Takeover / New Investment - What Rumours Have You Heard?

[TheBigDog]

24 minutes ago, Bristolatic said:

Whilst there might not be oodles of cash sloshing about at the club, the quality of players brought in leaves much to be desired, with the exception of the loanees (apart from Graham; he's not good enough).

 

Is what we've got all we can afford? If so, say so. Is there money to strengthen in January? Yes or no? If we know, we can, hopefully, live with it. Does Bunn have complete control over team affairs? We can all guess, but team selection suggests not. If the answer is yes, then we know he has some strange ideas; to our eyes anyway.

 

We have brought in journeymen : Coke, O’Grady, Miller

We have injured/injury prone players: Surridge, Lyden, Dummigan, Taylor

We have young untried loanees: Graham, Lyden, Lang, Surridge

We have players who make too many mistakes: Gardner, Branger

We have an ageing captain whose fitness  needs to be managed.

 

And we have a rookie manager.

 

On the plus side, Iversen and Surridge (when fit) have been successes and Hamer and Edmundson have, by and large, played well. Lang could contribute more if he was played in the correct position. Dummigan is a decent player. And I believe that Baxter and Maouche (and yes even Gardner) can be very good for us.

 

Fwiw, I believe that Bunn has complete control over team selection - he is just not getting it right and his players are not getting it right either. In the end confidence and the freedom to play is what will see us climb the table. 

Over to you lads...

 

 

[archiecat]

I would like to know exactly how much money he parted with initially and what did that buy him.

From that starting point i could get a pretty good idea of where we are heading.

[Lee Sinnott]

9 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

The question was how long do you give him? of course there were debts, serious debts

I know there is. You know there is. But Simon Brooke told us all at the Trust AGM that the club was debt free...

[jorvik_latic]

10 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

What debts is he clearing? He tells us there are debts. We have no proof. And if there are, his due diligence in enuring those debts were settled long before he took the keys off Corney was woeful, for which he only has himself to blame.

 

To play a bit of devils advocate, it's not just debts by the looks of things. In AL's latest statement he mentions 'financial commitments' that have come to light since the takeover. It's a bit harder to spot these during due diligence as it will be contractual rather than historical debt. 

 

It still looks to be in a shit state though.

[Lags]

6 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

I know there is. You know there is. But Simon Brooke told us all at the Trust AGM that the club was debt free...

 

Maybe debts is the wrong word, I believe Jorvik addresses this better. I am lead to believe the previous regime left some problems and lets be honest the way the clubs been broken up makes OAFC difficult to manage to say the least.

[lookersstandandy]

17 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Everyone as their own opinnion and its as valid as the next. Can I now ask, what do you know he's actually done, paid out, sorting out or hasn't even looked at?

 

Ok, so from the list of initiatives that make up my ‘Plan’ posts - see above. We know he hasn’t;

 

- Invested in the youth set up. We are currently 2 senior coaches down, from the point at which he inherited the keys from Corney.

- Invested in the pitch and/or equipment to maintain it. The assistant head groundsman who left for Dale, is now the head groundsman.

- Even as much as published the conclusions of a business case into the leasing of the top floor of the Joe Royle Stand, to turn into a fans bar.

- Stability - assuming competence - in managerial appts. He fired Rhodes last week, for what?

- Advertising / working with OACT to promote the club to the wider community.

 

What we have had;

 

- Wages paid late

- Pension provisions not paid for 6 months.

- Numerous negative journo stories

- Numerous disgruntled ex employees, playing & otherwise

 

The man is a buffoon.

 

Now, what do you know / do not know, that makes all of the above mitigatable to you?

[the_mighty_bosh]

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

I'm not really interested in a long term plan as there are too many variables for it to be meaningful. What I do want to see is credible management, not team management but on the administrative side, to give confidence that the club is being properly run. It beggars my belief that wasn't the number one priority of the new owner as soon as he had control. 

 

Absolutely agree.

 

Call it a lack of ambition if you like but promotion this season wasn't the be all and end all for me.  The main thing was that AL was able to show that he could do the basics of running a club in a responsible manner and show that he was able to get things going in the right direction in the near future.  Which is why the not being able to pay the wages at the start of this month was so symbolic.  The shit that's followed since means that I have no faith left in him.

 

Bunn has made mistakes and some odd decisions (O'Grady up front on his own this far into the season is inexcusable) but his record in the first two relatively settled months of the season was W4 D4 L2 compared to the last month's shambles (W1 D1 L3) which shows that he's able to make the team function when on a level playing field.

 

If Bunn's next 5 games produce 4 points then I think the case for sacking him is a fair one (or would've been before the dismissal of Rhodes which has made Bunn's position completely untenable).  At this stage though it's not the solution to the overall problem at the club, which is that AL doesn't seem to have a handle on how to run the club properly.

[lookersstandandy]

12 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

In AL's latest statement he mentions 'financial commitments' that have come to light since the takeover. It's a bit harder to spot these during due diligence as it will be contractual rather than historical debt....

 

6 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Maybe debts is the wrong word, I believe Jorvik addresses this better. I am lead to believe the previous regime left some problems and lets be honest the way the clubs been broken up makes OAFC difficult to manage to say the least.

 

Due diligence would include the scrutiny of all contracts/obligations signed up to/agreed by the previous administration, prior to purchase. The previous admin would not be allowed to agree to/sign up to new contractual obligations without informing the prospective buyer during the period in which due diligence was taking place. If the previous admin hid contracts from the buyer during due diligence, then it would be a legal matter.

 

The buck stops with Lemsagam.

[Lags]

6 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Ok, so from the list of initiatives that make up my ‘Plan’ posts - see above. We know he hasn’t;

 

- Invested in the youth set up. We are currently 2 senior coaches down, from the point at which he inherited the keys from Corney.

- Invested in the pitch and/or equipment to maintain it. The assistant head groundsman who left for Dale, is now the head groundsman.

- Even as much as published the conclusions of a business case into the leasing of the top floor of the Joe Royle Stand, to turn into a fans bar.

- Stability - assuming competence - in managerial appts. He fired Rhodes last week, for what?

- Advertising / working with OACT to promote the club to the wider community.

 

What we have had;

 

- Wages paid late

- Pension provisions not paid for 6 months.

- Numerous negative journo stories

- Numerous disgruntled ex employees, playing & otherwise

 

The man is a buffoon.

 

Now, what do you know / do not know, that makes all of the above mitigatable to you?

 

I've no idea. I am not privy to all the things you've mentioned. I just know that he is still of the belief he can turn it around himself in time rather than seeking other investors. What we do know is that the club is broken into bits and he's left with the bit that costs the most money to run. I'll give him at least 3 years.

[Dave_Og]

43 minutes ago, Lags said:

Serious question to all members, not just those that doubt Abdullah ( which may or may not prove right, given he doesn't have enough ready cash to make it work throwing bucket loads at it. More property rich), How long do you give him to clear the debts enabling to fund the team more?

Don't understand the question. Debt in itself is not a bad thing as long as it can be serviced appropriately and it is there for the right reasons and owed to appropriate parties. 

[Lags]

3 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

 

Due diligence would include the scrutiny of all contracts/obligations signed up to/agreed by the previous administration, prior to purchase. The previous admin would not be allowed to agree to/sign up to new contractual obligations without informing the prospective buyer during the period in which due diligence was taking place. If the previous admin hid contracts from the buyer during due diligence, then it would be a legal matter.

 

The buck stops with Lemsagam.

 

If lets say Corney didn't tell the whole tale and could be held accountable in law. What would be the point in paying out to pursue this if Corney can't pay?

[Lags]

3 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Don't understand the question. Debt in itself is not a bad thing as long as it can be serviced approximately and it is there for the right reasons and owed to appropriate parties. 

 

Then its fair you don't answer if you don't understand the question. Here's a simple one, how long are prepared to give Abdullah before you say he's had long enough?

[lookersstandandy]

1 minute ago, Lags said:

 

I've no idea. I am not privy to all the things you've mentioned. I just know that he is still of the belief he can turn it around himself in time rather than seeking other investors. What we do know is that the club is broken into bits and he's left with the bit that costs the most money to run. I'll give him at least 3 years.

 

I’m not interested in belief. I want the Trust (our representation on the board) to see/influence a Plan. Then, I wanna see the Plan’s initiative’s be achieved. Hygiene factors need to be a given. Then, and only the then, will I give him time.

 

The club’s bits extend to the assets if Brassbank, the OEC Ltd and the OAFC 2004 Ltd. If he hadn’t worked that out, the relative values of each and the income/costs associated with each, until after he bought the latter, he’s only got himself to blame.

[HarryBosch]

48 minutes ago, Lags said:

Serious question to all members, not just those that doubt Abdullah ( which may or may not prove right, given he doesn't have enough ready cash to make it work throwing bucket loads at it. More property rich), How long do you give him to clear the debts enabling to fund the team more?

 

Abdallah 

[Dave_Og]

4 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Then its fair you don't answer if you don't understand the question. Here's a simple one, how long are prepared to give Abdullah before you say he's had long enough?

Until someone credible is battering the door down to take it over as long as he can keep it afloat 

[Lags]

2 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

I’m not interested in belief. I want the Trust (our representation on the board) to see/influence a Plan. Then, I wanna see the Plan’s initiative’s be achieved. Hygiene factors need to be a given. Then, and only the then, will I give him time.

 

The club’s bits extend to the assets if Brassbank, the OEC Ltd and the OAFC 2004 Ltd. If he hadn’t worked that out, the relative values of each and the income/costs associated with each, until after he bought the latter, he’s only got himself to blame.

 

Maybe he did know before he purchased, what is it he should be blaming himself for?

[Lags]

2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

Abdallah 

 

Cheers Harry.

[yarddog73]

You have to have some sympathy for Abdallah but for me the way he's managing the day to day stuff at the club has to be the biggest concern, it appears and I'm also hearing rumours about this that the majority of non playing are sick to the back teeth with many looking for and in some cases leaving for new jobs, day to day the place is a shambles, wages not paid, bills not being paid and just a general lack of professionalism around the place that you'd expect from an established football club.

 

If that's how he operates then that's fine and you could argue that it's his perogative but then he sets such exacting standards on others and will fire staff at the drop of hat that you wonder if he can think logically. 

 

We are getting to a stage when there will be no staff to blame and again we are getting to the point where players will stop playing because we can't even get the basics right like paying their wages when they are due, Rhodes sacking and the timing of it was ludicrous and to me Abdallah has not learned a single thing from last season which is something I was previously prepared to over look.

 

I thought when we went down that we had bottomed out and we'd finally find some stability and slowly build for the future but it appears not, the shenanigans of this chairman are actually quite frightening and if there isn't a change in culture at the club we will become the next Stockport, all we can do as fans is cross everything and hope it all works out for the good, you can give the chairman all the time you want and make excuses for his weird behaviour but for me the alarm bells are well and truly ringing and he's still effectively in the honeymoon period. 

 

He needs to change and sharpish, there are so many examples of interfering chairman who have ruined clubs from the top and this fella and his brother seem hell bent on inflicting the same on us. Sad time for me.

[HarryBosch]

1 minute ago, Lags said:

 

Cheers Harry.

 

No problem Lugs 

[ghostofcecere]

6 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Then its fair you don't answer if you don't understand the question. Here's a simple one, how long are prepared to give Abdullah before you say he's had long enough?

It’s a pointless question. What gives you/us the right to say how long someone has to spend their own money? What are you/we going to do if he doesn’t follow the timeline?

[Lags]

2 minutes ago, ghostofcecere said:

It’s a pointless question. What gives you/us the right to say how long someone has to spend their own money? What are you/we going to do if he doesn’t follow the timeline?

 

We have absolutely no right tell him when his time is up. It's asking you and others how long would you give him before you say (for you) times up. I think most know what I've asked.

[lookersstandandy]

11 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

If lets say Corney didn't tell the whole tale and could be held accountable in law. What would be the point in paying out to pursue this if Corney can't pay?

 

He wouldn’t need to pay out a lot if it was cut & dried. It would then by a public matter - we could see he’d been tucked up - & corney would be punished via other means through the legal system. Such as Director bans et al.

 

3 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Maybe he did know before he purchased, what is it he should be blaming himself for?

 

Only a moron wouldn’t have worked it out.... which - if he didn’t - makes this whole debate about how long I give him - before I make my mind up about him - rather redundant.

[Lags]

1 minute ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

He wouldn’t need to pay out a lot if it was cut & dried. It would then by a public matter - we could see he’d been tucked up - & corney would be punished via other means through the legal system. Such as Director bans et al.

 

 

Only a moron wouldn’t have worked it out.... which - if he didn’t - makes this whole debate about how long I give him - before I make my mind up about him - rather redundant.

 Perhaps the Tax people will do that for him yet. Who knows.

[the_mighty_bosh]

15 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Then its fair you don't answer if you don't understand the question. Here's a simple one, how long are prepared to give Abdullah before you say he's had long enough?

 

The start of this month was the turning point for me.  He said in the summer that there was a lot of unresolved issues from the previous regime which led to the late payment of wages, which is fair enough to a point although it made me question his due diligence, but he also drew a line under it and said that it wouldn't happen again.  For it to happen two months later and then to come out with pretty much the same excuse is a real concern.

 

He might turn it around, he'll get time to do so as I can't see there being another viable option available to take over from him, but I don't have faith that he will.

[singe]

2 hours ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Absolutely. Any sensible businessman - take Benham from Brentford - would have credible answers to this list. I fear our owner hasn’t even thought of half of them;

 

 

 

Admin is a hygiene factor & not something I am going to congratulate anyone for getting right. I believe a Plan, with short, medium & long term goals can be meaningful. The Trust could report to us, how the initiatives that make up the Plan were being achieved over time.

 

 

Not having a pop at you requesting a plan by the way, I agree. We need one. just joshing at you (reasonably) consistently raising it!