TheBigDog Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 3 hours ago, lookersstandandy said: £100m or not..... have a look at the Profit on his "Stats" work..... it's a superb example of how to have a "Plan" and run a Ltd company - on a modest supporter base in the shadow of intergalactic behemoths - operating in Sport. This is what an owner of Oldham Athletic could be aiming for. Still leaves a net investment of £50m though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 2 hours ago, TheBigDog said: Still leaves a net investment of £50m though If the £100m that was quoted is true, yeah. To be a successful football club owner, you need some capital - that's for sure...... £3m isn't gonna get you very far..... especially if it's spent unwisely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, deyres42 said: Still unsure why people were so happy to swallow the we sold the clause line, was it ever shown on the accounts? Realistically there's no difference in us selling it and putting that money into the North Stand / someone's pocket and us getting the money and putting that money into the North Stand / someone's pocket. Knowing how badly the wolves were at the door at the before Tarky was sold by Brentford and how the North Stand isn't completed logic says the clause was sold. The issue is how a club asset was used to fund a stand the club don't own. Edited October 12, 2018 by rudemedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 5 hours ago, TheBigDog said: Still leaves a net investment of £50m though If only we could raise enough to buy Surridge and Iversen. £50 million profit assured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 18 minutes ago, rudemedic said: Realistically there's no difference in us selling it and putting that money into the North Stand / someone's pocket and us getting the money and putting that money into the North Stand / someone's pocket. Knowing how badly the wolves were at the door at the before Tarky was sold by Brentford and how the North Stand isn't completed logic says the clause was sold. The issue is how a club asset was used to fund a stand the club don't own. According to some Corney lied about everything but he didn't lie about that. I think there was an expectation at the time that the money would be put into squad strengthening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 2 hours ago, deyres42 said: According to some Corney lied about everything but he didn't lie about that. I think there was an expectation at the time that the money would be put into squad strengthening. I don't mind that money being used to fund the stand, on the proviso that the stand would now be (part) owned by AL, as he owns the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) On 10/12/2018 at 9:46 PM, rudemedic said: I don't mind that money being used to fund the stand, on the proviso that the stand would now be (part) owned by AL, as he owns the club. He (SC) sold* his share to Blitz to clear debts he owed to Blitz though didn’t he? *used in the loosest sense Edited October 15, 2018 by lookersstandandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 I still don't get this. If Blitz and Gazal own the whole stand, why aren't they maximising it's earnings by renting out the offices and other spaces like the area the trust wanted o use as a fans bar. It must be losing money at the moment, paying Simon Wood and all the other staff for the odd conference. The gym may be just about profitable depending on how many people attend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disjointed Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 27 minutes ago, al_bro said: I still don't get this. If Blitz and Gazal own the whole stand, why aren't they maximising it's earnings by renting out the offices and other spaces like the area the trust wanted o use as a fans bar. It must be losing money at the moment, paying Simon Wood and all the other staff for the odd conference. The gym may be just about profitable depending on how many people attend it. Blitz and Gazal need to lower their rental expectations if they want to fill the place, if I remember rightly when the trust wanted to use it as a fans bar the rental was an exorbitant amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 23 minutes ago, disjointed said: Blitz and Gazal need to lower their rental expectations if they want to fill the place, if I remember rightly when the trust wanted to use it as a fans bar the rental was an exorbitant amount. https://m.primelocation.com/to-rent/commercial/details/47581175?search_identifier=9d36b142ef08d5929e763b8d394c6136 This current rate they are quoting isn’t expensive or unusual. The problem is the size and surroundings...car park and entrance is ugly and nobody is going to want that outside their office window if they can afford an office space that large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 38 minutes ago, kowenicki said: https://m.primelocation.com/to-rent/commercial/details/47581175?search_identifier=9d36b142ef08d5929e763b8d394c6136 This current rate they are quoting isn’t expensive or unusual. Excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Monty Burns said: Excellent. Sorry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) On 10/12/2018 at 11:10 AM, whittles left foot said: This doesn't take into account players leaving when out of contract-something Latics have no control over, do you seriously think we were ever going to hang on to Matt Smith? Usually if they were under contract we got a fee(JCH)-many fans were happy to see him go. With the past financial details of the club having come to light over the past few months can you still not see that if you are skint you get money from where ever you can, folks still banging on about cashing in the sell on clause when we were skint. Bad example to quote Matt Smith. We should've got a fee for him being under 24yr and under contract. But he wasn't under contract because the last deal he had, we gave him a contract up to May 31st rather than the usual June 30th. It was well reported at the time that he turned 24 just days after his contract had expired with us. So basically, we saved ourselves 1 month of wages on him but in turn lost out on a fee for him when he went to Leeds. Thanks Simon. Edited October 16, 2018 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) On 10/12/2018 at 6:56 PM, rudemedic said: Realistically there's no difference in us selling it and putting that money into the North Stand / someone's pocket and us getting the money and putting that money into the North Stand / someone's pocket. Knowing how badly the wolves were at the door at the before Tarky was sold by Brentford and how the North Stand isn't completed logic says the clause was sold. The issue is how a club asset was used to fund a stand the club don't own. Can we all just stop with this bollocks about how badly the wolves were at the door when Tarky was sold by us or Brentford?!?! It's a fucking massive load of bollocks. We had played Liverpool just 3 weeks before selling Tarky! For the 3rd season in a row! Not to mention the Everton game also the season before. It was Corney propaganda that lives on and on and on. Utterly baffling that people are still guffing out this nonsense. And within 12mths, after further sales he had to cash in the clause? Absolute crook. Edited October 16, 2018 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 30 minutes ago, boundaryblue80 said: Can we all just stop with this bollocks about how badly the wolves were at the door when Tarky was sold?!?! It's a fucking massive load of bollocks. We had played Liverpool just 3 weeks before selling Tarky! For the 3rd season in a row! Not to mention the Everton game also the season before. It was Corney propaganda that lives on and on and on. Utterly baffling that people are still guffing out this nonsense. And within 12mths, after further sales he had to cash in the clause? Absolute crook. We did have a stand to pay for though which is now helping us to become the self sufficient club Corney always promised us we'd become...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 2 hours ago, boundaryblue80 said: Can we all just stop with this bollocks about how badly the wolves were at the door when Tarky was sold by us or Brentford?!?! It's a fucking massive load of bollocks. We had played Liverpool just 3 weeks before selling Tarky! For the 3rd season in a row! Not to mention the Everton game also the season before. It was Corney propaganda that lives on and on and on. Utterly baffling that people are still guffing out this nonsense. And within 12mths, after further sales he had to cash in the clause? Absolute crook. I'll do you a timeline: Early Jan 2014- We play Liverpool for the 3rd time in 3 years. Late Jan 2014- We sell Tarky to Brentford. Oct 2015- The new stand opens behind schedule (and is still to be completed). Jan 2016- We sell Philliskirk and Brentford sell Tarky. I was told sometime between October 2015 and Jan 2016 that a company were sending in the bailiffs over £75k worth of debt. I'd think this debt was connected to some of the new stand and/or the new ticket machines that were introduced at the same time. Just because Corney couldn't manage the money and/or overspent, if you remember the stand was more expensive than originally planned, doesn't mean that the wolves weren't at the door. I know it's not nonsense but you keep believing it was if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 13 minutes ago, rudemedic said: I'll do you a timeline: Early Jan 2014- We play Liverpool for the 3rd time in 3 years. Late Jan 2014- We sell Tarky to Brentford. Oct 2015- The new stand opens behind schedule (and is still to be completed). Jan 2016- We sell Philliskirk and Brentford sell Tarky. I was told sometime between October 2015 and Jan 2016 that a company were sending in the bailiffs over £75k worth of debt. I'd think this debt was connected to some of the new stand and/or the new ticket machines that were introduced at the same time. Just because Corney couldn't manage the money and/or overspent, if you remember the stand was more expensive than originally planned, doesn't mean that the wolves weren't at the door. I know it's not nonsense but you keep believing it was if you want. Your timeline is conveniently missing many things...including the £350k for JHC in Sept 2014. And if Corney was siphoning off the money to give Blitz and Gazal to build a Stand that’s nothing to do with OAFC then the point stands. Crooked. We paid an agreed rent to be at Boundary Park. And if you mean ticket machines on the gates of the new stand, you’re being given duff info. They are rented for matchdays. I found out this season when I had issues getting in with my ST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 And I still fail to see the point of having turnstile operators when we have bar coded ST’s, especially if we are as you say renting the machines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 1 hour ago, boundaryblue80 said: Your timeline is conveniently missing many things...including the £350k for JHC in Sept 2014. And if Corney was siphoning off the money to give Blitz and Gazal to build a Stand that’s nothing to do with OAFC then the point stands. Crooked. We paid an agreed rent to be at Boundary Park. And if you mean ticket machines on the gates of the new stand, you’re being given duff info. They are rented for matchdays. I found out this season when I had issues getting in with my ST. I didn't say Corney wasn't crooked. I didn't say that the ticket machines were the sole cause of the debt, although one would presume we pay a deposit in case they get broken, if we rent them. I didn't say we only sold those players in that time. What I did say was that the wolves were at the door, something you refuted. I've given you evidence to say that was still the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, rudemedic said: I didn't say Corney wasn't crooked. I didn't say that the ticket machines were the sole cause of the debt, although one would presume we pay a deposit in case they get broken, if we rent them. I didn't say we only sold those players in that time. What I did say was that the wolves were at the door, something you refuted. I've given you evidence to say that was still the case. Let us complete the circle then. If we agree to disagree about the Wolves at the door, we surely can agree that the situation was completely self-made (either crookedly or through sheer negligence) and thus cashing in a measly £100k for the sell on clause was utterly unacceptable behaviour. Maybe back then he should’ve dodged the taxman, not paid the players and stiffed clubs for loan fees at the time like the last couple of years. That’s what I call wolves at the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 4 hours ago, boundaryblue80 said: Bad example to quote Matt Smith. We should've got a fee for him being under 24yr and under contract. But he wasn't under contract because the last deal he had, we gave him a contract up to May 31st rather than the usual June 30th. It was well reported at the time that he turned 24 just days after his contract had expired with us. So basically, we saved ourselves 1 month of wages on him but in turn lost out on a fee for him when he went to Leeds. Thanks Simon. I think you've got yourself confused here. If Matt Smith's contract expired on May 31st, as opposed to June 30th, he'd have been under 24 when his contract expired. So if we had offered him a new contract we'd have gotten a fee. (His birthday is June 7th, I think). Letting his contract run until 30th June, the standard point, and something I'm confident all contracts effectively run until, as set out in FIFA's regulations, means he is over 24 and it doesn't matter how much we'd have offered him he was free to leave and we got nothing. What probably happened was he was announced as leaving the club at the end of May, something that was virtually a fait accompli when he tore Liverpool a new one in January. We signed a cohort of players, Smith, Furman and Lee who are all born in June, we missed out on money for all of them by a few days. That's the way it crumbles. We could and should have offered them a contracts that either took them beyond 24 or expired when they were only 23. I don't think it was necessarily a coincidence on the players part this happened. After all it was well known that one of the reasons Smith signed for us was the 2 year deal we offered him initially. Prior to that Liverpool game we could have offered him a new contract and I think he'd have taken it. However there were rumblings that he was going to be loaned out, having already been loaned out previously as it was felt he wasn't up to it. So offering him a new contract might have looked very foolish. Lee and Furman didn't have stellar careers with us the whole time they were here either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, boundaryblue80 said: Let us complete the circle then. If we agree to disagree about the Wolves at the door, we surely can agree that the situation was completely self-made (either crookedly or through sheer negligence) and thus cashing in a measly £100k for the sell on clause was utterly unacceptable behaviour. Maybe back then he should’ve dodged the taxman, not paid the players and stiffed clubs for loan fees at the time like the last couple of years. That’s what I call wolves at the door. Well I think we may have struggled to pay the players properly back then, not sure about the taxman or the loan fees. You won't find me saying Corney wasn't crooked, nor will you find me saying funding a stand from the club's purse that the club don't own is perfectly reasonable. You'd certainly find me saying selling the sell-on clause was a stupid thing to do. Even more so now Tarky is likely to be sold by Burnley, has played for England and played in Europe, all things likely to earn Brentford money, which in turn would make us money. The Landlords have left us in a worse position than they found us, given Brassbank's address I did wonder if the 'recent' raids by HMRC were more connected to them than the club. There had been some immoral, even if it was legal, accounting going on for some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 I nearby propose Smith's Law, which states that no OWTBs poster can complain about a player leaving on a free unless they provide documentary evidence of having wanted to give them an extension a year before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobledgersheart Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, leeslover said: I nearby propose Smith's Law, which states that no OWTBs poster can complain about a player leaving on a free unless they provide documentary evidence of having wanted to give them an extension a year before That's pertinent to quite a few supporters on here and elsewhere, Tarky and Matt Smith weren't exactly flavour of the month at times during their tenure. Smith couldn't hit a barn door at a time and I must admit although liking Tarky as a player thought his lack of pace and slow turn would prevent him achieving the level he has. Just goes to show even the best of judges get it wrong sometime ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bobledgersheart said: That's pertinent to quite a few supporters on here and elsewhere, Tarky and Matt Smith weren't exactly flavour of the month at times during their tenure. Smith couldn't hit a barn door at a time and I must admit although liking Tarky as a player thought his lack of pace and slow turn would prevent him achieving the level he has. Just goes to show even the best of judges get it wrong sometime ! I had conversations with a few fans of other teams around those cup games always along the lines of "that Matt Smith looks a good player" I'd inform them that he was in fact "fucking shit" which he was. Nobody could have predicted he'd go on to have the career he's had, the big posh donkey... Edited October 17, 2018 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.