Trust Letter to AL

[League one forever]

1 hour ago, deyres42 said:

He pays the bills mainly through league payments and ticket sales, we can certainly affect the latter.

Not enough will do it, to force his hand. 

[GlossopLatic]

35 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

Smoke the Clown out.....

 

1. Fan-led consortium buys the ground and hikes up the rent

2. Boycott all home games and not buy season tickets 

3. No income from point 2 will expose whether the Clown can fund the club on his own, which at the moment is highly unlikely

4. Players strike if not paid and creditors force club into administration - of which the (new) stadium owners will be a major creditor 

5. Force the Clown to sell at a loss or to hand over to the major creditor

 

We still do not know what the debts were when he acquired the club and what they are now.  Deferring the release of company accounts has set the alarm bell ringing.  Debts may not be great but if this Clown is potless then it could be minimal. 

 

Yes theres no guarantees of someone else coming forward but if the fan-led consortium owns the ground then funding a team after administration regardless of the league is viable.

 

I agree with alot of this however at this point we know very little about the Fan consortium.

[deyres42]

4 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Not enough will do it, to force his hand. 

They have no cause for complaint then.

[lookersstandandy]

13 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

I agree with alot of this however at this point we know very little about the Fan consortium.

 

*if* the fan consortium can pull off the ground purchase, they can’t be any less competent and will not be less interested in the long term viability of the club than Marco.

[kowenicki]

36 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

I agree with alot of this however at this point we know very little about the Fan consortium.

 

Very little. We know nothing. We don’t know who they are, what their intentions are, what their connection to the Trust is. 

[League one forever]

5 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

They have no cause for complaint then.

 

Hence there is nothing we can do. . 

 

Your arguing with yourself again 

[deyres42]

4 minutes ago, League one forever said:

 

Hence there is nothing we can do. . 

 

Your arguing with yourself again 

On the contrary. Fans have the ultimate power.

 

You can choose to keep or not keep paying to attend games.

 

If you are against the owner but keep paying to attend games then you can have no complaints over what he does with your money.

[kowenicki]

4 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

On the contrary. Fans have the ultimate power.

 

You can choose to keep or not keep paying to attend games.

 

If you are against the owner but keep paying to attend games then you can have no complaints over what he does with your money.

 

So you can’t complain if you choose to continue pay for a service of product?  Interesting concept.

[deyres42]

5 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

So you can’t complain if you choose to continue pay for a service of product?  Interesting concept.

Wouldn't really describe paying to attend a football match as a service.

 

Dress it up how you like but if you buy a ticket you are endorsing what this owner is doing, all this I support the team not the regime bollocks is a cop out.

[wiseowl]

7 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

So you can’t complain if you choose to continue pay for a service of product?  Interesting concept.

 

You're quite right Mr K BUT anyone that is willing to pay "a year in advance" (i.e. get a season card) is surely, to some considerable extent, endorsing the "bad product"?

 

The product provider could quite legitimately say, "you're saying what I am providing is shit and yet you have paid me for the next 20 odd pieces of shit which I am going to deliver to you over the next 12 months or so"

[kowenicki]

2 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

 

You're quite right Mr K BUT anyone that is willing to pay "a year in advance" (i.e. get a season card) is surely, to some considerable extent, endorsing the "bad product"?

 

The product provider could quite legitimately say, "you're saying what I am providing is shit and yet you have paid me for the next 20 odd pieces of shit which I am going to deliver to you over the next 12 months or so"

 

...and I can still complain. 

[GlossopLatic]

41 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Very little. We know nothing. We don’t know who they are, what their intentions are, what their connection to the Trust is. 

 

What does give me hope is that the Trust appear to endorse this.

 

I know that doesn't necessarily mean this fan consortium who at the moment only intend to buy the land are any kind of saviours. I don't want to have total blind faith in the Trust either. However the only incentive the Trust have to endorse this fan consortium is that they are buying the land for the future benefit of OAFC.

[kowenicki]

6 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

What does give me hope is that the Trust appear to endorse this.

 

I know that doesn't necessarily mean this fan consortium who at the moment only intend to buy the land are any kind of saviours. I don't want to have total blind faith in the Trust either. However the only incentive the Trust have to endorse this fan consortium is that they are buying the land for the future benefit of OAFC.

 

Nobody buying a business does it solely for the benefit of someone else. There will be axes to grind and interests to satisfy.  Which is fine. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by kowenicki

[GlossopLatic]

8 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Nobody buying a business does it solely for the benefit of someone else. There will be axes to grind and interests to satisfy.  Which is fine. 

 

 

 

Indeed often they do but when it comes to football clubs more often or not it comes down to people either having a passion for that football club or even wanting to be famous. I remember reading a book about Football owners and Ken Bates saying that football stadiums were like colisseums and that football club owners were the Roman emperors. The crowd would be like the mob who more often than not decided if the gladiators (players and managers) lived or died. I don't mind if Lemsagam see himself as somekind of Roman Emperor as long as he runs it like a professional organisation in the 21st century (something he clearly isn't doing)

 

It is possible that the people behind this consortium are fans and want the club to succeed. The owners at Brighton and Huddersfield are fans of the club ok these guys may not have the clout of Dean Hoyle or Tony Bloom but their intentions maybe the same and aslong as they run the club properly I don't mind even if it does mean we only spend like a club in the bottom 2 divisions and live within those means.

 

[kowenicki]

2 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Indeed often they do but when it comes to football clubs more often or not it comes down to people either having a passion for that football club or even wanting to be famous. I remember reading a book about Football owners and Ken Bates saying that football stadiums were like colisseums and that football club owners were the Roman emperors. The crowd would be like the mob who more often than not decided if the gladiators (players and managers) lived or died. I don't mind if Lemsagam see himself as somekind of Roman Emperor as long as he runs it like a professional organisation in the 21st century (something he clearly isn't doing)

 

It is possible that the people behind this consortium are fans and want the club to succeed. The owners at Brighton and Huddersfield are fans of the club ok these guys may not have the clout of Dean Hoyle or Tony Bloom but their intentions maybe the same and aslong as they run the club properly I don't mind even if it does mean we only spend like a club in the bottom 2 divisions and live within those means.

 

 

Often? I can think of a small handful of truly philanthropic owners. Most want at least a return of investment.  Brighton are £230m in debt and as for Hudds.....Hoyle is looking to cash in for £80m... nice little earner that’s been for him. 

[mcfluff1985]

2 hours ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

What does give me hope is that the Trust appear to endorse this.

They endorsed AL...

[GlossopLatic]

2 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

Often? I can think of a small handful of truly philanthropic owners. Most want at least a return of investment.  Brighton are £230m in debt and as for Hudds.....Hoyle is looking to cash in for £80m... nice little earner that’s been for him. 

 

Make a return on their investment! How many do that? only Man United and possibly Arsenal can be seen as a viable investment option. You want to make a return on your money don't invest in a football club. Do you think any of the 72 football league club owners seriously makes any kind of return on their investment and most will have got involved knowing this was not going to happen. Doesn't mean they are all prepared to write a blank cheque or willingly lose money but most of them know full well the chances of a financial return is negligible.

[League one forever]

4 hours ago, deyres42 said:

On the contrary. Fans have the ultimate power.

 

You can choose to keep or not keep paying to attend games.

 

If you are against the owner but keep paying to attend games then you can have no complaints over what he does with your money.

My original point was. 

 

There is nothing we can do. (Because not enough will want to the harm the club, for any tangible affect) 

 

You said fans have the power. 

 

I said, I know. An again I said but enough will boycott for any affect. 

 

You then said but fans have ultimate power. 

 

I then started losing the will to live. 

 

So here goes for the 3rd time. . 

 

I agree fans have power,

 

but 

 

only

 

if

 

enough

 

boycott. 

 

 

 

Or do fans now have magic powers? 

 

 

 

[deyres42]

 

7 minutes ago, League one forever said:

My original point was. 

 

There is nothing we can do. (Because not enough will want to the harm the club, for any tangible affect) 

 

You said fans have the power. 

 

I said, I know. An again I said but enough will boycott for any affect. 

 

You then said but fans have ultimate power. 

 

I then started losing the will to live. 

 

So here goes for the 3rd time. . 

 

I agree fans have power,

 

but 

 

only

 

if

 

enough

 

boycott. 

 

 

 

Or do fans now have magic powers? 

 

 

 

You are looking for disagreement where there is none, I agree that not enough will boycott to make the difference.

 

My point still stands though, if you continue to put money into the club whether you like it or not you are endorsing the actions of the owner.

Edited April 14, 2019 by deyres42

[jorvik_latic]

1 hour ago, mcfluff1985 said:

They endorsed AL...

 

Based on what he said at the time and benefit of the doubt. I think you’ll find it came with caveats. 

[rudemedic]

5 hours ago, League one forever said:

I’m up for all of that.

 

But it very likely means relegation. A lot on here, can’t see the benefit in taking 3 steps back to move forwards. An it will take the drastic steps above to make him think twice. Alas, it will never happen, because there isn’t enough people who want to ‘harm’ the club to get him out. 

Many, me included, felt that we were a reasonable bet to go straight back up. If we go down to the Conference or even further due to administration then we aren't coming up to the level we were at last year for many years. 

 

Administration is something that should be avoided as much as possible. Barring Bradford, who would be a decent bet to go back up a lot of the teams coming down are quite similar to ourselves. The stats suggest that if Wild had been in charge for a bit longer the playoffs would still be very feasible. 4 promotion places and 2 relegation spots is a lot better than 2 promotion places and 4 relegation spots. 

 

Given some of the likely people behind the fans group I doubt it will be that much of a success, but they will be better than Detective Shitpeas being in charge. 

[League one forever]

11 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

 

You are looking for disagreement where there is none, I agree that not enough will boycott to make the difference.

 

My point still stands though, if you continue to put money into the club whether you like it or not you are endorsing the actions of the owner.

So in our case there is ‘nothing we can do.’ 

Of course we could if the appetite was there. But it plainly isn’t. So the slow death continues. 

 

Your second point I haven’t debated, because I totally agree. 

[Stevie_J]

I didn’t expect much from the letter, to be honest. But it confirms what many feared - that AL really doesn’t give a toss.

 

It reinforces what his actions have shown to date - that he will not engage with the Trust and that he doesn’t view the Trust as a real stakeholder in the club.

 

Most owners, even if they had no intention of providing a response of any substance would have issued a holding reply, saying that they are too caught up in the business end of the season, managerial changes, season ticket initiatives, other business interests, etc. or a very bland but polite response, which doesn’t really address any of the issues raised. This would have been a very easy way to shut everyone up for a while - probably until next season. 

 

That Lemsagam did neither is two fingers up to the Trust, if not the fanbase as a whole. 

[JoeP]

2 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

I didn’t expect much from the letter, to be honest. But it confirms what many feared - that AL really doesn’t give a toss.

 

It reinforces what his actions have shown to date - that he will not engage with the Trust and that he doesn’t view the Trust as a real stakeholder in the club.

 

Most owners, even if they had no intention of providing a response of any substance would have issued a holding reply, saying that they were to caught up in the business end of the season, managerial changes, season ticket initiatives, other business interests, etc. or a very bland but polite response, which didn’t really address any of the issues raised. This would have been a very easy way to shut everyone up for a while - probably until next season. 

 

That Lemsagam did neither is two fingers up to the Trust, if not the fanbase as a whole. 

 

At least we know where we are now.  He could have acknowledged the response, told everyone what they wanted to hear, done none of it and then we'd be back to square one in a year or so's time..

[mcfluff1985]

21 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

Based on what he said at the time and benefit of the doubt. I think you’ll find it came with caveats. 

On what are they basing their endorsement of the people trying to buy the ground?