Jump to content

#ReclaimTheFaith


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
23 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

 

Will it gather dust like many other reviews?

I genuinely believe this has a lot more meat on the bones this time round. It hasn’t been rushed and is putting a lot of pressure on the EFL to the point where they have now admitted it needs an independent regulator.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, adamoafc said:

I genuinely believe this has a lot more meat on the bones this time round. It hasn’t been rushed and is putting a lot of pressure on the EFL to the point where they have now admitted it needs an independent regulator.  

 

True, but how often do we see government ministers change posts after a few months almost like football managers and previous plans ignored or shelved. Pressure needs to be applied on the government regularly so this doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Looking on the bright side of that game this afternoon


Supporters shouldnt need any convincing about ‘emptying the Park’

 

My real concern is, what if those players today were actually giving it their very best 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tGWB said:


Looking on the bright side of that game this afternoon


Supporters shouldnt need any convincing about ‘emptying the Park’

 

My real concern is, what if those players today were actually giving it their very best 

 

If the majority players are weak and faint hearted they arent going to change I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deyres42 said:

Aren't the last two paragraphs a bit contradictory?

Is that all you have to say? What about thank you for your efforts in looking out for fans’ interest etc? 
 

There is nothing contradictory in the paragraphs BTW. Don’t try and be a smart arse. It doesn’t suit you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Andy b said:

Is that all you have to say? What about thank you for your efforts in looking out for fans’ interest etc? 
 

There is nothing contradictory in the paragraphs BTW. Don’t try and be a smart arse. It doesn’t suit you 

The clowns are at it again, but let's not jump to conclusions.

 

Seems pretty contradictory to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, adamoafc said:

We believe it to be of a similar nature but we will clarify 👍

 

Never dull supporting Oldham 😂

 

I can't get my head around how this will even work...

 

ALMO: We bought OACF, with a lease for 3 sides of the ground and the seating of the North stand, but we think we should own the North Stand in full.

Blitz(/defendants?): Was the North Stand shown on the balance sheet as an asset when you did your due diligence?

ALMO: No.

Blitz(/defendants?): So it's not yours. We're done here.

 

Regardless of whether the Corney/Blitz transfer of the asset from OAFC to Blitz was valid, I don't see how it can be ALMOs.

Even the element that the council paid (£700k?) would not be an ALMO asset and might revert to the council. Even if ALMO could establish ownership of that part, it's only about 10% of the cost, and the actual value is now way lower than the construction cost (£7m?) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

Has anyone seen the tweets that Barry Owen has sent out what a loser.

 

I'm not too sure that account is actually Barry - it shares some consistencies with that other loser with about a million accounts 

 

ie: "sheep" and "the PTB" instead of just PTB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

 

I'm not too sure that account is actually Barry - it shares some consistencies with that other loser with about a million accounts 

 

ie: "sheep" and "the PTB" instead of just PTB

 

Mmmm yeah could be I'm not as twitter literate as some. If it is someone posing as Barry then thats absolutely awful to mud sling in his name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Mmmm yeah could be I'm not as twitter literate as some. If it is someone posing as Barry then thats absolutely awful to mud sling in his name.

 

I'm not sure that the words 'twitter' and 'literate' belong in the same sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, real said:

 

I can't get my head around how this will even work...

 

ALMO: We bought OACF, with a lease for 3 sides of the ground and the seating of the North stand, but we think we should own the North Stand in full.

Blitz(/defendants?): Was the North Stand shown on the balance sheet as an asset when you did your due diligence?

ALMO: No.

Blitz(/defendants?): So it's not yours. We're done here.

 

Regardless of whether the Corney/Blitz transfer of the asset from OAFC to Blitz was valid, I don't see how it can be ALMOs.

Even the element that the council paid (£700k?) would not be an ALMO asset and might revert to the council. Even if ALMO could establish ownership of that part, it's only about 10% of the cost, and the actual value is now way lower than the construction cost (£7m?) 

The council paid far more than the 700k. There was 2 separate grants plus the purchase of the Lancaster club and they money element is somewhat irrelevant. The council stipulated that the club couldn't dispose of the stand in any way until at least 2031. You do know AL when he took the club on took on the debts including the debenture to Brassbank? If the asset belongs to the club that's where it will be returned to. The owner is not relevant. However, it might help us as a football club attract a buyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, PeteG said:

The council paid far more than the 700k. There was 2 separate grants plus the purchase of the Lancaster club and they money element is somewhat irrelevant. The council stipulated that the club couldn't dispose of the stand in any way until at least 2031. You do know AL when he took the club on took on the debts including the debenture to Brassbank? If the asset belongs to the club that's where it will be returned to. The owner is not relevant. However, it might help us as a football club attract a buyer.

 

Does ALMO think he (I'm treating them an a single entity) actually purchased the stand?

I'd assume that the debenture was formally included in the sale, the balance sheet was provided and liability for debts arising after the balance sheet date also formed part of the sale?

If the stand wasn't in the sale then it would rest with Corney or the council might (if the relevant clause exists) be able to dispute possession.

 

If I own a piece of land, which has a specific designation (let's call it BP) but then I split part of "BP" off and give it away for free, if I then sell the reduced size "BP" to someone else, with the deeds only including the smaller "BP", why would they think they owned a historic disposal?

If another party had an interest in the bit I split off, they could raise a case, but not the new owner of the revised "BP". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

 

I'm not too sure that account is actually Barry - it shares some consistencies with that other loser with about a million accounts 

 

ie: "sheep" and "the PTB" instead of just PTB

 

. . . and there's more:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...