Danbright12 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) Maybe there is a simpler explanation for the 'missing cash' - that day to day running costs far outstrip income and monies such as the Sports direct sponsorship are used to plug the haemorrhage? A far from perfect business model, but pretty much standard practice these days. That would be fair enough then, but there is absolutely no transparency. If Corney along with the board, openly came out and stated where the money had gone then it would all be fine, I am not annoyed at the board for the lack of money, I am annoyed at the constant false promises and the lies. He needs to come out and not just state 'we have cash flow issues' , he needs to actually say where the money has gone and why the promised budget money hasn't gone towards the budget. Because at the moment, it looks very much like it has been back pocketed. I am merely asking for the club to be ran properly, in which it is not. Edited November 23, 2016 by Danbright12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Apart from implying they trousered 5.5m AND 700k The club spent 5m on Failsworth but we're give 5.7m back. The 700k was in lieu if being sued but saving the club legal costs. I don't know the figures but it's post half the income from the housing went on build costs and fees. Much of that funded the North Stand I expect, though not the full amount of obviously. Details would be nice, but I suspect you think they made. Millions from those transactions. So adding that together obviously equals 900k It doesn't, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 My guess on the Sports Direct income being lower than hoped is that: 1) It was delayed a year 2) The shop is invariably quiet 3) The click bait income from internet links is nowhere near the thresholds needed Guess. Not knowledge. Lord knows how anyone could ever have thought a shop in that location would be busy. Not exactly a destination Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbright12 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 It doesn't, does it? I concede it was a daft sum to add up and post, just wanted to make it clear, haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) The failsworth money was a reimbursement to blitz to stop him suing it was his money he purchased the land with it was never the club's money it was blitz's all circa £5m of it. The £700k grant went into the stand that was the sweetener to appease him from public money to help the stand along... Edited November 23, 2016 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmarra Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Yeah isn't that illegal? Not necessarily. Used to be a criminal offence for which no one was ever prosecuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmarra Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 So adding that together obviously equals 900k that has gone nowhere, well nowhere visible. And nowhere, not even in the article does it state the 700k was for the saving of legal costs, so I doubt that is true. Land deals, especially to the NHS would of been worth millions, and fair enough some went to the stand, but I highly doubt 100% of the profit did. So the question remains where did the money go? And, say the profits did go to the stand, where in the world did the Sports Direct sponsorship money disappear too? The money which was explicitly stated to go towards to budget. **To add to what I put, going from the MEN article above, only SOME of the 5.7 million went towards to stand, to where did the rest go? Because it 100% did not go towards to budget, nor long term investment** Where did the money come from to run the club for the last 10 years or so? That would add some balance to the questioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) Don't care where which bit of money went where. I am more concerned the club is dying on its feet through lack of ability to stop it, nor the will to see it go forward. Corney's own words it's a feat keeping us in this division. It's quite clear from the present predicament he is seriously in trouble even trying to do that. That's not to say he should wad in millions, especially when he hasn't got it to give, but please for the love of god sell up, sell up fast before your small selling worth becomes smaller!! Simon, it's not a success to take the club lower than where you found it. It really isn't. Edited November 23, 2016 by Lags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piglinbland Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 That would be fair enough then, but there is absolutely no transparency. If Corney along with the board, openly came out and stated where the money had gone then it would all be fine, I am not annoyed at the board for the lack of money, I am annoyed at the constant false promises and the lies. He needs to come out and not just state 'we have cash flow issues' , he needs to actually say where the money has gone and why the promised budget money hasn't gone towards the budget. Because at the moment, it looks very much like it has been back pocketed. I am merely asking for the club to be ran properly, in which it is not. To be fair, as a small business, I have to be most circumspect in the information I give out, and the same applies to OAFC. Total transparency would spell death to any business, mine included. It would mean a call from the taxman, it would give an unfair advantage to competitors and it would bring howls of dissatisfaction from the customer. Every business, big or small, motors on a mixture of little white lies, ('the cheques in the post'), disinformation, creative accounting and the ability to big-up (potential investor) or play down (inland revenue) the company image, I'm not writing this to defend Simon Corney from criticism - only to suggest that some criticism is unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusunga_Is_God Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Yet again Latics Chairman, Simon Corney, after coming under pressure from fans, puts out a passive aggressive interview, where he points the finger of blame onto a whole list of others for the clubs sorry predicament a predicament that he plays down at the same time. Seemingly, its no biggie to Simon that the club, festering in the relegation zone of League One, are under a transfer embargo, in the same way it was all cool when the club were frequently paying wages late in the recent past. Everyone does it; its the way football works. Hes just sorry everyone found out. Hes got a HMRC bill to think about but itll be fine because, well, it always is. Of course, Rochdale taking action was steeped in malice and probably related to Calvin Andrews suspension for his assault and battery of Peter Clarke. It couldnt possibly be that they just want paying what theyre entitled to. He also made accusatory noises about the local media, who, as far as I can see, have been kinder to him that they might have been. Im struggling to see that anything has been printed which doesnt appear to have sound basis. Worst of all, he listed usernames of his critics on OWTB and called them out in a come and say it to my face style, all dressed up as a demonstration that he has nothing to hide. But thats not true. Is it, Simon? If those people were to accept your invitation, would you answer every question fully and honestly? What if they were to ask you to talk about the specific mistakes youve made as the clubs Chairman? How about if they asked how many other clubs Latics owe for ticket sales, like they do Rochdale? And how about unpaid fees relating to current loan players? What made Joy look for employment elsewhere and Anna Kocerhan depart very shortly after? Was it in any way related to the manner in which you have been running the club? Would you say a disproportionate number of players at Latics are represented by certain agents? How would you describe your relationship with those particular agents? How are your personal finances? Sorry, none of my business. Unless, that is, theyve become entwined in the clubs business. Have you ever taken out personal borrowings against the club? Ever paid personal debts with club money? Its been a busy few months, with the season ticket offer, Sheridan leaving for a League Two club, a winding up order, the whole squad being replaced, an entire new backroom room staff recruited and a new season having got underway. Presumably the Board of Directors have held frequent meetings to preside over these things? When was the last meeting of the Board of Directors? Why have the great Barry Owen and the Estate Agent been absent from the Directors Box at recent fixtures? Hows your relationship with Simon Blitz these days? Does he still want you at the club? After all, its still his, isnt it? If youre going to put out another interview to turn peoples attention elsewhere, try to look a bit more convincing. ~ I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don't trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it. ~ You have absolutely nailed it mate! Hope someone goes in a reads that off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 That would be fair enough then, but there is absolutely no transparency. If Corney along with the board, openly came out and stated where the money had gone then it would all be fine. He said the books are there to be looked at. I'll say again, go and look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Every business, big or small, motors on a mixture of little white lies, ('the cheques in the post'), disinformation, creative accounting and the ability to big-up (potential investor) or play down (inland revenue) the company image, Really? What a load of utter :censored:e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Hence why I put trousering in speech marks. Not the word I would choose. It was an inflammatory word Singe decided to use to spice up the original posters comments. No I didn't spice it up, I agreed with all, except the 5.5m +700k line. Hence I said except. The sentence clearly led the reader to believe that they had made 5.5m + 700k, people believe that. The spicing up is done by others implying multi millions have been siphoned, trousered etc. As I have said elsewhere, there are many questions that it would be good to answer, clarity given and/or intentions. It probably needs a few people to go, some that can keep a cool head and put him on the spot, but without they assumptions. As with any interview or interaction, if we can get SC to relax a bit then more info may be forthcoming. Going for the jugular from the off won't achieve half of what can be with a more even handed approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_blue Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 To be fair, as a small business, I have to be most circumspect in the information I give out, and the same applies to OAFC. Total transparency would spell death to any business, mine included. It would mean a call from the taxman, it would give an unfair advantage to competitors and it would bring howls of dissatisfaction from the customer. Every business, big or small, motors on a mixture of little white lies, ('the cheques in the post'), disinformation, creative accounting and the ability to big-up (potential investor) or play down (inland revenue) the company image, I'm not writing this to defend Simon Corney from criticism - only to suggest that some criticism is unreasonable. Nope not every business mate...wide of the mark there that's for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piglinbland Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Nope not every business mate...wide of the mark there that's for sure! Please elaborate...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Please elaborate...? Complete silence from those that think every business does everything transparently. Unsurprisingly, be very interesting to see where those accusing work/run a business...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Don't care where which bit of money went where. I am more concerned the club is dying on its feet through lack of ability to stop it, nor the will to see it go forward. Corney's own words it's a feat keeping us in this division. It's quite clear from the present predicament he is seriously in trouble even trying to do that. That's not to say he should wad in millions, especially when he hasn't got it to give, but please for the love of god sell up, sell up fast before your small selling worth becomes smaller!! Simon, it's not a success to take the club lower than where you found it. It really isn't. Nail hit on head. The problem is...it has to be a lock, stock and land sale. And it isn't his to sell. Hence why I put the post below up on Tuesday lunchtime that has since been swamped in nonsense since his latest propaganda was released... http://www.owtb.co.uk/index.php/topic/49187-transfer-embargo/?p=878672 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Complete silence from those that think every business does everything transparently. Unsurprisingly, be very interesting to see where those accusing work/run a business...... Who thinks that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Who thinks that? So to clarify, what do you/your business do/declare that you think OAFC doesn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piglinbland Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 So to clarify, what do you/your business do/declare that you think OAFC doesn't? Incapable of communicating in the real world, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 One thing that was new (to me) was BB80 stating he thought that TTA paid £1m, but Jarvis said £1. I've always assumed that was ongoing wages.Tricky to take it right back to the start, but perhaps that's what's needed. A list of the money in, money out issues that people have might help clear up some myths, explain where some money went, or even verify money has gone.I've seen a part list somewhere, could whoever did it point me to it and we add it all up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 One thing that was new (to me) was BB80 stating he thought that TTA paid £1m, but Jarvis said £1. I've always assumed that was ongoing wages. Tricky to take it right back to the start, but perhaps that's what's needed. A list of the money in, money out issues that people have might help clear up some myths, explain where some money went, or even verify money has gone. I've seen a part list somewhere, could whoever did it point me to it and we add it all up. Not sure what the point would be singe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 One thing that was new (to me) was BB80 stating he thought that TTA paid £1m, but Jarvis said £1. I've always assumed that was ongoing wages. Tricky to take it right back to the start, but perhaps that's what's needed. A list of the money in, money out issues that people have might help clear up some myths, explain where some money went, or even verify money has gone. I've seen a part list somewhere, could whoever did it point me to it and we add it all up. Jarvis did day £1 and in an interview he also joked they he never received it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 So to clarify, what do you/your business do/declare that you think OAFC doesn't? Why do you want me to clarify that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) He said... Every business, big or small, motors on a mixture of little white lies, ('the cheques in the post'), disinformation, creative accounting and the ability to big-up (potential investor) or play down (inland revenue) the company image, I said... Really? What a load of utter :censored:e He said... Nope not every business mate...wide of the mark there that's for sure! He said... Please elaborate...? You said, in strawman fashion.. Complete silence from those that think every business does everything transparently. Unsurprisingly, be very interesting to see where those accusing work/run a business...... ????? Edited November 25, 2016 by HarryBosch 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.