Further info on winding up petition process

[kirinclassic]

LOOK at the VIDEO! LOOK at the FACTS! CORNEY wearing RED!

MOAAFC!

[Guest davidshaw]

15 minutes ago, kirinclassic said:

LOOK at the VIDEO! LOOK at the FACTS! CORNEY wearing RED!

MOAAFC!

 

Sounds like you've had a few of those Kirin Classic rice beers!

 

Nice drink for sure.

[boundaryblue80]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

 

There you go again. Can't help yourself can you. Immature. Like arguing with a kid. 

 

Yes, yes, yes. We get it. It's ok for others to call people "shitstirrers", negative and call everything we say a load of bollocks that we shouldn't worry about. Be derived and belittled for being very worried at the state the club is in. Now you've pulled out your violin (Simon likes to do that too) when anybody responds in kind...how very dare us. It was actually a decent discussion until the usual turn up & start the chipping at posters ("axe to grind" etc)

 

This is all because you/they haven't liked hearing the fact bailiffs turned up last week. Ta love.

Edited April 11, 2017 by boundaryblue80

[deyres42]

Of course anyone who doesn't automatically see the negative in everything is never told that they have been brainwashed or anything like that...

[yarddog73]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

 

Try not to blame others for your failure in life, look inwardly. That way you can move on, grow as a person.  Ta love. 

 

 

Can you stick that on a postcard and send it to Mr S Corney it's advice he could well learn from. Ta love.

Edited April 11, 2017 by yarddog73

[underdog]

3 hours ago, davidshaw said:

My mistake then - think someone else mentioned grass cutting equipment or something - whatever equipment it was - could it have been on lease etc. etc. and simply recovered as is normal at the end of said lease rather than repossessed? - that's all I was asking.

Hands up it was me....seen a recent photo of it being taken away outside the ground. Didn't look broken or old though, so, could be the club are getting new gear. 

 

I'll confess to throwing that one in without confirming facts....

 

however  i can confirm that the trust are now aware of our bailiff visit and we will try to establish the reasons too.

Edited April 11, 2017 by underdog

[underdog]

Okay folks...I'm posting this as both fan and trust director, with hand on heart...okay is it on the left or right?

 

In all seriousness this is a very important thread to keep debating on please.

 

The trust met last night and high on he he agenda was the clubs recent financial pattern. It was agreed that this is a serious concern and we must be vigilant on what we do know, what we can say and our plan short term and long term.

 

what I will say is there is amongst the directors is someone who has been on the trust board since it's inception, who recognise the clubs peaks, troughs and is of the mind that this is the most perilous they have known in the trust's history.

 

What we also have to be mindful is the scathing report on a Scottish clubs trust who's owner let the club go into liquidation/debt ( I think it was hearts) and they were heavily critised on not being strong enough to challenge the owner/chairman in business decisions to let it get to that stage

 

what I would hope is that you can at least take on board information and at least consider it before dismissing it

 

cheers everyone

[Guest davidshaw]

52 minutes ago, underdog said:

Hands up it was me....seen a recent photo of it being taken away outside the ground. Didn't look broken or old though, so, could be the club are getting new gear. 

 

I'll confess to throwing that one in without confirming facts....

 

however  i can confirm that the trust are now aware of our bailiff visit and we will try to establish the reasons too.

Thanks for clarifying underdog - jeez some on here don't half get hot under the collar about things - we are all Latics' fans let's not forget!

 

I was just initially curious as to whether the stated "repossession" was actually just standard collection of "end of lease" equipment - which is perfectly normal - or was it a genuine repossession for failing to maintain finance payments. If anyone knows - great - if they don't - then we don't really know what the situation was with the kit. Leases for that sort of equipment are usually 3 or 5 years - and then the stuff would be upgraded.

 

We're all different, I accept that - personally couldn't give a fig that an (alleged) bailiff has attended BP - simply because there's nothing I can do about it.

 

I do care about things like the matchday experience, attracting the kids to BP, value for money for fans etc. - things the fans can do something to positively influence instead of lurking around in negative territory. Just my opinion and quite happy to be slated for it - cheers  

 

[Guest davidshaw]

underdog - on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being terrible) how would you rate current relations between the club and the trust please? 

[mcfluff1985]

Club said they expected a retraction not that there was going to be one. Different things. Like someone doing something wrong and you saying I expect an apology off them. You're not saying I'm getting an apology so can we stop saying "the club said there would be a retraction but there hasn't been one so they're liars"

[underdog]

11 minutes ago, davidshaw said:

Thanks for clarifying underdog - jeez some on here don't half get hot under the collar about things - we are all Latics' fans let's not forget!

 

I was just initially curious as to whether the stated "repossession" was actually just standard collection of "end of lease" equipment - which is perfectly normal - or was it a genuine repossession for failing to maintain finance payments. If anyone knows - great - if they don't - then we don't really know what the situation was with the kit. Leases for that sort of equipment are usually 3 or 5 years - and then the stuff would be upgraded.

 

We're all different, I accept that - personally couldn't give a fig that an (alleged) bailiff has attended BP - simply because there's nothing I can do about it.

 

I do care about things like the matchday experience, attracting the kids to BP, value for money for fans etc. - things the fans can do something to positively influence instead of lurking around in negative territory. Just my opinion and quite happy to be slated for it - cheers  

 

It's not a forum I hope that does this....we all want our club to survive, corney admits it's a loss making business, yet no-one knows how we are bank rolled.

 

some fans would want to know details, some want the match day experience only, some may only want to get involved when we are at the bucket rattling stage.

 

the trust mantra is to ensure the survival of the club the best we can, the past-looking at/after former players our heritage, the present- playershare if the manager needs help to fund a player then we can help, the future-latics4life, a season ticket iniative to get youngsters involved. We had lots of plans to promote the las three but being in the relegation zone has put the hex on it...hehe

 

 

[ChaddySmoker]

On 08/04/2017 at 1:30 PM, GlossopLatic said:

 

Not if you read what I said. The point I made was that paying Rochdale late wasn't in isolation a big issue. I work for a £4Billion a year business which is always struggling to pay its suppliers on time it mainly due to process but it happens in every business go find me one that hasn't got bad debt.

 

Rather than challenge me on the issue which other posters did you decided to brand me "an absolute scrote" So for the only time in 10 years of using OWTB I used the report function not because you disagreed because it wasn't constructive to the debate and by making a personal dig you lost the argument (quite frankly an apology would have been enough rather than a ban). As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it I don't know you and have not got the time to start a personal spat with a stranger on the Internet.  So shall we just move on?

What a load of cobblers. The whole point was that the ticket money from Spotland wasnt ever our money-It was Dale's. It was like holding your mates cash.

You can pontificate all you like about trading issues but this wasnt buying stocks or incurring expenses. It was holding somebody elses monies. Stop whitewashing.

 

 

[underdog]

55 minutes ago, davidshaw said:

underdog - on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being terrible) how would you rate current relations between the club and the trust please? 

It's hard for me to judge as I am not in that circle that has that day to day contact

 

so this is my personal view...

 

Start of the season I'd say it was a firm 6, mutual respect trying to work together to build on things 

 

Pre-Xmas / post  based on feedback from your trust rep who sits on the board of OAFC, the chairperson who has been on the trust board since inception and has a good working knowledge of club/corney....5 Mark being middle/ neutral

 

Since feb, I'd  say def con 3....the relationship is still there although tepid, we are not at throwing the baby and bath water out but we are past walking on egg shells too.

 

Like the weather....it can swing either way...brrrr bit chilly today.

 

 

 

 

[boundaryblue80]

So in other words, he's grown tired of being answerable to the Trust on certain things the Trust feel are reasonable to ask. 

 

Does Simon Brooke get asked to leave all board meetings before they end or is it just some? 

[jorvik_latic]

13 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Club said they expected a retraction not that there was going to be one. Different things. Like someone doing something wrong and you saying I expect an apology off them. You're not saying I'm getting an apology so can we stop saying "the club said there would be a retraction but there hasn't been one so they're liars"

They took legal advice at the time, I doubt CMS advised them incorrectly?

Edited April 12, 2017 by jorvik_latic

[Guest davidshaw]

15 hours ago, underdog said:

It's hard for me to judge as I am not in that circle that has that day to day contact

 

so this is my personal view...

 

Start of the season I'd say it was a firm 6, mutual respect trying to work together to build on things 

 

Pre-Xmas / post  based on feedback from your trust rep who sits on the board of OAFC, the chairperson who has been on the trust board since inception and has a good working knowledge of club/corney....5 Mark being middle/ neutral

 

Since feb, I'd  say def con 3....the relationship is still there although tepid, we are not at throwing the baby and bath water out but we are past walking on egg shells too.

 

Like the weather....it can swing either way...brrrr bit chilly today.

Thanks you for the candid reply, underdog - not an ideal situation then and a way to "repair bridges" has to be found. It is not helpful having the Trust and club so "far apart" (and no blame attached to anyone - these things happen) - hopefully a "clear the air" meeting can put differences to one side so everyone can have a common goal to improve Latics all round.

[underdog]

12 hours ago, boundaryblue80 said:

So in other words, he's grown tired of being answerable to the Trust on certain things the Trust feel are reasonable to ask. 

 

Does Simon Brooke get asked to leave all board meetings before they end or is it just some? 

 

I don't know about being tired off....but in my mind he probably be a bit pissed off with owning 97% of the club and being asked to justify business decisions I suppose.

 

Shoe on the other foot now, the owners at the time took the fans money at the time and gave us a seat on the board. That person in the seat is entitled to and possible legally responsible too, to have a good understanding of how the club works especially the "business" side, the monies so to speak. Missing part of a board meeting pre-xmas and not being consulted over or even advised of a £340K Feb loan, is concern.

 

With him being asked to leave board meetings? I don't think he has mentioned it, only  the only hiccup over the miscommunication over the start time and he had missed part of the meeting 

 

Hope this helps

[archiecat]

Whilst everyone clamours for scoreboard donations to be refunded,the trust may as well enquire about cashing in it's 3%.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by archiecat

[astottie]

Article on BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39566143

four clubs at risk of going down the pan according to a study by a financial services expert. I wonder if we're one of them.

[boundaryblue80]

21 minutes ago, underdog said:

 

I don't know about being tired off....but in my mind he probably be a bit pissed off with owning 97% of the club and being asked to justify business decisions I suppose.

 

Shoe on the other foot now, the owners at the time took the fans money at the time and gave us a seat on the board. That person in the seat is entitled to and possible legally responsible too, to have a good understanding of how the club works especially the "business" side, the monies so to speak. Missing part of a board meeting pre-xmas and not being consulted over or even advised of a £340K Feb loan, is concern.

 

With him being asked to leave board meetings? I don't think he has mentioned it, only  the only hiccup over the miscommunication over the start time and he had missed part of the meeting 

 

Hope this helps

 

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it confirms a few things and opens a couple of other questions. Like whether the original £241k loan from Dec 2015 was ever paid off in full & if the new £340k is on top of that or if it pays off an outstanding amount and gives extra capital to spend etc. Basically, just how big the circle of debt is. Let's hope we sort a cup run out next season so we can "reset" the balance sheet.

[kowenicki]

43 minutes ago, underdog said:

 

I don't know about being tired off....but in my mind he probably be a bit pissed off with owning 97% of the club and being asked to justify business decisions I suppose.

 

Shoe on the other foot now, the owners at the time took the fans money at the time and gave us a seat on the board. That person in the seat is entitled to and possible legally responsible too, to have a good understanding of how the club works especially the "business" side, the monies so to speak. Missing part of a board meeting pre-xmas and not being consulted over or even advised of a £340K Feb loan, is concern.

 

With him being asked to leave board meetings? I don't think he has mentioned it, only  the only hiccup over the miscommunication over the start time and he had missed part of the meeting 

 

Hope this helps

 

Depends what the shareholder agreement says.  Most shareholder agreements would grant minority shareholders minimal rights to information and zero rights to force actions, logically and sensibly.  Minority shareholders may not have a seat on the board or they may have been granted one.   If there is no shareholder agreement then you fall back on Companies Act which will allow access to minutes of shareholder meetings etc.

 

Minority shareholders (and 3% is a tiny minority) usually have limited rights to information and certainly wont usually know all about or prevent major actions. Its unrealistic to expect otherwise.

Edited April 12, 2017 by kowenicki

[kowenicki]

11 minutes ago, astottie said:

Article on BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39566143

four clubs at risk of going down the pan according to a study by a financial services expert. I wonder if we're one of them.

 

Read that. It is making a bit of a leap for a sensational headline.  It is actually based purely on CCJ registrations and WUP's.  Based on that criteria then of course we are one of them as we have a live WUP as far as we know.

 

So that's Bury, Bolton, Oldham and I don't know who else.  Doesn't necessarily mean they are at risk of 'going down the pan'. It just means they have some current issues.  I'd suggest the club at biggest risk is Bolton.  Indeed I have no idea why they are allowed trade.  They are losing £800k per month and their auditor would not sign them off as a going concern in their last accounts. They have cheated their way to promotion imo.  If they hadn't/don't go up they will go into admin I reckon.

Edited April 12, 2017 by kowenicki

[boundaryblue80]

5 minutes ago, astottie said:

Article on BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39566143

four clubs at risk of going down the pan according to a study by a financial services expert. I wonder if we're one of them.

 

This can't be true...Simon has told us that most clubs are suffering and run the way we do (not paying people, not paying people on time, receiving winding up orders etc).

[leeslover]

16 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Depends what the shareholder agreement says.  Most shareholder agreements would grant minority shareholders minimal rights to information and zero rights to force actions, logically and sensibly.  Minority shareholders may not have a seat on the board or they may have been granted one.   If there is no shareholder agreement then you fall back on Companies Act which will allow access to minutes of shareholder meetings etc.

 

Minority shareholders (and 3% is a tiny minority) usually have limited rights to information and certainly wont usually know all about or prevent major actions. Its unrealistic to expect otherwise.

The size of the Trust shareholding isn't really an issue. The Trust is legally entitled to a seat on the Board with all the rights and privileges that entails. Simon Brooke could be compromised in his day job if he were found not to have discharged his OAFC role correctly and it certainly isn't the case that any Director can be cut out of important decisions or information 

[kowenicki]

Just now, boundaryblue80 said:

 

This can't be true...Simon has told us that most clubs are suffering and run the way we do (not paying people, not paying people on time, receiving winding up orders etc).

 

didn't read the article did you....

 

This is based purely on CCJ and WUP's, CVA's etc.   A club can still be struggling financially and living hand to mouth without any of thosehappening.