BPAS PODCAST: 20th June '22 Bonus Episode: Shahed Alam Interview

[nzlatic]

Another great episode and a good example of how all guests are treated with respect and courtesy no matter what their position is or feelings are toward anyone involved. As was said, it's all about establishing the facts rather than pushing opinions.

 

My take on the blame game after listening to that is that the issues with the club broadly fall into 2 categories:

 

1. The financial mismanagement - during previous ownership then continuing into this one. Although listening to Shahed he at least tried to get things back on track, but the problems will no doubt continue in some form without a properly resourced finance department. 

2. The structural mismanagement - fan relationships, long term plan and immediate running of the football side, other staffing issues

 

If AL ran the club in a way that engaged with the fans and gave the impression they were important at all, then he could have had the fans on side when it came to dealing with the issues caused in point 1. Fans would have had sympathy and would probably have got behind him.

 

Points 1 and 2 are separate issues and can also be resolved separately. Point 2 isn't excused by the issues of point 1. Point 2 is totally separate and is probably the main cause of fan anger and the blame for these issues sits solely with AL. Point 1 is probably the main cause of the club's inability to show any sort of progress and blame can be shared among several parties.

 

On the court case, from what I understood, Shahed seems to think there's a case to answer because the club put money toward building the stand via council payments. And that the condition of those payments (£700k and £1.1m totalling £1.8m) was that the club would retain ownership of the stand unless written permission was given by the council for it to transfer ownership.  Am I right in terms of the explanation of the £1.8 million? That the club wasn't given £1.8 million toward the stand, it was given £700k toward the stand and the rest of the money was a reimbursement of what Blitz/the club had lost in the Lancaster club situation?
 

[LaticMark]

Asked how much the club is worth Shahed said:

 

"Anyone paying £1 is paying £1 too much."

[League one forever]

6 minutes ago, LaticMark said:

Asked how much the club is worth Shahed said:

 

"Anyone paying £1 is paying £1 too much."

 

And to think he turned down 1.5 million.

[BPAS]

25 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

On the court case, from what I understood, Shahed seems to think there's a case to answer because the club put money toward building the stand via council payments. And that the condition of those payments (£700k and £1.1m totalling £1.8m) was that the club would retain ownership of the stand unless written permission was given by the council for it to transfer ownership.  Am I right in terms of the explanation of the £1.8 million? That the club wasn't given £1.8 million toward the stand, it was given £700k toward the stand and the rest of the money was a reimbursement of what Blitz/the club had lost in the Lancaster club situation?
 

 

Hi Owen, (It's Andy, I've just switched accounts) yes, my understanding is as you've described it. The only bit that is still marginally ambiguous to me.... and would require a conversation directly with Simon Blitz (we would like him to come on the pod) & his lawyer, is why the £1.1m (if it was indeed compensation/reimbursement for costs associated with the Lancaster club) was made available directly to the club and not paid directly to Brassbank (which is where the land money was sent). Does this suggest that it was OAFC that paid for the costs - feasibility studies, architects etc - for Failsworth, as opposed to Brassbank? If yes, then everything adds up and the current legal action from the club could realistically only hope to recover a max of £700k, as far as I see it.

Edited June 20, 2022 by BPAS

[League one forever]

25 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

On the court case, from what I understood, Shahed seems to think there's a case to answer because the club put money toward building the stand via council payments. And that the condition of those payments (£700k and £1.1m totalling £1.8m) was that the club would retain ownership of the stand unless written permission was given by the council for it to transfer ownership.  Am I right in terms of the explanation of the £1.8 million? That the club wasn't given £1.8 million toward the stand, it was given £700k toward the stand and the rest of the money was a reimbursement of what Blitz/the club had lost in the Lancaster club situation?

 

Yes, that’s correct. 
 

But here’s the bit I don’t get. 
 

On a previous podcast- it was said that Blitz wasn’t involved at the start of the build.

 

Yet the club was drawing down on that 1.9 from the council to start the north stand. . . 
 

1.2 million of that was Blitz’s money owed to him from failsworth, so how can Blitz not be involved at the start when a large chunk of his reimbursement money went to starting the stand. 

 

The other think that stood out, was him saying the club had a case.

 

How?? 
 

5 million came from Blitz.
 

700k from the grant.
 

If Corney waived the grant money against club debts- then the club haven’t a got a leg to stand on now. 

[maximus1267]

8 minutes ago, League one forever said:

 

And to think he turned down 1.5 million.

The man is a clown, as is his brother and the people who have advised him during his purchase and then for the last 4 or so years.

The previous owners said they would only sell to the right people, AL and Co were just that, only because they were so inept and lacking in basic business credentials that it was an easy sale.

I know 10 year olds with more common sense than some of these people.

 

[TheBigDog]

3 hours ago, yarddog73 said:

Anyone still having it that Abdallahs siphoning money out of the football club and lining his pockets? 

 

2 hours ago, kowenicki said:

Surely nobody thought that?

There are many who still do believe that this is the case. As another poster stated on here, the idea is simply laughable. 

[Lee Sinnott]

19 minutes ago, League one forever said:

 

And to think he turned down 1.5 million.

We probably dodged a bullet. Anyone who would bid 1.5m for this football club is probably just as much of a lunatic as our current owner...

[lookersstandandy]

8 minutes ago, League one forever said:

 

Yes, that’s correct. 
 

But here’s the bit I don’t get. 
 

On a previous podcast- it was said that Blitz wasn’t involved at the start of the build.

 

Yet the club was drawing down on that 1.9 from the council to start the north stand. . . 
 

1.2 million of that was Blitz’s money owed to him from failsworth, so how can Blitz not be involved at the start when a large chunk of his reimbursement money went to starting the stand. 

 

The other think that stood out, was him saying the club had a case.

 

How?? 
 

5 million came from Blitz.
 

700k from the grant.
 

If Corney waived the grant money against club debts- then the club haven’t a got a leg to stand on now. 

See post above from @BPAS Chris…..

[nzlatic]

12 minutes ago, BPAS said:

 

Hi Owen, (It's Andy, I've just switched accounts) yes, my understanding is as you've described it. The only bit that is still marginally ambiguous to me.... and would require a conversation directly with Simon Blitz (we would like him to come on the pod) & his lawyer, is why the £1.1m (if it was indeed compensation/reimbursement for costs associated with the Lancaster club) was made available directly to the club and not paid directly to Brassbank (which is where the land money was sent). Does this suggest that it was OAFC that paid for the costs - feasibility studies, architects etc - for Failsworth, as opposed to Brassbank? If yes, then everything adds up and the current legal action from the club could realistically only hope to recover a max of £700k, as far as I see it.

Thanks Andy. Hard to see anything other than an out of court settlement here and given Blitz must be owed hundreds of thousands in back rent, I don't really see what could be in it for AL.

[lookersstandandy]

1 minute ago, nzlatic said:

Thanks Andy. Hard to see anything other than an out of court settlement here and given Blitz must be owed hundreds of thousands in back rent, I don't really see what could be in it for AL.

Couldn’t agree more…..

[League one forever]

2 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

See post above from @BPAS Chris…..

 

Hi Andy, 

 

Thanks for that mate. 
 

Let’s assume then the club paid for the feasibility/architects etc. Which would also make sense about why Blitz wasn’t involved at the start of the build. 

 

That means the club effectively put in 1.9 million

 

Blitz the rest. 
 

So to my mind the club can claim they’re owed 1.9 million? Unless- Corney wrote that off somewhere along the way. 

 

[League one forever]

6 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

Thanks Andy. Hard to see anything other than an out of court settlement here and given Blitz must be owed hundreds of thousands in back rent, I don't really see what could be in it for AL.

Aye, good point. 
 

 

[lookersstandandy]

1 minute ago, League one forever said:

 

Hi Andy, 

 

Thanks for that mate. 
 

Let’s assume then the club paid for the feasibility/architects etc. Which would also make sense about why Blitz wasn’t involved at the start of the build. 

 

That means the club effectively put in 1.9 million

 

Blitz the rest. 
 

So to my mind the club can claim they’re owed 1.9 million? Unless- Corney wrote that off somewhere along the way. 

 

Well, Corney wrote it all off at some point, which is what the club are claiming he couldn’t do - without permission from the council - but if the the £1.1m was the club’s money (effectively) and the £700k was the council’s (a grant) surely the council only have a right to say how their money should be spent / that it cannot be disposed of without their permission?

[Pidge]

1 hour ago, yarddog73 said:

I agree with this, is there a reason the OEC and those who run it are supported by the protest groups then?, as you say all sides are culpable and for the good of the football club shouldn't the boycotters be interested in starving all those involved with our demise of their monies? I still can't understand how one side is embraced yet the other is jettisoned, no doubt about it Abdallah has contributed to his own downfall but those on the other side come out with little credit and as I predicted much of it comes down to ego.

You could look no further then, one side come over at interview willing to answer questions and declaring themselves as fans wanting to help save the club, and the other won’t answer any questions and hates fans if they ask questions and has helped to destroy the football club we all love! Maybe?

Or are your opinions firmly fixed.

[Chaddyexile84]

 

Is there any date yet for this court case?

[nzlatic]

6 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Well, Corney wrote it all off at some point, which is what the club are claiming he couldn’t do - without permission from the council - but if the the £1.1m was the club’s money (effectively) and the £700k was the council’s (a grant) surely the council only have a right to say how their money should be spent / that it cannot be disposed of without their permission?

Also, did the club only have that money for the initial outlay on the Lancaster Club because Blitz (and/or Gazal) put it in? It's hard to believe that the club could have afforded that level of spend at the time without cash injection from the owners to cover it. Don't see how the club thinks it's entitled to that money.

[Pidge]

10 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Well, Corney wrote it all off at some point, which is what the club are claiming he couldn’t do - without permission from the council - but if the the £1.1m was the club’s money (effectively) and the £700k was the council’s (a grant) surely the council only have a right to say how their money should be spent / that it cannot be disposed of without their permission?

Shahed mentioned that procedures weren’t followed. He accepted Corney had the right to satisfy the Blitz debt by assigning ownership, just that he should have got prior approval from the Council. Surely there will be no legal case to reverse the agreement unless the council support the football clubs action?

[League one forever]

2 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Well, Corney wrote it all off at some point, which is what the club are claiming he couldn’t do - without permission from the council - but if the the £1.1m was the club’s money (effectively) and the £700k was the council’s (a grant) surely the council only have a right to say how their money should be spent / that it cannot be disposed of without their permission?

 

Ah ok- that makes sense now. 
 

I doubt the council had stipulations on the 1.2 because that was money owed- the grant is completely different. And I can see the credence in the clubs argument- how can you write off grant money with stipulations to pay private buisness debts- it almost sounds illegal and here’s the thing- if they have shafted the council, why haven’t they brought their own proceedings??? 

 

Point being- that while the club may a case. I can’t believe Corney and Blitz are that naive or stupid- they must have a loop hole why the grant money was written off. 
 

 

 

[deyres42]

2 minutes ago, League one forever said:

 

Ah ok- that makes sense now. 
 

I doubt the council had stipulations on the 1.2 because that was money owed- the grant is completely different. And I can see the credence in the clubs argument- how can you write off grant money with stipulations to pay private buisness debts- it almost sounds illegal and here’s the thing- if they have shafted the council, why haven’t they brought their own proceedings??? 

 

Point being- that while the club may a case. I can’t believe Corney and Blitz are that naive or stupid- they must have a loop hole why the grant money was written off. 
 

 

 

Going to be plenty of upset people if there isn't.

[GlossopLatic]

Just upto about 26 minutes 2 things I've picked up as someone who works in finance.

 

Firstly the fact that the banks weren't reconciled for years sounds very amateurish on the surface. But as someone who does this on a daily basis their maybe abit more to it were they not reconciled to the penny or they just not matching correctly I.e. you had some unidentified cash or liabilities that have come in the bank and how far out were they. Or was it they literally hadn't been touched because if its the later then that is shocking.

 

Secondly did I hear that right that Shahed thinks that the 882k is a VAT bill because again that doesn't make sense if the club consistently loses money again as someone who does quarterly VAT returns you really only pay HMRC back if you are taking more money in than you are paying out?

[BPAS]

6 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

Just upto about 26 minutes 2 things I've picked up as someone who works in finance.

 

Firstly the fact that the banks weren't reconciled for years sounds very amateurish on the surface. But as someone who does this on a daily basis their maybe abit more to it were they not reconciled to the penny or they just not matching correctly I.e. you had some unidentified cash or liabilities that have come in the bank and how far out were they. Or was it they literally hadn't been touched because if its the later then that is shocking.

 

Secondly did I hear that right that Shahed thinks that the 882k is a VAT bill because again that doesn't make sense if the club consistently loses money again as someone who does quarterly VAT returns you really only pay HMRC back if you are taking more money in than you are paying out?

 

The £882k contingent liability is as a result of the 2017 HMRC raid and relates to VAT on the disposal of the North Stand (from OAFC to Brassbank). Shahed thinks it will get wiped as the disposal should be treated as non-VATable. Thanks Barry (allegedly), for wasting precious time and resource, again!

Edited June 20, 2022 by BPAS

[GlossopLatic]

13 minutes ago, BPAS said:

 

The £882k contingent liability is as a result of the 2017 HMRC raid and relates to VAT on the disposal of the North Stand (from OAFC to Brassbank). Shahed thinks it will get wiped as the disposal should be treated as non-VATable. Thanks Barry (allegedly), for wasting precious time and resource, again!

 

Thank you as its a fixed asset it shouldn't be vatable so really no need to worry about us paying it then. Seems fair then that he should query that.

[GlossopLatic]

Just on to the court case bit. If he wins it which suggests that the stand cannot be passed onto another party without legal consent so we then could own the North Stand but then Sinon Blitz is then owed that £3.5million which if called in straight away and bear in mind he probably would and we can't pay it we go under. So Abdallah loses either way. Is that correct?

Edited June 20, 2022 by GlossopLatic

[yarddog73]

Nice to hear Corney handed everything over ship shape as promised - £40k just to have the finances audited.