Jump to content

Takeover / New Investment - What Rumours Have You Heard?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Smiler13 said:

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?

 

"A capital grant be paid to Oldham Athletic up to a maximum of £700,000"

 

From Oldham Council's Cabinet Minutes. Click here (see their page 12).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Clifford said:

 

I'd heard the total contributed is far more........

Yes. it  was £5.7m. £5m for the repayment of money paid for Failsworth ie they then owned Failsworth (and subsequently built houses on and made money), and £700k in lieu of being sued.

Well reported at the time.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/builders-sought-garden-suburb-lancaster-7025675

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Worcester Owl said:

To be fair, look at the title of this thread. Given that, I'd say the discussions on who owns which bits of the ground are reasonable.

 But it just goes round and round in never ending circles. Nobody on this forum knows the answers, it’s just discussed endlessly and becomes a willy waving contest about who knows most about reading a set of accounts and corporate laws. It’s just pointless.

 

But hey ho, if you guys want to tie yourselves in knots over and over again I’ll just steer clear of this thread from now on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ghostofcecere said:

 But it just goes round and round in never ending circles. Nobody on this forum knows the answers, it’s just discussed endlessly and becomes a willy waving contest about who knows most about reading a set of accounts and corporate laws. It’s just pointless.

 

But hey ho, if you guys want to tie yourselves in knots over and over again I’ll just steer clear of this thread from now on

 

Just quoting this so you see the notification and have to come back into the thread  :)

 

im bored...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ghostofcecere said:

 But it just goes round and round in never ending circles. Nobody on this forum knows the answers, it’s just discussed endlessly and becomes a willy waving contest about who knows most about reading a set of accounts and corporate laws. It’s just pointless.

 

But hey ho, if you guys want to tie yourselves in knots over and over again I’ll just steer clear of this thread from now on

Fair point, and I can see that it probably bores a long standing poster like you senseless! But it's maybe of interest to more recent members of the forum - for a while, anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ghostofcecere said:

 But it just goes round and round in never ending circles. Nobody on this forum knows the answers, it’s just discussed endlessly and becomes a willy waving contest about who knows most about reading a set of accounts and corporate laws. It’s just pointless.

 

But hey ho, if you guys want to tie yourselves in knots over and over again I’ll just steer clear of this thread from now on

Could do this for weeks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, leeslover said:

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

Just based on the Accounts. I do know a little about the financing but that is not really relevant to this part of the discussion.

I simply interpret the facts rather than concocting fairy tales but that doesnt seem to go down well with some posters with vivid imaginations.

Another poster has come up with an explanation that might be correct but I would prefer to await the later Accounts (which are now 3 months late.)

Initially my reaction was that Simon Corney wouldnt have done that surely-but then again one never knows.

BTW that poster doesnt have a defunct part of the ground in his username , quite obviously! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChaddySmoker said:

Just based on the Accounts. I do know a little about the financing but that is not really relevant to this part of the discussion.

I simply interpret the facts rather than concocting fairy tales but that doesnt seem to go down well with some posters with vivid imaginations.

Another poster has come up with an explanation that might be correct but I would prefer to await the later Accounts (which are now 3 months late.)

Initially my reaction was that Simon Corney wouldnt have done that surely-but then again one never knows.

BTW that poster doesnt have a defunct part of the ground in his username , quite obviously! 

 

Not Clayton Arms Colin then, hmmmmm 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, latics22 said:

Did I dream a tweet saying “things had to change after religation” from Gardner ? Can’t find it now? What did it say?

I think you did dream it. Which is worrying. Dan Gardner hasn't tweeted or replied since Aug 4.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laticsrblue said:

Kinnell... Who owns the N stand?

I don't understand why it's such a big secret.

Can someone explain?

Simon Blitz and Danny Gazal.

The council own 0%. They gave a ‘grant’ of £700K because they owed it us due to Failsworth not being legally able to go ahead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, laticsrblue said:

Kinnell... Who owns the N stand?

I don't understand why it's such a big secret.

Can someone explain?

 

41 minutes ago, Monty Burns said:

Simon Blitz and Danny Gazal.

The council own 0%. They gave a ‘grant’ of £700K because they owed it us due to Failsworth not being legally able to go ahead.

 

 

ChaddyS will disagree with that -  but I was actually asking , Why it's being kept a secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...