Takeover / New Investment - What Rumours Have You Heard?

[BP1960]

Neither a borrower nor a lender be. I can see why after this debacle.

 

[lookersstandandy]

18 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

So they had a £4m write down on a stand that cost £2.8m and has been up 25 years. OK.

 

 

It was a £2.8m write down of fixed assets.

[UsedtobeWozzer]

1 minute ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

It was a £2.8m write down of fixed assets.

No it was a £3.9m write down. I’ve just looked at the last accounts, which perhaps I should have done before. Depreciation in the year was only £28k which sounds about right. Fixed assets started around £4m, there were significant additions (which has to be the North Stand) and then an impairment of £3.9m. I think it’s safe to assume that the impairment relates to the North Stand and the depreciation relates to other fixed assets. The accounts further state that they include a leasehold property (again the North stand) at a value of £2.8m. The impairment will almost certainly relate to the cost of the Stand less it’s carrying value of £2.8m. It equally certainly won’t refer to the remaining 3 stands which given the leasehold property represents around 86% of total fixed asset value. The idea that the impairment relates to the other stands is preposterous given their maximum value in the accounts is £467k assuming the company has no fixed assets other than its stands. 

[LaticMark]

10 hours ago, ChaddySmoker said:

Did we (OAFC Ltd) ever own it (The North Stand) then?

 

 

Yes, according to the original planning application. PA/333100/12.

 

7 hours ago, Smiler13 said:

£800,000 of that stand belongs to the tax payers of Oldham. Didn’t the council give Corney that amount to go towards paying for it or was I dreaming???

 

Oldham Council agreed to: "Pay a capital grant of £700,000 as a contribution to the redevelopment of Boundary Park based on the community work which the club carry out in the Borough."

[Monty Burns]

4 hours ago, LaticMark said:

 

Yes, according to the original planning application. PA/333100/12.

 

 

Oldham Council agreed to: "Pay a capital grant of £700,000 as a contribution to the redevelopment of Boundary Park based on the community work which the club carry out in the Borough."

The council paid a ‘grant’ which was the exact same amount as the club had paid, at that point, in legal fees towards the Failsworth site.

[maddog]

1 hour ago, Monty Burns said:

The council paid a ‘grant’ which was the exact same amount as the club had paid, at that point, in legal fees towards the Failsworth site.

 

So the grant was to reimburse the club, hence the club should own ‘at least’ 800k of the north stand (I say at least, because I can’t believe the club’s money was not used in any other way for the stand)?

[stevesidg]

No value is mentioned here, but a ‘one off’ grant from Oldham Council to Latics is , from 2011

 

https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-gives-lifeline-to-Oldham-Athletic-Football-Club/21850 

[ghostofcecere]

11 minutes ago, maddog said:

 

So the grant was to reimburse the club, hence the club should own ‘at least’ 800k of the north stand (I say at least, because I can’t believe the club’s money was not used in any other way for the stand)?

I will happily stand corrected (if you pardon the pun), but I think it started off as a project by the club and Corney, but when he and the club ran out of money as costs spiralled, he turned to Blitz and Gazal to fund finishing it and the OEC formed.

 

My guess is the £800K got spent during that initial phase

[maddog]

33 minutes ago, ghostofcecere said:

I will happily stand corrected (if you pardon the pun), but I think it started off as a project by the club and Corney, but when he and the club ran out of money as costs spiralled, he turned to Blitz and Gazal to fund finishing it and the OEC formed.

 

My guess is the £800K got spent during that initial phase

 

I’m not saying the club paid for it all. But if we paid for any of it, including the grant from OMBC, which was gifted to the club, we should own some of it!

[latics22]

This thread is painful 

[kowenicki]

8 minutes ago, latics22 said:

This thread is painful 

 

Has been for 12 months. 

[lookersstandandy]

9 hours ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

No it was a £3.9m write down. I’ve just looked at the last accounts, which perhaps I should have done before. Depreciation in the year was only £28k which sounds about right. Fixed assets started around £4m, there were significant additions (which has to be the North Stand) and then an impairment of £3.9m. I think it’s safe to assume that the impairment relates to the North Stand and the depreciation relates to other fixed assets. The accounts further state that they include a leasehold property (again the North stand) at a value of £2.8m. The impairment will almost certainly relate to the cost of the Stand less it’s carrying value of £2.8m. It equally certainly won’t refer to the remaining 3 stands which given the leasehold property represents around 86% of total fixed asset value. The idea that the impairment relates to the other stands is preposterous given their maximum value in the accounts is £467k assuming the company has no fixed assets other than its stands. 

 

Ok. My understanding is that the North Stand was never an asset of OAFC2004Ltd and that the write down related to fixed assets, that could only be the other 3 stands.

 

Corney owned OAFC2004Ltd.

Blitz/Gazal owned the assets of Brassbank. The land.

All 3 of them began by owning the North Stand and the OEC Ltd, before Corney resigned presumably because he asked Blitz & Gazal for money to pay the Tax Man/Wages/Gas & Lecky Bills (delete as appropriate) & they forced him out in exchange for said advance.

 

But if that’s not the case, then I’ll stand corrected. The North Stand is most certainly not an asset of OAFC2004Ltd today. So it will be interesting to understand when/how that changed in accounts yet to be filed.

[singe]

26 minutes ago, latics22 said:

This thread is painful 

In parts ys, but this analysis of who owes what , why and whether correct needs to be done.

[latics22]

Just now, singe said:

In parts ys, but this analysis of who owes what , why and whether correct needs to be done.

Is that ever going to happen on here? Until we actual see cold hard facts everyone debates over them same shit every few months with no confirmed outcome.

[GlossopLatic]

20 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Ok. My understanding is that the North Stand was never an asset of OAFC2004Ltd and that the write down related to fixed assets, that could only be the other 3 stands.

 

Corney owned OAFC2004Ltd.

Blitz/Gazal owned the assets of Brassbank. The land.

All 3 of them began by owning the North Stand and the OEC Ltd, before Corney resigned presumably because he asked Blitz & Gazal for money to pay the Tax Man/Wages/Gas & Lecky Bills (delete as appropriate) & they forced him out in exchange for said advance.

 

But if that’s not the case, then I’ll stand corrected. The North Stand is most certainly not an asset of OAFC2004Ltd today. So it will be interesting to understand when/how that changed in accounts yet to be filed.

 

The value of the fixed assets is most likely to be the value of the lease we have on the stadium which will decrease over time in 2011 Corney signed a 20 year lease for the stadium.

[UsedtobeWozzer]

23 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Ok. My understanding is that the North Stand was never an asset of OAFC2004Ltd and that the write down related to fixed assets, that could only be the other 3 stands.

 

Corney owned OAFC2004Ltd.

Blitz/Gazal owned the assets of Brassbank. The land.

All 3 of them began by owning the North Stand and the OEC Ltd, before Corney resigned presumably because he asked Blitz & Gazal for money to pay the Tax Man/Wages/Gas & Lecky Bills (delete as appropriate) & they forced him out in exchange for said advance.

 

But if that’s not the case, then I’ll stand corrected. The North Stand is most certainly not an asset of OAFC2004Ltd today. So it will be interesting to understand when/how that changed in accounts yet to be filed.

I agree, having delved, that the next set of accounts will be interesting. It is also interesting that it is described as a leasehold property in the accounts. The lease/ rent debate forms another part of this thread, but for a lease to remain on the balance sheet it must be a finance lease not an operating lease which means, in theory, the club has the substantial benefits of ownership. It’s probably a good job they don’t have Auditors to argue that point with!

 

Apologies for prolonging the pain.

[Midsblue]

I’m confused so is this current position on who owns what;

 

AL - OAFC2004 (just the club name, registration, players)

Blitz - Stadium (except North Stand), surrounding land

Blitz/council - North Stand

 

Did I dream it but was there suggestions AL was planning on buying the North Stand?  Admittedly this is the money maker but if it’s landlocked by Blitz then how does access work or does Blitz via Brassbank own the whole stadium including North Stand.  Therefore AL would have to part with £x million to buy the lot (£9m?) but Council would have to be paid back something?!

[jorvik_latic]

3 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

I’m confused so is this current position on who owns what;

 

AL - OAFC2004 (just the club name, registration, players)

Blitz - Stadium (except North Stand), surrounding land

Blitz/council - North Stand

 

Did I dream it but was there suggestions AL was planning on buying the North Stand?  Admittedly this is the money maker but if it’s landlocked by Blitz then how does access work or does Blitz via Brassbank own the whole stadium including North Stand.  Therefore AL would have to part with £x million to buy the lot (£9m?) but Council would have to be paid back something?!

 

AL owns the 3 stands and car park, just like I own my house which is a leasehold. He pays a rent to Brassbank.

 

The North Stand at the moment isn't a money maker, probably actually losing money. If it was managed well, fully let and wasn't owned by Brassbank it might turn that around.

 

AL doesn't plan to buy the North Stand yet.

[deyres42]

Council nowt to do with it, if they were it wouldn't be in the state it is now.

[Midsblue]

3 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

AL owns the 3 stands and car park, just like I own my house which is a leasehold. He pays a rent to Brassbank.

 

The North Stand at the moment isn't a money maker, probably actually losing money. If it was managed well, fully let and wasn't owned by Brassbank it might turn that around.

 

AL doesn't plan to buy the North Stand yet.

 

So AL doesn’t actually own the 3 stands and car park but has entered into a lease and simply a tenant.  Brassbank own it.  If AL was to own it then he’d have to purchase from Brassbank.  

 

Our only security is a covenant that the land is to be used for football purposes (I seem to recall).  If we’re now a tenant then we’re not indebted to Blitz with this £6 million loan that is only due when we reach the Prem?  That was when Blitz owned the club, land etc and loaned the money theoretically.  However by splitting club and stadium, he now has that £6 million locked into the stadium/land until someone agrees to buy off him?  If AL chooses not to then we can continue renting the stadium (subject to agreeing rent amount) until covenant expires and ALs liabilities are the rent, running costs of the club and wages.

[lookersstandandy]

18 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

 

So AL doesn’t actually own the 3 stands and car park but has entered into a lease and simply a tenant.  Brassbank own it.  If AL was to own it then he’d have to purchase from Brassbank.  

 

 

No. AL owns the Bricks & Mortar (and therefore the upkeep) of the 3 stands..... it's just that they are built on land owned by Blitz & Gazal. So he pays them a ground rent and will have lease to do so, for X years.

 

As Jorvik says, it's like owning a house that is Leasehold, as opposed to Freehold. A very common practice in the South, less so in the North. Typically a private household lease will be for 99 years+ at the outset and a property owner is encouraged to renew [pay the land owner] to increase the length of the lease once it falls below say 60 years, as this affects it's resale value. The alternative is the property owner purchases the Freehold from the landowner. It is possible (in the instance of private house owner) to force a land owner to sell the freehold to the property owner and the value can be set by an ombudsman.

 

I am unsure of the rules for commercial property. Equally I can't recall the length of the Lease OAFC2004Ltd has on the land, but I think it was 30 years? My assumption has always been that Blitz & Gazal siphoned off the land as an insurance policy, from which to yield a return from a combination of ground rent, lease extension, sale (to a new owner), or for redevelopment.

[Smiler13]

1 hour ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Ok. My understanding is that the North Stand was never an asset of OAFC2004Ltd and that the write down related to fixed assets, that could only be the other 3 stands.

 

Corney owned OAFC2004Ltd.

Blitz/Gazal owned the assets of Brassbank. The land.

All 3 of them began by owning the North Stand and the OEC Ltd, before Corney resigned presumably because he asked Blitz & Gazal for money to pay the Tax Man/Wages/Gas & Lecky Bills (delete as appropriate) & they forced him out in exchange for said advance.

 

But if that’s not the case, then I’ll stand corrected. The North Stand is most certainly not an asset of OAFC2004Ltd today. So it will be interesting to understand when/how that changed in accounts yet to be filed.

The question is was the grant given to Brass Bank or Oldham Athletic. I wonder when the grant was given if there where any attached clauses attached for miss use of funds or if it could be called in for fraudulent use of funds if Brass Bank have grabbed it?

[ChaddySmoker]

29 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

No. AL owns the Bricks & Mortar (and therefore the upkeep) of the 3 stands..... it's just that they are built on land owned by Blitz & Gazal. So he pays them a ground rent and will have lease to do so, for X years.

 

As Jorvik says, it's like owning a house that is Leasehold, as opposed to Freehold. A very common practice in the South, less so in the North. Typically a private household lease will be for 99 years+ at the outset and a property owner is encouraged to renew [pay the land owner] to increase the length of the lease once it falls below say 60 years, as this affects it's resale value. The alternative is the property owner purchases the Freehold from the landowner. It is possible (in the instance of private house owner) to force a land owner to sell the freehold to the property owner and the value can be set by an ombudsman.

 

I am unsure of the rules for commercial property. Equally I can't recall the length of the Lease OAFC2004Ltd has on the land, but I think it was 30 years? My assumption has always been that Blitz & Gazal siphoned off the land as an insurance policy, from which to yield a return from a combination of ground rent, lease extension, sale (to a new owner), or for redevelopment.

Empty vessels make the most noise.

[lookersstandandy]

1 hour ago, ChaddySmoker said:

Empty vessels make the most noise.

 

 

[leeslover]

Mr Smoker, is your belief that the club own the North Stand based only on your reading of the accounts or anything else? 

 

I don't know, before anyone starts arguing with me