From Tonight's Chron

[Lookers_Carl]

What none of them seem to understand is that the council paid this money to aviod a lawsuit, if the club moved out they would complain that the owners don't care about the town. These must be the same time of people that drive up sheepfoot lane when everyone is leaving the match, and then giving them a dirty looking for blocking thier street.

 

It probably is, but at the end of the day its tough :censored:. The club has been there for alot longer than any of them residents. Don't like it, dont buy a house near a football stadium. At this point I imagine Aleksandr the Meerkat would say something along the lines of 'seemples'.

[dogdale_latic]

If these NIMBY's would much rather have Oldham remembered purely for negative things such as the race riots then fair play to them. Even though I was born and live in DogDale I have always been an Oldham fan and when I go on holiday and mention this very fact I usually hear a positive comment about the club/town.

 

I would also bet my bottom dollar that half these NIMBY's are the first to complain about the 'lack of jobs in the town' but yet can they not see that a redeveloped BP would increase the amount of jobs in the town and that most of them will go to people in the local area.

 

Being a resident of DogDale I have seen the positive effect that a local council (RMBC) working with local sports clubs (Dale and Hornets) to develop what was a delapiadated stadium (spotland) can have. Rarely does a week pass by were either myself or somebody I know is not attending an event of some sort at the ground.

 

I have also seen much being said about the council 'giving a business (latics) lots of taxpayers cash just to benefit a few football fans' this is kinda true but in return for this taxpayers cash are the council not getting a piece of land, which they then hope to develop? again this will create MORE JOBS for the NIMBYS (or have I missed something and will all these jobs only be offered to latics fans)

[Diego_Sideburns]

...The big question is where the bulk of the money to build the new Broadway stand will come from.

 

From “a funding partner for a redeveloped and sustainable stadium”.

Official Site

[dazlatic]

If these NIMBY's would much rather have Oldham remembered purely for negative things such as the race riots then fair play to them. Even though I was born and live in DogDale I have always been an Oldham fan and when I go on holiday and mention this very fact I usually hear a positive comment about the club/town.

 

I would also bet my bottom dollar that half these NIMBY's Norris Cole - type vocal minority are the first to complain about the 'lack of jobs in the town' but yet can they not see that a redeveloped BP would increase the amount of jobs in the town and that most of them will go to people in the local area.

 

Being a resident of DogDale I have seen the positive effect that a local council (RMBC) working with local sports clubs (Dale and Hornets) to develop what was a delapiadated stadium (spotland) can have. Rarely does a week pass by were either myself or somebody I know is not attending an event of some sort at the ground.

 

I have also seen much being said about the council 'giving a business (latics) lots of taxpayers cash just to benefit a few football fans' this is kinda true but in return for this taxpayers cash are the council not getting a piece of land, which they then hope to develop? again this will create MORE JOBS for the NIMBYS (or have I missed something and will all these jobs only be offered to latics fans)

 

FTFY

[Tommy_Fent]

The comments on that article are infuriating.

 

this one is even more ignorant

 

How many other PRIVATLY run business's in the Oldham area can constantly rely on OMBC to bail them out time and time again when they mess up financially, not many I'll bet?. If for arguments sake OAFC went belly up does anybody honestly think the town would be any worse off. Just another tin pot club whinging about having no money due to the fact they pay ridiculous wages they cannot afford on lousy players. The football club needs to get in the real world. The whole thing stinks to high heaven!

 

By Karlos Valderama @ 03/08/2011 18:29:36

 

the bit in highlighted I found the most ignorant

[Stitch_KTF]

Yes, interesting that Corney chose the words ‘former partners’. However, if we have a 20 year, or 40 year, lease with Blitz and Gazal does the club have to pay them rent?

 

I presume Corney will own 97% of the shares in Oldham Athletic (2004) Ltd, or will the Trust now take a bigger percentage? At least Corney is staying, which wasn’t clear last season.

 

It also shows that Blitz wasn't relentlessly intent on demolishing BP for some sort of alternative development.

 

Given this there must be a worthwhile rent due to Blitz/Gazal, unless they're happy to have a £5/6 million pound part of their estate yielding nowt for the rest of their lives. Until we can buy it they will command a couple of hundred thousand or so per year surely? Perhaps they will sell it to somebody else to collect the rent. Who knows, but I'm pleased this short lease pretty much rules out any large mortgage type loans.

[boboafc]

The comments on that article are infuriating.

my reply to him in the chron

you always get the one who must be like Victor Meldrew, excromptoncc , latics are staying and we are not a 2nd rate football team ,you stick to being a victor meldrew and complain about everything bar latics

[maddog]

my reply to him in the chron

That's 'im told!

[oafc0000]

Sounds like a great deal... Well done Corney!

 

Hopefully the club can move forwards now...

[Monty Burns]

The council owe us this £5m end of.

They also did a study that suggests the club is responsible for 'around £1.3m' coming into the council coffers, so the £700k grant pays for itself in around two years.

Thems the points that matters, thems the points that shuts em up.

[Yard Dog]

The council owe us this £5m end of.

They also did a study that suggests the club is responsible for 'around £1.3m' coming into the council coffers, so the £700k grant pays for itself in around two years.

Thems the points that matters, thems the points that shuts em up.

 

They don't owe, nor are they giving us 5m - apart from a 700k grant. They are paying Blitz (or whoever) 5m for a piece of land in Failsworth (which they will probably sell on at a profit - and fair play to them) on condition that the deal means Latics get some of the money to kick-start the development and also get a renewed lease at BP.

 

Also, the report doesn't state that OAFC brings in 1.3m to the 'council coffers'...it just estimates that is OAFC's worth to the local economy.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Yard Dog

[opinions4u]

The council owe us this £5m end of.

They also did a study that suggests the club is responsible for 'around £1.3m' coming into the council coffers, so the £700k grant pays for itself in around two years.

Thems the points that matters, thems the points that shuts em up.

The £1.3m is a vague and woolly figure tbh.

 

My interpretation of it was that it is money spent in the borough by visiting supporters etc. But that seems optimistic.

 

Not a direct income stream for the council.

 

On the other hand, £1.3m could simply be the through the turnstile income of the football club in a year. £20 x 3,000 adults x 23 comes close to this figure.

Edited August 4, 2011 by opinions4u

[Monty Burns]

Theyre giving us back what we paid, under threat of a lawsuit.

[Stevie_J]

Theyre giving us back what we paid, under threat of a lawsuit.

I don't understand the notion that we would have (or should now, some have suggested) sued the council. On what grounds? They gave us planning permission. Unless they offered some sort of promise that the land could be built on (something which one might suggest should have been fully investigated BEFORE purchase of the land), which encompassed the possibility of the Charity Commission standing in our way, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[opinions4u]

Theyre giving us back what we paid, under threat of a lawsuit.

Well, as I see it, Lancaster Club cost TTA £3.5m.

 

It's being bought back for £5.0m. In addition, there's a £700k grant.

 

TTA have agreed that a stand will be built. The numbers suggest £2.2m (although doubtless there's a bit of stamp duty, legals and capital gains tax to get round).

 

How impressive the stand is going to be remains to be seen. I have in my head a 6,000 seater beauty. But that would cost more than £2.2m.

 

Yes, this £2.2m does appear to be money instead of litigation. Better in "our" pockets than the lawyers. But we still don't know what the North Stand will be like. Until we see the owners' intentions, we shouldn't rule out a basic legoland facility to meet their side of the deal with the local authority.

[leeslover]

Well, as I see it, Lancaster Club cost TTA £3.5m.

 

It's being bought back for £5.0m. In addition, there's a £700k grant.

 

Interest on money spent, legal fees, public consultations, architects plans, management time of Blitz, Corney, Hardy and others, costs of maintaining BP during the delays, compensation... Looking at the £1.5m as a profit is missing a few important pointers...

[opinions4u]

Interest on money spent, legal fees, public consultations, architects plans, management time of Blitz, Corney, Hardy and others, costs of maintaining BP during the delays, compensation... Looking at the £1.5m as a profit is missing a few important pointers...

All fair points.

[singe]

It also shows that Blitz wasn't relentlessly intent on demolishing BP for some sort of alternative development.

 

Given this there must be a worthwhile rent due to Blitz/Gazal, unless they're happy to have a £5/6 million pound part of their estate yielding nowt for the rest of their lives. Until we can buy it they will command a couple of hundred thousand or so per year surely? Perhaps they will sell it to somebody else to collect the rent. Who knows, but I'm pleased this short lease pretty much rules out any large mortgage type loans.

Interesting you said couple of hundred thousand per year

£6m we approx owe Blitz divided by 20 years is exactly £300,000 per year so close to your figure.

I know it is rent, but there could be some sort of repayment agreement. I think that would equate to a 5% yield, which I understand to be fairly good in todays climate.

[singe]

I don't understand the notion that we would have (or should now, some have suggested) sued the council. On what grounds? They gave us planning permission. Unless they offered some sort of promise that the land could be built on (something which one might suggest should have been fully investigated BEFORE purchase of the land), which encompassed the possibility of the Charity Commission standing in our way, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I thought that was exactly the general consensus some sort of promise had happened.

I could be wrong, it could be everyone assumed that though.

Anyone confirm/?

[Lookers_Carl]

I don't understand the notion that we would have (or should now, some have suggested) sued the council. On what grounds? They gave us planning permission. Unless they offered some sort of promise that the land could be built on (something which one might suggest should have been fully investigated BEFORE purchase of the land), which encompassed the possibility of the Charity Commission standing in our way, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

I thought that was exactly the general consensus some sort of promise had happened.

I could be wrong, it could be everyone assumed that though.

Anyone confirm/?

 

Basically, as I understand things, the council at the time didn't do their homework properly. I imagine the club could have sued the council on the grounds that TTA purchased the lancaster club, pressed ahead with the project and spent alot of time and money on consultations, environmental reports etc on the basis that the council had told the club they had done the necessary checks on the adjacent land and told the club it did not have charitable status, hence was ok to build on.

 

However, the council only went as far back as 1972 when they did the checks, the duration of time that Failsworth has come under Oldham MBC. Before this date Faislworth came under Failsworth Urban District Council I believe, or something along these lines. Oldham Council did not check the records prior to this date, and when they were checked, I believe it turned out that there was evidence to suggest that it was charitable, hence when the charity commission became involved.

 

Although you could argue that TTA jumped the gun a little in purchasing the lancaster club before anything was guaranteed, they would have most definitely had an argument to sue the council for other costs incurred and monies spent on the project.

 

If the council would have done their homework properly initially and checked the records before 1972, they would have been aware of this potential charitable status, and as a result, I doubt latics would have considered this as a potential site from the off.

 

I forgot to mention too, when the charitee comission revealed its initial decision in February, LAtics went on record to state that they had a dossier of detailed minutes, containing every promise made to them by the council etc.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Lookers_Carl

[Stevie_J]

Basically, as I understand things, the council at the time didn't do their homework properly. I imagine the club could have sued the council on the grounds that TTA purchased the lancaster club, pressed ahead with the project and spent alot of time and money on consultations, environmental reports etc on the basis that the council had told the club they had done the necessary checks on the adjacent land and told the club it did not have charitable status, hence was ok to build on.

 

However, the council only went as far back as 1972 when they did the checks, the duration of time that Failsworth has come under Oldham MBC. Before this date Faislworth came under Failsworth Urban District Council I believe, or something along these lines. Oldham Council did not check the records prior to this date, and when they were checked, I believe it turned out that there was evidence to suggest that it was charitable, hence when the charity commission became involved.

 

Although you could argue that TTA jumped the gun a little in purchasing the lancaster club before anything was guaranteed, they would have most definitely had an argument to sue the council for other costs incurred and monies spent on the project.

 

If the council would have done their homework properly initially and checked the records before 1972, they would have been aware of this potential charitable status, and as a result, I doubt latics would have considered this as a potential site from the off.

 

I forgot to mention too, when the charitee comission revealed its initial decision in February, LAtics went on record to state that they had a dossier of detailed minutes, containing every promise made to them by the council etc.

I think 'most definitely' is a bit strong. Much depends what was contained in the documents you refer to and I confess I glossed over a lot of the news at the time since, to me, the only significant point was that we couldn't build the stadium.

 

Unless the 'promise' was explicitly cited in the contract though, it does not constitute a term of the contract. In which case, you're looking at a case of misrepresentation which would be more difficult to prove and more costly. They may have a case against the council, depending on what the 'promises' were and in what form they exist.

[Lookers_Carl]

I think 'most definitely' is a bit strong. Much depends what was contained in the documents you refer to and I confess I glossed over a lot of the news at the time since, to me, the only significant point was that we couldn't build the stadium.

 

Unless the 'promise' was explicitly cited in the contract though, it does not constitute a term of the contract. In which case, you're looking at a case of misrepresentation which would be more difficult to prove and more costly. They may have a case against the council, depending on what the 'promises' were and in what form they exist.

 

My understanding of the situation would be that any case against the council would be based on the council not doing the proper checks on the adjacent land prior to the announcement of the scheme, and as a result telling Latics that the land was not charitable when in fact it was.

 

It was explicitly stated by the council I believe when the scheme was announced that the council had done the checks and the land was not charitable. It was only after FRAG questioned this, did some digging, checking the records prior to 1972 that it was found to be charitable.

 

Thus if the council had done their homework properly on the site before any agreement/announcement would have been made, Latics could have either proceeded knowing full well that a land swap proposal was needed, or not wasted alot of time and money and looked at other alternatives.

[leeslover]

In any case it's pretty shabby that the Council didn't know about the charitable status of land it was the legal custodian of.

[oafcprozac]

My understanding of the situation would be that any case against the council would be based on the council not doing the proper checks on the adjacent land prior to the announcement of the scheme, and as a result telling Latics that the land was not charitable when in fact it was.

 

It was explicitly stated by the council I believe when the scheme was announced that the council had done the checks and the land was not charitable. It was only after FRAG questioned this, did some digging, checking the records prior to 1972 that it was found to be charitable.

 

Thus if the council had done their homework properly on the site before any agreement/announcement would have been made, Latics could have either proceeded knowing full well that a land swap proposal was needed, or not wasted alot of time and money and looked at other alternatives.

 

I believe the dispute is over flawed legal counsel. The council's mistake was that they took the advice of this 'Top Barrister' as gospel. Basically the council's barrister got it wrong and for £140k per annum for two days work per year, you'd think he'd be right on the money. Latics own lawyers had advised that there was no need to go down the CC route, the council were adamant….Corney, Hill and co have a damning dossier that would make Vance Millar look like a drop in the ocean. The preferred option was to take OMBC, their planners and this barrister to the cleaners.

Edited August 4, 2011 by oafcprozac

[Stevie_J]

In any case it's pretty shabby that the Council didn't know about the charitable status of land it was the legal custodian of.

Agreed. But perhaps also reasonably shabby that the estate agent director at the club wasn't able to establish this on the club's behalf before the purchase went through.