|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jul 21, 2014 10:54:21 GMT
OxVox meeting Mr Ashton and Mr Eales tomorrow, obviously some big questions will be asked and I expect they will answer honestly to them all. Mr Ashton, to date, has been open and honest during the brief discussions we have had. Hopefully this meeting will be positive and productive. But it is possible that Mr Ashton and Mr Eales will only be as open and honest as they 'need' to be, after all, wasn't IL seen by many as open and honest? He would not be in breach of contract if he were injured. If he were not injured, there is no reason why he couldn't make himself available. Sure if he wasn't be arsed anymore, and I've read his blog too, but that would have to be a voluntary process to get what you suggest and that is rare in football. Even if it did happen it would make no difference to costs as the money would be spent on other players.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Jul 21, 2014 10:55:41 GMT
There are other ways of getting out of the hole without risking the future or at least minimising the risk. To be honest, that's where I struggle! With no assets, a fixed (if not increasing) rental cost and static (if not dwindling) income, I can't see how that could be done without a radical cost slashing / price increasing program that might cause as much damage in lost revenue as it saved. I wasn't advocating a spend, spend, spend policy though. I was merely reflecting on what was actually happening. I do agree that spending stupid sums of money on players with the aim of somehow recouping it by getting into the Championship whilst loading the club with debt would be daft. I just don't feel that we should be against change and the chances it may bring - because the alternative was stagnation and death by a thousand cuts.
|
|
|
Post by bigfella72 on Jul 21, 2014 10:56:40 GMT
All I want the club to achieve is to allow me to ENJOY and look forward to watching my beloved OUFC. I am a supporter, I love football, I am ready to spend money, but a month ago we were dead in the water. I need to see a level of ambition to give me hope. We live in a world full of options now. Last season, a trip to IKEA with the missus and a 1.00 hot dog was more desirable at times than going to The Kassam. I would be more worried if the model we had before Eales and co was sustainable - it wasn't. We all want to enjoy and have hope for the future yellowg. I am sure you would not want us to read into your post that you want the club to spend money to create that hope, only for the club to be bankrupt a year or so later and no longer even exist. Enjoyment and hope needs to come from building the club slowly and steadily, so that success is lasting, rather than demanding it be done here and now. Who are all these supporters wanting money thrown at the team? I've not seen any? And if they were going to throw money at it we would already have signed 5 or 6 players?
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jul 21, 2014 10:59:17 GMT
OxVox meeting Mr Ashton and Mr Eales tomorrow, obviously some big questions will be asked and I expect they will answer honestly to them all. Mr Ashton, to date, has been open and honest during the brief discussions we have had. Hopefully this meeting will be positive and productive. But it is possible that Mr Ashton and Mr Eales will only be as open and honest as they 'need' to be, after all, wasn't IL seen by many as open and honest? Hmm, it is very difficult to know whether they are being honest and open or not. Many of us thought IL was open and honest. I now suspect rather different as his words on this takeover are completely contradictory to his previous statements. Most businessmen are honest. Not many are open as it is not good for their business to be so. We will be fed whatever Eales and Ashton want us to believe. The trick is to be suspicious of everything until you have evidence to prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bigfella72 on Jul 21, 2014 11:01:06 GMT
Hopefully this meeting will be positive and productive. But it is possible that Mr Ashton and Mr Eales will only be as open and honest as they 'need' to be, after all, wasn't IL seen by many as open and honest? Hmm, it is very difficult to know whether they are being honest and open or not. Many of us thought IL was open and honest. I now suspect rather different as his words on this takeover are completely contradictory to his previous statements. Most businessmen are honest. Not many are open as it is not good for their business to be so. We will be fed whatever Eales and Ashton want us to believe. The trick is to be suspicious of everything until you have evidence to prove otherwise. Suspect everyone and trust no one!
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jul 21, 2014 11:04:27 GMT
There are other ways of getting out of the hole without risking the future or at least minimising the risk. To be honest, that's where I struggle! With no assets, a fixed (if not increasing) rental cost and static (if not dwindling) income, I can't see how that could be done without a radical cost slashing / price increasing program that might cause as much damage in lost revenue as it saved. I wasn't advocating a spend, spend, spend policy though. I was merely reflecting on what was actually happening. I do agree that spending stupid sums of money on players with the aim of somehow recouping it by getting into the Championship whilst loading the club with debt would be daft. I just don't feel that we should be against change and the chances it may bring - because the alternative was stagnation and death by a thousand cuts. OK, so then we don't need to increase the playing budget by £250k. We don't need to spend all the money saved by Beanos/Smalleys/Riggs wages. we don't need to pay off the contract of a previous manager. We don't need to hire a new manager. We don't need to hire a team of top level coaches. We don't need a CEO paying himself £350k per year. We don't need Lenagans loans to become hard loans with interest. We don't need new hard loans from venture capitalists with interest. The new bunch are making financial matters much much worse, not better. There are other ways of achieving success as I've hinted at above and in other posts on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jul 21, 2014 11:05:36 GMT
We all want to enjoy and have hope for the future yellowg. I am sure you would not want us to read into your post that you want the club to spend money to create that hope, only for the club to be bankrupt a year or so later and no longer even exist. Enjoyment and hope needs to come from building the club slowly and steadily, so that success is lasting, rather than demanding it be done here and now. Who are all these supporters wanting money thrown at the team? I've not seen any? And if they were going to throw money at it we would already have signed 5 or 6 players? Everyone who defends the new set up with their increased costs and increased playing budget is doing so.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jul 21, 2014 11:06:45 GMT
Hmm, it is very difficult to know whether they are being honest and open or not. Many of us thought IL was open and honest. I now suspect rather different as his words on this takeover are completely contradictory to his previous statements. Most businessmen are honest. Not many are open as it is not good for their business to be so. We will be fed whatever Eales and Ashton want us to believe. The trick is to be suspicious of everything until you have evidence to prove otherwise. Suspect everyone and trust no one! Be agnostic until you can prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bigfella72 on Jul 21, 2014 11:09:58 GMT
Who are all these supporters wanting money thrown at the team? I've not seen any? And if they were going to throw money at it we would already have signed 5 or 6 players? Everyone who defends the new set up with their increased costs and increased playing budget is doing so. Not really as it's not throwing money at it? Unless you know all details of what's being paid out?
|
|
|
Post by foley on Jul 21, 2014 11:11:59 GMT
I am not sure that Ashton has suggested that the player budget will be £250K a year more than last seasons? I may be wrong but took it more that the budget would be £250K more than the budget was going to be under IL. He supposedly was going to allow GW one more player, so the payroll under IL would be significantly less than last seasons (taking Beano, Smalley, Rigg, Davies, Connelly, Wroe into account) That's not correct. IL was going to apply the same budget in 2014/15 as was applied in 2013/14. There is a video interview with Ashton available on the net where he was asked about the playing budget and he confirmed he would allow it to be increased by £250k. I don't believe that. I think that Il had decided to cut costs and the budget would have been a lot lower. IF the one new player coming in story is correct (and didn't Ashton suggest that?) then no way would releasing all of the players mentioned above and replacing them with 2 players mean that we had a similar budget to last season.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 21, 2014 11:18:54 GMT
OxVox meeting Mr Ashton and Mr Eales tomorrow, obviously some big questions will be asked and I expect they will answer honestly to them all. Mr Ashton, to date, has been open and honest during the brief discussions we have had. And that will disappoint a few won't it. Good that it is acknowledged though. Seems they can't win! I they had dine nothing all hell would have let loose on here ref the benefits of the "other lot" and when they start to show commitment and invest in the staff and real foundations they get criticised for that. What a weird bunch Oxford fans are!!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 11:19:05 GMT
Even if he is on more, how much more? If Kitson goes we could probably afford to get Ferguson out of retirement! You can add at least one nought to the end. Kitson may not be leaving. Even if he does go, his wages are big but not that big, and the money would almost certainly go into the playing budget as Eales has already said he wants the playing budget increased by £250k. Even if Kitson does go, we don't save his wages as he has another year of contract left to run, which OUFC would have to pay for. That would result in even more losses. That's not how it works. If kitson retires he nulls his contract, if we decide to get rid we would agree a lump sum, less than the full years wage
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 11:22:47 GMT
To be honest, that's where I struggle! With no assets, a fixed (if not increasing) rental cost and static (if not dwindling) income, I can't see how that could be done without a radical cost slashing / price increasing program that might cause as much damage in lost revenue as it saved. I wasn't advocating a spend, spend, spend policy though. I was merely reflecting on what was actually happening. I do agree that spending stupid sums of money on players with the aim of somehow recouping it by getting into the Championship whilst loading the club with debt would be daft. I just don't feel that we should be against change and the chances it may bring - because the alternative was stagnation and death by a thousand cuts. OK, so then we don't need to increase the playing budget by £250k. We don't need to spend all the money saved by Beanos/Smalleys/Riggs wages. we don't need to pay off the contract of a previous manager. We don't need to hire a new manager. We don't need to hire a team of top level coaches. We don't need a CEO paying himself £350k per year. We don't need Lenagans loans to become hard loans with interest. We don't need new hard loans from venture capitalists with interest. The new bunch are making financial matters much much worse, not better. There are other ways of achieving success as I've hinted at above and in other posts on this thread. But Charlie's lots were basically going to do the same thing by increasing the budget by 500k a season , ok they were taking the debt rather than the club. But we don't know yet that it's not what eales is doing. Maybe wait for some answers and give them credit for improving the staff in the mean time
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 21, 2014 11:29:15 GMT
OK, so then we don't need to increase the playing budget by £250k. We don't need to spend all the money saved by Beanos/Smalleys/Riggs wages. we don't need to pay off the contract of a previous manager. We don't need to hire a new manager. We don't need to hire a team of top level coaches. We don't need a CEO paying himself £350k per year. We don't need Lenagans loans to become hard loans with interest. We don't need new hard loans from venture capitalists with interest. The new bunch are making financial matters much much worse, not better. There are other ways of achieving success as I've hinted at above and in other posts on this thread. But Charlie's lots were basically going to do the same thing by increasing the budget by 500k a season , ok they were taking the debt rather than the club. But we don't know yet that it's not what eales is doing. Maybe wait for some answers and give them credit for improving the staff in the mean time Don't let facts get in the way of an alternate agenda.!
|
|
|
Post by ox1yellow on Jul 21, 2014 11:29:22 GMT
I don't think so. If Kitson decides to retire then we stop paying his wages. But why would Kitson decide to retire when he can have another year of wages? The only way Kitson would retire is if his contract was paid up. I know there is another thread running on Kitson but I just cannot believe this would be the case. Why on earth would the club pay him to walk away from his contract? It just makes no sense at all. The only options that I can imagine happening are: 1. He resigns and walks away - a mutual decision that works for both parties. He'll have his own non-playing income and personal assets to fall back on and I really can't believe the cash we pay him makes that much of a difference to him. As a result we get to reinvest his wage in another player/s or coach. 2. He wants his salary until the end of the coming season so he stays with the club and turns up. We ensure he meets his contractual obligations to train and play. Our management would be utter fools to give him a year of income and not expect anything in return. Where on earth is the business or footballing sense in that?
|
|
|
Post by one trick Raponi on Jul 21, 2014 11:29:37 GMT
I remember a radio Oxford interview last season with Kitson where he said if he did decide to retire he wouldn't hold the club to ransom over paying off his contract. We'll have to wait and see if he does decide to retire but he's a wealthy man with pompey money coming into him for a long time and I think in his time here he's come across as a man of integrity also.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 11:31:45 GMT
But Charlie's lots were basically going to do the same thing by increasing the budget by 500k a season , ok they were taking the debt rather than the club. But we don't know yet that it's not what eales is doing. Maybe wait for some answers and give them credit for improving the staff in the mean time Don't let facts get in the way of an alternate agenda.! What's my agenda then, giving new guys the benefit of the doubt until I hear what they have to say ??
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 21, 2014 11:32:53 GMT
But why would Kitson decide to retire when he can have another year of wages? The only way Kitson would retire is if his contract was paid up. I know there is another thread running on Kitson but I just cannot believe this would be the case. Why on earth would the club pay him to walk away from his contract? It just makes no sense at all. The only options that I can imagine happening are: 1. He resigns and walks away - a mutual decision that works for both parties. He'll have his own non-playing income and personal assets to fall back on and I really can't believe the cash we pay him makes that much of a difference to him. As a result we get to reinvest his wage in another player/s or coach. 2. He wants his salary until the end of the coming season so he stays with the club and turns up. We ensure he meets his contractual obligations to train and play. Our management would be utter fools to give him a year of income and not expect anything in return. Where on earth is the business or footballing sense in that? Oven that he is entitled to another year Kitson has some negotiation power though personally I don't think he would use it ! The club (if it is the clubs wish and not kitson) would agree a figure that would still represent a saving on another full year. I have a feeling that if this happens it will be a very mutual and therefore amicable conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Jul 21, 2014 11:35:53 GMT
Leaving the playing budget (savings/extra expenditure?) to one side as that is a different issue, can anyone expand, or correct the list below of new, or revised, non-playing roles. And also take a stab (wild guess) at the increase, or decrease, of the salary of those listed.
Eales (Chaiman) > IL Ashton (Chief Executive) > IL IL (Director) > IL Mike O’Leary (Non-exec director) > Lenagan junior Frank Waterhouse (Chiel Financial Officer – non-exec director) > Paul Wright -- Appleton > Wilder Fazackerly > Lewis Lewis > Melville Mark Thomas (head of recruitment & performance analysis) > Dan Bond (video analysis> Dan Bond
others?
|
|
|
Post by ianmoore82 on Jul 21, 2014 11:41:54 GMT
What worries me is what the extra outlay is in terms of whatever the new incumbents are taking personally from the club, compared to what, if anything, IL was taking.
I presume Ashton et all are getting paid and more than likely a darn sight more than what a new player would be getting.
Football is a cash rich business on a matchday and is easily siphoned off with a lower attendance figure given.
Now, I know this is in the realm of conspiracy theories, but I struggle to see the financial attraction for non OUFC fans in getting involved in the club.
Even a promotion to L1 is hardly worth a fortune. So the attraction must be the stadium which, has been said, could end up being the club killer.
How long will it be before we can tell what is actually happening behind the scenes. Hope whenever it is, it ain't too late.
|
|
|
Post by one trick Raponi on Jul 21, 2014 11:43:23 GMT
Leaving the playing budget (savings/extra expenditure?) to one side as that is a different issue, can anyone expand, or correct the list below of new, or revised, non-playing roles. And also take a stab (wild guess) at the increase, or decrease, of the salary of those listed. Eales (Chaiman) > IL Ashton (Chief Executive) > IL IL (Director) > IL Mike O’Leary (Non-exec director) > Lenagan junior Frank Waterhouse (Chiel Financial Officer – non-exec director) > Paul Wright -- Appleton > Wilder Fazackerly > Lewis Lewis > Melville Mark Thomas (head of recruitment & performance analysis) > Dan Bond (video analysis> Dan Bond others? Andrew Proctor (physio) > Andy Lord
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Jul 21, 2014 11:44:01 GMT
Kitson wanted to leave in May - that was my understanding - or at least had discussions about it. He even stated it in the press himself that he was considering it. Those talks were held with Lenagan. He stayed.
Kitson then has the same talks with the new owner - perhaps the outcome was different.
Regarding how contracts work and are paid up, there's plenty of ways. I suspect we will mutually settle, Kitson leaving with a sum of money and not the full final year's salary - if it happens. So if he were on £2000 per week (probably more) we settle 50%. Dependent on how you look at it, we are saving £1000 a week - to spend on a player who wants to play, wants to train when sessions are on, isn't going to be suspended or injured and can make a contribution to the side. So we could get a player in and be in the same financial net position.
It's wooden dollars.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Jul 21, 2014 11:55:52 GMT
Only here could the announcement of possibly the finest backroom set up in the clubs history be seen as a negative.
Call me naive if you want but I think that this is fantastic news which shows that the current set up are serious about the development of the club.
But for all the doom mongers out there, I'll ask this one question. IF the new owners are only in it for the money, and IF they intend to buy the ground, build another, knock down first ground, build houses on it etc etc - why spend any money at all on the clubs infrastructure?
The cost of the stadium is fixed so we are led to believe. The cost of a new site would have be factored in. The knocking down, building up costs would remain constant - the only thing that will reduce the profit available will be the day to day costs between now and the day they walk away.
So forget about your conspiracy theories and other random b*llshit and tell me what there is to gain from a venture capitalists perspective investing in team affairs?
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jul 21, 2014 12:17:45 GMT
Who are all these supporters wanting money thrown at the team? I've not seen any? And if they were going to throw money at it we would already have signed 5 or 6 players? Everyone who defends the new set up with their increased costs and increased playing budget is doing so. So, being devil's advocate - the alternative argument is this: What IL's tenure has shown us very clearly is that OUFC is not a sustainable entity as it currently stands. Without ownership of the stadium, and without any significant stadium-related revenue streams, the costs of running a League Two football club at the Kassam outstrip the revenues from a normal year. And the cost cutting that would be needed to reach break even year-on-year would be so severe that we would not be able to field a competitive team - or at best, we would have to operate on the football side like Accrington and D&R do. So the club needs to own its stadium - or at very least the stadium and club need to be owned by the same entity which views them as a whole. Solving that problem has to be the priority to secure the club's long term future (whether it involves buying the ground off Kassam, or building a new one at Water Eaton). Without it, we're ultimately doomed - the only question is whether it's a quick or a slow death. If we assume that the stadium situation eventually will be resolved, and that once OUFC controls its ground again we can break even - does it really matter if at that time we're £6 million or £10 million in debt? I'm really not sure it does in the grand scheme of things. And if that's the case, and Eales/Ashton are willing to put their cash at risk, then maybe it's better to go for it? Certainly it's more likely to re-energise the fanbase. And you never know when you might get lucky, like Crawley did, with a couple of good Cup draws and maybe a playoff run....... It's definitely not a sustainable, sensible strategy. But without a stadium, I don't think there is one.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Jul 21, 2014 12:19:18 GMT
But for all the doom mongers out there I don't see raising important concerns about this as being a 'doom monger', we as a set of fans have been led down the wrong path quite a few times by not asking tough questions about the club owners and board. I am cautiously optimistic with how things have gone in the last few weeks, but the cost of the upper management structure is an area of concern. This thread has highlighted quite a few areas where questions need to be answered, and I certainly don't think GodalmingYellow is being a 'doom monger' by generating a discussion on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jul 21, 2014 12:24:31 GMT
Eales mentioned in his interview that he's knows nothing about property development. Worth keeping in mind.
We're right to be cautious about how sustainable the club is, and the level of debts we have. I love the introduction of both an experienced and well known coach in the game. In theory there is no downside to it whatsoever. With such a young squad, it's really a good appointment.
We do assume DF is taking a good wage though.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Jul 21, 2014 12:27:15 GMT
But for all the doom mongers out there I don't see raising important concerns about this as being a 'doom monger', we as a set of fans have been led down the wrong path quite a few times by not asking tough questions about the club owners and board. I am cautiously optimistic with how things have gone in the last few weeks, but the cost of the upper management structure is an area of concern. This thread has highlighted quite a few areas where questions need to be answered, and I certainly don't think GodalmingYellow is being a 'doom monger' by generating a discussion on the subject. Then maybe he or someone else can answer the question I raised about why would a venture capitalist (his description) invest in the team affairs if there sole interest is making money out of the stadium? There are no assets at the club. They can rack up millions of debt, but that is their debt. If they walk away there is nobody to pay that debt off. Yes the club will fold, but why should venture capitalist care about that? Either they are in it for the money, in which case they are also hoping to develop the club at the same time to possibly make even more money. Or perhaps, and I know this sounds crazy, but maybe they are doing what they said they'd do by taking every aspect of the club forward. Questions need yo be asked of course, but from a rational fact based perspective - not from an irrational position of mistrust.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jul 21, 2014 12:50:41 GMT
Don't let facts get in the way of an alternate agenda.! What's my agenda then, giving new guys the benefit of the doubt until I hear what they have to say ?? Uh humm I was actually agreeing with your point which in my opinion are the facts . The agenda is held by others! Don't let that spoil a good argument though!!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 13:02:28 GMT
What's my agenda then, giving new guys the benefit of the doubt until I hear what they have to say ?? Uh humm I was actually agreeing with your point which in my opinion are the facts . The agenda is held by others! Don't let that spoil a good argument though!! Ohh sorry mate I just read it as u had posted that under my post that u were referring to me I apologise profusely on one knee
|
|
|
Post by Millman on Jul 21, 2014 13:10:49 GMT
tonyw is spot on. OUFC was not viable under IL. It was losing money hand over fist, and it appears to stop that required Kassam like cuts that ruined the professionalism and competitiveness of the club. IL seemed to have reached his breaking point supporting us and soft loan or not the money tap was about to be switched off (Lets not kid ourselves the playing budget was being slashed under IL for this season). OUFC for the last few seasons had reached the limits of what is possible given its current financial constraints. The structure for success was simply not in place. The worrying fact was at this limit the losses were mounting and the fanbase was very unhappy.
Is what we have now better? Who knows. On paper we are starting to act like a proper club with ambition and a structure to take us forwards. The cost of this, as very correctly has been pointed out, is something we should ask about. However until we hear the answers we are in no position the criticise.
I welcome a new approach to our problems as it is plain the old approach was leading to disaster. We need now to find out if this one has a better chance of success.
|
|