Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
22 hours ago, wiseowl said:

We know AL has had very poor advice in the past i.e. he apparently thought he was purchasing "everything" from the off; not just a cotton owl badge and a footy team. 

 

 

1. did he tho? or did he say the exact opposite to this in his very first interviews??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Monty Burns said:

1. did he tho? or did he say the exact opposite to this in his very first interviews??

I thought I heard, or read, very early on that he genuinely thought he'd bought everything; lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels, Monty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Monty Burns said:

1. did he tho? or did he say the exact opposite to this in his very first interviews??

 

7 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

I thought I heard, or read, very early on that he genuinely thought he'd bought everything; lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels, Monty.

 

His very first press conference on mainstream news both he, and Mark Moisley confirmed it was the badge only.

 

He had indicated to Simon Brooke previously he was buying the lot who promptly informed him otherwise 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

I thought I heard, or read, very early on that he genuinely thought he'd bought everything; lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels, Monty.

You can imagine that's how Corney sold it to him though, another cunt of a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, underdog said:

Would the club then still owe Blitz the cost of finishing off the main stand?

 

Was it not £3.8 million?

 

It's a right mess isn't it

Yes probably but I suppose the clubs argument is they want use of it regardless of what Blitz put in and why has he come out of it holding all the cards despite the club contributing? I haven't seen anything in there related to the Community Trust, why is this given substantial funding was given on the proviso that they'd have a working space?

 

Completely agree though what a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Monty Burns said:

1. did he tho? or did he say the exact opposite to this in his very first interviews??

Exactly yet some are thick enough to believe the line that Corney duped him. He literally says he hasn't bought the ground or stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wiseowl said:

I thought I heard, or read, very early on that he genuinely thought he'd bought everything; lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels, Monty.

 

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

He did say that.  He's a liar.

 

16 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Do you have a link to this I can't find it anywhere?

 

Does mention it here though

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/oldham-athletic-abdallah-lemsagam-takeover-14208722

 

And here 

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11730/11223449/abdallah-lemsagam-completes-oldham-takeover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the case though? That an illegal transaction took place to remove the stadium from latics? If so (it won't be and it'll come to nothing) I'm not sure Blitz can claim his money back.

 

If I paid for my mates extension and had a claim to own it dismissed in court I'd not get the cash back. It'd be tough shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, yarddog73 said:

Yes probably but I suppose the clubs argument is they want use of it regardless of what Blitz put in and why has he come out of it holding all the cards despite the club contributing? I haven't seen anything in there related to the Community Trust, why is this given substantial funding was given on the proviso that they'd have a working space?

 

Completely agree though what a mess.

Cheers. I built OACT into the OASF strategy. To provide them a home with facilities to continue their great work as well as the Academy.

 

I think FLG had them in the plan as well as the club too.

 

Defo a dysfunctional mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, underdog said:

Would the club then still owe Blitz the cost of finishing off the main stand?

 

Was it not £3.8 million?

 

It's a right mess isn't it


 

No. 
 

The club can only claim 700k worth of the stand. (The grant money) The other money all came from blitz- either through money owed to him from the council or capital he put in. 
 

You can’t claim ownership of something you own circa 8% of. 
 

If by some miracle AL wins (which he won’t) - I’d imagine Blitz would owe the club 700k, giving the grant money back to the club. Which AL would just pocket- and maybe buy the stench a little pie van to celebrate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, League one forever said:


 

No. 
 

The club can only claim 700k worth of the stand. (The grant money) The other money all came from blitz- either through money owed to him from the council or capital he put in. 
 

You can’t claim ownership of something you own circa 8% of. 
 

If by some miracle AL wins (which he won’t) - I’d imagine Blitz would owe the club 700k, giving the grant money back to the club. Which AL would just pocket- and maybe buy the stench a little pie van to celebrate. 

He also owes about £400k in rent so will probably only pick up £300k minus fees for any late payments added to it etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, adamoafc said:

He also owes about £400k in rent so will probably only pick up £300k minus fees for any late payments added to it etc. 

 

And when you take away the legal costs his best case scenario appears to be nearly f-all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Clifford said:

What is the case though? That an illegal transaction took place to remove the stadium from latics? If so (it won't be and it'll come to nothing) I'm not sure Blitz can claim his money back.

 

If I paid for my mates extension and had a claim to own it dismissed in court I'd not get the cash back. It'd be tough shit.

Your analogy doesn’t really work does it?

 

Closer to the Oldham situation would be, you own a home and rent the house to your mate. You build a nice extension to the house for him to use and he turns around and sues you saying he should own the extension because he arranged a grant to pay for a portion of the cost.

 

Imagine you are the judge, what’s your verdict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, League one forever said:


 

No. 
 

The club can only claim 700k worth of the stand. (The grant money) The other money all came from blitz- either through money owed to him from the council or capital he put in. 
 

You can’t claim ownership of something you own circa 8% of. 
 

If by some miracle AL wins (which he won’t) - I’d imagine Blitz would owe the club 700k, giving the grant money back to the club. Which AL would just pocket- and maybe buy the stench a little pie van to celebrate. 

Is this definitely right. Seem to have the feeling at the time that money from transfers and cup runs may have been used to fund the stand too. No evidence whatsoever to back this up though.. 

 

Suppose one way or another this is true, as these funds would have meant less money from T3A needed to fund day to day, so they could afford more for the stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...