lookersstandandy Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Come on Andy.... I'm serious.... what's factually/tonally inaccurate about any of the below? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 One thing that AL has to explain for me, is the fact he has stated he has invested his life savings, he has to restructure the wage bill and yet there are many reports he is paying over the odds for French players. Massively so in some cases. We haven't seen the accounts post 2017, so that will tell us far more. And playing before signing on the dotted line is such a rookie error, especially for someone involved in contracts. So if what he says is true, then the majority of the French lads will leave in June, and most players that were signed prior to him buying the club. Still in contract from June are: George Edmundson. Highly unlikely to be amongst the highest paid. Sonhy Sefil . Self explanatory, a recent AL signing, so must be on a tiny wage if AL is truthful. Tom Hamer. Again highly unlikely to be amongst the highest paid Jamie Stott. Amongt the lowest paid surely. Mo Sylla. Again a recent signing, so if AL is truthful, he would have been signed on low wage. Everyone else will be released or contracts renegotiated. Gardner, Hunt, Nepo, Maouche, and to a slightly lesser extent La Paz are al been over paid. He must have known the extent of the financial problems by the start of this seaons, so Baxter, Hamer, Sheridan, Uche, Branger, Missolou, Coke, Taylor, O Grady cannot have been signed on excessive contracts if he is truthful. And of course, threatening to sue, is very different from commmencing proceedings, so I am very sceptical that will happen. He'd have to jointly publicly state they had reached agreement in court cases, lets ee what happenes to tthe current players, and start publishing more transparent accounts before I even start listening to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: I'm serious.... what's factually/tonally inaccurate about any of the below? Tonally, pretty much all of it. Ok, I’ll give you the inaccurate bit I suppose but only if you spin some of it back. Why rewrite and reword all that though? Bizarre. My kids have to rewrite things using their own/different words at school. They’d get a shit mark omitting so much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Just now, HarryBosch said: They’d get a shit mark omitting so much. I'll leave it to the Trust folk themselves to explain why they surmised it in the way they did..... but I read it back straight after I read the full letter..... and while helpful to see the context of the full letter, I took no issue with the tone or facts in the Trust summary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 26 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: ...while helpful to see the context of the full letter, I took no issue with the tone or facts in the Trust summary. Me neither, I dont' think that the summary of the letter is the most relevant issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 46 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: I'll leave it to the Trust folk themselves to explain why they surmised it in the way they did..... but I read it back straight after I read the full letter..... and while helpful to see the context of the full letter, I took no issue with the tone or facts in the Trust summary. ...and redacted some of the things they did that couldn’t possibly be considered legally sensitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, kowenicki said: ...and redacted some of the things they did that couldn’t possibly be considered legally sensitive. ....which of those would you consider salient? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Well....its never a dull moment is it. Trust published a summary yesterday as we felt the fans we overdue an answer, especially with timescales set at the meeting with fans. We did this so we could seek written permission and clarity from the owner if he wanted the letter in his entirity to be published on the Trust website and be free from any legal action if we did. Bearing in mind it mentions 3 specific points the Chairman maybe acting on and we did not want to jeopadise any impending cases. His original letter did not instruct/give us permission to say that he did want it in the public domain and It is address to 2 specific people at the Trust only and I did not fancy being sued if we did publish without permission. We asked for permission today. I hope you can see why we would want to ask permission and if it did get out in the public domain as is and how it would make Chairman and club seem. Bearing in mind did it actually address any/some/all of the fans expectations from the original letter we sent in. Or did it? Believe it or not, there has been a lot of work gone into where we are up to now since last Friday. The reminder to club on Monday, reviewing what we received on Monday night and how we issue what we did on Tuesday, sending response back to club to say trust/fan meeting asap and its only Wednesday We have requested meetings to be done before the end of the season for both fans and Trust. Ball is back in chairmans court. Its not easier to do when 9 volunteers have day to day lives all has been done out of 9-5hours. There are 3 of us away from tomorrow and to be honest....communication maybe sparse until 1 returns next week. Managing fans expectations is having its toll on us all....sorry to moan but it is. Now off to collect dog from vets, I have not opened up my birthday card yet and it will be holiday mode from 8pm tonight. Sorry and thanks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Wow!! This is tragic. Mike Minay is the Radio Manchester sport correspondent covering Latics amongst others. Kind of puts in perspective the Trust’s approach with this letter doesn’t it. Deary me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latics22 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Who is Darren ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: ....which of those would you consider salient? It’s not a question of that. It’s a question of clarity and honesty. For example, if the trust felt it right and proper to ask a ridiculously petty question (imo) about the bloody gas supply.... why not show the response? Why not not state that AL says he is taking legal action against various parties regarding what he describes as rumours, speculation and lies The tone of a lot of the letter including his offer for a meeting was also degraded. There are quite a few economical omissions and rephrasing of parts Now....... I’m not saying he’s telling the truth, I’m saying what the Trust have done here was unnecessarily opaque and raises suspicions. It’s all getting a bit smelly. They stated the letter was reaching out to AL..... really? Edited April 17, 2019 by kowenicki 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 2 hours ago, simplythemostimportantkick said: Maybe the quotes on PS breaching contract etc could be deemed quite sensitive ? Suing the daily mail too ? In that case he shouldn't have mentioned it knowing it could fall into the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, underdog said: Well....its never a dull moment is it. Trust published a summary yesterday as we felt the fans we overdue an answer, especially with timescales set at the meeting with fans. We did this so we could seek written permission and clarity from the owner if he wanted the letter in his entirity to be published on the Trust website and be free from any legal action if we did. Bearing in mind it mentions 3 specific points the Chairman maybe acting on and we did not want to jeopadise any impending cases. His original letter did not instruct/give us permission to say that he did want it in the public domain and It is address to 2 specific people at the Trust only and I did not fancy being sued if we did publish without permission. We asked for permission today. I hope you can see why we would want to ask permission and if it did get out in the public domain as is and how it would make Chairman and club seem. Bearing in mind did it actually address any/some/all of the fans expectations from the original letter we sent in. Or did it? Believe it or not, there has been a lot of work gone into where we are up to now since last Friday. The reminder to club on Monday, reviewing what we received on Monday night and how we issue what we did on Tuesday, sending response back to club to say trust/fan meeting asap and its only Wednesday We have requested meetings to be done before the end of the season for both fans and Trust. Ball is back in chairmans court. Its not easier to do when 9 volunteers have day to day lives all has been done out of 9-5hours. There are 3 of us away from tomorrow and to be honest....communication maybe sparse until 1 returns next week. Managing fans expectations is having its toll on us all....sorry to moan but it is. Now off to collect dog from vets, I have not opened up my birthday card yet and it will be holiday mode from 8pm tonight. Sorry and thanks This is all a bit... hmmm... your way or the highway isn’t it? “We have holidays” , “we are volunteers you know”. To play devils advocate, he may well be extremely busy or out of the country too. You are demanding a meeting before season end... why? What’s wrong with the week after? What is it that is so time sensitive? I’d be very grateful for a proper answer to this because it seems unnecessarily awkward if you are “reaching out”. Edited April 17, 2019 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Monty Burns said: The ‘someone’ was Marco. Pretty sure we had a debt with a loan company from liverpool didnt we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Just now, Clifford said: Pretty sure we had a debt with a loan company from liverpool didnt we? Yeah, Necarcu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmarra Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Dave_Og said: Sorry but that's just silly (and there's no such thing as an EFL fit and proper test by the by). How can any sort of test conclude on what you are likely to do in the future? One test could be to assess the wealth of a particular individual as is common in business via a Statement of Assets and Liabilities. This could then be supported by documentary evidence. Surely then the EFL know how much it costs per season to run a League One club (as we were then). Divide the Net Asset value by the cost base per season and you get the number of years the individual could support the club financially. 18 months is unacceptable. That is not silly,a pretty basic financial assessment that the EFL should be capable of making. All the bollocks about hidden information is rubbish, any proper due diligence should be capable of verification. AL for goodness sake was working in the club before everything was signed off legally. He basically took a punt and it backfired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 There’s only one thing I believe will happen under AL and it won’t be success! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, Stevie_J said: Yeah, Necarcu. Corney took this out. Necarcu had/has links to past owners of Chester City and Stephen Vaughan. This is one of the creditors that was meant to be satisfied when AL bought the club off Simon. I, at the time, assumed the plan was AL paid Simon and he in turn was to pay off Necarcu. As some have alluded (elsewhere) that charge still exists on the OAFC books, so it would most likely be the case that this is one of the "binding promises that were not carried out" (quoted from AL's letter). It's things like this from AL's letter that adds a hell of a lot of context to how deep rooted the cancer of the previous regime spread. It doesn't give reason over AL's meddling in team affairs etc. but quite frankly, they aren't as important as if the bills are being paid and will be paid for the foreseeable future. Or why AL has had to be fairly ruthless and act in certain ways at times. I've highly suspected AL arrived with a plan of which was strangled at birth when the scale of Corney's deceptions were uncovered. A lot of fans have said in the past "if that's the case, why isn't he suing then". When the Trust finally get the answer to that, the Trust felt fit not to disclose it. Poor that. And sorry, but seeking clarification over the letter should've been sought before sticking out the version that was. If it was being sought, waiting another day or two for approval over airing the letter would not have been an issue. I want the Trust to be a success but it's things like this which harm the cause. It is a tough job to do but being self-aware is crucial. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFC1958 South Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 52 minutes ago, underdog said: Well....its never a dull moment is it. Trust published a summary yesterday as we felt the fans we overdue an answer, especially with timescales set at the meeting with fans. We did this so we could seek written permission and clarity from the owner if he wanted the letter in his entirity to be published on the Trust website and be free from any legal action if we did. Bearing in mind it mentions 3 specific points the Chairman maybe acting on and we did not want to jeopadise any impending cases. His original letter did not instruct/give us permission to say that he did want it in the public domain and It is address to 2 specific people at the Trust only and I did not fancy being sued if we did publish without permission. We asked for permission today. I hope you can see why we would want to ask permission and if it did get out in the public domain as is and how it would make Chairman and club seem. Bearing in mind did it actually address any/some/all of the fans expectations from the original letter we sent in. Or did it? Believe it or not, there has been a lot of work gone into where we are up to now since last Friday. The reminder to club on Monday, reviewing what we received on Monday night and how we issue what we did on Tuesday, sending response back to club to say trust/fan meeting asap and its only Wednesday We have requested meetings to be done before the end of the season for both fans and Trust. Ball is back in chairmans court. Its not easier to do when 9 volunteers have day to day lives all has been done out of 9-5hours. There are 3 of us away from tomorrow and to be honest....communication maybe sparse until 1 returns next week. Managing fans expectations is having its toll on us all....sorry to moan but it is. Now off to collect dog from vets, I have not opened up my birthday card yet and it will be holiday mode from 8pm tonight. Sorry and thanks You / the Trust have done the right thing. You can not share what is considered personal / private data without the Data Owner permission. The addressee was the Trust not the wider public. The fans are just frustrated the summary implies contempt for all of us - and just to make the point missed the deadline … classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 52 minutes ago, BP1960 said: In that case he shouldn't have mentioned it knowing it could fall into the public domain. Simple trap he would have set that BP, they publish, he sues, nice little earner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 When rumours are allowed to spread it is inevitable that they will be altered or embellished and this is why Marco should have responded when he was getting such a bad press. I still believe that OAFC is not in a good place and that the rumours have their foundations in fact. The letter from Marco does little to allay my fears. Indeed it rather makes him out to be a fool lacking any business sense. It makes him (almost) the last person I would want to run OAFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) To clarify our position further to Underdog’s post: 1) We asked questions and set our expectations based on what was discussed at the meet on 23rd. Whether people liked the specific questions/expectations as presented is, to some degree, academic. The bigger picture is that we are attempting to make our presence felt and hold the owner to account (publically) in a way the trust has not done for a long time. That I think is supported by most as a principle 2) the trust does not have a lawyer on the Board so we used our collective judgement in concluding that some info in the letter received could be privileged or that the release of that info could prejudice legal proceedings ongoing. We formed the view that that could come back to harm the Trust (and trust directors) particularly in the absence of any agreement from the sender to put that information into the public domain. This was a laypersons judgement. That’s not a risk to be taken even if ‘experts’ on this board believe that risk to be low or nil. We stand by that decision. The info to which we refer was volunteered by the owner - we didn’t ask for it - and we didn’t consider it was our info to put into the public domain. Anyone who operates in a real world context will understand that I would hope. 3) On 17th April we sought the sender’s permission to distribute the letter. Should we have held off saying anything until he had either given us that permission or declined it? Maybe. We wanted to brief fans ASAP so took the decision to present our summary of the letter and explain our position on the extent to which it addressed our collective concerns. 4) Our summary was written entirely in good faith with no agenda or attempt at bias. My concsious is totally clear. We stand by our position that it is balanced and a fair reflection of the content and sentiments within the letter, aside from the points which we held back. Yes our brief expresses an opinion on the content and that is entirely appropriate. 5) Our judgement on the letter (are we satisfied?) is set out. I am not aware that anyone disagrees that we have come to the right conclusion about whether it addresses fans’ concerns and issues. Correct me if I am wrong. 6) that the letter has been leaked by someone and any inevitability in that happening should not have had any bearing on the trust’s decision to release the letter or not We have extracted a written communication from the owner clearly aimed at responding to fans’ concerns. Focus your energies on judging that response and whether you are happy with it. That is the first such communication of this type in many months. It is step forward in enabling us to understand the owner’s perspective and form a view as to whether he is going to be capable of running the club in a responsible manner. You may wish to prejudge the answer to that question but this is a process and we have to take it in incremental steps. I would urge people to see the bigger picture objective here rather than focusing on finer points of detail that, in the grand scheme of things, do not matter much. Action is needed. The Trust is taking well intended steps to deliver that. We don’t always get it right and we are open to ways to doing things better in the future and learning from past experience. Edited April 17, 2019 by Andy b 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Andy b said: To clarify our position further to Underdog’s post: 1) We asked questions and set our expectations based on what was discussed at the meet on 23rd. Whether people liked the specific questions/expectations as presented is, to some degree, academic. The bigger picture is that we are attempting to make our presence felt and hold the owner to account (publically) in a way the trust has not done for a long time. That I think is supported by most as a principle 2) the trust does not have a lawyer on the Board so we used our collective judgement in concluding that some info in the letter received could be privileged or that the release of that info could prejudice legal proceedings ongoing. We formed the view that that could come back to harm the Trust (and trust directors) particularly in the absence of any agreement from the sender to put that information into the public domain. This was a laypersons judgement. That’s not a risk to be taken even if ‘experts’ on this board believe that risk to be low or nil. We stand by that decision. The info to which we refer was volunteered by the owner - we didn’t ask for it - and we didn’t consider it was our info to put into the public domain. Anyone who operates in a real world context will understand that I would hope. 3) On 17th April we sought the sender’s permission to distribute the letter. Should we have held off saying anything until he had either given us that permission or declined it? Maybe. We wanted to brief fans ASAP so took the decision to present our summary of the letter and explain our position on the extent to which it addressed our collective concerns. 4) Our summary was written entirely in good faith with no agenda or attempt at bias. My concsious is totally clear. We stand by our position that it is balanced and a fair reflection of the content and sentiments within the letter, aside from the points which we held back. Yes our brief expresses an opinion on the content and that is entirely appropriate. 5) Our judgement on the letter (are we satisfied?) is set out. I am not aware that anyone disagrees that we have come to the right conclusion about whether it addresses fans’ concerns and issues. Correct me if I am wrong. 6) that the letter has been leaked by someone and any inevitability in that happening should not have had any bearing on the trust’s decision to release the letter or not We have extracted a written communication from the owner clearly aimed at responding to fans’ concerns. That is the first such communication of this type in many months. It is step forward in enabling us to understand the owner’s perspective and form a view as to whether he is going to be capable of running the club in a responsible manner. You may wish to prejudge the answer to that question but this is a process and we have to take it in incremental steps. I would urge people to see the bigger picture objective here rather than focusing on finer points of detail that, in the grand scheme of things, do not matter much. Action is needed. The Trust is taking well intended steps to deliver that. We don’t always get it right and we are open to ways to doing things better in the future and learning from past experience. I'm probably in the minority but I'd much rather the trust didn't engage, other than via links to its own site, on social media. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latics22 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Andy b said: To clarify our position further to Underdog’s post: 1) We asked questions and set our expectations based on what was discussed at the meet on 23rd. Whether people liked the specific questions/expectations as presented is, to some degree, academic. The bigger picture is that we are attempting to make our presence felt and hold the owner to account (publically) in a way the trust has not done for a long time. That I think is supported by most as a principle 2) the trust does not have a lawyer on the Board so we used our collective judgement in concluding that some info in the letter received could be privileged or that the release of that info could prejudice legal proceedings ongoing. We formed the view that that could come back to harm the Trust (and trust directors) particularly in the absence of any agreement from the sender to put that information into the public domain. This was a laypersons judgement. That’s not a risk to be taken even if ‘experts’ on this board believe that risk to be low or nil. We stand by that decision. The info to which we refer was volunteered by the owner - we didn’t ask for it - and we didn’t consider it was our info to put into the public domain. Anyone who operates in a real world context will understand that I would hope. 3) On 17th April we sought the sender’s permission to distribute the letter. Should we have held off saying anything until he had either given us that permission or declined it? Maybe. We wanted to brief fans ASAP so took the decision to present our summary of the letter and explain our position on the extent to which it addressed our collective concerns. 4) Our summary was written entirely in good faith with no agenda or attempt at bias. My concsious is totally clear. We stand by our position that it is balanced and a fair reflection of the content and sentiments within the letter, aside from the points which we held back. Yes our brief expresses an opinion on the content and that is entirely appropriate. 5) Our judgement on the letter (are we satisfied?) is set out. I am not aware that anyone disagrees that we have come to the right conclusion about whether it addresses fans’ concerns and issues. Correct me if I am wrong. 6) that the letter has been leaked by someone and any inevitability in that happening should not have had any bearing on the trust’s decision to release the letter or not We have extracted a written communication from the owner clearly aimed at responding to fans’ concerns. That is the first such communication of this type in many months. It is step forward in enabling us to understand the owner’s perspective and form a view as to whether he is going to be capable of running the club in a responsible manner. You may wish to prejudge the answer to that question but this is a process and we have to take it in incremental steps. I would urge people to see the bigger picture objective here rather than focusing on finer points of detail that, in the grand scheme of things, do not matter much. Action is needed. The Trust is taking well intended steps to deliver that. We don’t always get it right and we are open to ways to doing things better in the future and learning from past experience. So was the plan to release the full letter once permission was gained? If so why was this not said yesterday ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 Just now, latics22 said: So was the plan to release the full letter once permission was gained? If so why was this not said yesterday ? So sorry. 1 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.