How do you rate Simon Corney?

[singe]

I'm not saying I know what the number is here. I can feasibly believe a number of £10m plus. However, when LL and Latics & England went into the club I seem to remember that they saw Directors loans of £4m.

 

The stadium buy back cost them £3.5m. This is not an expense related to the club. They bought it, they own it, and they will reap the benefits once they have sold it.

The whole point about Failsworth is that it was to sell the BP land, as I know you are aware, some on here seem not, then has to have £20m to build a new stadium plus the land

The £7m I included the Lancaster Club.

Some seem to think that will still leave the TTA with armfuls. The trouble is we are beginning to get into the territory where the TTA will lose money, and that is a scary thought.

Edited February 7, 2011 by singe

[Forte_Baby]

Although Corney has a right to feel really angry at the moment, i still feel he could of left his comments about no football at Boundary Park until Sunday or Monday.

Edited February 7, 2011 by oafctom

[another fan]

Although Corney has a right to feel really angry at the moment, i still feel he could of left his comments about no football at Boundary Park until Sunday or Monday.

 

Why?

 

Besides there has always been criticism that the Club have been slow in coming foward with information

 

Again OAFC cant do right for doing wrong

[latic12345]

The whole point about Failsworth is that it was to sell the BP land, as I know you are aware, some on here seem not, then has to have £20m to build a new stadium plus the land

The £7m I included the Lancaster Club.

Some seem to think that will still leave the TTA with armfuls. The trouble is we are beginning to get into the territory where the TTA will lose money, and that is a scary thought.

 

I no longer think they'll leave with armfuls. 2007-2009 saw to that. I do think they are currently limiting damage.

 

The new Stadium is an interesting one. Correct me if I am wrong but it has always seemed deliberately vague regarding ownership and finance. I have no doubt that TTA would have been the ones to stump up any equity needed on which to take out a commercial mortgage. It was also talked about that there could be local council and European grants. Let us not forget however that in return for their investment (however financed but likely to need c.£5m cash due to Loan to Value on Commercial property) that they would own as a minimum:

 

1. The land on which the football ground stood (would we have had to pay rent?);

2. A cinema

3. A hotel

4. A bowling alley

5. 3G pitches

6. Lots and lots of land

 

All of this would be money spinning. I'm not denying them that. If they'd have done it and left the club viable I have no problem with an excellent and shrewd piece of business. However, they havent and (for me at least) the way in which it looks likely to be left smells and leaves the club in a very precarious position.

 

Plan B for Simon Blitz exists. What they fail to tell you is (and the way in which Simon Corney has stuck around may make him exempt from this) that Plan B is to safeguard their interests and not necessarily the clubs...

Edited February 7, 2011 by latic12345

[singe]

I no longer think they'll leave with armfuls. 2007-2009 saw to that. I do think they are currently limiting damage.

 

The new Stadium is an interesting one. Correct me if I am wrong but it has always seemed deliberately vague regarding ownership and finance. I have no doubt that TTA would have been the ones to stump up any equity needed on which to take out a commercial mortgage. It was also talked about that there could be local council and European grants. Let us not forget however that in return for their investment (however financed but likely to need c.£5m cash due to Loan to Value on Commercial property) that they would own as a minimum:

 

1. The land on which the football ground stood (would we have had to pay rent?);

2. A cinema

3. A hotel

4. A bowling alley

5. 3G pitches

6. Lots and lots of land

 

All of this would be money spinning. I'm not denying them that. If they'd have done it and left the club viable I have no problem with an excellent and shrewd piece of business. However, they havent and (for me at least) the way in which it looks likely to be left smells and leaves the club in a very precarious position.

 

Plan B for Simon Blitz exists. What they fail to tell you is (and the way in which Simon Corney has stuck around may make him exempt from this) that Plan B is to safeguard their interests and not necessarily the clubs...

I think that the actions of the TTA thus far, have earned enough enough to credit them to all the nuclear option PLan B., PLan Z might be fairer. If there Plan B was literally Plan B, there have been many opportunities to do it so far, and they have not taken it.

Of course, the nuclear option will always be there, but that is the case for any investor, not unique to TTA.

Many other owners would and indeed have bailed out long much sooner than the TTA.

 

The whole point of the 6 points you raised is that the plan is to release that to Oldham Athletics benefit.

I don't think that SC has the money to build that list.

 

Like everyone I am not comfortable that the finances are all very straight forward, but I think in effect Simon Blitz has a Directors Loan and an asset against that. But they would not have invested had there been nothing to do that against, and we would have been playing derbies and ground sharing with Oldham Boro.

Edited February 7, 2011 by singe

[singe]

So, after just over 200 votes

81% Satsifaction

7% Dissatisfaction.

After all this time in office, that is an excellent satisfaction rating.

Edited February 7, 2011 by singe

[latic12345]

The whole point of the 6 points you raised is that the plan is to release that to Oldham Athletics benefit.

I don't think that SC has the money to build that list.

 

Do you really believe that the sole beneficiaries of such a scheme would be the football club? The guys own a "dormant" company that owns lad on which BP is situated. They have got the club to pay for planning permission on it. Simon Corney has been left behind but Blitz has gone "nuclear" so to speak. He's buggered off and took his asset with him, slowly selling bits of it as and when the houses are developed.

 

You may argue he hasnt asked for his £4m loan. I would hazard a large guess there's no point requesting it as he knows that would force administration and he'd get somewhere between 5 and 10p in the pound back.

 

I think Simon Corney has improved this season and him being here is why I am pushing him back to Average as he appears to be trying to do his best for the club. His mates have left him high and dry though and that, as I said in my original post, is a damning indictment of his performance as MD / Chairman to date

[help_shiny]

Cant believe you all think he walks on water. Once he has gone and we have no ground and him and his mates are building on Boundary Park will you still be loving him? Probably. Mass delusion.

Any group who wilfully separate club from ground are shysters. Oh, yes it'd be great if they could have rustled up another stadium from somewhere but if they cant then we deserve to be left homeless while they recoup their money by utterly destroying the club. That's ok is it? They're a disgrace. All three of them. I might be in the minority now but enough of you will realise you've been shafted soon enough.

[latic12345]

Cant believe you all think he walks on water. Once he has gone and we have no ground and him and his mates are building on Boundary Park will you still be loving him? Probably. Mass delusion.

Any group who wilfully separate club from ground are shysters. Oh, yes it'd be great if they could have rustled up another stadium from somewhere but if they cant then we deserve to be left homeless while they recoup their money by utterly destroying the club. That's ok is it? They're a disgrace. All three of them. I might be in the minority now but enough of you will realise you've been shafted soon enough.

 

Maybe on the day they announce we're no longer playing at Boundary Park or the day it's flattened?

[singe]

Cant believe you all think he walks on water. Once he has gone and we have no ground and him and his mates are building on Boundary Park will you still be loving him? Probably. Mass delusion.

Any group who wilfully separate club from ground are shysters. Oh, yes it'd be great if they could have rustled up another stadium from somewhere but if they cant then we deserve to be left homeless while they recoup their money by utterly destroying the club. That's ok is it? They're a disgrace. All three of them. I might be in the minority now but enough of you will realise you've been shafted soon enough.

I don't believe he can walk on water, but neither do I believe he is the devil incarnate.

Particularly as if he was as bad as you day, he would have done it already.

[help_shiny]

Maybe on the day they announce we're no longer playing at Boundary Park or the day it's flattened?

 

It'll probably be a slow drip drip drip effect. There will then be a simultaneous mass realisation amongst the 2000 strong crowd at whichever non league ground in Tameside we call home about 7 games into our new tenure. There will then ensue weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[singe]

Do you really believe that the sole beneficiaries of such a scheme would be the football club? The guys own a "dormant" company that owns lad on which BP is situated. They have got the club to pay for planning permission on it. Simon Corney has been left behind but Blitz has gone "nuclear" so to speak. He's buggered off and took his asset with him, slowly selling bits of it as and when the houses are developed.

 

You may argue he hasnt asked for his £4m loan. I would hazard a large guess there's no point requesting it as he knows that would force administration and he'd get somewhere between 5 and 10p in the pound back.

 

I think Simon Corney has improved this season and him being here is why I am pushing him back to Average as he appears to be trying to do his best for the club. His mates have left him high and dry though and that, as I said in my original post, is a damning indictment of his performance as MD / Chairman to date

No, never have believed the club is the sole beneficiaries, because any deal has to be a win win.

If everything goes to plan, it will all be amalgamated, and TTA get some dosh too.

We need the TTA to get some dosh too.

Again, not particularly aimed at you, you have alluded to this in your replies.

 

I marked him as Very Good, as the decisions were generally agreed with at the time, if a little bit too much reading into OWTB. Like Ronnie Moore was a mass clamour to get the hoofball out, yet in hindsight he might have just got us up. But the right decision. As was Joe Royle, generally agreed. At the time, could be just what we need.

The only decsion that has not univerally been accepted was the Lookers, but I think one that has given us money a for a bit longer. No one wanted that to happen for image reasons rather than cost ones.

Edited February 7, 2011 by singe

[garcon]

I love the fact some Oldhamers have such a complete and blind mistrust of "outsiders", especially ones with money, that they continue to peddle the myth that TTA were always in it to shaft us for their own gain, despite a seven year mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

It says much more about those Oldhamers than it does TTA, and helps to show why Oldham itself is so hopelessly backward. Yes folks, hear it loud, it's not ALL the council's fault.

 

Yes of course they'd have made a profit for themselves if all the glorious plans they had back in 2004 for redeveloping the club had come to fruition, but that profit would simply have been their cut of a bigger profit made by the club itself. Everyone would have been a winner.

 

After such a catalogue of knock-backs (some at least in part their own doing) I can't blame Blitz and Gazaal for turning off the tap, and I won't blame any of them for cutting their losses and getting the hell out when that time comes. For me, it'll simply be a case of, "Thanks for the ride TTA, sorry it didn't work out, no hard feelings."

[jimsleftfoot]

Cant believe you all think he walks on water. Once he has gone and we have no ground and him and his mates are building on Boundary Park will you still be loving him? Probably. Mass delusion.

Any group who wilfully separate club from ground are shysters. Oh, yes it'd be great if they could have rustled up another stadium from somewhere but if they cant then we deserve to be left homeless while they recoup their money by utterly destroying the club. That's ok is it? They're a disgrace. All three of them. I might be in the minority now but enough of you will realise you've been shafted soon enough.

 

 

I agree that they could leave us in the dirt here, but that is yet to happen, however:

 

They didn't seperate the club from ground, this was done pre-moore. They bought the ground but didn't treat it as part of the clubs assets, which considering the club was never a going concern anyway, it actually makes business sense.

 

If we look at the 'their only in it for the money point of view' then one thing I would be interested in is the motive. If they were bothered about money, I would suggest that there would be 1000's of other ways to invest £14 million which are guaranteed to make at least little profit which come with a lot less hassle than buying a failing football club.

[oafc0000]

I agree that they could leave us in the dirt here, but that is yet to happen, however:

 

They didn't seperate the club from ground, this was done pre-moore. They bought the ground but didn't treat it as part of the clubs assets, which considering the club was never a going concern anyway, it actually makes business sense.

 

If we look at the 'their only in it for the money point of view' then one thing I would be interested in is the motive. If they were bothered about money, I would suggest that there would be 1000's of other ways to invest £14 million which are guaranteed to make at least little profit which come with a lot less hassle than buying a failing football club.

 

I think the truth is in the middle...

 

No way did they buy Latics / land with the idea they would make a fortune. I also don't sign up to the idea they bought the club with the idea of losing a fortune either. The land surely is there as a get of jail card if it does go balls up ? and I don't think many fans will hold it against them if it came to that. Anyone who thinks this was all part of some sort of masterplan to get hold of the land to make millions is probably way off the mark.

[singe]

I agree that they could leave us in the dirt here, but that is yet to happen, however:

 

They didn't seperate the club from ground, this was done pre-moore. They bought the ground but didn't treat it as part of the clubs assets, which considering the club was never a going concern anyway, it actually makes business sense.

 

If we look at the 'their only in it for the money point of view' then one thing I would be interested in is the motive. If they were bothered about money, I would suggest that there would be 1000's of other ways to invest £14 million which are guaranteed to make at least little profit which come with a lot less hassle than buying a failing football club.

Excellent post JLF, and that really needs emphasising.

Who were the Directors that sold the ground to the Council?

[singe]

I think the truth is in the middle...

 

No way did they buy Latics / land with the idea they would make a fortune. I also don't sign up to the idea they bought the club with the idea of losing a fortune either. The land surely is there as a get of jail card if it does go balls up ? and I don't think many fans will hold it against them if it came to that. Anyone who thinks this was all part of some sort of masterplan to get hold of the land to make millions is probably way off the mark.

I think that is an eminently sensible post.

[help_shiny]

to rate the man you have to consider where we are, what our prospects are and what he has done to put is in that position. When they came we had a buyback on the ground and owners of that land who were unlikely to throw us out. When they left/leave there will be no buyback, there is no ownership, there will be houses on the land and the club will be as good as dead. That is their legacy. They bought a broken football club, bought a stack of land on the cheap in the guise of being that football club even though they never had any intention of bringing club and ground back together, tried to do things with the club, they failed utterly and will leave the stage with us in an even worse position than we were then. I know there are many who fervently believe they were the only hope and that the club would have ceased to exist without them - maybe, possibly, doubt it though. I think there is a higher chance of us vanishing from the football map through their tender administrations than without them.

And if you think that it's fair do's if the club go under because 'hey, they deserve to rake some money back' then we'll have to disagree as I think that's a terrible way of looking at the situation. If that was the case then practically every club in the country would have gone out of existence by now because hey, it's only fair the fat cat chairman gets his money back after realising his plaything isnt a cash cow. Cant have them making a loss can we?

Bad ownership, terrible council, blind fans.

[singe]

to rate the man you have to consider where we are, what our prospects are and what he has done to put is in that position. When they came we had a buyback on the ground and owners of that land who were unlikely to throw us out. When they left/leave there will be no buyback, there is no ownership, there will be houses on the land and the club will be as good as dead. That is their legacy. They bought a broken football club, bought a stack of land on the cheap in the guise of being that football club even though they never had any intention of bringing club and ground back together, tried to do things with the club, they failed utterly and will leave the stage with us in an even worse position than we were then. I know there are many who fervently believe they were the only hope and that the club would have ceased to exist without them - maybe, possibly, doubt it though. I think there is a higher chance of us vanishing from the football map through their tender administrations than without them.

And if you think that it's fair do's if the club go under because 'hey, they deserve to rake some money back' then we'll have to disagree as I think that's a terrible way of looking at the situation. If that was the case then practically every club in the country would have gone out of existence by now because hey, it's only fair the fat cat chairman gets his money back after realising his plaything isnt a cash cow. Cant have them making a loss can we?

Bad ownership, terrible council, blind fans.

There are so many assumptions and suppositions I don't know here to begin.

1. We might have been relatively assured tenants of the council. but there was no money for players. Conference or lower beckoned.

2. You have assumed when they leave (they have always said this) no buyback, no ownersship etc. You simply don't know, that is your assupmtion. Many of us are pointing out, it might not be the case. I make no claim of knowing either.

3.Your claim of not bringing the club back to gether is again an assumption and plenty of evidence to the contrary. But it was not no together when they bought it and therefore a worthless shell.

4. Who on earth has argues "And if you think that it's fair do's if the club go under because 'hey, they deserve to rake some money back'" you are just putting words into my mouth to suit your needs. I and others are arguing the TTA to make some money on the basis it is for the good of the club, not at the expense of our demise. If we go bust, the TTA will lose a lot of money, but that does not fit in your mantra.

You are coming across as very bitter because the TTA have some money.

If we went bust tommorow, the TTA will have spent £14m, and get back about £8-10m. So I don't think that I am saying as long as the fat cat chairman gets his money back. If we go bust then it will have cost the TTA dear too. It seems your approach to money is very Stalinist.

Edited February 7, 2011 by singe

[rigsby]

Cant believe you all think he walks on water. Once he has gone and we have no ground and him and his mates are building on Boundary Park will you still be loving him? Probably. Mass delusion.

Any group who wilfully separate club from ground are shysters. Oh, yes it'd be great if they could have rustled up another stadium from somewhere but if they cant then we deserve to be left homeless while they recoup their money by utterly destroying the club. That's ok is it? They're a disgrace. All three of them. I might be in the minority now but enough of you will realise you've been shafted soon enough.

plus 1,i thought i was the only fan with his eyes open lol.

Joking aside,i want to believe TTA were sincere but im afraid my instincts say not,well,my instincts AND quite a large chunk of circumstantial evidence. The thing is,BP and the surrounding land is getting flogged,TTA,and the vast majority didnt see the property collpse coming,if they had they wouldn't have bought us,and thats a factamondo.Now,the original plan IMO was to build a new stadium(with a shed load of financial help from OMBC)AND FLOG BP and the surrounding land.The stadium has fallen through and the need to recoup is here and now.

I'm afraid the need to recoup is more important than the club,and that,in a nutshell,spells disaster for OAFC.

OMBC have not helped one jot,infact they have been an utter disgrace,but there was NEVER IMO a cat in hells chance there was ever going to be financial aid from that direction,financial aid vital to any fledgling stadium project.

Ive no time for the likes of Hardy either,hes earned a fortune off the back of this club,he bleats about everything and everyone but tell us mr hardy,how much money have you invested in the club compared to the average fan paying extortionate prices week in week out?

Anyway,doomsday is beckoning,quite simply therre is nowhere for the club to go now,all assets have been stripped,to the bare bones.

A tragedy.

[singe]

plus 1,i thought i was the only fan with his eyes open lol.

Joking aside,i want to believe TTA were sincere but im afraid my instincts say not,well,my instincts AND quite a large chunk of circumstantial evidence. The thing is,BP and the surrounding land is getting flogged,TTA,and the vast majority didnt see the property collpse coming,if they had they wouldn't have bought us,and thats a factamondo.Now,the original plan IMO was to build a new stadium(with a shed load of financial help from OMBC)AND FLOG BP and the surrounding land.The stadium has fallen through and the need to recoup is here and now.

I'm afraid the need to recoup is more important than the club,and that,in a nutshell,spells disaster for OAFC.

OMBC have not helped one jot,infact they have been an utter disgrace,but there was NEVER IMO a cat in hells chance there was ever going to be financial aid from that direction,financial aid vital to any fledgling stadium project.

Ive no time for the likes of Hardy either,hes earned a fortune off the back of this club,he bleats about everything and everyone but tell us mr hardy,how much money have you invested in the club compared to the average fan paying extortionate prices week in week out?

Anyway,doomsday is beckoning,quite simply therre is nowhere for the club to go now,all assets have been stripped,to the bare bones.

A tragedy.

1. What cisrcumstanial evidence?

2. So that fact that the TTA did not see the property crash and would not invest means they are not sincere?

3. How many others that could have invested before the crash were there exactly?

4. How many are there now.

A clue it is less than the fingers on one hand

5. There is no evidence that OAFC (ie TTA) have asked for money from OMBC, so whats your issue there? Nor should they, the whole point is the new development should pay for itself. I don;t understand wwhat "shedload" of money

6. If you are going to be fair, you need to ask Alan Hardy how much he has taken out and how much business he has bought in and how much money he has saved OAFC. That is a better benchmark than the personal info.

No way is it rosy? but there are still options.

 

Of course people are going to be opposed to any moves the TTA make now, but to base your dislike on the issues you have pointed out is based on the politics of envy Pure and simple.

[rigsby]

1. What cisrcumstanial evidence?

2. So that fact that the TTA did not see the property crash and would not invest means they are not sincere?

3. How many others that could have invested before the crash were there exactly?

4. How many are there now.

A clue it is less than the fingers on one hand

5. There is no evidence that OAFC (ie TTA) have asked for money from OMBC, so whats your issue there? Nor should they, the whole point is the new development should pay for itself. I don;t understand wwhat "shedload" of money

6. If you are going to be fair, you need to ask Alan Hardy how much he has taken out and how much business he has bought in and how much money he has saved OAFC. That is a better benchmark than the personal info.

No way is it rosy? but there are still options.

 

Of course people are going to be opposed to any moves the TTA make now, but to base your dislike on the issues you have pointed out is based on the politics of envy Pure and simple.

envy? erm,nope,i aint envious of anyone.

 

[garcon]

envy? erm,nope,i aint envious of anyone.

No, you're too blind.

[daznathe]

The irony is that his (and Blitz and Gazaal's) biggest mistake has been listening to the fans too much.

 

got to agree there.

and pleasntly suprised at the poll results!