Jump to content

BPAS PODCAST: 17th May '21 Episode 35: Barry Owen


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, tGWB said:


Do you not think it odd though that the owners of the club who had engaged with a local company to build the North Stand, subsequently paid that contractor intermittently to the degree the local company folded owing lots of sub contractors and local suppliers £thousands

 

The club owners would have saved £tens of thousands by not paying the contractor and get a 3/4 finished build supplemented with Council funding but its not owned by the club 🤷‍♂️its owned by the club owners 


Honestly - no I don’t. 
 

This isn’t aimed at you- just a general observation. 
 

What do I find odd is that people are surprised that the highest morals and ethics aren’t followed when money football and business is involved. 

 

Blitz is not stupid, an in nearly every example he is the only one with any real acumen. Hence why he keeps finishing in a relatively good position. 
 

The debenture is a good example of this. 
 

Club- it’s outrageous. 
 

Judge- pay the man. 
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tGWB said:

 

Come on PeteG

 

You know where the bodies are buried don't you

 

Spill the beans on the North Stand build 

 

 

 

 

Well I've seen 3 documents which show 3 transactions from the council to the club 2 of which are grants and 1 is for the acquisition of the Lancaster Club. The sums involved should have covered the build cost imo although I'm no expert so I don't see why there was a need for Brassbank to "loan" the club another 3.8 million to complete the build. It may well be genuine and above board however, I do think there is some questions that need answers. The stand was obviously only valued at the amount of the loan too in order for Brassbank to take full ownership of the stand from the club to clear the debt. How many valuations were submitted and from who? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, League one forever said:

 

What do I find odd is that people are surprised that the highest morals and ethics aren’t followed when money football and business is involved. . 
 


I think you’ve confirmed my point

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Well I've seen 3 documents which show 3 transactions from the council to the club 2 of which are grants and 1 is for the acquisition of the Lancaster Club. The sums involved should have covered the build cost imo although I'm no expert so I don't see why there was a need for Brassbank to "loan" the club another 3.8 million to complete the build. It may well be genuine and above board however, I do think there is some questions that need answers. The stand was obviously only valued at the amount of the loan too in order for Brassbank to take full ownership of the stand from the club to clear the debt. How many valuations were submitted and from who? 


And all the lead characters, with the exception of Simon Corney are still in one of the longest running serial dramas  in English football, ‘the fall of the Club from the chimmneys’ 

Edited by tGWB
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Well I've seen 3 documents which show 3 transactions from the council to the club 2 of which are grants and 1 is for the acquisition of the Lancaster Club. The sums involved should have covered the build cost imo although I'm no expert so I don't see why there was a need for Brassbank to "loan" the club another 3.8 million to complete the build. It may well be genuine and above board however, I do think there is some questions that need answers. The stand was obviously only valued at the amount of the loan too in order for Brassbank to take full ownership of the stand from the club to clear the debt. How many valuations were submitted and from who? 


Why do you keep asking questions that don’t take into consideration the people and situation? 
 

I’m not defending the players involved, but do you honestly think a bloke says to his former business partner-

 

This money I’m lending you/the club to finish the stand, when it’s done shall we get an independent valuation so if it’s worth more than what I’ve given the club, you can keep the profit or just knock it off what you owe me. . don’t worry about how you’ll pay me back I’ll just stick it on my tab. 
 

Come on. 
 

How about- I will loan the club the money but then it gets signed over to me. (Brassbank) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, League one forever said:


Why do you keep asking questions that don’t take into consideration the people and situation? 
 

I’m not defending the players involved, but do you honestly think a bloke says to his former business partner-

 

This money I’m lending you/the club to finish the stand, when it’s done shall we get an independent valuation so if it’s worth more than what I’ve given the club, you can keep the profit or just knock it off what you owe me. . don’t worry about how you’ll pay me back I’ll just stick it on my tab. 
 

Come on. 
 

How about- I will loan the club the money but then it gets signed over to me. (Brassbank) 

I get what you are saying I really do, however, and i'm not saying it happened as you say, but if it did, that makes it illegal and doesn't comply with some of the restrictions set out in the council grants. So you have just proved my point that there needs to be questions asked as to exactly how the transaction took place. I doubt very much it happened as you say as that would have left them wide open.

Edited by PeteG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PeteG said:

I get what you are saying I really do, however, and i'm not saying it happened as you say, but if it did, that makes it illegal and doesn't comply with some of the restrictions set out in the council grants. So you have just proved my point that there needs to be questions asked as to exactly how the transaction took place. I doubt very much it happened as you say as that would have left them wide open.

So- you very much doubt it’s happened, but questions still need to be asked. . . 
 

I understand what you’re trying to say Pete, but you can’t have it both ways. 
 

Blitz is either a very astute businessman, who knows what he’s doing and how to protect his interests. (Which his track record suggests)

 

Or

 

something polar opposite. 
 

All of which is hearsay, conjecture, and allegation. 
 

If it ever went to court, I know who I’m backing to come out Rosy. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

oops. best sign in as me.
 

https://committees.oldham.gov.uk/documents/g142/Printed minutes 14th-Sep-2011 16.00 Council.pdf?T=1

14th Sept 2011

 

3. Question received from David Hampson: How will the council ensure that any money paid by the council to Oldham Athletic Football Club remains with the club and does not go to either, any holding company, investment company or investor such as Mr. Corney, apparently, the present owner of the club.

 

 

Councillor Hibbert responded as Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Regeneration:

 

It is important to clarify that all of the money due to be paid by the Council in connection with the Lancaster Club, Chapel Road and stadium redevelopment transactions would be released to Oldham Athletic (2004) Limited – not to Mr Corney or any other investor connected with the Club.

 

That said, the deal agreed between Oldham Athletic andOldham Council is rather complex insofar as all of the purchase monies paid in respect to the Lancaster Club is not paid immediately upon completion of the acquisition.

In order to protect the public purse and to incentivise Oldham Athletic to carry out the planned stadium development in a timely manner, whilst there is a base price, the purchase monies is released in phases and would be dependant on the Council securing the relevant permissions for development on the site.

I now refer to these ‘top-up’ payments. They are directly linked to the redevelopment of Boundary Park and would be released in accordance with progress on the new North Stand. Consequently, if the new stand is not constructed, the club would not receive any additional payments, other than a base price taking into account the existing value of the Lancaster Club only.

That is not a redevelopment value that could be realised from securing additional planning permissions, the planning status of the land changing under the Local Development Framework etc.

It is therefore important to Oldham Athletic that they should carry out the planned redevelopment of Boundary Park, as originally proposed, in order to maximise the value of the Lancaster Club asset.

 

They key is the debt meaning the asset transferred due to debt and the Council did not and I suggest could not put any further clause in to prevent such an eventuality.

 

Edited by singe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, League one forever said:

So- you very much doubt it’s happened, but questions still need to be asked. . . 
 

I understand what you’re trying to say Pete, but you can’t have it both ways. 
 

Blitz is either a very astute businessman, who knows what he’s doing and how to protect his interests. (Which his track record suggests)

 

Or

 

something polar opposite. 
 

All of which is hearsay, conjecture, and allegation. 
 

If it ever went to court, I know who I’m backing to come out Rosy. 
 

 

I didn't say i very much doubt it's happened, i said I doubt it happened very much as you said because they wouldn't be so foolish. However, the transfer of an asset is the one I'd like questioned not so much the financing of the stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeteG said:

I didn't say i very much doubt it's happened, i said I doubt it happened very much as you said because they wouldn't be so foolish. However, the transfer of an asset is the one I'd like questioned not so much the financing of the stand.

It's a point Barry has mentioned to me, when he requested a meeting with the foundation...same time he approached PTB 

 

How the North stand was "surrendered" and there must be paper trail somewhere.

 

Hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely OMBC were aware that the land was owned by Blitz and leased to the club. That the lease was only relatively short. That the club owned no assets.

 

Despite that, they provided only part funding of the North stand. Surely they knew there was no possibility of influencing who owned the building in the future. The document Singe presented, suggests they just wanted to make sure the stand was progressed and completed, hence OMBCs interest is completed. (Obviously ignoring that some rooms are not being used)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Surely OMBC were aware that the land was owned by Blitz and leased to the club. That the lease was only relatively short. That the club owned no assets.

 

Despite that, they provided only part funding of the North stand. Surely they knew there was no possibility of influencing who owned the building in the future. The document Singe presented, suggests they just wanted to make sure the stand was progressed and completed, hence OMBCs interest is completed. (Obviously ignoring that some rooms are not being used)

Spot on IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except was £5.2 million part funding? I've no idea the build cost for a stand but i'm sure Doncaster built their whole stadium for £20 million. Given it's literally like having 4 North Stands plus the corners i wouldn't have thought the North Stand should have been north of £5 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Except was £5.2 million part funding? I've no idea the build cost for a stand but i'm sure Doncaster built their whole stadium for £20 million. Given it's literally like having 4 North Stands plus the corners i wouldn't have thought the North Stand should have been north of £5 million.

Well, no. 

But this is Blitz who pays £5M for a massive area of land, builds houses on half of it then values half of whats left at £11M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeteG said:

Except was £5.2 million part funding? I've no idea the build cost for a stand but i'm sure Doncaster built their whole stadium for £20 million. Given it's literally like having 4 North Stands plus the corners i wouldn't have thought the North Stand should have been north of £5 million.

 

According to the Blitz Q&A with PTB, the North Stand cost £5.7m.

 

https://pushtheboundary.co.uk/blitz-q-a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaticMark said:

 

According to the Blitz Q&A with PTB, the North Stand cost £5.7m.

 

https://pushtheboundary.co.uk/blitz-q-a

So according to that OMBC gave £700,000 as part of a build cost of £5.7m. The majority being paid by SB.

 

If that is true, surely BO is way off the mark in suggesting the club was the true owner of the North stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, singe said:

oops. best sign in as me.
 

https://committees.oldham.gov.uk/documents/g142/Printed minutes 14th-Sep-2011 16.00 Council.pdf?T=1

14th Sept 2011

 

3. Question received from David Hampson: How will the council ensure that any money paid by the council to Oldham Athletic Football Club remains with the club and does not go to either, any holding company, investment company or investor such as Mr. Corney, apparently, the present owner of the club.

 

 

Councillor Hibbert responded as Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Regeneration:

 

It is important to clarify that all of the money due to be paid by the Council in connection with the Lancaster Club, Chapel Road and stadium redevelopment transactions would be released to Oldham Athletic (2004) Limited – not to Mr Corney or any other investor connected with the Club.

 

That said, the deal agreed between Oldham Athletic andOldham Council is rather complex insofar as all of the purchase monies paid in respect to the Lancaster Club is not paid immediately upon completion of the acquisition.

In order to protect the public purse and to incentivise Oldham Athletic to carry out the planned stadium development in a timely manner, whilst there is a base price, the purchase monies is released in phases and would be dependant on the Council securing the relevant permissions for development on the site.

I now refer to these ‘top-up’ payments. They are directly linked to the redevelopment of Boundary Park and would be released in accordance with progress on the new North Stand. Consequently, if the new stand is not constructed, the club would not receive any additional payments, other than a base price taking into account the existing value of the Lancaster Club only.

That is not a redevelopment value that could be realised from securing additional planning permissions, the planning status of the land changing under the Local Development Framework etc.

It is therefore important to Oldham Athletic that they should carry out the planned redevelopment of Boundary Park, as originally proposed, in order to maximise the value of the Lancaster Club asset.

 

They key is the debt meaning the asset transferred due to debt and the Council did not and I suggest could not put any further clause in to prevent such an eventuality.

 

Except they did. On 19th August 2011 the council awarded the club the FIRST of its monies of a grant to start the construction of the stand. The 27 page document is littered with many conditions and stipulations. At paragraph 7.11 of the grant deed it is made clear that during the relevant period the club could not complete a disposal of the stand unless first seeking the councils permission. That period was 20 years from the first date of the deed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PeteG said:

Except they did. On 19th August 2011 the council awarded the club the FIRST of its monies of a grant to start the construction of the stand. The 27 page document is littered with many conditions and stipulations. At paragraph 7.11 of the grant deed it is made clear that during the relevant period the club could not complete a disposal of the stand unless first seeking the councils permission. That period was 20 years from the first date of the deed.

Now we're gtting somewhere. Is that doc in the public domain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, singe said:

Now we're gtting somewhere. Is that doc in the public domain?

It's available under the freedom of information act. Not sure if it's actually in the public domain but i have a copy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Except they did. On 19th August 2011 the council awarded the club the FIRST of its monies of a grant to start the construction of the stand. The 27 page document is littered with many conditions and stipulations. At paragraph 7.11 of the grant deed it is made clear that during the relevant period the club could not complete a disposal of the stand unless first seeking the councils permission. That period was 20 years from the first date of the deed.

So it looks like that 20 years ends when the lease is due to end in 2031 (as reported by an earlier poster)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pidge said:

So it looks like that 20 years ends when the lease is due to end in 2031 (as reported by an earlier poster)

Indeed, except the club disposed of the stand long before then, the question is did they seek the councils approval to do so. There doesn't seem to be any evidence from the council to suggest they did or at least I can't find any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Indeed, except the club disposed of the stand long before then, the question is did they seek the councils approval to do so. There doesn't seem to be any evidence from the council to suggest they did or at least I can't find any.

Interesting too (as with your other post) is that a technicality like retrospective planning permission do you think or totally legally binding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Matt unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...