Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 This is the latest statement from Oldham Council, which appears conciliatory and positive in regard to keeping the club in the borough. Hopefully the two sides are talking again. Statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) This is the latest statement from Oldham Council, which appears conciliatory and positive in regard to keeping the club in the borough. Hopefully the two sides are talking again. Statement That's more like it. I think smartzatart is implicated there, that "not the way to do business" about releasing info about other sites and the possibility that Latics "sanctioned" release of the information. Needs a similar statemetn from Simon Corney. The interesting angle is that Failsworth is still clearly an option to pursue, but that other possibly less controversial options may still be taken up despite the efforts into Failsworth. If msartz is right, clearly that location would be winner. Edited February 18, 2011 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Once again by the mention within that Statement of Tuesday night's attendence proves what a fantastic initiative it was by Martin. It also proves fans initiatives do and can work wonders. Now is anyone out there interested in contributing into the playershare that currently isn't? Forget your differences with The Trust, Barry Owen or anything/anyone else, this fund or pot of money is ringed fenced purely for PD to utilise as and when the funds are there to help towards a players wage. PD won't always get it right from the fans perspective however, this shouldn't put anyone off. I believe PD and GT have proved with their thourough groundwork in checking out talent (at the right price!) that they will get more right than wrong. Anyone who is waivering on contributing for whatever reason read into that part of the Statement where the council acknowledges due to the turn out Latics is improtant to this town. It would also send a signal to TTA that the town or fans indeed will get behind the club if they see a worthwhile outcome. PM me or collect a standing order form. Remember with a standing order you are incharge of it totally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I know they are only words, but they are far more positive than anything that has come from OMBC before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 said in the chron headlines too re the council appealing against the failsworth decisions PS: For those that have adopted my sig, have amended the grammar error (council's to councils). Link for the new image is http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4782/40946747.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boboafc Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I quote from the Council's statement: “The Charity Commission themselves have made clear that their letter was an open invitation to Oldham Council to provide clarification and further information on certain disputed areas. “After seeking expert legal advice we believe there were many inaccuracies contained in their initial view. These have been challenged in a detailed dossier that was sent to the Commission this week. “In compiling that response we have had informal contact with club representatives and if Oldham Athletic decide to pursue this option further then we will fully support that position." I cannot understand what the bold bit means. The Council applied to the CC. The CC invited the Council to provide clarification and further information, and the Council has sent a dosier to the CC. The matter is between the Council and the CC. The Club only becomes involved if the CC approves the Council's application. The Club's grievance is with the manner in which the application to the CC was dealt with by the Council, leading to the CC's criticism of the Council. So what is "this option" that the Club may decide to pursue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I quote from the Council's statement: “The Charity Commission themselves have made clear that their letter was an open invitation to Oldham Council to provide clarification and further information on certain disputed areas. “After seeking expert legal advice we believe there were many inaccuracies contained in their initial view. These have been challenged in a detailed dossier that was sent to the Commission this week. “In compiling that response we have had informal contact with club representatives and if Oldham Athletic decide to pursue this option further then we will fully support that position." I cannot understand what the bold bit means. The Council applied to the CC. The CC invited the Council to provide clarification and further information, and the Council has sent a dosier to the CC. The matter is between the Council and the CC. The Club only becomes involved if the CC approves the Council's application. The Club's grievance is with the manner in which the application to the CC was dealt with by the Council, leading to the CC's criticism of the Council. So what is "this option" that the Club may decide to pursue? Perhaps, following the recent petulant outbursts from the chairman of Oldham Athletic, they were just checking that it is still worth pursuing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Perhaps, following the recent petulant outbursts from the chairman of Oldham Athletic, they were just checking that it is still worth pursuing. But what is the option to which the Council refers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 But what is the option to which the Council refers? Simply whether to bother or not? 'Option' in its most basic form i.e. choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Simply whether to bother or not? 'Option' in its most basic form i.e. choice Clearly the Council knows that the Club wants to bother - what is needed is a suitable site. If the CC approved the land swap, the Club would have its preferred choice. The Council's statement says: "Several options are open to the Local Authority and a series of actions have now been agreed." None of the options relating to the application to the CC are open to the Club. Because of the depth of the hole the Council has dug for itself, I'll be amazed if it is able to do sufficient to get the CC to tick all the required boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 For what it's worth my opinion on the "option" comment is that if Latics wish to persue the option of going to Failsworth they will be supported through the Council re-submitting an application or whatever. Of course it would seem now that Latics maybe presented with other options within the borough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 For what it's worth my opinion on the "option" comment is that if Latics wish to persue the option of going to Failsworth they will be supported through the Council re-submitting an application or whatever. Of course it would seem now that Latics maybe presented with other options within the borough. That is my reading of it also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 For what it's worth my opinion on the "option" comment is that if Latics wish to persue the option of going to Failsworth they will be supported through the Council re-submitting an application or whatever. Of course it would seem now that Latics maybe presented with other options within the borough. I take your point. However, it says the dossier has been submitted to the CC re the flawed Failsworth application, whereas that would have been unecessary if the Club had abandoned that proposal. The truth is none of us know what it means, as it is written unclearly. Then again, that's why we're in this mess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I take your point. However, it says the dossier has been submitted to the CC re the flawed Failsworth application, whereas that would have been unecessary if the Club had abandoned that proposal. The truth is none of us know what it means, as it is written unclearly. Then again, that's why we're in this mess! If the council are not satisfied with the reply they received from the CC, on technical grounds, then it is in their own interests to submit a dossier, regardless of what the club want to do next. One day, the CC will respond to the dossier and that is when there will be choices (options). You cannot blame the council for wondering what the choice of the football club will be at that time, given the recent statements. Perhaps the club's owners want to leave the borough. Perhaps they would prefer to pursue one of these other alternatives within the borough. Perhaps there is no longer a will to fund a new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc-lover Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Once again by the mention within that Statement of Tuesday night's attendence proves what a fantastic initiative it was by Martin. It also proves fans initiatives do and can work wonders. Now is anyone out there interested in contributing into the playershare that currently isn't? Forget your differences with The Trust, Barry Owen or anything/anyone else, this fund or pot of money is ringed fenced purely for PD to utilise as and when the funds are there to help towards a players wage. PD won't always get it right from the fans perspective however, this shouldn't put anyone off. I believe PD and GT have proved with their thourough groundwork in checking out talent (at the right price!) that they will get more right than wrong. Anyone who is waivering on contributing for whatever reason read into that part of the Statement where the council acknowledges due to the turn out Latics is improtant to this town. It would also send a signal to TTA that the town or fans indeed will get behind the club if they see a worthwhile outcome. PM me or collect a standing order form. Remember with a standing order you are incharge of it totally. Couldnt agree more Lags , this fund is a very worthwhile cause and i for one will be joining it i even though i am one who wants Barry out and younger more "in touch" people to run our trust.Good luck with the collecting of contributors and lets hope with people like yourself onboard that the playershare kicks on and becomes an even bigger success! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Couldnt agree more Lags , this fund is a very worthwhile cause and i for one will be joining it i even though i am one who wants Barry out and younger more "in touch" people to run our trust.Good luck with the collecting of contributors and lets hope with people like yourself onboard that the playershare kicks on and becomes an even bigger success! Three reasons why this initiative worked on Tuesday when in the past this type of promotion has come up short:- (1) It was aggressively marketed (2) People could pay on the night instead of having to arse about buying tickets in advance (3) I think the penny dropped with a few that they had a chance to get off their arses and show the council and the wider town that the club is worth keeping in the town Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Three reasons why this initiative worked on Tuesday when in the past this type of promotion has come up short:- (1) It was aggressively marketed (2) People could pay on the night instead of having to arse about buying tickets in advance (3) I think the penny dropped with a few that they had a chance to get off their arses and show the council and the wider town that the club is worth keeping in the town (4) It was actually done at a time when the football being played has been generally good. The obvious comparison being with last season's 6,000ish crowd for a cheapo Saturday game against Exeter. Will 500 of the extra 5,000 be there for the next game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) After seeking expert legal advice we believe there were many inaccuracies contained in their initial view. These have been challenged in a detailed dossier that was sent to the Commission this week. In compiling that response we have had informal contact with club representatives and if Oldham Athletic decide to pursue this option further then we will fully support that position. During this time officers have also been exploring other potential solutions to the clubs search for a permanent base within the Borough. That work is nearing completion and our next step will be to sit down to discuss these opportunities with club officials. Looks like the ball's in Latics' court - whether to appeal against the Charity Commission's decision or to opt for one of the other options that have been mentioned on previous threads. Edited February 18, 2011 by Mark59 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Interesting article on the MEN website - clarifies some things, confuses some! Says Failsworth is dead, for one. MEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Interesting a quote that the club did not show for a meeting Wednesday, yet the Council statement staes informal talks were held. Corey is refusing to go to the meetings, whilst understandalbe not wanting to visit a talking shop a dialogue needs to be maintained. These ar the people that are going to keep us in the borough. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO KEEP THE PRESSURE UP NOT DONE AND DUSTED YET Edited February 18, 2011 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 “We’ve had enough. I’ve spoken to other authorities within the OL postcode who would be happy to have us. But I can’t stress enough that I do not want that. Interesting, although I still think its scare tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Interesting a quote that the club did not show for a meeting Wednesday, yet the Council statement staes informal talks were held. The council statement says 'informal contact', which includes phone/fax/email/carrier pigeon/smoke signals... There is a big difference between talks and contact. To me, the council statement is very positive and their door is clearly open. It is the stance of Corney & co which now worries me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The council statement says 'informal contact', which includes phone/fax/email/carrier pigeon/smoke signals... There is a big difference between talks and contact. To me, the council statement is very positive and their door is clearly open. It is the stance of Corney & co which now worries me. To be fair though you can't blame them. The way it comes across with me is that the club are not interested in 'talks', its a case of if your going to come to us, come to us with either a firm plan for a new stadium, or dont come at all. I still half think that the club are waiting to see the outcome of the may elections before deciding what they are going to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over_The_Hill Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I still half think that the club are waiting to see the outcome of the may elections before deciding what they are going to do. Isn't that a dangerous game? Is there any justification for this talk of groundsharing, if the above is true? If there is no plan for a new ground, why would the club leave Boundary Park? Too many games being played and none of them football. 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.