Jump to content

Notes from Fans' Meeting with Chairman et al 24/1/2017


Guest nonaenever

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At the moment there are 3 companies (I think):

 

1) A football club. That is losing money.

2) A 3 sided football ground, that receives no rent (and is not planning on collecting back rent). Cannot imagine this makes any money.

3) A new stand, that is unfinished, and has a mortgage of £300k pa, and gives any net income from match days to another company. I'd guess that this loses money too.

 

 

None of them make attractive investment propositions at the moment IMO.

 

The "value" that is present is limited in any of these businesses is limited.

 

The new stand company looks like it could make some money if finished and if they can market the facilities positively. Part of the attraction of this kind of facility is that it is part of an active football club so not sure how successful a stand company without a team would be?

 

A ground that is mostly old and needing ongoing maintenance, and potentially significant investment, with a tennent that is likely to never be able to afford a decent rent unless the club is successful. Land could be valuable, but only if the new stand was knocked down as well.

 

And finally a football team. They almost never make money.

 

 

 

So whilst there are corporat structures and owners in place, not sure what the impact is in the end. The only way I can see money being made from these is:

 

(1) The club closes and the land can be sold for enough to cover the wasted cost of the new stand and make a profit

(2) Someone invests heavily in the football club, meaning that they can afford to make the other two businesses viable - but even then I doubt they will make huge money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Corney started this by accusing people of drawing conclusions from half knowledge and half truths......he now provided half the information. With full information I would be better able to decide where he and Blitz sit on the continuum of altruist to exploiter. Is that not what he wanted?

 

Of course not!

So they come out and say we've made 10 million from different land sales, x amount went there, y went there and z went here.

 

What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they come out and say we've made 10 million from different land sales, x amount went there, y went there and z went here.

 

What then?

Would that not leave them both still significantly out of pocket?

 

Losses of more than that before you include ground purchase, stand costs etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they come out and say we've made 10 million from different land sales, x amount went there, y went there and z went here.

What then?

We are better informed than we are now, and we can make an accurate assessment. I really can't see what you fear from the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea but it seems as though that is the level of detail is what the doubters want to hear.

There is a massive difference between " doubters" and "don't knows". Mr Corney pledged to answer questions to enlighten . He has not , he has given propaganda answers. I e in this case detailing the outgoing but omitting the incomings....half a story. He castigates uninformed comment......well there is an easy answer to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a massive difference between " doubters" and "don't knows". Mr Corney pledged to answer questions to enlighten . He has not , he has given propaganda answers. I e in this case detailing the outgoing but omitting the incomings....half a story. He castigates uninformed comment......well there is an easy answer to that

The trouble is you are writing as if the meeting was the be all and end all.

It was patently obvious that it was and should be only beginning.

One meeting was never going uncover everything, never mind a desired magic bullet.

Surely it is in all our interests for the meetings to be continued, productive and a success?

Some on here seem to fear that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is you are writing as if the meeting was the be all and end all.

It was patently obvious that it was and should be only beginning.

One meeting was never going uncover everything, never mind a desired magic bullet.

Surely it is in all our interests for the meetings to be continued, productive and a success?

Some on here seem to fear that.

Ahhh the invisible or the imagined 'some.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fair comment, at this level I meant that. Obviously the rich have got richer (and some.) The poor have got poorer. Gregan and Liddell were on around £3,500 to £4k a week when they were with us and that was well after the Moore era.

 

Killen was on about £6,000 or £7,000 a week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard it was nearer to ten that Killen was on with add ons. Going back quite a few years I used to drink with Innes and Allot and they were both on the best part of two grand a week then. In recent years Rooney was supposedly on the best part of four grand so we do occasionally slash out a bit on wages even for our level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Killen was on about £6,000 or £7,000 a week

According to Corney he was on over £12k a week including any signing on/appearance fees, goal and win bonuses and flights to NZ for his sister. He cost £883,848 and was signed for £250k. He was here for 4 years.

 

http://www.oldham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=8674

 

Interesting that he was arrested at that time but the club covered it up. Wonder if it was a similar offence to his most recent arrest.

Edited by jorvik_latic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it Brass Bank own the land but Brass Bank Ltd built the White Elephant. The notes read as if the rent for the White Elephant ie the building, not yet paid, is now £100k pa. So do we also pay rent for the other three stands and the surrounding land?

 

The losses made by OAFC to 2010 do not necessarily equate to funds provided to the football club by Brass Bank but if we take the figures as represented Brass Bank has spent £21.9m and has agreed to receiving only a further, I say further because the other land deals and rental income eg NHS car parking will have produced receipts, £4m. Does not seem unreasonable from their point of view but a new owner gets nothing for this.

 

Financial Fair Play allows an owner to subsidise the costs of the football team but only if the funds injected are not treated as debt. If SC is putting £1.3m a year in then I bow to him but I'm sorry to say I find this rather difficult... Would like to examine all the accounts over the period.

 

I'm grateful for the work done so far but the picture is of OAFC as a bottomless pit with little detail of outgoings or returns to TTA. I suppose I will only believe if I volunteer to attend the next meeting so here goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Corney he was on over £12k a week including any signing on/appearance fees, goal and win bonuses and flights to NZ for his sister. He cost £883,848 and was signed for £250k. He was here for 4 years.

 

http://www.oldham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=8674

 

 

The article says £13,000 per game.

 

Can we safely divide any Corney "woe is me figure" by at least 2 based on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The article says £13,000 per game.

 

Can we safely divide any Corney "woe is me figure" by at least 2 based on this?

:censored:, I got my calculations wrong. It's 12k a month if you don't include the transfer fee. 2,800 per week.

 

4,000 a week if the 833k doesn't include the transfer fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it Brass Bank own the land but Brass Bank Ltd built the White Elephant. The notes read as if the rent for the White Elephant ie the building, not yet paid, is now £100k pa. So do we also pay rent for the other three stands and the surrounding land?

 

The losses made by OAFC to 2010 do not necessarily equate to funds provided to the football club by Brass Bank but if we take the figures as represented Brass Bank has spent £21.9m and has agreed to receiving only a further, I say further because the other land deals and rental income eg NHS car parking will have produced receipts, £4m. Does not seem unreasonable from their point of view but a new owner gets nothing for this.

 

Financial Fair Play allows an owner to subsidise the costs of the football team but only if the funds injected are not treated as debt. If SC is putting £1.3m a year in then I bow to him but I'm sorry to say I find this rather difficult... Would like to examine all the accounts over the period.

 

I'm grateful for the work done so far but the picture is of OAFC as a bottomless pit with little detail of outgoings or returns to TTA. I suppose I will only believe if I volunteer to attend the next meeting so here goes.

I think that you have got hold of the wrong end of a lot of sticks there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...