100milesaway Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 12 minutes ago, LaticsPete said: If you were coming from home ( Darlington way isn’t it?) then a 9.30 start seems early….. I did state that I call at my daughters for A few hours before moving on to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whittles left foot Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 54 minutes ago, 100milesaway said: I did state that I call at my daughters for A few hours before moving on to the game. Having lived in Moorside for a few years I would have thought a call to your daughters to see if you could actually get there and back out would have been wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 56 minutes ago, 100milesaway said: I did state that I call at my daughters for A few hours before moving on to the game. And that, that is a waste of your day. Enjoy your family for a bit longer and stop pissing and moaning like you’re the only person that matters We are shite to watch anyway. You kissed nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100milesaway Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 43 minutes ago, simplythemostimportantkick said: And that, that is a waste of your day. Enjoy your family for a bit longer and stop pissing and moaning like you’re the only person that matters We are shite to watch anyway. You kissed nothing. Had you just got home from the pub when you wrote that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardie Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 Pitch.. Quote is planned to be replaced at the end of this season at a significant cost. ..according to OASF..https://www.oasf.co.uk/post/oasf-oafc-meeting-18-01-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightDN123 Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 58 minutes ago, Wardie said: Pitch.. ..according to OASF..https://www.oasf.co.uk/post/oasf-oafc-meeting-18-01-23 Can anyone qualified provide a general explanation on this lease situation ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 10 hours ago, LightDN123 said: Can anyone qualified provide a general explanation on this lease situation ? That puzzled me too…I’ve emailed OASF for clarification and I’ll put the reply on here when I get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 11 hours ago, LightDN123 said: Can anyone qualified provide a general explanation on this lease situation ? I'm going to have a guess. I'll stress that, a guess... At the moment there are eight years remaining on the lease from the current owners of the ground, ten is the minimum otherwise promotion to EFL is denied. Not something we need to be concerned about in the short term. When the ground sale is finalised I don't think it is unrealistic to think that a company called Boundary Park Stadium Ltd, or similar, will own the asset rather than OAFC (2004)Ltd. I can think of many reasons why that could be perfectly sensible but I'm not going to speculate. If, big if as it's still a guess, that's the case then the stadium owning company would need to lease it to the club. That could, for example, be at a peppercorn rent for the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 56 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: I'm going to have a guess. I'll stress that, a guess... At the moment there are eight years remaining on the lease from the current owners of the ground, ten is the minimum otherwise promotion to EFL is denied. Not something we need to be concerned about in the short term. When the ground sale is finalised I don't think it is unrealistic to think that a company called Boundary Park Stadium Ltd, or similar, will own the asset rather than OAFC (2004)Ltd. I can think of many reasons why that could be perfectly sensible but I'm not going to speculate. If, big if as it's still a guess, that's the case then the stadium owning company would need to lease it to the club. That could, for example, be at a peppercorn rent for the long term. I think this guess is probably quite an accurate account of what will happen, so in effect the club owning the ground and surrounding land is a load of bollocks as is the assumption that FR has pumped in £13M into the club. If and when the Rothwells want to sell the club there is no guarantee they will sell the assets, just like Blitz didn't. This is also ignoring the fact there is a covenant in place that prohibits the sale of the North Stand from the football club to any 3rd party or other company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 3 minutes ago, PeteG said: I think this guess is probably quite an accurate account of what will happen, so in effect the club owning the ground and surrounding land is a load of bollocks as is the assumption that FR has pumped in £13M into the club. If and when the Rothwells want to sell the club there is no guarantee they will sell the assets, just like Blitz didn't. This is also ignoring the fact there is a covenant in place that prohibits the sale of the North Stand from the football club to any 3rd party or other company. The objective has been to bring the club and stadium UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. That isn't necessarily the same as owned by THE SAME COMPANY. The main practical, rather than legal, objective is to remove the obvious conflict of interest which exists when whoever owns the ground has no vested interest in the football club. If I am right about the long term lease at a peppercorn rent is correct then a differing legal ownership becomes irrelevant, subject to clear arrangements re maintenance etc. Stressing still guessing. I like that as a slogan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 33 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: The objective has been to bring the club and stadium UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. That isn't necessarily the same as owned by THE SAME COMPANY. The main practical, rather than legal, objective is to remove the obvious conflict of interest which exists when whoever owns the ground has no vested interest in the football club. If I am right about the long term lease at a peppercorn rent is correct then a differing legal ownership becomes irrelevant, subject to clear arrangements re maintenance etc. Stressing still guessing. I like that as a slogan... I agree entirely with what you are saying but the club and the stadium were under the same ownership when Blitz and Gazal were involved. Suddenly, they lost interest in the football club but did not relinquish their ownership of the assets which created a massive problem. It could happen again but I'd like to think FR would sell the assets along with the club when the time comes to that. Any thoughts on the covenant from the council regarding the NS and if this is a possible reason for delay in the purchase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightDN123 Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Dave_Og said: I'm going to have a guess. I'll stress that, a guess... At the moment there are eight years remaining on the lease from the current owners of the ground, ten is the minimum otherwise promotion to EFL is denied. Not something we need to be concerned about in the short term. When the ground sale is finalised I don't think it is unrealistic to think that a company called Boundary Park Stadium Ltd, or similar, will own the asset rather than OAFC (2004)Ltd. I can think of many reasons why that could be perfectly sensible but I'm not going to speculate. If, big if as it's still a guess, that's the case then the stadium owning company would need to lease it to the club. That could, for example, be at a peppercorn rent for the long term. Makes sense, thought this was the case. Just confusing how they mention the sale of the ground and then being this up. It will be a non-issue once the sale goes through. It’s also very normal and sensible for the ground to be held in a separate company. If the club was every to enter an insolvency process it keeps the ground secure. Pete chatting shit as per usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 1 hour ago, PeteG said: I agree entirely with what you are saying but the club and the stadium were under the same ownership when Blitz and Gazal were involved. Suddenly, they lost interest in the football club but did not relinquish their ownership of the assets which created a massive problem. It could happen again but I'd like to think FR would sell the assets along with the club when the time comes to that. Any thoughts on the covenant from the council regarding the NS and if this is a possible reason for delay in the purchase? That's for the future. No doubt TTA's motives were property development driven but there will always be things to think about on a change of ownership. I can't hazard a guess on that or the covenant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseowl Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 5 hours ago, PeteG said: I agree entirely with what you are saying but the club and the stadium were under the same ownership when Blitz and Gazal were involved. Suddenly, they lost interest in the football club but did not relinquish their ownership of the assets which created a massive problem. It could happen again but I'd like to think FR would sell the assets along with the club when the time comes to that. Any thoughts on the covenant from the council regarding the NS and if this is a possible reason for delay in the purchase? Not so much that they did not relinquish their ownership of the assets but more that the purchaser did not (apparently) check properly what he was buying i.e. if I was buying the club etc. from the Rothwell's in 5 years time, my due diligence might include a question like, "Right, for my £20M, can I just confirm that I am purchasing the club/badge/squad etc. from company "A" plus the stadium/land etc. from company "B" - both companies of which you are the beneficial owner/s?" "Erm.... no sorry, it's just company "A" that's being offered." "Goodbye." It is, I would contest, prudent to have the club and stadium etc. held in 2 different limited companies (with the same beneficial owners) - purely for the fact, that in any future time of distress regarding the club, insolvency would only mean the assets of the club were at risk and nobody could get their grubby hands on the stadium/land, to sell it and pay off creditors of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightDN123 Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 9 minutes ago, wiseowl said: Not so much that they did not relinquish their ownership of the assets but more that the purchaser did not (apparently) check properly what he was buying i.e. if I was buying the club etc. from the Rothwell's in 5 years time, my due diligence might include a question like, "Right, for my £20M, can I just confirm that I am purchasing the club/badge/squad etc. from company "A" plus the stadium/land etc. from company "B" - both companies of which you are the beneficial owner/s?" "Erm.... no sorry, it's just company "A" that's being offered." "Goodbye." It is, I would contest, prudent to have the club and stadium etc. held in 2 different limited companies (with the same beneficial owners) - purely for the fact, that in any future time of distress regarding the club, insolvency would only mean the assets of the club were at risk and nobody could get their grubby hands on the stadium/land, to sell it and pay off creditors of the club. Spot on. Pete (Mike) is so far up Barry/AL and Mo’s ass he chats the shit he suffocates on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 16 minutes ago, wiseowl said: Not so much that they did not relinquish their ownership of the assets but more that the purchaser did not (apparently) check properly what he was buying i.e. if I was buying the club etc. from the Rothwell's in 5 years time, my due diligence might include a question like, "Right, for my £20M, can I just confirm that I am purchasing the club/badge/squad etc. from company "A" plus the stadium/land etc. from company "B" - both companies of which you are the beneficial owner/s?" "Erm.... no sorry, it's just company "A" that's being offered." "Goodbye." It is, I would contest, prudent to have the club and stadium etc. held in 2 different limited companies (with the same beneficial owners) - purely for the fact, that in any future time of distress regarding the club, insolvency would only mean the assets of the club were at risk and nobody could get their grubby hands on the stadium/land, to sell it and pay off creditors of the club. Errr, he's talking about TTA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseowl Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 4 hours ago, Dave_Og said: Errr, he's talking about TTA... I know but the huge error was on the part of the buyer from the 3,2 then 1 amigo/s - and Pete was intimating/saying (can't be arsed re-reading it all) along the lines of, "so the current intended set-up is no different to the last one - club wrapped up in one company and the ground etc. in another." That's so wide of the mark - it's the beneficial owners of said companies that matters, not the fact there are 2 companies (which is entirely logical). Previously there was one beneficial owner of "the club" and different people entirely owning the ground. Going forward, that should not be the case - we'll effectively have the ground and team etc. under "common ownership". If that doesn't happen, of course, Pete can raise the point, quite legitimately, again (and I might well then agree with him, depending on the fine detail). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 The issue surely will be what legally binding relationship is established between the two companies once the ground is owned by a Rothwell family controlled company. if as Dave suggests, that becomes a long term lease and a peppercorn rent then all should be safe. The problem with the previous owners is there was clearly a deal where the club was given to SC with SB benefiting from a significant rent and some of the commercial income. Those are ongoing financial drains on the football club which hopefully will not ever be repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPAS Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 On 1/23/2023 at 10:57 AM, PeteG said: Any thoughts on the covenant from the council regarding the NS and if this is a possible reason for delay in the purchase? Have you any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.