Summary of Questions Received - "Ask the Chairman"

[yarddog73]

Mcfluff, for someone who asks a lot of hypothetical questions it seems strange that you have a penchant for pulling people who don't deal with facts.

[mcfluff1985]

Mcfluff, for someone who asks a lot of hypothetical questions it seems strange that you have a penchant for pulling people who don't deal with facts.

I pull people up who bull:censored: as if it's fact. You're one of them

[BP1960]

Fan owned clubs on paper appear a great idea but many have struggled for one reason or another, factions soon appear and they can be a very divisive way of running a football club with not too many success stories.

 

It would be interesting to see how the 500 would elect a board of directors.

[jsslatic]

I genuinely cannot get my head around people who think £2.5 million is a good price for a loss making business with no assets.

[real]

 

As they are foreseeable shouldn't that money have been ring fenced ?

Yep. There's a generally accepted list of people who you pay first - staff and taxman are high up on the list. The former can wreck a business through lack of motivation the second can close you down. You could also add football debts as transfer embargoes kick in.

 

Meanwhile spending £6m on your ground but crying pauper status shortens people's patience when chasing debts, so you shouldn't moan when they dob you in.

[yarddog73]

Why ask hypothetical questions if you deal in fact? it's a total contradiction to ask someone's opinion when they can only give an answer with their own view, I can't find anything on here where you've pulled Corney for bull:censored:ting and he's done plenty in recent years, as for feeling the need to pull me up for not dealing in facts crack on, as you well know I don't give a flying :censored:.

[Dave_Og]

Fair enou

 

 

Dave - it's 500 "fans" or investors required - not 5,000

 

 

Oops. I think there's sitll less than a snowballs's chance

[Matt]

I pull people up who bull:censored: as if it's fact. You're one of them

 

Knock it off, debate the topic not the individual

[Guest nonaenever]

That sentence is quite disturbing what is causing that and is it likely to change in the future?

 

Because if it doesn't I doubt things will be getting any better on the pitch either.

 

Definitely, absolutely, certainly, probably (!) my last comment on such matters, Glossop. I can only put it like this. A man runs a kitchen sales company, not making a fortune but getting by ok. His sales manager leaves (and he was a good one) and some of the sales people leave with him. He hires another sales manager, who knows some sales people from the past and recommends the owner to "take them on" - on decent salaries. Unfortunately, the new sales people "don't produce the goods i.e. sales" - so the company's income falls whilst his wages bill has actually gone up. The longer that situation continues, the worse it becomes and the owner ends up paying out more than he's getting in - so has to borrow money to keep the company going. Cash flow really is "king" in business - as long as he sustains that he will be okay.

 

Now, in football terms - we are not producing the goods on the pitch (particularly the goals) - and our income is suffering via lower attendances, a less attractive proposition for sponsorship and advertising etc. "Not producing the goods" on the pitch might even result in us being knocked out of cup competitions earlier than we might otherwise be - losing more income - a certain amount of which may have been budgeted for.

 

To illustrate the point, had we won the majority of our games, scored goals etc. via the players/staff the club invested in, I suspect it would be relatively peaceful on here and we wouldn't have the problems we have because we'd be at around 4,500 to 5,000 home supporters by now - plus the away ones - and income would increase as a result. We'd get to the quarter finals of the FA cup and draw with Man Utd at home and bask in the financial rewards of a replay in front of 70 odd thousand!

 

Simplified illustration, I know, but there's no magic bullet as we are at present - it's basically up to those employed to produce the goods - success breeds success. At the moment the outgoings exceed the incomings (never been a secret about that at all) and, as many have said on here, until the manager and players "produce the goods" that's not going to change any time soon (in the absence of external investment).

 

Does that make sense or have I become a rambling lunatic after a couple of weeks of intense OWTB exposure?

[oafcmetty]

What happens when that 300k tax bill crops up and the club is fan owned?

Wouldn't be an issue, as we'd have planned and budgeted for it accordingly.

[GlossopLatic]

 

Definitely, absolutely, certainly, probably (!) my last comment on such matters, Glossop. I can only put it like this. A man runs a kitchen sales company, not making a fortune but getting by ok. His sales manager leaves (and he was a good one) and some of the sales people leave with him. He hires another sales manager, who knows some sales people from the past and recommends the owner to "take them on" - on decent salaries. Unfortunately, the new sales people "don't produce the goods i.e. sales" - so the company's income falls whilst his wages bill has actually gone up. The longer that situation continues, the worse it becomes and the owner ends up paying out more than he's getting in - so has to borrow money to keep the company going. Cash flow really is "king" in business - as long as he sustains that he will be okay.

 

Now, in football terms - we are not producing the goods on the pitch (particularly the goals) - and our income is suffering via lower attendances, a less attractive proposition for sponsorship and advertising etc. "Not producing the goods" on the pitch might even result in us being knocked out of cup competitions earlier than we might otherwise be - losing more income - a certain amount of which may have been budgeted for.

 

To illustrate the point, had we won the majority of our games, scored goals etc. via the players/staff the club invested in, I suspect it would be relatively peaceful on here and we wouldn't have the problems we have because we'd be at around 4,500 to 5,000 home supporters by now - plus the away ones - and income would increase as a result. We'd get to the quarter finals of the FA cup and draw with Man Utd at home and bask in the financial rewards of a replay in front of 70 odd thousand!

 

Simplified illustration, I know, but there's no magic bullet as we are at present - it's basically up to those employed to produce the goods - success breeds success. At the moment the outgoings exceed the incomings (never been a secret about that at all) and, as many have said on here, until the manager and players "produce the goods" that's not going to change any time soon (in the absence of external investment).

 

Does that make sense or have I become a rambling lunatic after a couple of weeks of intense OWTB exposure?

You have gone round the houses abit there but I do understand your point.

 

What I'd like to know and perhaps this is something that you are going to mention when you meet with Corney(if not could you squeeze that question in)is: Is this going to change any time soon? Will finishing the stand change this or are we totally reliant on success on the pitch to change it. My understanding was that the creation of the stand plus the sports direct deal were going to change this.

[Guest nonaenever]

You have gone round the houses abit there but I do understand your point.

 

Glossop - at least you confirmed my suspicions - I have become a rambling lunatic

[GlossopLatic]

 

Glossop - at least you confirmed my suspicions - I have become a rambling lunatic

Ha! no you're alright you, hope you can get as much info out of corney as possible and thanks for stepping up and doing this.

[longtimeblue]

This forum's gone to :censored:.

[real]

This forum's gone to :censored:.

Let me know where you are and I'll call the police. I assume someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read this stuff against your will.

[mcfluff1985]

 

Knock it off, debate the topic not the individual

So he can call Corney a liar yet I can't call him one?

[mcfluff1985]

Wouldn't be an issue, as we'd have planned and budgeted for it accordingly.

Things change. You need someone who can keep the club afloat with their own money when things aren't going well. The fans wouldn't be able to do that

[BP1960]

Things change. You need someone who can keep the club afloat with their own money when things aren't going well. The fans wouldn't be able to do that

 

True.

[ghostofcecere]

This forum's gone to :censored:.

Amen to that!

[the_mighty_bosh]

This forum's gone to :censored:.

 

I don't think it's much better or worse than it usually is to be honest.

 

It's bit like people who, without fail, will say that the current season is the worst League One in years when they're all much the muchness.

[real]

So he can call Corney a liar yet I can't call him one?

I can call you Corney's mum.

[Fruitygoo]

I love my club... If i had enough money, I'd love to buy it but anybidy lumping 5k in to own a tiny percentage of a loss making company needs their head reading..

 

All the while you'll be paying to park in a car park owned by someone else and sitting in a stand owned by someone else...

 

This is the key here and is the informatiom which needs to come out. Corney admits hes trying to sell but what is he offering these people? 2.5 million for no assets or x million for lock stock n barrel?

[Latic76]

Agree Fruitygoo, it's more than likely just the name OAFC.......plus whatever revenue streams the x3 chaps have set up to go to the club (which isn't much it seems). The owners don't have what happens on the pitch as the priority. Making money is king, not for the club but for their back pocket. I don't get how any fans can say fair enough if they owned a business etc. This is football!!

The only way we'd be solvent / profitable would be for all revenue streams to go back to the club. Coz then it would just about fund itself. The owners bought the land and have now built houses on some of it. How much land do we have left if sold and any new owners wanted to expand...?

The current regime have set up a complete mess if any new owner who genuinely wants the club to grow and expand due to having to buy everything back......

No one ( in my opinion) is going to buy the land, the club, the stand as is way too expensive for all.

No one is going to invest in the clubs name as no return on investment (if you're not a fan).

All that's going to happen as things currently are is that we'll eventually go bust (years / months down the road - a slow painful death) and the owners will build houses or non-football related activities on the site. It's slow dealth by stealth in plain sight. We all know deep down this is what's happening but not enough of us are willing to accept or to be able to do anything about it (me included).

 

In short (and this is long) the owners couldn't really care less about what happens on the pitch and haven't for years.....gutting really......

[Matt]

So he can call Corney a liar yet I can't call him one?

 

To be fair, Corney has bent the truth on several occasions. He's in a place of great responsibility, the fans have been at BP for decades before him, and the same fans will still be at BP long after he's gone - in what ever state it's in - I think they've got the right to call him out on a few uncertainties.

[nzlatic]

So the offer is basically to take over the running of the football side of the business for £2.5 million? What if it was free? Eg the trust gets given a 75% stake. Would we as fans want it then?

 

If so, rather than this being seen by some as a ridiculous offer, '£2.5m for a loss making business', could this be a starting point for a negotiation?