Yard Dog Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 What have onions got to do with the price of fish? Rigsby knows his onions. Fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigsby Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Rigsby knows his onions. Fact. im raging not posting again tonight. i feel utterly let down,i used to go sheddings every week and i got shafted then to. im sick of this :censored: hole of a town and the tossers who run it. Edited February 10, 2011 by rigsby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Some facts please,i dont do cryptic posts.I'll post a couple.. We won't be at BP next season,period. BP willl be bulldozed within 36months. The club will end up out of the borough and will struggle to attract 2000 home fans. The club will die a slow death. Oh and Oldham council make me physically sick. PS forget the sabe rattling simon it ain't going to cut ice with OMBC,for starters they haven't got a pot to piss in so forget about any help from that godforsaken quater. I bet you're a right joy at parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I bet you're a right joy at parties. Cheese and onion hedgehogs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 My i-onion is that it all depends on whether the council :censored: it of whether they can be forced to sack a load of staff to pay a legal suit, in which case who knows what will happen, or not. We live in strange times, the point has been well made that the owners continue to spend more money on players than they have to, which for me is a clear indicator - although not for long term plans. People thinking that TTA had no intention from the start but to make a land profit are idiots, what they are thinking now I don't know. Still, I hope it all works out for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1onheart Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 On the positive side We have a club to be proud of We have a management team to be proud of We are playing football to be proud of We have a Chairman and a board of directors that are also proud of the above and are doing everything in their power to sustain the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 While we can point the finger at council incompetence it all seems to boil down to one thing. Blitz wants his money back sooner rather than later. Barry, can you please comment on this assertion. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakerT Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I will be doing my best. Barry We know you will Barry, keep fighting our corner, I know you have our best interests at heart Cheers ShakerT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Barry, Would promotion and the money that would come from it change the situation? i.e. cover the cost of maintaining BP for another year or so while Plan B for the new ground got underway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) People thinking that TTA had no intention from the start but to make a land profit are idiots, what they are thinking now I don't know. Still, I hope it all works out for the best. Well I'm an idiot then... drinks later will be fun ;) I don't believe they have only been in it for land profits. It's just their underlying reason for investment. Think about this. They had three ways of doing business: 1. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club, investing in the team, keeping the fans happy whilst slowly selling the land off and making a return (the hold ups to the project have not been forecast and were, at times beyond their control thus they would not have been included to the extent they have in their initial investment). They therefore ringfenced the land for a reason that has yet to be disclosed. 2. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club down, making no investment in players leading to huge protests from fans and public pressure (this is not a pleasant way to do business). Here they would be explicitly asset stripping and this is quite unpleasant and they would need to be callous to do this. 3. Buiyng the club, buying the land, leaving the land as an asset of the club. If the only significant debt of the club is a £4m Director loan, then no-one can use the land against the club as no-one should have a charge against it. This would be what they would have done if they only ever have had the clubs interests at heart.... Edited February 11, 2011 by latic12345 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Quote Barry - "and whoever takes over me " This made me smile... bit like the Egyptian President..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Well I'm an idiot then... drinks later will be fun ;) I don't believe they have only been in it for land profits. It's just their underlying reason for investment. Think about this. They had three ways of doing business: 1. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club, investing in the team, keeping the fans happy whilst slowly selling the land off and making a return (the hold ups to the project have not been forecast and were, at times beyond their control thus they would not have been included to the extent they have in their initial investment). They therefore ringfenced the land for a reason that has yet to be disclosed. They took over a club which hadn't broke even in years, they also purchased some land from the council. To put the asset and failing club together risks the asset. Sentamentality aside, it makes business sense 2. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club down, making no investment in players leading to huge protests from fans and public pressure (this is not a pleasant way to do business). Here they would be explicitly asset stripping and this is quite unpleasant and they would need to be callous to do this. 3. Buiyng the club, buying the land, leaving the land as an asset of the club. If the only significant debt of the club is a £4m Director loan, then no-one can use the land against the club as no-one should have a charge against it. This would be what they would have done if they only ever have had the clubs interests at heart.... Again sentimental but realistically it risks the land. The issue with having an asset is that it can potentially be used to offset any losses. THe club was making losses from day one and TTA were offsetting the losses themselves. By seperating a highly risky loss making enterpise from the land protects that asset. TTA control both club and land so in reality this makes little difference unless TTA use the asset for something else than football, whether the land is in the club or out of the club TTA could still use it for something else if they wanted. Edited February 11, 2011 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Yours is the positive view. Is the asset at risk regardless of whether or not someone has a charge against it? If the losses are being footed by the owners, they are the only ones who can lay claim against an asset in the result of non-payment. They're hardly going to do this are they? I would agree with you if they shortcomings were being funded using bank loans charged against the asset but they werent. They were being funded by the people who own the asset. Edited February 11, 2011 by latic12345 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Well I'm an idiot then... drinks later will be fun ;) I don't believe they have only been in it for land profits. It's just their underlying reason for investment. Think about this. They had three ways of doing business: 1. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club, investing in the team, keeping the fans happy whilst slowly selling the land off and making a return (the hold ups to the project have not been forecast and were, at times beyond their control thus they would not have been included to the extent they have in their initial investment). They therefore ringfenced the land for a reason that has yet to be disclosed. 2. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club down, making no investment in players leading to huge protests from fans and public pressure (this is not a pleasant way to do business). Here they would be explicitly asset stripping and this is quite unpleasant and they would need to be callous to do this. 3. Buiyng the club, buying the land, leaving the land as an asset of the club. If the only significant debt of the club is a £4m Director loan, then no-one can use the land against the club as no-one should have a charge against it. This would be what they would have done if they only ever have had the clubs interests at heart.... Ah, this is where I was calling you an idiot! I wasn't saying that they never intended to make a profit, but simply that they could have spent a lot less on the club if profit was their sole intention. Why would they be hugely happy with keeping the fans happy? I can't see why they wouldn't have ccut the playing budget to somewhere that would have seen us relegated, but they didn't. Idiot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Idiot I don't dispute this. They must have had other motivations. They may generally have wanted the club to succeed knowing that higher gates in a new stadium would make hospitality and other attractions more viable with increased publicity. It also kept the masses content until now though. 7 years isnt bad for asset strippers ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJazzer Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Barry, one question has been asked on a number of threads and an answer would be a help, if only so it can be ruled out.... Does the stadium and the facilities required to sustain it need to be at the same site? Or put another way, could Simon use the failsworth plot to build 3G pitches, hotel, cinema, bowling alley, pub, restaurant, etc etc, and then use any profits from said ventures to help with day to day running costs of a stadium on a smaller site? Thanks for coming on and trying to answer some of the questions on here. Uncertainty seems to be causing a bit of panic here in the trenches!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryowen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 I cannot at this stage vouch for his overall plans for the land they own. My own view as I read it is that he prefers everything to be within the same complex. He will want a maximum return for any site he acquires. Hope this helps. Please do not panic. !!!!! Barry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I cannot at this stage vouch for his overall plans for the land they own. My own view as I read it is that he prefers everything to be within the same complex. He will want a maximum return for any site he acquires. Hope this helps. Please do not panic. !!!!! Barry Barry Are you in a position to tell us when abouts the club will be able to announce the road it intend to takes for the short term future at least, ie where we will be playing next season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Barry Are you in a position to tell us when abouts the club will be able to announce the road it intend to takes for the short term future at least, ie where we will be playing next season? So we can refocus our energies into getting our exciting young team into the play offs at least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So they are knocking down the remaining parts of BP then they sell the ground , then they fook off leaving us homeless. Sounds simple enough to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Cheaper to groundshare? Are we planning on taking all our fans with us if we do this? We'll be looking at a 50% or more drop in revenue for Christ's sake. I assume Latics will be paying for free buses to wherever the groundshare is Barry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I assume Latics will be paying for free buses to wherever the groundshare is Barry ? depends where were going to be playing from... but i doubt it....the club dont put on free buses when we play away games... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 depends where were going to be playing from... but i doubt it....the club dont put on free buses when we play away games... Yes, but these will be home games! Home games that are played away from Oldham through no fault of our fans, but through the catastrophic mis-management at the top of the club and at the council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Yes, but these will be home games! Home games that are played away from Oldham through no fault of our fans, but through the catastrophic mis-management at the top of the club and at the council. i wouldnt hold your breath... we will just be expected to get there come what may... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dish Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I cannot at this stage vouch for his overall plans for the land they own. My own view as I read it is that he prefers everything to be within the same complex. He will want a maximum return for any site he acquires. Hope this helps. Please do not panic. !!!!! Barry Barry, houses aren't selling. What'll sit on BP when its knocked down? If its just gonna lay fallow, you might aswell leave a stadium on there? 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.