he cup exit. Nothing has changed since before the cup , the budget was set this year without cup revenue. There is a big question mark over next year and was before any cup exit .Even half a decent cup run wont change that. All these arguments are about short term finance , this club has a much bigger probem than that. The only way to generate enough income is through the gate. The only way we can do that is by having a better team playing attarctive football and going for promotion. PD has too work the oracle in trying to achieve that this season, then hopefully we can get rid of the dross that is bleeding us with paying wages to players that don't even make the squad. We have one of the biggest squads in our league and it's this that is crippling us. Hopefully if that can be achieved it will give PD soemthing to work on next season and then success may attract new investors. Its the only way forward . The general consensus view among the supporters is that SC cannot afford to continue running the Club and that Administration is inevitable. That's why "everybody is suddenly sprouting on about finances". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) Absolutely, though in reality this may have to be via a mouthpiece that the fans employ(ie pay a wage)to roll out major decisions voted on by the fan investors Not a chance I am paying £50 a month for the status quo... If you want a website that everyone logs onto and votes via... fine... If you want to send out share holder election / voting forms etc... fine... I don't think the current approach apparently adopted by the trust would be fine though... The individual members should vote directly for their day to day representative... The outcome of the members opinions shouldn't be reduced down to one persons opinion on what the majority think... It should be cast iron recorded.... The shareholders vote for the "board"... You would expect it to be made up of key investors representatives... Edited November 9, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Not a chance I am paying £50 a month for the status quo... If you want a website that everyone logs onto and votes via... fine... If you want to send out share holder election / voting forms etc... fine... I don't think the current approach apparently adopted by the trust would be fine though... The individual members should vote directly for their day to day representative... The outcome of the members opinions shouldn't be reduced down to one persons opinion on what the majority think... It should be cast iron recorded.... The shareholders vote for the "board"... You would expect it to be made up of key investors representatives... I agree with that but all hypothetical at the mo - the details would have to be agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 The general consensus view among the supporters is that SC cannot afford to continue running the Club and that Administration is inevitable. That's why "everybody is suddenly sprouting on about finances". Agree but that was the case BEFORE the cup exit yet it appears that eveybody including AH is blaming that. I still say that the club could raise short term finance by selling 2/3/4 & 5 year Season Tickets. I would buy a 5 year one even if the prospect of Admin puts some off. It's one way the fans could support the club , provide short term finance to help team build which in turn could increase gates. If it doesn't work we are in the mire anyway !!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I agree with that but all hypothetical at the mo - the details would have to be agreed Yup, and its not going to happen for many reasons... but some of our other posters haven't got on yet and they like stating the bloody obvious when I start having my hypothetical delusions I wouldn't want to spoil there fun so we wait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Agree but that was the case BEFORE the cup exit yet it appears that eveybody including AH is blaming that. The Cup exit has brought the inevitable forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 The Cup exit has brought the inevitable forward. Why - What changed we didn't budget for a cup run ??????? we haven't had one so we are still within budget for this season !!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Why - What changed we didn't budget for a cup run ??????? we haven't had one so we are still within budget for this season !!!!!!!!!!!! I assume the budget anticipated a modest increase in the attendances seen towards the end of last season and for the transfer listed players to do one before the end of August. No chance of being "within budget". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I probably don't "get" the way you see it... I don't "get" the view that results in 90ish profesional clubs being in debt ? That's no doubt because you're of the opinion that........ The club isn't some little not for profit members club. It is a business... A cold hard business... Run by people in pursuit of profit... All aiming for the big time and the big bucks... An opinion somewhat then contradicted by..... Latics have always been on the brink of going under... We are reliant on owners with money wishing to take a gamble... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I don't want the season ticket... It is better to do it exactly as they have done it in my opinion, so even exiles can be part of it... Otherwise people would be paying for something they don't or would rarely use... Just because I don't come doesn't mean I don't care... Something which is often lost on some... Ok it is easily sorted then... £40 a month without a ST or £50 with a ST or something like that... Sorry to target your postings, but why would anybody be interested in paying £40 per month for a "say" in the running of a football club cold, hard entertainment business which they have no interest in patronising? Surely they could then only be in it for a profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 That's no doubt because you're of the opinion that........ An opinion somewhat then contradicted by..... There is no contradiction... Just because so many people it up doesn't make it a contradiction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) Sorry to target your postings, but why would anybody be interested in paying £40 per month for a "say" in the running of a football club cold, hard entertainment business which they have no interest in patronising? Surely they could then only be in it for a profit? One is hoping the mindset of 1000 fans would be different... That the way the club and wider football is changed by fans taking over... of course I can't rule out the fans being greedy selfish c**ts as well but I would like to think better of the members willing to stump up the cause... I can only speak for myself... If I did it would be more about control with a mindset of making the club strong than financial gain for myself... Edited November 9, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookers87 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I personally don't think an entirely supporter owned club is the way forward, though I'm not against the idea, and I do think more can be done with a different style trust/100s minority shareholders. What I find deeply depressing is that SC's (who has zero to invest in the club) brief (as I understand it) when he arrived at the club was to help Blitz and Gazal (the money men) to find further investment. That was his brief. We are now 6 years down the line and other than a brief show from Mike Newton nothing has materialised. He has known about the current situation since probably the turn of the year. Granted it isn't easy persuading money men to part with cash, particularly at this time, but 6 years suggests something isn't right. I spent yesterday in a meeting with the main money man behind Burnley. And what I can't understand is why we/the owners/whoever, have this obsession with finding a new 'financier'. Prior to a change last week when another wealthy businessman was persuaded to join the board, Burnley have operated with a board of 8 people for years. All of them successful businessmen, all putting finance in (according to their shareholdings) and most importantly...all fans of the club. Before this is taken as some romantic notion that won't happen, there are plenty of successful Oldham fans, and I cannot believe that all of them have been 'approached' in the past 6 years. For all his failings I like AH from when I've met him and from a football administration point of view I don't think we could get better. I also think Blitz in particular was unlucky with many factors, but I think he'll be the first to admit he also made some howlers. It's a shame it has gotten to this situation, now is the time to ask 'how we solve this' not 'who is to blame'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 There is no contradiction... Just because so many people it up doesn't make it a contradiction... The contradiction was that, if football clubs were merely "cold hard businesses", their going under would be a regularity as opposed to a rarity, in spite of the fact you correctly identify that they are apparently unviable and forever on the brink of such a fate. Football clubs aren't "cold, hard businesses". They're actually something of a phenomenon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 The contradiction was that, if football clubs were merely "cold hard businesses", their going under would be a regularity as opposed to a rarity, in spite of the fact you correctly identify that they are apparently unviable and forever on the brink of such a fate. Football clubs aren't "cold, hard businesses". They're actually something of a phenomenon. Yeah I can roll with that... In a very roundabout way that is the point I was kind of making if you look at a lot of my posts together... You can't treat or run them like a business.... And probably why so many of these business men get it wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I personally don't think an entirely supporter owned club is the way forward, though I'm not against the idea, and I do think more can be done with a different style trust/100s minority shareholders. What I find deeply depressing is that SC's (who has zero to invest in the club) brief (as I understand it) when he arrived at the club was to help Blitz and Gazal (the money men) to find further investment. That was his brief. We are now 6 years down the line and other than a brief show from Mike Newton nothing has materialised. He has known about the current situation since probably the turn of the year. Granted it isn't easy persuading money men to part with cash, particularly at this time, but 6 years suggests something isn't right. I spent yesterday in a meeting with the main money man behind Burnley. And what I can't understand is why we/the owners/whoever, have this obsession with finding a new 'financier'. Prior to a change last week when another wealthy businessman was persuaded to join the board, Burnley have operated with a board of 8 people for years. All of them successful businessmen, all putting finance in (according to their shareholdings) and most importantly...all fans of the club. Before this is taken as some romantic notion that won't happen, there are plenty of successful Oldham fans, and I cannot believe that all of them have been 'approached' in the past 6 years. For all his failings I like AH from when I've met him and from a football administration point of view I don't think we could get better. I also think Blitz in particular was unlucky with many factors, but I think he'll be the first to admit he also made some howlers. It's a shame it has gotten to this situation, now is the time to ask 'how we solve this' not 'who is to blame'. "I personally don't think an entirely supporter owned club is the way forward, though I'm not against the idea, and I do think more can be done with a different style trust/100s minority shareholders." I agree here so my view is a combination of the two with a substantial "fan-investor" contribution and other wealthy contributors but with balanced voting and share/debenture rights. This could help improve short/mid-term finances and ensure the contributors have more of a say and share of responsibility if things do or don't go to plan. All hypothetical though, I don't get the feeling from the few posts on here that it could be a goer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Same principle applies though... 1 head vs the majority decision from 1000 ? Companies have thousands of shareholders all having a say... I don't understand why football fans (with the many different jobs we all do) get looked down on as some sort of idiots... What does the club have to fear from the fan base having more of a say ? Loss of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Loss of control. Well the current shareholders would have reduced control... but they would still keep a vote :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Good point on the legends game but was that not before the new owners came and what right did they have to the money once they'd come in? If the Trust had said "thanks for saving the club and we're keeping this money", would that have made any difference to the 3 new owners? I very much doubt whether at any point of their takeover there was a proviso that they got the Trusts money. It was handed over after the takeover to absolutely no discernable gain to the fans. Also, putting that aside what would the rationale of giving them all the 'bucket money' and donations made apart from the legends game? I don't disagree with you in principle and thought at the time that a high price was being paid for a small stake. Fact remains though, and this is with no disrepect at all to the people who put a lot of effort in at the time, that the money rasied, even including the legends game, is irrelevant in the great scheme of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc-latics Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 not read any of the nearly 300 comments on this thread but from what hardy said, it's either, things are bad and he's come out and said this to warn us. Or it's an 'apology' from the club and acknowledging that a cup run could have been really useful and we blew it. either way, it's bad news if hardy feels the need to say this publicly, it might be the start of something bad unfortunately.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Sense of perspective. Bolton lost £35m y/e Jun 2010. Overall debt Almost £100million. If the owner pulls our they get relegated. They were seen as a shining example by some on here. That's not living within your means. Ours is a £3m turnover club, by comparison to Boltons 54m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 "I personally don't think an entirely supporter owned club is the way forward, though I'm not against the idea, and I do think more can be done with a different style trust/100s minority shareholders." I agree here so my view is a combination of the two with a substantial "fan-investor" contribution and other wealthy contributors but with balanced voting and share/debenture rights. This could help improve short/mid-term finances and ensure the contributors have more of a say and share of responsibility if things do or don't go to plan. All hypothetical though, I don't get the feeling from the few posts on here that it could be a goer This is a lovely idea in a socialist paradise where we share everything and everyone gets along and agrees on everything. In practice it won't and never will work. If the supporters are going to have a say of say 50% then they are going to have to put up half the losses which you would be looking at £250k a year so lets say 2500 paying £100.00 a year. So what happens when the team starts underperforming and half the investor fans want to sack him the other half don't. Do you think they will all keep putting in when that happens The example of ebsfleet united is proof of this where they are getting dwindling amounts of people prepared to keep putting money in. When people put their money in they want their say and most people will find that becoming members of a scheme like this will not mean that they can pick the team, give the half time team talk, sack the manager, make sure their are 4 pies per person at half time, then they will give up. If a wealthy man come in and wants to plough money in and lose his money in OAFC then you can bet your bottom dollar the least he will want is to say where he is going to lose it. Its an absolute non starter I'm afraid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 This is a lovely idea in a socialist paradise where we share everything and everyone gets along and agrees on everything. In practice it won't and never will work. If the supporters are going to have a say of say 50% then they are going to have to put up half the losses which you would be looking at £250k a year so lets say 2500 paying £100.00 a year. So what happens when the team starts underperforming and half the investor fans want to sack him the other half don't. Do you think they will all keep putting in when that happens The example of ebsfleet united is proof of this where they are getting dwindling amounts of people prepared to keep putting money in. When people put their money in they want their say and most people will find that becoming members of a scheme like this will not mean that they can pick the team, give the half time team talk, sack the manager, make sure their are 4 pies per person at half time, then they will give up. If a wealthy man come in and wants to plough money in and lose his money in OAFC then you can bet your bottom dollar the least he will want is to say where he is going to lose it. Its an absolute non starter I'm afraid I take your point - its the first time I have ever been called a socialist as well - WOW I suppose a 5 year contract may have to be in place, but my resolution is that a percentage of the cash would pay the wage of the elected fan owner representitive - who then works to agreed kpi's rather than the voluntary trust arrangement that we have in place. All hypothetical though, and I don't think we'd find 1000 fans with a spare £5k anyway so as you say a "non-starter" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I don't disagree with you in principle and thought at the time that a high price was being paid for a small stake. Fact remains though, and this is with no disrepect at all to the people who put a lot of effort in at the time, that the money rasied, even including the legends game, is irrelevant in the great scheme of things. It is small beer in the great scheme of things but if the Trust was sitting on that wedge and if the club ever went bust then any new club would power through the lower leagues (the first 4 or 5 divisions of it anyway). But as it stands there is no money and there is no Plan B. Alternatively could that money have been put to use by buying Boundary Park? That way the owners of the club cannot leave the club in total limbo if they see fit. Anyway, all done and dusted now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Sense of perspective. Bolton lost £35m y/e Jun 2010. Overall debt Almost £100million. If the owner pulls our they get relegated. They were seen as a shining example by some on here. That's not living within your means. Ours is a £3m turnover club, by comparison to Boltons 54m That's why that odious chairman of theirs regularly dusts off his plans for 'Premier League 2'. If they ever go near the relegation zone he pushes for it hard. If they go down, they go under. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.