ghostofcecere Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 We only owe money to Blitz/Gazal who said it'll only be called in if reach premier league (probably earned some back from the land, may change their if corney leaves). We don't owe hmrc any money (local press would be all over it if we did). We've just built a £6m stand, and the OEC would earn far less without a club there. We know our wage budget is in line with League ones version of financial fair play - is it around 60-65% of turnover on wages? If we wasn't we would be under a transfer embargo (including loans). Wages have been a couple of days late - granted that isn't good. However they got paid one or two days late, apparently without any loan to the club from the PFA(?). We've sold one player, and let Yeates leave early to go to a club offering him a longer deal than us. We haven't sold anyone for the previous two windows. Perhaps Corney has said if half the squad needs changing now, you need to sell some to change it. Understandable as we have a relatively large squad. What reason is there to go in administration? It'd make no sense for TTA to put us in admin. They'd piss away whatever we owe them and be left with a business that won't be as profitable without the club. What I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Guru Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 We only owe money to Blitz/Gazal who said it'll only be called in if reach premier league (probably earned some back from the land, may change their if corney leaves). We don't owe hmrc any money (local press would be all over it if we did). We've just built a £6m stand, and the OEC would earn far less without a club there. We know our wage budget is in line with League ones version of financial fair play - is it around 60-65% of turnover on wages? If we wasn't we would be under a transfer embargo (including loans). Wages have been a couple of days late - granted that isn't good. However they got paid one or two days late, apparently without any loan to the club from the PFA(?). We've sold one player, and let Yeates leave early to go to a club offering him a longer deal than us. We haven't sold anyone for the previous two windows. Perhaps Corney has said if half the squad needs changing now, you need to sell some to change it. Understandable as we have a relatively large squad. What reason is there to go in administration? It'd make no sense for TTA to put us in admin. They'd piss away whatever we owe them and be left with a business that won't be as profitable without the club. It may be at the buyers request. I'm not knowledgable to understand what benefit this would have to a buyer...especially seeing as though it would Guarentee league 2 football for at least 1 season and presumably reduced revenue opportunities for a football club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It may be at the buyers request. I'm not knowledgable to understand what benefit this would have to a buyer...especially seeing as though it would Guarentee league 2 football for at least 1 season and presumably reduced revenue opportunities for a football club Exactly, what benefit is there to a buyer for us being in administration? They'd speak to Blitz and Gazal during any takeover due to the land. TTA can get their money back through the land eventually. They aren't going to suddenly accept 50p per pound owed when they know it's possible to eventually get it all back. IIRC, they are even on the board of the company who built the stand. Makes no sense going into admin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Unless someone is able to confirm otherwise the only creditor we have is Blitz and this six million loan. I'm still uncertain however if that was to purchase the club, stadium, land etc so that money is tied into the land etc so it's an asset for Blitz. The creditors owed when we went bump last time were paid off in full through part of this six million loan but that was Xp in the £ so was much less (few hundred grand back ten years since?). Corney has been balancing the books for a while now cutting the playing budget to become self financing. Looking through the clubs books will be able to demonstrate this and dismiss suggestions that the owners are doing something underhand. The realism is that the owners only bought this club for one reason - the land and ability to sell the land, keep the football club afloat and make money in the deal. Attempts to move didn't work out, developing the land hasn't happened as expected so the north stand is the only way to increase value whilst generating a going concern away from the club. Whichever way you look at it, the club is a thorn in the side of the current owners or future owners. Outside of the 3500 (or less now) fans, the only attraction is the land or commercial success of that stand. Corney is reducing the playing budget, selling assets etc to make the club more financially viable because the club and the land are intertwined - however if our club plays in League 1, League 2 or conference the owners - unless they are fans - don't care. As long as books balance, they don't have to fund extra personally or from them stand coffers and the football continues it ticks the boxes. Interest will only increase should we get to Championship or Premier League and revenue increases to a point that it's generating profit to the owner or increasing profile of the stand activities and revenues. Unless someone can prove that ST and home fan sales will decrease as a result, I personally can't see relegation as a bad thing in our current position. There's not much difference between the two leagues regarding media exposure so sponsor revenue won't be too affected as it's mostly local. Money from league will be reduced but our budgets are probably at League 2 level. We'd be more reliant on youth but we may compete more in League 2, be in the right half of the table and spike some interest or increase gates if we're competing in play offs etc. I personally think we won't have a choice come May.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Exactly, what benefit is there to a buyer for us being in administration? They'd speak to Blitz and Gazal during any takeover due to the land. TTA can get their money back through the land eventually. They aren't going to suddenly accept 50p per pound owed when they know it's possible to eventually get it all back. IIRC, they are even on the board of the company who built the stand. Makes no sense going into admin. The two interests are separate financially though aren't they? The six million loan was to buy the club, land, stadium. Brassbank own the land and stadium so that six million is tied in that. If sold then if market is buoyant, six million plus is paid back. OAFC 2004 is effectively a tenant although not paying rent because the two interests are linked with the land and stand associated to the club and cannot be developed if it affects the immediate operation of the club. The club was in debt but that's been resolved over recent years. Preference for Blitz would be to sell the lot because nobody would buy the land because they can't do anything with it without owning the club. However could the club not be operated separately with Blitz owning stadium and new owners paying rent? Club owners just have to then balance books which influences playing budgets. I'm sure Blitz and Corney would prefer the club to fold so the land is then free to be developed. Is there any convenant in place that the land needs to be used for football? I recall a 10 year clause but that's expired or expiring this year....coincidence that the club appears to be winding down?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 What a load of :censored:e........if Blitz and Corney would prefer the club to fold why would they build the bloody stand!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshawlatic Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 The two interests are separate financially though aren't they? The six million loan was to buy the club, land, stadium. Brassbank own the land and stadium so that six million is tied in that. If sold then if market is buoyant, six million plus is paid back. OAFC 2004 is effectively a tenant although not paying rent because the two interests are linked with the land and stand associated to the club and cannot be developed if it affects the immediate operation of the club. The club was in debt but that's been resolved over recent years. Preference for Blitz would be to sell the lot because nobody would buy the land because they can't do anything with it without owning the club. However could the club not be operated separately with Blitz owning stadium and new owners paying rent? Club owners just have to then balance books which influences playing budgets. I'm sure Blitz and Corney would prefer the club to fold so the land is then free to be developed. Is there any convenant in place that the land needs to be used for football? I recall a 10 year clause but that's expired or expiring this year....coincidence that the club appears to be winding down?! Wasn't another clause put in as part of the deal for the council to fund part of the stand? Something like the ground has to be used for football for 40 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmarra Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 The acid test, leaving aside various calculations involving land and asset values,of whether a business is solvent is whether it can pay its bills. Most business' with tight cash flow will pay their wages first and let other creditors hang on. The fact that wages haven't been paid on time suggests an ongoing cash crisis and there are likely to be other creditors in the wings waiting to be paid. From the facts that we know there is a solvency crisis and without further investment or sale of assets it usually ends in some form of insolvency arrangement e.g. administration or Liquidation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 What a load of :censored:e........if Blitz and Corney would prefer the club to fold why would they build the bloody stand!!! How much have they invested personally in building the stand that is a potential loss? Building that stand makes the land more valuable, they have funding from outside too...if nobody wishes buy the club then there's always a plan B Is it OAFC 2004 or Brassbank funding this? Brassbank are a creditor...they call in their debts, club folds and the land etc can be sold without the constraints of a football club having to play there - housing market increasing, land values increasing, club winding down ... coincidence?! However my comment is more around their personal interest - would they prefer the club to be extinct so the land was free to be sold? Of course they would. Would they be inclined to spend money into the club? No they won't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 We need a leader amongst fans to engage with the club on such matters and to explore the prospect of greater fan ownership/control. That is the only way to safeguard our future and give us a new long term purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mighty_bosh Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 As others have said, the only creditor we have is Blitz. I strongly doubt that he'll be calling in his debt at the current time so administration isn't likely. If a prospective owner puts a club into administration in order to buy us at a cheaper price then I'd find it very difficult to trust and support him. The people who get shafted by clubs paying x pence in the pound are the likes of St John's ambulance and local businesses. Any owner who does this to save some cash is one that would be very likely to screw the club (and the town) over in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 We need a leader amongst fans to engage with the club on such matters and to explore the prospect of greater fan ownership/control. That is the only way to safeguard our future and give us a new long term purpose. Genuine question and not a snipe but isn't that the Trust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 We only owe money to Blitz/Gazal who said it'll only be called in if reach premier league (probably earned some back from the land, may change their if corney leaves). We don't owe hmrc any money (local press would be all over it if we did). We've just built a £6m stand, and the OEC would earn far less without a club there. We know our wage budget is in line with League ones version of financial fair play - is it around 60-65% of turnover on wages? If we wasn't we would be under a transfer embargo (including loans). Wages have been a couple of days late - granted that isn't good. However they got paid one or two days late, apparently without any loan to the club from the PFA(?). We've sold one player, and let Yeates leave early to go to a club offering him a longer deal than us. We haven't sold anyone for the previous two windows. Perhaps Corney has said if half the squad needs changing now, you need to sell some to change it. Understandable as we have a relatively large squad. What reason is there to go in administration? It'd make no sense for TTA to put us in admin. They'd piss away whatever we owe them and be left with a business that won't be as profitable without the club. Out of interest I kept an article written by David Conn, in The Independent in March 2004. Part of it said TTA: "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." It would be in the interest of any investor to own the land as well as the club. If the current debt to Blitz is around £6m, and the land was bought back for £4.6m, then any investor would need to start with an offer around £10m. Unless one of us wins the lottery tonight I can't see that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I would hope so but I have no knowledge of what they do or their presence. No direct criticism but simply not really aware of their role. I would hazard a guess that the trust is not having the effect it could. Is it a sop to keep fans happy? Who drives it and its actions in being a voice for fans and affecting change at OAFC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFCinWolves Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 We don't have any CCJs or high court writs issued against us at the moment unlike others in this division. If people weren't privy to recent events such as the wages not being paid on time, they might be inclined to think that we're steady enough. Struggling to pay ur bills is a sign. You can make money on paper but if you can't pay ur bills as thay fall ie stand wages it's grounds for insolvency and administration is just one of the tools used Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Out of interest I kept an article written by David Conn, in The Independent in March 2004. Part of it said TTA: "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." It would be in the interest of any investor to own the land as well as the club. If the current debt to Blitz is around £6m, and the land was bought back for £4.6m, then any investor would need to start with an offer around £10m. Unless one of us wins the lottery tonight I can't see that happening. Will let you know tonight if I win the £55 mill, Dunn wouldnt be too happy though lol. 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.