BP1960 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 After Belle Vue Gate, we now have Sell Out Gate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I had a question about the money from the stand going back into the club read out on gmr last week. Neil Joy answered it and to put it bluntly he basically said of course money will be going back into the club we have invested x amount in biildin it. I think they may of only read part of my question because although I would expect match day revenue to go to the club that is all I suspect we will see. Their are loads of unawsered question that need answers. I hear conflicting stuff all the time. We pay oec rent then they pay us rent etc the club could end it all by answering and being honest ffs. The lies will only make it worse. From where am standing it seems the club have paid/loaned the money to build the stand.Leaving the OEC to start up and make money in vast amounts using the stand 6/7 days the football club does not. The business model is brilliant good for the club if OEC pays a fair share to the club and should increase our playing budget l. What I suspect is happening is OEC is going to make a :censored: load a reasonable amount of money pay little as possible into the club not being arsed it loses out if its in league one rather than two and leave the club saddled with the debt we owe to the OEC owners. Its win win for them. If anyone wants to buy us we still are saddled with the debt. I guess it will take another 12/18 months before we will see if the new stand and oec really will make us more competative as a club. Although as I say above I doubt it the money will be all going to the oec. I will gladly hold my hands up if I am wrong. I remember Simon Corney saying something along the lines of the sports direct deal would make us one of the bigger budgets in the league or a bigger fish in the division. Since then all we have seen on the playing side of things is cost cutting. I feel the damage between fans and club (owners)at the moment is fast becoming irepairable. When season tickets are being renewed we will get the people who have a blind loyalty auto renewing (not a dig at anyone there btw) but Simon corney take not there are a lot and I mean a lot of fans adiment they will not be renewing and that is down to you and only you. Last week I felt we was all going to pull together and things would get better. Yet again the çlub have :censored:ed it within a week. If the clause has gone tell us so we can all accept it and stop the speculating sometimes I think the club love it when the fans are on one. Anyway thats my thoughts on the matter. You ahve many valid popints and they are well put, but I have amended it a bit where i think the situation lies. SO not a million miles off really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4froale Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/article/james-tarkowski-transfer-2935303.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavageTheBeast Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Statement makes no sense when did we get the money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Lots of words by whoever wrote that but in a nutshell we got jack :censored: from tarkys move to burnley Edited February 2, 2016 by NIKI1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scapegoat Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 A statement that actually tells you nothing - therefore I assume that we didn't receive any benefit from yesterday but did manage to get something earlier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 'We can, however, confirm that our football club has received a sizeable fee relating to the original transfer and further substantial payments relating to add-ons and that some of the figures quoted in the media are inaccurate.' That reads that to me that we have received a few payments. If we had sold the clause then it would be one payment wouldn't it? Edited February 2, 2016 by palmer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Initial fee, Promotion bonus, appearance/performance bonus, and the sold sell on clause - is how I read it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/article/james-tarkowski-transfer-2935303.aspx So we might have got less than media reports quoted! As usual loads of words that actually say nothing-its like listening to David Cameron! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Pretty sure the statement is patronising way of saying, 'We sold it. What the :censored: you gonna do about it?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Even with a confidentiality agreement in place what's stopping the club from saying that they sold the clause? They didn't deny it so it was sold. I'm sure we probably did OK from it but doing OK and getting a slice of 6 mill plus are very different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 doing OK and getting a slice of 6 mill plus are very different things. It means a lot less bricks and cheaper fittings in the toilets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 It means a lot less bricks and cheaper fittings in the toilets Don't worry about the toilets, half the neanderthals who go to Latics will piss on the floor & their own shoes anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Why is everything so bloody secretive and handled so poorly. All they have to do to stop all the questions and rumours is issue a statement like- We are all delighted for Tarky, whilst we had no financial interest in the latest transfer OAFC are more than happy with the previous settlements received. End of . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 'We can, however, confirm that our football club has received a sizeable fee relating to the original transfer and further substantial payments relating to add-ons and that some of the figures quoted in the media are inaccurate.' That reads that to me that we have received a few payments. If we had sold the clause then it would be one payment wouldn't it? Why would it? It reads to me that while in hindsight we could have got more money by holding onto the sell on clause the club are pretty happy with what they got overall from selling Tarky all things considered. They're probably a bit bemused at how much boiling of piss there is over it. Well, probably not but you know what I mean..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Why is everything so bloody secretive and handled so poorly. All they have to do to stop all the questions and rumours is issue a statement like- We are all delighted for Tarky, whilst we had no financial interest in the latest transfer OAFC are more than happy with the previous settlements received. End of . Simple statement, clears up what everone is asking. Instead they pretend they are answering the question but don't. Whilst thinking the fans are so thick as :censored: they won't notice Edited February 2, 2016 by NIKI1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1laticsfan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 So basically, we got a sizeable fee, meaning a fee when he was originally sold plus a few add-ons! Surprise surprise! Another oafc cock up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Even with a confidentiality agreement in place what's stopping the club from saying that they sold the clause? Why is everything so bloody secretive and handled so poorly. All they have to do to stop all the questions and rumours is issue a statement Why would/should they? All the questions and rumours are just from people obsessing about it on the internet. Corney probably hasn't even read any of it. I wouldn't if I were him. Get over yourselves ffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Why would it? It reads to me that while in hindsight we could have got more money by holding onto the sell on clause the club are pretty happy with what they got overall from selling Tarky all things considered. They're probably a bit bemused at how much boiling of piss there is over it. Well, probably not but you know what I mean..... Because it mentions payments aswell as the original fee as opposed to a one off fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Simple statement, clears up what everone is asking. Instead they pretend they are answering the question but don't. Whilst thinking the fans are so thick as :censored: they won't notice "We sold it for [insert figure of your choice]" - what are you going to do with that information? "We didn't sell it" - what are you going to do with that information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Because it mentions payments aswell as the original fee as opposed to a one off fee. I know. Add ons. What's your point regarding a "one off fee"? Edited February 2, 2016 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Why would/should they? All the questions and rumours are just from people obsessing about it on the internet. Corney probably hasn't even read any of it. I wouldn't if I were him. Get over yourselves ffs I didn't say they should! I don't think they should have said anything but they released a statement which is going to cause more bitching and moaning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) . Edited February 2, 2016 by palmer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The club felt the need to provide a statement. The purpose of it to clear up the question everyone is asking. Did we or did we not have a sell on clause. The statement is :censored:e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I love that statement. We got some cash, then some more cash, don't believe the press. Then :censored: you Micah and Porter! And just before Corney's veins in the side of his head popped the webgimp tagged on that bit about our youth setup being a good stepping stone, which it is so full marks to him, he earned his corn today. 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.