boundaryblue80 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 We should be careful, in my opinion, of just dismissing the ownership of the land on the basis that the club didn't own it before, the council did. The council owned it with the football club having the option to buy it back - the council was letting the club pawn it basically to bail it out of the :censored:. TTA used the club's option to buy it back and immediately separated it from the club and have exploited it as a something completely independent of the club - other than the club being its tenants in the ground. At a vastly reduced price (£3.5m) to what value the land would have commanded in 2004 when they bought it back at the held 1999 price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'd think the extra £2m of assets would be the stand (as an asset under construction) and the extra £2m debt is the financing of the stand. On that basis, OAFC own the stand, presumably with a debt increase of around £6m. So then you would expect all sports direct income (rent & sponsorship) to go to OAFC, and rent from all those using the stand (OEC, Gym, other outlets?) to also be paid to OAFC at a full commercial rate. Of course it could be that OEC is only paying a pittance and thereby increasing its profits ; on the other hand it might not, but there are steps a minority shareholder could take if it's a pittance. But, if the income is not sufficient to cover cost of repayment, then the stand is a millstone around the club's neck. When the Accounts are submitted to Companies House in March(ish) for the year to 30th June 2015 we will know more-well a little bit more! I cannot see where our increased Assets of £2M in the year to 30th June 2014 come from if it is not the North Stand-but I may be wrong! It is my belief and has been for a long time that OEC Ltd will be paying out a lot of the fitting out costs, basically because we dont have the money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 At a vastly reduced price (£3.5m) to what value the land would have commanded in 2004 when they bought it back at the held 1999 price. Was the housing development 94 houses? I reckon a developer would pay more than £3.5m for a plot of land that could accommodate a development of that size, certainly more with planning permission. But it was a TTA/Holroy joint venture with that slippery bastard estate agent selling them, so on that alone I reckon they'll have more than covered the outlay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'd think the extra £2m of assets would be the stand (as an asset under construction) and the extra £2m debt is the financing of the stand. On that basis, OAFC own the stand, presumably with a debt increase of around £6m. So then you would expect all sports direct income (rent & sponsorship) to go to OAFC, and rent from all those using the stand (OEC, Gym, other outlets?) to also be paid to OAFC at a full commercial rate. Of course it could be that OEC is only paying a pittance and thereby increasing its profits ; on the other hand it might not, but there are steps a minority shareholder could take if it's a pittance. But, if the income is not sufficient to cover cost of repayment, then the stand is a millstone around the club's neck. That was my reading of the whole thing plus if you look here https://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/04919679/BRASS-BANK-LIMITED/summary Brassbanks assets are nil which according to the textbooks will mean that OAFC will take a certain cut of the risks and rewards of the stand hence why OAFC is paying for it. So while legally Brassbank own the land OAFC will own the building hence why we are paying for it and not Brassbank. OEC will then make an amount after they either pay a fixed facility fee or they will take a % of the profit or Revenue of the events they put on. OEC won't make either Blitz or Corney alot of money certainly nowhere near the £8million that is owed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Was the housing development 94 houses? I reckon a developer would pay more than £3.5m for a plot of land that could accommodate a development of that size, certainly more with planning permission. But it was a TTA/Holroy joint venture with that slippery bastard estate agent selling them, so on that alone I reckon they'll have more than covered the outlay. 04 April 2008 - 02:10 PM Athletic scale back flats development by MARTYN TORR OLDHAM Athletic are scaling back the number of properties to built around Boundary Park. Chief executive Alan Hardy told an Oldham meeting of Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce that the housing scheme is likely to be reduced from the proposed near 600-plus flats in the original submission to around 350 units, including some three and four-bed houses. “Everyone recognises the difficulty of trying to sell so many flats,” he declared. He also indicated that the Royal Oldham Hospital had shown an interest in taking space in phase three of the redevelopment — phase two is a hotel linked to a new Chadderton End stand — which involves replacing the main stand. Around 60 people were present at the Bower Hotel, Hollinwood, for Mr Hardy’s presentation. He should have been accompanied by co-owner Simon Corney and director Ian Hill but they were involved in talks with developers. Mr Hardy revealed that statutory legal agreements with the local authority, over what he called section 106 issues, would be signed off this week. This would allow potential developers around the 23-acre site, which is essentially funding the new-look stadium, to make firm offers. “Housing developers, and we have been talking to several, now know their commitments and this is a big step forward. “Unfortunately, land values have dropped since the scheme was first put together, but that is something we have to deal with,” he added. Mr Hardy confirmed that, until a legal document is in place for the housing development, work will not start on the new stand, which will house commercial offices, banqueting and hospitality suites, retail facilities and changing rooms. He said: “Since the new owners took over in 2005 they have spent around £11.5 million on Athletic and it is fair to say they will not commit the club to a multi-million contract for a new stand without an agreement in place for housing.” Assuming a contract is in place, work on the demolition of the New Start Mortgages Stand will start at the end of June ahead of construction of a £11.5 million, 5,000-seater replacement. Builders are due on site by the end of the year, according to Mr Hardy, who is expecting completion within 12 to 14 months, suggesting the first phase of the Oldham Arena redevelopment, will open in early 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scapegoat Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I've said all I can on most of the key matters at this time, however I just thought it pertinent to reply on a couple of things mentioned in this thread. The statement wasn't prompted at all. I've always said to the Trust directors that I would do my very best to provide a public update once a quarter - if you look back my last one was November. This update was already mostly written before my radio appearance last week, but was rehashed to directly answer some of the main questions which I felt were important to address. Yes of course we should all remain vigilant, and as I've said this is my club so even forgetting my Trust role I certainly do and will continue to do so. Football, business and life is not black and white and some on here and on other spaces are drawing definitive conclusions on the future based on what, in reality, is a snapshot of a particular set of circumstances as they are now. Are things perfect - no, but in the real world when are they? Am I panicking about things with all I know - no. With that in mind I would just say that the more successful the North Stand is on both matchdays and non-matchdays the better for all of us. I'm not asking you to forget about asking questions or keep quiet, all I would say is that our most helpful role right now as fans is to back our team and our manager through the upcoming games and continue to play our part in getting the wins we need to stay in this division this season, even cranking it up a few positive notches. Speaking with Shez he's feeling very confident and that'll do for me. We should be careful, in my opinion, of just dismissing the ownership of the land on the basis that the club didn't own it before, the council did. The council owned it with the football club having the option to buy it back - the council was letting the club pawn it basically to bail it out of the :censored:. TTA used the club's option to buy it back and immediately separated it from the club and have exploited it as a something completely independent of the club - other than the club being its residents in the ground. In the absence of any knowledge, the obvious tendency is for the vacuum to be filled by speculation, rumour and conspiracy. Very few people on this message board know very much at all about the detailed workings of finance, business or accounts and therefore that speculation, rumour and conspiracy is fuelled by a group of well meaning enthusiastic amateurs. Even of those on that visit this board on a regular basis that will have experience of some or even all of those aspects, they are still not likely to be related to this industry, and certainly not this company. There a myriad of ways things could and have been done, and there will be an equal number of reasons for doing it one way or another. In the end of the dat I think it is unreasonable to expect detailed financial and contract information to be shared to all an sundry. We have a Trust representative that will be privy to information that they cannot always pass on. However what our representative is telling us is that we are not perfect, but that he has seen nothing that has him panicking and becoming very concerned. We should perhaps for now accept this, and as stated focus our efforts and attention on where we can make a difference and the reason we are all here - the team. From what I have heard and read of our current Trust rep is offering an improved situation on what we have had before. Perhaps an increased frequency of updates would be helpful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 That was my reading of the whole thing plus if you look here https://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/04919679/BRASS-BANK-LIMITED/summary Brassbanks assets are nil which according to the textbooks will mean that OAFC will take a certain cut of the risks and rewards of the stand hence why OAFC is paying for it. So while legally Brassbank own the land OAFC will own the building hence why we are paying for it and not Brassbank. OEC will then make an amount after they either pay a fixed facility fee or they will take a % of the profit or Revenue of the events they put on. OEC won't make either Blitz or Corney alot of money certainly nowhere near the £8million that is owed. OAFC are the leaseholder of the stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 We should be careful, in my opinion, of just dismissing the ownership of the land on the basis that the club didn't own it before, the council did. The council owned it with the football club having the option to buy it back - the council was letting the club pawn it basically to bail it out of the :censored:. TTA used the club's option to buy it back and immediately separated it from the club and have exploited it as a something completely independent of the club - other than the club being its tenants in the ground. TTA didn't seperate it, they just didn't unite it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 OAFC are the leaseholder of the stadium. Indeed that's my take on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Indeed that's my take on it. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeroyboy Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 A reasonable summery from Scapegoat and after reading all of this thread I think it maybe the best thread we’ve had for bringing so much detail together on this much debated subject. I would like to add the following. While there have been a few assumes, imagines and probably, in these posts I accept many of the financial facts posters have gone to the trouble of researching will be accurate. But they do not clarify an accurate balance sheet of income and expenditure of the 3 Amigos in the last 11yrs since bailing out our football club. In my view they must be substantially out of pocket disregarding any assets they may or may not own connected to BP. The value of these can only being identified on a completed sale and maybe then not made public. No one goes through life, business or private, without making mistakes, lots of them. I still think the biggest mistake Corney and Co made was knocking down the Ford Stand without having signed up plans for a replacement or a move. The three sided ground was demoralising to the fans and I suspect the players. The main point of this post (which I have broached before) is this: what size of investment should a very small percentage of citizens expect in the pursuance of their hobby? Further, bearing in mind there is not and never has been a local multi-millionaire to live his dream, what financial input should we expect of a stranger in financing our hobby? The number of times I see club statements rehashed as promises by fans when they don’t materialise is unbelievable. We all say things that people want to hear knowing that the route to fruition is fraught with obstacles. A new owner, manager, player confidently chimes ‘I aim to bring success to this football club’. That will resurface as a promise more often than not. Only a fool would say ‘I promise’. More often than not they do their best and more often than not they fail. It’s all in the odds. I’m grateful someone is funding my hobby who I believe to be honourable. He continues attempting to rectify his mistakes by replacing relegation bound managers. In any case – I don’t have a substitute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Was the housing development 94 houses? I reckon a developer would pay more than £3.5m for a plot of land that could accommodate a development of that size, certainly more with planning permission. But it was a TTA/Holroy joint venture with that slippery bastard estate agent selling them, so on that alone I reckon they'll have more than covered the outlay. How come you call him that? I've no idea - I just keep seeing him referred to in a similar fashion but never with any explanation why.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 How come you call him that? I've no idea - I just keep seeing him referred to in a similar fashion but never with any explanation why.... Aren't all estate agents bastards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Aren't all estate agents bastards? None of the many I've worked with were/are. All they do is advertise houses and arrange for people to look round. Many are a bit :censored: at that, somehow. People tend to blame them when something goes wrong because they're scared of blaming the solicitor who caused things to go wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 None of the many I've worked with were/are. All they do is advertise houses and arrange for people to look round. Many are a bit :censored: at that, somehow. People tend to blame them when something goes wrong because they're scared of blaming the solicitor who caused things to go wrong. It's a low baseline to call people bastards given the industry you're in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 It's a low baseline to call people bastards given the industry you're in I didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 I didn't. Precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) None of the many I've worked with were/are. All they do is advertise houses and arrange for people to look round. Many are a bit :censored: at that, somehow. People tend to blame them when something goes wrong because they're scared of blaming the solicitor who caused things to go wrong. do you know that in the sale of a house the estate agents fees are significantly higher than the solicitors Edited February 4, 2016 by Magister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) do you know that in the sale of a house the estate agents fees are significantly higher than the solicitors Yes. They usually are. Not always nowadays though. Edited February 4, 2016 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 How come you call him that? I've no idea - I just keep seeing him referred to in a similar fashion but never with any explanation why.... I'll not go into why, but I stand by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'll not go into why, but I stand by it. Go into why. Go on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Go into why. Go on....I'll PM ya'.* * - I won't really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Precisely. Aah, I get you now. [summat about traffic wardens] 30-15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Aah, I get you now. [summat about traffic wardens] 30-15 We got there in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The problem for supporters is that the football club OAFC only has a lease until 2031 but appears to have paid for the construction of the new stand. Probably needed to do this to access loans and grants but it still leaves a slowly, some might say not so slowly, failing football club with a debt which is out of all proportion to any future profits. As far as I can remember it wasn't OAFC that purchased the land in Failsworth which is ultimately the source of most of the money from OMBC so that just puts whoever did buy that land in a neutral position - it doesn't create new money to build a stand although it could have been loaned to the football club for that purpose. I should add that it is perfectly sensible and prudent for any football club owner to separate ownership of the land/stadium from the football club. 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.