robboman Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03fks4j#play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I asked the question about Philli leaving. Wag must have just decided to ignore the bit I mentioned about it being against Dunn's wishes.(Plus 4 other ignored questions) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluear Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I asked the question about Philli leaving. Wag must have just decided to ignore the bit I mentioned about it being against Dunn's wishes.(Plus 4 other ignored questions) The question was answered though and it covered being against Dunn's wishes without mentioning it. The club made the decision it was the right deal. Do you think Spurs manager wanted Bale to go Madrid? Massively different transfer fees but if it benefits the club which they believe it did they accept. If someone offers a million for Kelly tomorrow do you think they'll ask Shez or will they see it as helping the club financially? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The question was answered though and it covered being against Dunn's wishes without mentioning it. The club made the decision it was the right deal. Do you think Spurs manager wanted Bale to go Madrid? Massively different transfer fees but if it benefits the club which they believe it did they accept. If someone offers a million for Kelly tomorrow do you think they'll ask Shez or will they see it as helping the club financially? Yeah but £75k tho ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The question was answered though and it covered being against Dunn's wishes without mentioning it. The club made the decision it was the right deal. Do you think Spurs manager wanted Bale to go Madrid? Massively different transfer fees but if it benefits the club which they believe it did they accept. If someone offers a million for Kelly tomorrow do you think they'll ask Shez or will they see it as helping the club financially? If it had been Arsenal bidding Spurs wouldnt have accepted it Yeah but £75k tho To bloody Blackpool where his goals will help move them out of the relegation zone-our relegation zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 If it had been Arsenal bidding Spurs wouldnt have accepted it I think when we are talking those sums of money then they probably would have.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I think when we are talking those sums of money then they probably would have.... Surely the point is Spurs appear to have invested that money wisely and become a better team as a result. Will the same be true of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluear Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Surely the point is Spurs appear to have invested that money wisely and become a better team as a result. Will the same be true of us? We shall see. Hopefully we will do though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Neil Joy spoke well. Which you would expect of a clever fella. Defo dodged and never answered some of the questions raised rather skirted round them. For me the tone of his answers came from the very first question and wasn't taken to task about the magnitude of the problem the caller was trying to allude to. The question was really what have Latics left to attract a new investor/owner. Meaning when TTA took over they not only had a football club lock stock and barrel, but land, and lots of it. Now the new investor must come in with no land and stands not owned by the club. Joy just skirted around this major point, stating about having a 20 year lease (is it that long now?) from a landlord (TTA) Who also own the only money making stand at the club. Oh and the brand name. Come on Neil, say it like it is, it's not very attractive to plough millions into a club that needs millions and be at the mercy of TTA wanting 10lbs of flesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 We shall see. Hopefully we will do though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluear Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Neil Joy spoke well. Which you would expect of a clever fella. Defo dodged and never answered some of the questions raised rather skirted round them. For me the tone of his answers came from the very first question and wasn't taken to task about the magnitude of the problem the caller was trying to allude to. The question was really what have Latics left to attract a new investor/owner. Meaning when TTA took over they not only had a football club lock stock and barrel, but land, and lots of it. Now the new investor must come in with no land and stands not owned by the club. Joy just skirted around this major point, stating about having a 20 year lease (is it that long now?) from a landlord (TTA) Who also own the only money making stand at the club. Oh and the brand name. Come on Neil, say it like it is, it's not very attractive to plough millions into a club that needs millions and be at the mercy of TTA wanting 10lbs of flesh. What land do other clubs in our division own round their stadiums? I bet there are a lot that dont own any in the area round. Bradford for we ample last week. Surely they only own the ground. Nothing round it apart from houses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Neil Joy spoke well. Which you would expect of a clever fella. Defo dodged and never answered some of the questions raised rather skirted round them. For me the tone of his answers came from the very first question and wasn't taken to task about the magnitude of the problem the caller was trying to allude to. The question was really what have Latics left to attract a new investor/owner. Meaning when TTA took over they not only had a football club lock stock and barrel, but land, and lots of it. Now the new investor must come in with no land and stands not owned by the club. Joy just skirted around this major point, stating about having a 20 year lease (is it that long now?) from a landlord (TTA) Who also own the only money making stand at the club. Oh and the brand name. Come on Neil, say it like it is, it's not very attractive to plough millions into a club that needs millions and be at the mercy of TTA wanting 10lbs of flesh. He said Corney would listen to offers for the land. Hence not really at the mercy. Serious investors will buy it. People with ten pence down the back of the couch won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I don't understand why people see this as such a big issue. Investors will buy the club for £1 and buy brass bank for £xM. It's only like buying the club for £xM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Bradford probably own the ground, Latics? The second point raised, so it now takes an investor with serious cash as opposed to plenty of cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) I don't understand why people see this as such a big issue. Investors will buy the club for £1 and buy brass bank for £xM. It's only like buying the club for £xM. Because if any investor bought the club for £1 he would be taking on liabilities at a net figure of £4.9M plus monies owed to a Company in Liverpool! Edited January 26, 2016 by ChaddySmoker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I don't understand why people see this as such a big issue. Investors will buy the club for £1 and buy brass bank for £xM. It's only like buying the club for £xM. Without wanting to offend, it sounds to me like you're not in a position to buy the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Without wanting to offend, it sounds to me like you're not in a position to buy the club. No offence because neither are you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 No offence because neither are you. You are correct, I don't. however I can see to buy the club now isn't as attractive a deal that TTA got. Yet you don't see the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) Neil Joy spoke well. Which you would expect of a clever fella. Defo dodged and never answered some of the questions raised rather skirted round them. For me the tone of his answers came from the very first question and wasn't taken to task about the magnitude of the problem the caller was trying to allude to. The question was really what have Latics left to attract a new investor/owner. Meaning when TTA took over they not only had a football club lock stock and barrel, but land, and lots of it. Now the new investor must come in with no land and stands not owned by the club. Joy just skirted around this major point, stating about having a 20 year lease (is it that long now?) from a landlord (TTA) Who also own the only money making stand at the club. Oh and the brand name. Come on Neil, say it like it is, it's not very attractive to plough millions into a club that needs millions and be at the mercy of TTA wanting 10lbs of flesh. When the TTA took over they, & OAFC, did not own the ground, they had to separately pay £4 million to buy it back. As we all know, 11 years on we've still got that debt. Edited January 26, 2016 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 You are correct, I don't. however I can see to buy the club now isn't as attractive a deal that TTA got. Yet you don't see the problem. Hardly. TTA bought the club for nothing and got a knock down deal from the council for the land. Of course it isn't as attractive. My point is that potential investors can still sit down with Corney and make him an offer. No where has it been said the land isn't for sale. Neil Joy last night said that an investor can make an offer for "all or part." People are blinded by OAFC (2004). The fact that brass bank could be a part of the same transaction appears to be forgotten or simply not understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 When the TTA took over they did not own the ground, they had to pay £4 million to buy it back. As we all know, 11 years on we've still got that debt. Not a bad deal for TTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Hardly. TTA bought the club for nothing and got a knock down deal from the council for the land. Of course it isn't as attractive. My point is that potential investors can still sit down with Corney and make him an offer. No where has it been said the land isn't for sale. Neil Joy last night said that an investor can make an offer for "all or part." People are blinded by OAFC (2004). The fact that brass bank could be a part of the same transaction appears to be forgotten or simply not understood. I understand it completely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 When the TTA took over they did not own the ground, they had to separately pay £4 million to buy it back. As we all know, 11 years on we've still got that debt. The £4M for the ground is not reflected in the net deficit of £4.9M of OA(2004)FC Ltd-It is on top PLUS the cost of the North Stand PLUS a debt to a Company in Liverpool PLUS losses since 30th June 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Surely the point is Spurs appear to have invested that money wisely and become a better team as a result. Will the same be true of us?We were a better team even before a Burton reserve player came in on loan to replace him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The £4M for the ground is not reflected in the net deficit of £4.9M of OA(2004)FC Ltd-It is on top PLUS the cost of the North Stand PLUS a debt to a Company in Liverpool PLUS losses since 30th June 2014 Indeed. Do you know anything about this Liverpool company? 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.