marwan koukash

[WIZZO83]

We lose money though. Unless there are other sources of income, we're only an attractive proposition to someone who's arsed about the club. I've no doubt Corney wants what's best for us but the only reason he's here is because there were other money making opportunities when they bought us originally.

 

It might not have worked but it doesn't look as though those opportunities are there anymore. BP used to be a "goldmine" didn't it? The only asset we had (the land) has alreasy been built on and is nothing to do with Oldham Athletic.

 

 

Do we lose money??? Over the past 4-6 years I dont see how we have! Lets look at the facts, SC is a good businessman, would he contunue to lose money year in year out for no reason! My answer is no, I dont believe he is crazy wealthy has millions to sink into the club.

 

Oldham hasnt owed money to HMRC which is the first thing you dont pay if your struggling.

The budget gets cut every year in line with falling attendances

We make a little cash most years on Transfers

 

My feeling is we are at a break even point for football, the only way we actually lose more is through the stadium redevelopment work, architects fees etc but the Club shouldnt be paying for this Brass bank should as its their land.

[GlossopLatic]

 

 

Do we lose money??? Over the past 4-6 years I dont see how we have! Lets look at the facts, SC is a good businessman, would he contunue to lose money year in year out for no reason! My answer is no, I dont believe he is crazy wealthy has millions to sink into the club.

 

Oldham hasnt owed money to HMRC which is the first thing you dont pay if your struggling.

The budget gets cut every year in line with falling attendances

We make a little cash most years on Transfers

 

My feeling is we are at a break even point for football, the only way we actually lose more is through the stadium redevelopment work, architects fees etc but the Club shouldnt be paying for this Brass bank should as its their land.

 

Take one look at the books and I would suggest we do in fact for about 90% of our history we have been a loss making business.

 

Would he continue to lose money year on year for no reason? well you only have to hear some of his interviews to realise how much that frustrates him I don't think he wants to be the one who puts us into administration, he doesn't want to give this up as a failed project if he did he would walk away tomorrow. Plus their is a big difference between what you budget for and what you actually pay out over the course of the year I would imagine he didn't make a provision for paying off the first team coaching staff last season.

 

I do have a good laugh at anyone (not necessarily yourself) who thinks he's in this to make money in fact I would imagine they would struggle to count to 10.

[GlossopLatic]

Can't be bothered to read the rest of messages but are some suggesting that Koucash is funding some of the signings ahead of purchasing the club?!

 

 

Knowone has even remotely suggested that, best to read the thread before posting on it.

[Midsblue]

 

Knowone has even remotely suggested that, best to read the thread before posting on it.

Hence my question. Chill

[jimsleftfoot]

I'm not stupid enough to believe every word Koukash says but I don't believe he's stupid enough to relocate Latics to Salford - following the Wimbledon to MK move, I doubt many people would be stupid enough to follow suit. Even if that was his plan, I'm not convinced he'd be telling Corney that.

 

I firmly believe that Corney knows how much talk of relocation will touch a nerve with the fans and deflect attention away from the fact that another potential suitor has walked away.

 

I can very much see where you are coming with Corney and the supposed relocation, but lets not take it as given that Koukash was definetly going to buy the club and the reason why its gone quiet is Corney was asking for too much, when there is no evidence to suggest so.

[jimsleftfoot]

All that we have of Koukash is what he stated in the papers. He has never stated once (as far as I can see) that he is looking to move us anywhere. It wouldn't make sense to move us 10-15 miles away next to the biggest football club in the country.

 

I don't believe that he has been to see Corney and told him he is looking to buy us and then move us. Why would he tell Corney that?

 

 

It doesn't make sense, but does it have to if your not going to go through with it?

[jimsleftfoot]

Can I ask - what is this Brassbank that everyone keeps mentioning

 

When TTA tookover, Oldham Athletic 2004 was born.

The ground belonged to the Council after the club sold it to the council pre Chris Moore.

TTA set up Brassbank Ltd to purchase the ground from the Council

The deal was reported at the time of the takeover: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/other-sport/new-era-dawns-1100349

Although many don't like the idea of the land being held in a seperate company to OAFC 2004, there is a mortgate for the land and I reckon that OAFC 2004 may have had problems getting a mortgate at the time, being that it was taking over from a failed business. There maybe over reasoning, I don't know but I consider it to be one of the more simple reasons.

Edited July 15, 2013 by jimsleftfoot

[jimsleftfoot]

 

 

Do we lose money??? Over the past 4-6 years I dont see how we have! Lets look at the facts, SC is a good businessman, would he contunue to lose money year in year out for no reason! My answer is no, I dont believe he is crazy wealthy has millions to sink into the club.

 

Oldham hasnt owed money to HMRC which is the first thing you dont pay if your struggling.

The budget gets cut every year in line with falling attendances

We make a little cash most years on Transfers

 

My feeling is we are at a break even point for football, the only way we actually lose more is through the stadium redevelopment work, architects fees etc but the Club shouldnt be paying for this Brass bank should as its their land.

Yes the abreivated accounts lodged with Companies house show that we have effectively made a £5.4 million loss since TTA took over, which has been plugged by shareholders funds. This has stabilised in the last few years though.

 

Although Brassbank is the landlord, the club do lease the land and it has been mentioned that we are due to sign a 40 year extention, though i'm not sure if and when it is due to take place.

[WIZZO83]

But how much of that loss is to do with the Failsworth :censored: up....???

[Monty Burns]

But how much of that loss is to do with the Failsworth :censored: up....???

 

 

None. The council gave that back.

[Monty Burns]

Yes the abreivated accounts lodged with Companies house show that we have effectively made a £5.4 million loss since TTA took over, which has been plugged by shareholders funds.

 

Actually, they are shareholder LOANS.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but would this be outlawed under the new rules?

[WIZZO83]

 

Take one look at the books and I would suggest we do in fact for about 90% of our history we have been a loss making business.

 

I do have a good laugh at anyone (not necessarily yourself) who thinks he's in this to make money in fact I would imagine they would struggle to count to 10.

 

 

Firstly, Agreed 90% of our history we have made a loss but in the past 4 years I think that loss has only been very small.

 

Secondly, SC didnt buy the club to lose money either which was my original point! I believe he is looking to break even and he will be happy at that. However I do believe that aspects of profit like the fa cup run or the odd transfer deals finds its way back to SC and not the club which his SC right, I just dont like it.

[WIZZO83]

 

 

None. The council gave that back.

The council gave the land purchase price back, did they give all the consultants fees back, environmental surveys, architects fees, structural consulants, planning permission fees etc etc etc

[Monty Burns]

What is being built on the old Sheepfoot Lane car park?

[mikeroyboy]

Good find this report, jimsleftfoot. It helps us to focus on the consistency of Corney’s business acumen and his unchanged long term planning for the club. What has changed is the world’s financial infrastructure, the collapse of housing valuations and the building trade and not least a reassessment of people’s perceptions of what is value for money. Through all this Corney has steered an unexciting but steady course. I give him credit for that, for many have failed in these last nine years.

For me this report confirms that the land owned by Brassbanks is still connected to the club by association and therefore would, IMO, be included in the sale of the club. Those who see little value or appeal in the club on a standalone basis are correct. Corney and his mates are honourable men, trying to extricate themselves from something that went badly wrong for them. In many ways this was outside of their control. But we are still in L1, a new stand nearer than ever and two potential buyers not coming up to muster for whatever reason. We should all hope that the 3Amigoes don’t weaken their resolve in wanting their money back.

 

 

When TTA tookover, Oldham Athletic 2004 was born.

The ground belonged to the Council after the club sold it to the council pre Chris Moore.

TTA set up Brassbank Ltd to purchase the ground from the Council

The deal was reported at the time of the takeover: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/other-sport/new-era-dawns-1100349

Although many don't like the idea of the land being held in a seperate company to OAFC 2004, there is a mortgate for the land and I reckon that OAFC 2004 may have had problems getting a mortgate at the time, being that it was taking over from a failed business. There maybe over reasoning, I don't know but I consider it to be one of the more simple reasons.

[jimsleftfoot]

 

Actually, they are shareholder LOANS.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but would this be outlawed under the new rules?

 

I have the accounts on my computer and its most definetly funds not loans.

[Monty Burns]

The council gave the land purchase price back, did they give all the consultants fees back, environmental surveys, architects fees, structural consulants, planning permission fees etc etc etc

 

I cant remember 100% so I dont want to say guaranteed yes, but what I would say is that I'm pretty certain that SC would have let us know if they hadn't.

[Monty Burns]

 

I have the accounts on my computer and its most definetly funds not loans.

 

So how does that work? How can they still be present in the accounts?

[Monty Burns]

'We don't want to simply carve the land up and sell some off on a one-time basis.'

[jimsleftfoot]

 

Good find this report, jimsleftfoot. It helps us to focus on the consistency of Corney’s business acumen and his unchanged long term planning for the club. What has changed is the world’s financial infrastructure, the collapse of housing valuations and the building trade and not least a reassessment of people’s perceptions of what is value for money. Through all this Corney has steered an unexciting but steady course. I give him credit for that, for many have failed in these last nine years.

For me this report confirms that the land owned by Brassbanks is still connected to the club by association and therefore would, IMO, be included in the sale of the club. Those who see little value or appeal in the club on a standalone basis are correct. Corney and his mates are honourable men, trying to extricate themselves from something that went badly wrong for them. In many ways this was outside of their control. But we are still in L1, a new stand nearer than ever and two potential buyers not coming up to muster for whatever reason. We should all hope that the 3Amigoes don’t weaken their resolve in wanting their money back.

 

 

To add Brassbank are Blitz and Gazal as mentioned before.

[jimsleftfoot]

 

So how does that work? How can they still be present in the accounts?

 

We make a loss and so could go out of business, the shareholders provide their own funds to keep the business going.

 

If you set up a new business and invested money into it at start up, this money can be listed in the accounts as being shareholder funds.

 

(though i'm not an accountant and this is only my understanding from having a look at Google).

[Dave_Og]

What happened to all the unexpected FA Cup money smart arse?

 

 

 

If that's the level of debate then bollocks to it quite frankly.

[Monty Burns]

 

We make a loss and so could go out of business, the shareholders provide their own funds to keep the business going.

 

If you set up a new business and invested money into it at start up, this money can be listed in the accounts as being shareholder funds.

 

(though i'm not an accountant and this is only my understanding from having a look at Google).

 

Thats what I mean. If you fill in the shortfall from your own funds then isnt that money then gone? How can TTA claim they are entitled to it back?

[lookers87]

 

Thats what I mean. If you fill in the shortfall from your own funds then isnt that money then gone? How can TTA claim they are entitled to it back?

 

When investing in a business/setting it up/plugging shortfalls as a shareholder you are 'loaning' the money to the company. Hence the reason it is listed as shareholder loans. It's the same for all business like this (an accounting term). Sometimes as a shareholder that money will be lent to the business with a repayment rate attached, other times it's a zero % rate, and indeed with some business a shareholder will invest the money with a 0% repayment and actually not require that money back. However it will remain listed as shareholder loans in the accounts until such time that it is repaid or converted in some way....I'm not an accountant so some of the terms are my layman explanation from being on the shareholder side of it.

 

My understanding is that the 0% situation is pretty much the basis that the shareholder loan are in on. Again as I understand it the vast majority of that amount is actually due to Blitz - not Corney. In terms of some other stuff, I think it's out there in the public domain that the costs of environmental surveys, consultants fees etc etc etc for both the various BP projects and the Failsworth projects were all put through the club (Oafc2004) at various times.

 

If you search out Corney's interview on the podcast with Manchester Sports (BBC) August 2011, he clearly says in there that the "club" is for sale (even then as he has always maintained), but in terms of the ground development etc that isn't and they will be sticking round to see that through.

[mikeroyboy]

To add Brassbank are Blitz and Gazal as mentioned before.

Exactly!