Jump to content

FAO Simon Corney


Simon Corney  

208 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want Simon Corney to resign should we go down?

    • Yes
      19
    • No
      189


Recommended Posts

Hmmm, we probably need expert advice on that. I'd have thought they wouldn't have to bankrupt a firm for no end though? On an aside I'm wondering if the definition of the debt changed with SB not being a shareholder any more?

Would also depend if it is a personal loan or through a holding company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you not think the temptation to sell off the land is there ?

But what's that got to do with the price of eggs? He can sell the land any time. I wouldn't imagine you'd spend money drilling holes into it first if you were after a quick sell though, or put up something that you had to knock down for houses. Get over the debt - if the owners leave, it's not a factor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they bought it for 6 mill but some has been sold.

behind chaddy end for new housing and for the new part of the oldham royal.

 

What is the value of the land?

 

Unknown but if we start saving as a seperate trust to re aquire the land it will drive our fans forward to save for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they bought it for 6 mill but some has been sold.

behind chaddy end for new housing and for the new part of the oldham royal.

 

 

 

Unknown but if we start saving as a seperate trust to re aquire the land it will drive our fans forward to save for it.

I suggested a very long time ago that we should have been building such a war chest. Deaf ears though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they bought it for 6 mill but some has been sold.

behind chaddy end for new housing and for the new part of the oldham royal.

 

 

 

Unknown but if we start saving as a seperate trust to re aquire the land it will drive our fans forward to save for it.

Don't think they brought the land for £6 million, think it was more like half that. Plus, as you say, they've already sold some of it off anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The estate is legally obliged to call in the debt, isn't it?

As per Leeslovers earlier visit with L&E, the debt wasn't secured and from the accounts it's been routed through the shareholders. Can it be called in by the Estate, I don't think it can?

 

Whether there is an agreement with SC though behind the scenes is a different matter.

Edited by jimsleftfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Leeslovers earlier visit with L&E, the debt wasn't secured and from the accounts it's been routed through the shareholders. Can it be called in by the Estate, I don't think it can?

Whether there is an agreement with SC though behind the scenes is a different matter.

Hope you're right. I'm no expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we start saving as a seperate trust to re aquire the land it will drive our fans forward to save for it.

It's a massive ask.

 

If you get 5,000 people to pay £20 a month to raise £1.2m in a year you might make a dent in the land valuation.

 

We struggle to get a few hundred beyond the season ticket holders to pay £20 to watch a game of football.

Edited by opinions4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 2004:

To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land...

 

The figures in bold added up to about £7,000,000 in 2004.

Edited by Diego_Sideburns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a massive ask.

If you get 5,000 people to pay £20 a month to raise £1.2m in a year you might make a dent in the land valuation.

We struggle to get a few hundred beyond the season ticket holders to pay £20 to watch a game of football.

The Trust was setup 11 years ago and it's 11 wasted and lost years in my opinion.

 

If the Trust was on a better footing with the fans it could of driven fund raising. I once suggested the trust should be building a war chest and was told that isn't what the trust is here for. Which I didnt understand and was another block on me bothering with them.

 

There was the idea floated to me that the trust should be here to support the current owners etc. Which is such wronging thinking its laughable to me. We should of been building a protection fund and not funding things instead of our owners with £££ in their eyes.

 

The Trust should have millions in the bank by now.... If you think small you get small outcomes...

 

To date how much as player share raised ?

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 2004:

To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land...

 

The figures in bold add up to £8,307,500 in 2004.

Your calculation is incorrect since the £2.4m is a summary of £522500, £237000, £428000,£120000 and £1m for the first years losses, Total invested therefore was £2.4m plus £4.6m for the ground and land totals £7m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trust was setup 11 years ago and it's 11 wasted and lost years in my opinion.

Can't argue with that.

 

If the Trust was on a better footing with the fans it could of driven fund raising. I once suggested the trust should be building a war chest and was told that isn't what the trust is here for. Which I didnt understand and was another block on me bothering with them.

I do think it needs to be for contingency. How far that can be expected to stretch is a key question.

 

£10k for emergency legal fees. £50k to meet a short term wage bill. £500k (?) to secure a a Football League golden share. £xm to buy a chunk of land. £6,000,001 to buy the club debt free.

 

The Trust should have millions in the bank by now

I think that's wildly optimistic. If people loved the club that much they'd be willing to pay £40 a game to watch and there would be no debts. An extended period of subscriptions for no visible return would see those subscriptions drop off.

 

I'd love to see an initiative set up to buy back the freehold to BP. I just doubt it could raise enough.

 

To date how much as player share raised ?

I think it's around £50k. But that's my guess. £10k a year?

 

A very worthwhile discussion.

Edited by opinions4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we confusing how much they've lost so far with an actual loan/debt?

The Accounts for OA (2004) Ltd for the 18 months to 30/06/2013 will be filed at Companies House within the next 8 days.

Those accounts will show cumulative losses of that Company to date.

It will also show any loans outstanding at 30/06/13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trust was setup 11 years ago and it's 11 wasted and lost years in my opinion.

 

If the Trust was on a better footing with the fans it could of driven fund raising. I once suggested the trust should be building a war chest and was told that isn't what the trust is here for. Which I didnt understand and was another block on me bothering with them.

 

There was the idea floated to me that the trust should be here to support the current owners etc. Which is such wronging thinking its laughable to me. We should of been building a protection fund and not funding things instead of our owners with £££ in their eyes.

 

The Trust should have millions in the bank by now.... If you think small you get small outcomes...

 

To date how much as player share raised ?

agreed. although it may not be millions there would be a good chunk of money saved. There definatly should be another trust with the sole purpose of buying the land back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I think the trust having millions in the bank is wildly optimistic, it is possible that they could easily have a million.

 

They had roughly £250,000 and used it to buy Barry's seat on the board (see elsewhere on here for how that worked out), plus some other things like IIRC a tractor and Luke Beckett. Invest that with a bank in 2004, in hindsight Barclays from the major high street ones, and it makes a good return until the financial year starting April 2008. Then things slow down, but whilst they might not be making much, most banking schemes weren't losing much either. Things are now starting to pick up with those sort of investment schemes too.

 

At it's peak in the early days I'd imagine trust membership was a decent percentage of our fan base, and probably the more loyal ones, collect membership fees properly from them and that could easily be another £10,000 pa. Over 10 years that's £100,000.

 

OK the trust could needs expenses to run things and organise events, but I'd guess properly run fundraising events make more than they lose, just by the nature of them.

 

Factor in a Playershare scheme that didn't go into hibernation for the 6 years between Beckett and Evina both joining the club and the trust could be in a much more realistic prospect of legitimately taking over from the landlords if Corney resigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 2004:

To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land...

 

The figures in bold added up to about £7,000,000 in 2004.

 

OAFC (2004) is one company, with £6m of shareholders debt/loans whatever.

Brassbank is a comletely separate company which owns the ground and land.

 

They are not 2 parts of an umbrella company, they don't (afaik) even share any directors now. Blitz (& maybe Gazal) are directors/owners of Brassbank. Corney is director/owner of OAFC (2004).

The ground/land is not on the agenda unless someone can find enough to pay for it - £7-10m?

 

The club is apparently on the agenda, but the £6m of shareholders/directors loan/debt is un-secured and exceeds all assets (probably by £6m) so it's not really an issue as such, unless a clause is added at any sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...