|
Post by foley on Jul 24, 2014 11:33:05 GMT
Some of my thoughts from what the meeting notes tell us: DEBT Confirmed as being £7.5m currently, and no reduction in this as a result of the takeover. It's all well and good saying that Ian Lenagan won't be getting back all that he has put in when everything is finally sorted out (which confirms that this is a full takeover in stages), but why not write it off now? Budgeting for a loss of £1.5m this season (on a turnover which will be around £3.5m!) brings total debt up to £9m. And they have a 3 year plan to break even, so that's looking roughly at £1m loss next season, and £500k the following season. And that brings total debt up to £10.5m for a business with no tangible assets. And that's scary. I've seen some on here saying that this isn't a problem, it's a soft debt, etc etc etc. To those people I say this: have you not seen what has happened in the past to numerous clubs (including our own) when the owners get bored/run out of money/feel unloved? That's right, the soft debt suddenly becomes very hard indeed and clubs end up in administration and on the brink of liquidation. STADIUM Eales and Ashton confirmed that neither of them have spoken to Kassam. When this was mentioned before, there were several on here who suggested that as they were successful, competent businessmen, it couldn't possibly be the case they had made no contact, and that in effect Kassam may well have been lying when he said that nobody had spoken to him. Well, here we have confirmation that he was speaking the truth. And this worries the hell out of me. I know I'm repeating myself from before, but anybody buying a business operating from a leased premises would speak to the landlord of those premises as part of their due diligence. To not do such a fundamental thing makes me wonder what other issues they haven't really looked at and/or taken on trust. What exactly has IL told them? It's clear from the initial press conference and Eales' subsequent comments that stadium ownership in one form or other is a key element here, so why no contact with its owner?! PLAYING SIDE On announcement of the takeover, it was said that 5-6 new players would be brought in. That's now down to 2-3 despite only one new face arriving in the meantime. At the same time we've seen a whole raft of coaching and backroom staff coming in – money which should have gone into the playing budget. There is no point whatsoever in trying to put in place a Championship level coaching and analysis setup if it leaves you with pennies to build a squad with. If you look at the holes in the current squad, we need at least 4 more players who will contribute a significant number of goals and assists - we will need to score around 70 goals for a promotion bid, and I'm buggered if I can see where they are coming from when we're down to one senior striker and very little in the way of creativity. Yet, we can bring in another video analyst.... The “plan” (such as it is) seems to be to attract more punters through the turnstiles and there is talk of improving community links etc. Well, that's all well and good, but if people are being served up mid-table League 2 dross, they simply won't come regardless of the rest of the “matchday experience” - we saw that last season. That's why proper investment in the playing side is absolutely vital for this club right now to mount a SERIOUS promotion bid, otherwise there is no hope at all of getting anything like the 6000 crowds being budgeted for. I can't really disagree with any of this. A couple of comments: - regarding the playing side and the assumption on the attendances. Unless the club is pushing for promotion 6000 is a very unrealistic average attendance number. I can only assume that the 3 signings (?) are going to be very good signings. A simple change I ownership with new ideas will not get people back to games without more entertainment and a winning side. MAPP is expected to be a miracle worker with such late signings - Regrding the debt. In relaity whether the debt is £7.5M or £10m or £12m it really makes little difference. The club will never make this amount back without some clever ground deal. Somehow at some stage the debt needs to be written off and the club needs to be running at a bgeak even or close to it. Without this there will always be a huge risk to the club. I am more confused than I was before the Oxvox meeting. I don't get the strategy and plan for the clubs survival yet alone for the club to proper short term (and if the crowds are less than 6k average the loss to the new owners will be more than they had planned for)
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Jul 24, 2014 12:19:37 GMT
Based on what we already know and following the meeting with oxvox just how many of the 800 are likely to have had their minds changed?
I said before the days of people just turning up to football are long gone for many reasons...Some people don't have too much spare cash,the leisure pound has to be used wisely not keep throwing it at something because it's your club in the name of loyalty...Let people drift away and you'll find it very hard to get them back. Once the parents stop then so do their children as they get interested in other things and the children are the future.Having persuaded my wife and 5yo to go last season my daughter was always asking when will oxford play again then the club alienated my wife with their take it or leave it attitude and neither went to the last 5 or 6 games, yes they travelled with me but preferred to stay in the bowplex spending their money there.
I m very worried about the future of our club, the new guys have taken over and are entitled to some grace but nothing appears to be changing on the field to attract people and encourage them to attend.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jul 24, 2014 12:43:36 GMT
DEBT Confirmed as being £7.5m currently, and no reduction in this as a result of the takeover. It's all well and good saying that Ian Lenagan won't be getting back all that he has put in when everything is finally sorted out (which confirms that this is a full takeover in stages), but why not write it off now? Budgeting for a loss of £1.5m this season (on a turnover which will be around £3.5m!) brings total debt up to £9m. And they have a 3 year plan to break even, so that's looking roughly at £1m loss next season, and £500k the following season. And that brings total debt up to £10.5m for a business with no tangible assets. And that's scary. I've seen some on here saying that this isn't a problem, it's a soft debt, etc etc etc. To those people I say this: have you not seen what has happened in the past to numerous clubs (including our own) when the owners get bored/run out of money/feel unloved? That's right, the soft debt suddenly becomes very hard indeed and clubs end up in administration and on the brink of liquidation. Presumably IL has already genuinely lost something of what he's put in - half of what he was owed by the club is now owed instead to ENSCO, and I would be very doubtful that ENSCO paid £3.75m for that (or even close). He'll have basically given away the bulk of half of his debt in the hope that the money/skills of Eales & Ashton mean he will eventually get the other half back. Otherwise, I would simply echo what foley said, as it's also what I've being saying in recent weeks. And that's that frankly it makes very little difference now whether our debt is £7.5m or £10m or £15m. As it stands, with no real assets, we're already way way into the red zone. We're already completely at the mercy of our creditors and thankful that they've got no incentive to pull the plug. We've proven we can't be run sustainably in League Two without access to the Kasstad revenue streams. Our only two routes out are 1) Buy the Ground/Build a new ground; Property deal or 2) Somehow get a couple of promotions; fill the ground every week; get some big cup runs and transfer fees going. If Eales & Ashton are willing to put their money on the line to give Option 2) a go - may as well not argue with that any more. It's not going to put us in a tangibly worse situation. Having said that though, the budget and incoming player conversation doesn't sound like they're really going for it. Rather they're going to be relying on Appleton to work some miracles. Who knows, maybe he can?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 24, 2014 15:49:46 GMT
OUFC owed WPL £7.5MM ENSCO buy around half of WPL's shares in OUFC (presumably for a peppercorn). OUFC still owe WPL £7.5MM ENSCO loan for instance £1MM to OUFC, which repays WPL £1MM. WPL repays IL £1MM. OUFC now owe WPL £6.5MM and ENSCO £1MM. Total debt still £7.5MM.
Lenagan isn't about to start writing the WPL debt off as there is an instalment time frame for some of it being repaid as part of the takeover, and presumably a chance for more repayment in the future if there are any windfalls. However the Oxvox minutes indicate it won't be a full repayment.
|
|
|
Post by sarge on Jul 24, 2014 15:52:16 GMT
fans forum thurs 25th SEPTEMBER ....better late than never
|
|
|
Post by undisputed on Jul 24, 2014 18:14:45 GMT
Focusing purely on the debt side of your post, there is debt and there is debt. The club isnt actually in debt at all. Its losses are covered every year by WPL. Its WPL that holds the debt.
In order to make this deal attractive to DE, IL has effectively sold 50% of WPL shares in the club. That money has gone to cover some of his investment in WPL, which was being used to cover the losses. In order for the debt to put the club in danger it would need WPL to decide to call in that debt, which isnt going to be happening anytime soon, and isnt as dangerous as it was before as ENSCO 1070 are also shareholders.
This is all very different from reports you see of clubs on the verge of going bust as they we the tax man etc. Sorry, but that’s not true. The club IS in debt. It owes £8 million. Possibly, now £4 million to WPL and £4 million to Ennsco, It is “soft” debt, which means there is no imminent requirement of re-payment and no interest being charged (probably, though it can be charged retrospectively). However, to say that because the debt is not to an entity seeking urgent repayment it therefore doesn’t matter is wrong. It becomes deeply, deeply relevant once the person owed it DOES want it back. And that can happen at any moment. A year ago, Ian Lenagan was in good financial health and did not need re-paying. Come April this year, amid rumours he needed to raise some cash he suddenly needed to get that money back. So he went in search not of the entity that would necessarily be the best people to lead Oxford United forward, but to the entity which would give him as much as possible of his debt back. Every penny that Ennsco then had to pay him back of his debt (a rumoured £4 million, followed by further payments) was then money that they did not have to spend on capitalising the club in a positive way. Fast forward 2 years, and the stadium talks have not been successful and we’ve not really climbed the football pyramid. Darryl Eales has decided that he has “had enough” of Oxford United (most owners do, in the end). At that point, the club – owing, say, £11 million with no assets - is an appallingly unattractive proposition for an ambitious new owner. He faces either carrying Eales’ debt forward as a millstone around his neck (re-payable if the club does happen to become a success), or else trying to cut a deal to pay a good chunk back upfront. It means that if Water Eaton were ever to ‘come off’, then the first beneficiaries of that windfall would be not the club or the club’s new owners, but its creditors. Alternatively, the club could collapse into administration, with the old owners not wanting to fund it any further and new owners not wanting to take on the crippling debt pile. That would mean a points deduction (and, often, relegation). So yes, the club is in debt in a major way and we should not be comfortable with it. We have been here before, and it ended in Firoz Kassam seeing the opportunity to seize on the club’s vulnerability and use it to make a fortune for himself. For Grenoble Road in 1999, read Water Eaton in 2015. But thats precisely it, the debt is with IL's investment in WPL. Should IL attempt to call in that money now he wouldnt get a penny for it as the club is loss making and has no assets. If he attempted to put the club in to administration, again something not in his interest, then a new buyer could come and purchase the club for £1, do a CVA and pay as little as 1p in the £1 (although thats very rare and historically the "low end" figure would be closer to 10p) and actually procure the club for a very small amount. The club would suffer points deductions and possibly relegation, but the club would still exist. Thats vital. Dont get me wrong, I think you have interpreted my post as stating that I am comfortable with the level of debt. I really am not, however the actual debt is soft debt and not owed to creditors who are liable to call it in, such as HMRC. Now in an ideal world obviously we wouldnt owe any money at all, but until we are able to buy and monetise the stadium we are always going to be a loss making club in the same way that the vast majority of the Football League is. You state that in April this year IL needed to raise funds, and I have no evidence to prove that he did or he didnt, but that eludes to IL rushing to get new investment in, which wasnt the case as all the parties involved have stated that this deal has been 12 months in the planning etc. What you have stated as a possible future, and dont get me wrong it could be just as much as it could go the other way, is the situation for practically every single football club in the Football League. What happens if Abramovich wants his supposed £500m "investment" in Chelsea back or example? Or to go closer to home, what happens when Donald wants his money back from Eastleigh, something that will happen should he need the funds and also something more likely to happen due to the unsustainable nature of the way they are going about success? Again, im not happy with the debt owed, but we dont have the tax man or secured creditors knocking down our door. The new people need success on the pitch in order to help success off it. We need to back that, whilst asking the right questions of them.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 24, 2014 18:42:51 GMT
Sorry, but that’s not true. The club IS in debt. It owes £8 million. Possibly, now £4 million to WPL and £4 million to Ennsco, It is “soft” debt, which means there is no imminent requirement of re-payment and no interest being charged (probably, though it can be charged retrospectively). However, to say that because the debt is not to an entity seeking urgent repayment it therefore doesn’t matter is wrong. It becomes deeply, deeply relevant once the person owed it DOES want it back. And that can happen at any moment. A year ago, Ian Lenagan was in good financial health and did not need re-paying. Come April this year, amid rumours he needed to raise some cash he suddenly needed to get that money back. So he went in search not of the entity that would necessarily be the best people to lead Oxford United forward, but to the entity which would give him as much as possible of his debt back. Every penny that Ennsco then had to pay him back of his debt (a rumoured £4 million, followed by further payments) was then money that they did not have to spend on capitalising the club in a positive way. Fast forward 2 years, and the stadium talks have not been successful and we’ve not really climbed the football pyramid. Darryl Eales has decided that he has “had enough” of Oxford United (most owners do, in the end). At that point, the club – owing, say, £11 million with no assets - is an appallingly unattractive proposition for an ambitious new owner. He faces either carrying Eales’ debt forward as a millstone around his neck (re-payable if the club does happen to become a success), or else trying to cut a deal to pay a good chunk back upfront. It means that if Water Eaton were ever to ‘come off’, then the first beneficiaries of that windfall would be not the club or the club’s new owners, but its creditors. Alternatively, the club could collapse into administration, with the old owners not wanting to fund it any further and new owners not wanting to take on the crippling debt pile. That would mean a points deduction (and, often, relegation). So yes, the club is in debt in a major way and we should not be comfortable with it. We have been here before, and it ended in Firoz Kassam seeing the opportunity to seize on the club’s vulnerability and use it to make a fortune for himself. For Grenoble Road in 1999, read Water Eaton in 2015. But thats precisely it, the debt is with IL's investment in WPL. Should IL attempt to call in that money now he wouldnt get a penny for it as the club is loss making and has no assets. If he attempted to put the club in to administration, again something not in his interest, then a new buyer could come and purchase the club for £1, do a CVA and pay as little as 1p in the £1 (although thats very rare and historically the "low end" figure would be closer to 10p) and actually procure the club for a very small amount. The club would suffer points deductions and possibly relegation, but the club would still exist. Thats vital. Dont get me wrong, I think you have interpreted my post as stating that I am comfortable with the level of debt. I really am not, however the actual debt is soft debt and not owed to creditors who are liable to call it in, such as HMRC. Now in an ideal world obviously we wouldnt owe any money at all, but until we are able to buy and monetise the stadium we are always going to be a loss making club in the same way that the vast majority of the Football League is. You state that in April this year IL needed to raise funds, and I have no evidence to prove that he did or he didnt, but that eludes to IL rushing to get new investment in, which wasnt the case as all the parties involved have stated that this deal has been 12 months in the planning etc. What you have stated as a possible future, and dont get me wrong it could be just as much as it could go the other way, is the situation for practically every single football club in the Football League. What happens if Abramovich wants his supposed £500m "investment" in Chelsea back or example? Or to go closer to home, what happens when Donald wants his money back from Eastleigh, something that will happen should he need the funds and also something more likely to happen due to the unsustainable nature of the way they are going about success? Again, im not happy with the debt owed, but we dont have the tax man or secured creditors knocking down our door. The new people need success on the pitch in order to help success off it. We need to back that, whilst asking the right questions of them. Most logical and grounded post for a long time with no agendas or motivation other than explaining facts with logical analysis! NB. Pretty good for a Neanderthal as Charlie would refer to you!!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 24, 2014 18:52:14 GMT
This may sound stupid but when quoting a post, especially when they r these really long ones could we not just state the post no at the top ie #314 that way we don't all have to scroll through the same thing over and over, pain on the iphone app. Just an idea please don't lynch me
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 24, 2014 18:58:41 GMT
This may sound stupid but when quoting a post, especially when they r these really long ones could we not just state the post no at the top ie #314 that way we don't all have to scroll through the same thing over and over, pain on the iphone app. Just an idea please don't lynch me Agreed and guilty
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 24, 2014 19:01:52 GMT
#134 bad start mate
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jul 24, 2014 21:03:34 GMT
You state that in April this year IL needed to raise funds, and I have no evidence to prove that he did or he didnt, but that eludes to IL rushing to get new investment in, which wasnt the case as all the parties involved have stated that this deal has been 12 months in the planning etc. Sorry if I'm quoting the wrong poster, I'm on the phone. If memory serves Eales was trying to buy Birmingham City 12 months ago. I doubt the thpught of OUFC entered his head until our former owner suddenly discovered himself (relatively) potless some time about the turn of the year. To me, this stinks of a well-intentioned vanity project whose backer hasn't done his homework. Same as the last one. Will I support OUFC & the management? Of course I will.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 24, 2014 21:44:14 GMT
#136 Eales had a choice of. 3 clubs. Fact
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 24, 2014 21:46:51 GMT
See OUFCyellows I'm learning!!
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jul 24, 2014 22:35:39 GMT
But thats precisely it, the debt is with IL's investment in WPL. Should IL attempt to call in that money now he wouldnt get a penny for it as the club is loss making and has no assets. If he attempted to put the club in to administration, again something not in his interest, then a new buyer could come and purchase the club for £1, do a CVA and pay as little as 1p in the £1 (although thats very rare and historically the "low end" figure would be closer to 10p) and actually procure the club for a very small amount. The club would suffer points deductions and possibly relegation, but the club would still exist. Thats vital. Dont get me wrong, I think you have interpreted my post as stating that I am comfortable with the level of debt. I really am not, however the actual debt is soft debt and not owed to creditors who are liable to call it in, such as HMRC. Now in an ideal world obviously we wouldnt owe any money at all, but until we are able to buy and monetise the stadium we are always going to be a loss making club in the same way that the vast majority of the Football League is. You state that in April this year IL needed to raise funds, and I have no evidence to prove that he did or he didnt, but that eludes to IL rushing to get new investment in, which wasnt the case as all the parties involved have stated that this deal has been 12 months in the planning etc. What you have stated as a possible future, and dont get me wrong it could be just as much as it could go the other way, is the situation for practically every single football club in the Football League. What happens if Abramovich wants his supposed £500m "investment" in Chelsea back or example? Or to go closer to home, what happens when Donald wants his money back from Eastleigh, something that will happen should he need the funds and also something more likely to happen due to the unsustainable nature of the way they are going about success? Again, im not happy with the debt owed, but we dont have the tax man or secured creditors knocking down our door. The new people need success on the pitch in order to help success off it. We need to back that, whilst asking the right questions of them. Most logical and grounded post for a long time with no agendas or motivation other than explaining facts with logical analysis! NB. Pretty good for a Neanderthal as Charlie would refer to you!! Sorry, but that is not the way administration works. Admin works with the administrator attempting to get the highest possible amount for the creditors, while a line is drawn under non-primary debt (trade debt etc). In those circumstances, should Water Eaton be on the table, the administrator can, and will, sell to a property developer like Kassam, if that developer is willing to pay more than the next man. He has no interest in the future of OUFC, just getting the maximum possible for any assets. Of COURSE Darryl Eales wants success. Duh! Of COURSE he'll give success a go. But, as with Ian Lenagan, if and when he decides he wants 'out' he'll just try to recover as much debt as he can. Ian managed to find someone to pay him large chunks of his debt. But if Eales did not find that happy buyer, then he would then put the club into admin rather than have to continue to fund massive losses. That is business. And if I had to, I'm sure I could find examples of when Eales has done that in the past (venture capitalists have, by definition, more deals that go wrong than go right). This whole poitn is nothing against Eales whatsoever. It is simply making, yet again, the point that having massive chunks of unsecured debt is a really, really bad idea. Ps.... on the person going on about Eastleigh's 'unsustainable' success, do you think that that club will lose as much as OUFC this season? Only asking... Pps.... the comparison with Chelsea is crass. CFC are a giant brand, with worldwide support, their own hugely valuable central London ground, and a playing staff worth hundreds of millions. I would guesstimate that that club is solvent (ie its assets are worth more than its debts). That, in turn, makes it a viable purchase (albeit for a very, very rich man). A better comparison point would be QPR.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 25, 2014 5:40:16 GMT
#137 now we just need to promote the idea to the masses. Might even go on dragons den
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Jul 25, 2014 7:45:24 GMT
#137 now we just need to promote the idea to the masses. Might even go on dragons den I don't like the idea. I have to scroll up to see what post number xx is, and it's a pain in the arse. Please stick to the tried and trusted format of using the quote facility. Also, using the existing method, it is possible to highlight the exact sentence or phrase you're referring to within the post you're replying to.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jul 25, 2014 7:50:56 GMT
#137 now we just need to promote the idea to the masses. Might even go on dragons den it is possible to highlight the exact sentence True. You can also delete any text in the quoted text to highlight the bit you're replying to... (see above) I'm with Eric, keep it as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Jul 25, 2014 7:55:48 GMT
it is possible to highlight the exact sentence True. You can also delete any text in the quoted text to highlight the bit you're replying to... (see above) I'm with Eric, keep it as it is. Also, I've just noticed that if someone has liked a post, the little heart shaped thing appears in the same place as the post number! thereby obliterating it. At least that's what happens on the iPad. It ain't broke, so don't fix it!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 25, 2014 8:08:53 GMT
True. You can also delete any text in the quoted text to highlight the bit you're replying to... (see above) I'm with Eric, keep it as it is. Also, I've just noticed that if someone has liked a post, the little heart shaped thing appears in the same place as the post number! thereby obliterating it. At least that's what happens on the iPad. It ain't broke, so don't fix it! Didn't say it was broke. It's as annoying scrolling down and clicking more then scrolling down again , as it is to scroll back to see the post no. But agree if u just cut the sentence or section ur replying to it would be better. Short post r like u say fine as they r. It's moving with the time Eric imagine if we were still replying with letters
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 25, 2014 8:12:29 GMT
All this talk of potential administrations, I would hope that as "custodians" of the club that Lenagan and Eales if it did come to this, would find a new backer and cut their losses and run, rather than putting the club into administration and all that entails.
See Andrew Black at STFC. Whilst their current ownership seems disputed in the courts, at least Black just wrote off the debt run up on his shift, and passed the club on debt free for new owners to have a go.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Jul 25, 2014 8:15:49 GMT
Also, I've just noticed that if someone has liked a post, the little heart shaped thing appears in the same place as the post number! thereby obliterating it. At least that's what happens on the iPad. It ain't broke, so don't fix it! Didn't say it was broke. It's as annoying scrolling down and clicking more then scrolling down again , as it is to scroll back to see the post no. But agree if u just cut the sentence or section ur replying to it would be better. Short post r like u say fine as they r. It's moving with the time Eric imagine if we were still replying with letters I'm all for progress, don't get me wrong. I've sold my carrier pigeons recently and just put new racing tyres on my penny farthing bicycle!!!!
|
|
|
Post by thesecretposter on Jul 25, 2014 8:20:08 GMT
Most logical and grounded post for a long time with no agendas or motivation other than explaining facts with logical analysis! NB. Pretty good for a Neanderthal as Charlie would refer to you!! Sorry, but that is not the way administration works. Admin works with the administrator attempting to get the highest possible amount for the creditors, while a line is drawn under non-primary debt (trade debt etc). In those circumstances, should Water Eaton be on the table, the administrator can, and will, sell to a property developer like Kassam, if that developer is willing to pay more than the next man. He has no interest in the future of OUFC, just getting the maximum possible for any assets. Of COURSE Darryl Eales wants success. Duh! Of COURSE he'll give success a go. But, as with Ian Lenagan, if and when he decides he wants 'out' he'll just try to recover as much debt as he can. Ian managed to find someone to pay him large chunks of his debt. But if Eales did not find that happy buyer, then he would then put the club into admin rather than have to continue to fund massive losses. That is business. And if I had to, I'm sure I could find examples of when Eales has done that in the past (venture capitalists have, by definition, more deals that go wrong than go right). This whole poitn is nothing against Eales whatsoever. It is simply making, yet again, the point that having massive chunks of unsecured debt is a really, really bad idea. Ps.... on the person going on about Eastleigh's 'unsustainable' success, do you think that that club will lose as much as OUFC this season? Only asking... Pps.... the comparison with Chelsea is crass. CFC are a giant brand, with worldwide support, their own hugely valuable central London ground, and a playing staff worth hundreds of millions. I would guesstimate that that club is solvent (ie its assets are worth more than its debts). That, in turn, makes it a viable purchase (albeit for a very, very rich man). A better comparison point would be QPR. WHAT!! You mean Appleton, Fazackerley and Lewis aren't worth hundreds of millions? Eales OUT!!
|
|
|
Post by foley on Jul 25, 2014 8:51:07 GMT
All this talk of potential administrations, I would hope that as "custodians" of the club that Lenagan and Eales if it did come to this, would find a new backer and cut their losses and run, rather than putting the club into administration and all that entails. See Andrew Black at STFC. Whilst their current ownership seems disputed in the courts, at least Black just wrote off the debt run up on his shift, and passed the club on debt free for new owners to have a go. Totally agree that is what you would hope would happen. This is not what happened at Pompey for example though? You could argue that as 'custodian' of the club, Il should not have racked up debts of £7.5M and expected to get the money back especially bearing in mind some very poor management decisions especially in the Merry era.
|
|
|
Post by undisputed on Jul 25, 2014 11:23:53 GMT
You state that in April this year IL needed to raise funds, and I have no evidence to prove that he did or he didnt, but that eludes to IL rushing to get new investment in, which wasnt the case as all the parties involved have stated that this deal has been 12 months in the planning etc. Sorry if I'm quoting the wrong poster, I'm on the phone. If memory serves Eales was trying to buy Birmingham City 12 months ago. I doubt the thpught of OUFC entered his head until our former owner suddenly discovered himself (relatively) potless some time about the turn of the year. To me, this stinks of a well-intentioned vanity project whose backer hasn't done his homework. Same as the last one. Will I support OUFC & the management? Of course I will. I dont know the facts, but when the deal was announced the parties involved stated that this was in the making for the last 12 months.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jul 25, 2014 11:58:17 GMT
I'm not suggesting your memory is faulty. But based on the link above, I doubt it. Doh, not trying to be cryptic - the sentence that counts is "He [Eales] tabled an offer, worth around £30 million in total, if certain provisos were met, as long ago as April 2013.
And more recently he made it known he would join forces with the BCFC2014 consortium, who have been in the running to buy the club."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 10:10:52 GMT
Just come across this gem and took my first look at "We Are Yellows" for ages. Hardly any posters, but some of those still keeping it going are a piece of work! (Take a bow "My Left Foot", "Eric Pollard's Twin", "The Big Cheese"). These people must spend their days wallowing in a pit of bile. Anti-OxVox, anti-Lenagan, anti-Charlie Methven; their bitterness knows no end. Begrudgingly, and probably temporarily, in favour of Ashton and Eales, but only as a conduit for criticising their targets. These characters (or perhaps it's just one poster) honestly believe they're the only ones who can see the "truth" or have any measure of business acumen. They inhabit the ultimate fantasy world. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 23:27:59 GMT
Ha! Ever predictable, Eric Pollard's Twin has read my post above and responded: The above was posted by that heroic poster Yellowhoods on the other forum. Welcome back YH your level of intelligence has been sorely missed. You must be over the moon that We have kept this forum going so that you may yet again show your low level of wit and intelligence to a wider audience.
We all know that you followed Ian and the Oxvox boys with a level of approval that can only be surpassed by that Neanderthal Sennett. Now that this love in has been broken by Ian, you must now join in with the small group of supporters who will do their utmost to derail the new ownership in favour of Charlie and his Merry Men and their dream of fans owning the club.
Welcome back
And there we have it. References to lack of wit or intelligence for disagreeing with the sociopath. I'm sure you're reading this Eric. Have the bottle to bring your "arguments" to this board, you know, where there are actually some posters to engage with you.
|
|
|
Post by lodeyellow on Jul 27, 2014 5:51:43 GMT
I don't like the We Are Yellows forum, and have no idea who Eric Pollard's Twin is. It's certainly not great to call people Neanderthals.
I don't want to revisit well-worn topics and arguments. But unfortunately it's a fact that there are a number of respected supporters who were very poorly treated by the club and some fans' representatives last season. That is a matter of regret, to me at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Jul 27, 2014 8:08:12 GMT
I don't like the We Are Yellows forum, and have no idea who Eric Pollard's Twin is. It's certainly not great to call people Neanderthals. I don't want to revisit well-worn topics and arguments. But unfortunately it's a fact that there are a number of respected supporters who were very poorly treated by the club and some fans' representatives last season. That is a matter of regret, to me at any rate. But there's the rub lodeyellow. The way some of these "respected supporters" acted on the Yellow Voice forum, long before the 12th Man scenario, made it virtually impossible to "respect" them, and some of them came across as bitter and vindictive individuals full of their own self importance and consumed with jealousy and disdain for others. In my opinion they went well over the top, but I suppose by having that opinion I'm obviously of inferior intellect and controlled by Oxvox?!?! That last bit's not aimed at you personally, as you do seem more balanced and reasonable than most of that crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 8:32:01 GMT
I don't like the We Are Yellows forum, and have no idea who Eric Pollard's Twin is. It's certainly not great to call people Neanderthals. I don't want to revisit well-worn topics and arguments. But unfortunately it's a fact that there are a number of respected supporters who were very poorly treated by the club and some fans' representatives last season. That is a matter of regret, to me at any rate. I don't know the detail of what went on with Trevor Lambert, the 12th Man Fund et al, as despite the assertions of EPT I'm not joined at the hip with Mr Sennett. In fact, I've never met him. I have met Trevor though (decent bloke) and Charlie (decent bloke), and I'm sure I'd get on fine with Mark, Brahma, you Lode and most other people I was to meet. The reason for that is I'm quite normal, not a consumed, bitter, hate-filled excuse for an OIxford fan, unlike a very small number of ex-posters on Yellow Voice. As Eric (Read) says, these individuals exhibited exactly the same petty vindictiveness that they accused others of. I really wouldn't want to be any of them.
|
|