Jump to content

North Stand Construction Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pidge said:

I remember being told at one point as the north stand was near completion, that Simon Corney had been planning to put 2 MRI/CT scanners into the stand because he had been promised up to 15,000 scans per year from Oldham Royal.  At the time I heard this, the bad news from Oldham Royal was that they were now estimating only 3000 scans per year.  Mr Corney was planning to only put one scanner in.

 

Obviously we ended up with none, but surely Corney must have put some of his own money in for this scanner project.

 

How could that possibly go from 15,000 to 3,000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Midsblue said:

I may be completely thick here or completely missed something but...

 

Corney sold ONLY the club i.e. name, team as assets, running costs and liabilities to Lemsagam.  
 

As far as I’m aware, the above sale did NOT include the land, stadium, north stand, car park, OEC etc.  At time of sale, it wasn’t owned by the club nor Corney.

 

Therefore even if there were wrong-doings prior to that sale, Lemsagam/the club today have no legal entitlement because it wasn’t included in the sale?!

 

Its not as if Corney included the north stand in the sale to Lemsagam then, post-sale , it was discovered that it wasn’t actually owned by Corney.  
 

I’m confused?!  Then again, I think it’s all bollocks to detract attention from recruitment/strengthening the team.  Lemsagam uses this as excuse that he's unwilling to pump money in because he’s been fucked over.  I knew he was trying to get out and sell the club, this is a desperate attempt to justify no further investment and try and recoup some losses.

 

 

I'm not sure I get your final comment.  Something like a criminal investigation could take ages, so how on Earth would Al be able to keep providing the funds to keep the Club going whilst that investigation is concluded?

 

And you say he wants to sell?  Does he - because he's knocked back approaches already stating he has no interest in selling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 12:17 PM, lookersstandandy said:

 

Will it?

 

Is an official complaint likely to lead to an investigation.... or will GMP just refer it to OMBC / conclude it's a civil not criminal matter....?

Fair point, lookers. GMP are not renowned nowadays for a particularly robust approach to "economic crime". Sometimes, even when it's a "call for service" some officers/civilian employees revert to their standard nonsense of "you need to report it via Action Fraud first" - which is complete and utter testicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Fair point, lookers. GMP are not renowned nowadays for a particularly robust approach to "economic crime". Sometimes, even when it's a "call for service" some officers/civilian employees revert to their standard nonsense of "you need to report it via Action Fraud first" - which is complete and utter testicles.

 

The competence of Action Fraud makes a career switch to fraudster feel quite appealing on a risk/reward basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

The competence of Action Fraud makes a career switch to fraudster feel quite appealing on a risk/reward basis.

 

To be fair Action Fraud sounds more like a modern dance theatre troupe than an effective crimefighting unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oafc1955 said:

Last 3 games....

 

P3 W0 D0 L3 F1 A8 Pts 0

 

Absolutely fucking dire!!!

Relegation form.

My only hope is that all the players know they are gone and so given up. Actually that's not my only hope, my other is that they are replaced by much better quality players. And manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 11:45 AM, kowenicki said:

At last, it gets interesting.
 

I wonder if the Blitz thing will get pulled now.  He will be struggling to say much at all if there is a police investigation ongoing. 
 

🍿

I've heard Blitz is intending to answer as before. 

Now PTB are going to submit questions on behalf of the fans. 

You can retain your anonymity. 

Are you going to submit questions? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, singe said:

I've heard Blitz is intending to answer as before. 

Now PTB are going to submit questions on behalf of the fans. 

You can retain your anonymity. 

Are you going to submit questions? 

 

Don't be daft, he's the Mick Malpas of OWTB, all mouth and no trousers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2020 at 1:15 PM, Midsblue said:

I may be completely thick here or completely missed something but...

 

Corney sold ONLY the club i.e. name, team as assets, running costs and liabilities to Lemsagam.  
 

As far as I’m aware, the above sale did NOT include the land, stadium, north stand, car park, OEC etc.  At time of sale, it wasn’t owned by the club nor Corney.

 

Therefore even if there were wrong-doings prior to that sale, Lemsagam/the club today have no legal entitlement because it wasn’t included in the sale?!

 

Its not as if Corney included the north stand in the sale to Lemsagam then, post-sale , it was discovered that it wasn’t actually owned by Corney.  
 

I’m confused?!  Then again, I think it’s all bollocks to detract attention from recruitment/strengthening the team.  Lemsagam uses this as excuse that he's unwilling to pump money in because he’s been fucked over.  I knew he was trying to get out and sell the club, this is a desperate attempt to justify no further investment and try and recoup some losses.

 

 

I'm only speculating here but... 

 

AL is only entitled to what he paid for. However, I think he is also entitled to have only the appropriate liabilities listed against the club. 

 

IIRC there was a decrease in the liabilities listed against the club between the last accounts submitted under Corney's stewardship and the first accounts submitted under AL's ownership. So some of the club's debt was wiped off. 

 

That presumably has something to do with the North Stand. But it should be proportionate to what the club contributed towards the building of the North Stand. Given the construction started after the club had a money-spinning cup run with some extra money from transfers and a tie at Anfield before the stand was completed I think the club may have put more in that it was given credit for. 

 

Furthermore the use of the Council's grant may also impact it, so for the North Stand to not be owned by the club now it is under new ownership may breech that agreement. 

 

In addition about the time the Clayton Arms was knocked down the club took on Brassbank's tax debt, to allow Brassbank to remain dormant. I would expect that debt to have since transferred back to Brassbank, as the club and Brassbank are now under different ownership. It may be illegal for that tax debt to be taken on by the club and have transferred to the new ownership given Brassbank's active status. 

 

I think AL may be using it as a smokescreen and there may be some clutching at straws, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rudemedic said:

I'm only speculating here but... 

 

AL is only entitled to what he paid for. However, I think he is also entitled to have only the appropriate liabilities listed against the club. 

 

IIRC there was a decrease in the liabilities listed against the club between the last accounts submitted under Corney's stewardship and the first accounts submitted under AL's ownership. So some of the club's debt was wiped off. 

 

That presumably has something to do with the North Stand. But it should be proportionate to what the club contributed towards the building of the North Stand. Given the construction started after the club had a money-spinning cup run with some extra money from transfers and a tie at Anfield before the stand was completed I think the club may have put more in that it was given credit for. 

 

Furthermore the use of the Council's grant may also impact it, so for the North Stand to not be owned by the club now it is under new ownership may breech that agreement. 

 

In addition about the time the Clayton Arms was knocked down the club took on Brassbank's tax debt, to allow Brassbank to remain dormant. I would expect that debt to have since transferred back to Brassbank, as the club and Brassbank are now under different ownership. It may be illegal for that tax debt to be taken on by the club and have transferred to the new ownership given Brassbank's active status. 

 

I think AL may be using it as a smokescreen and there may be some clutching at straws, but that doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer. 

It's all a bit complicated isn't it. There are finer legal minds that will get to the bottom of it, I just hope it gets resolved pretty quickly because all the speculation is doing the fans and the club no favours at all. 

The more shit like this goes on the idea of starting again from scratch seems more appealing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...