|
Post by Long John Silver on Jul 21, 2014 19:14:11 GMT
Something had to change. The way things were going on under IL's plan of minimum spend, we were adding a million to the debt each year and would never have got promotion. God knows where we would have been in 5 or 10 years time.
If we have to spend a bit extra for a season or two, instead of spending that same amount over 5 years and getting nowhere, to have a realistic shot at promotion, then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jul 21, 2014 19:22:12 GMT
You have NO idea what their finances / business plans are. You are absolutely right: we don't. Despite this takeover being 12 months in the making, there has STILL been no communication about what the vision for the club is. Nothing about realistic aspirations for the club. Nothing about potential timescales for a stadium purchase. Nothing about what debt has been dealt with as part of the takeover. For those questioning my role with OxVox and, to be blunt, my integrity: I have huge concerns regarding what the new owners have planned for the club. And I am raising the questions which fans and, therefore, OxVox should be asking. I am more than willing to listen - in fact I'm crying out for the information. I am also mature enough and open-minded enough that, if a realistic plan is presented which puts the club on a sustainable and successful footing which does not load the club with additional debt, then I will gladly hold my hands up and admit my concerns were ill-founded. It may have taken 12 months and on paper I would have preferred Charlies mob but they only came into the equation 7 weeks before the other consortium were successful. Hopefully tomorrow will shed more light on the new owners and put the fans at ease.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 19:22:56 GMT
And what if that involves increasing the debt in the short term. But improving the team and back room . With it then starting to decrease or level out once the stadium is achieved ? This is where the gamble comes in. How much debt is it acceptable to accrue prior to obtaining the stadium? Again, how is the stadium to be funded, i.e. will it result in more debt on the club? That's the issue here - if the plan is to build up debt in the short term to cover the playing side, and then add on more debt when the stadium is purchased, what position does that realistically leave the club in? Does that not mean that the additional revenues available from the stadium will simply be swallowed up in servicing the debt rather than actually moving the club forward? Then in the same vain spending 500k extra a year on top of losing 1m is not a long term plan. The only difference is Charlie lot would have taken that gamble on their own pockets. Just not only be prepared to listen but try not like some on here to assume everything they answer is a lie or deception. And put ur self in their shoes how some of ur questioning would go down in reverse . If they were asking what's ur businesses do. Where ur going to spend ur money in the next 5 years. And how much u own/earn. Really hope that not only does this meeting bring some of the answers that people want. But that they then believe the answers and support the vision they r alreading showing for the club in the first couple of weeks. Then we can really move forward as a club
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jul 21, 2014 19:25:46 GMT
And what if that involves increasing the debt in the short term. But improving the team and back room . With it then starting to decrease or level out once the stadium is achieved ? This is where the gamble comes in. How much debt is it acceptable to accrue prior to obtaining the stadium? Again, how is the stadium to be funded, i.e. will it result in more debt on the club? That's the issue here - if the plan is to build up debt in the short term to cover the playing side, and then add on more debt when the stadium is purchased, what position does that realistically leave the club in? Does that not mean that the additional revenues available from the stadium will simply be swallowed up in servicing the debt rather than actually moving the club forward? But who would be the debtors Ashton/Eales for starters they would save 500k+ in rental payments they would also receive rent from the cockney Taffs and any other revenue from income earn for the conference facilities. You seem to have forgotten these things myles.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 21, 2014 19:28:01 GMT
This is where the gamble comes in. How much debt is it acceptable to accrue prior to obtaining the stadium? Again, how is the stadium to be funded, i.e. will it result in more debt on the club? That's the issue here - if the plan is to build up debt in the short term to cover the playing side, and then add on more debt when the stadium is purchased, what position does that realistically leave the club in? Does that not mean that the additional revenues available from the stadium will simply be swallowed up in servicing the debt rather than actually moving the club forward? Then in the same vain spending 500k extra a year on top of losing 1m is not a long term plan. The only difference is Charlie lot would have taken that gamble on their own pockets. Just not only be prepared to listen but try not like some on here to assume everything they answer is a lie or deception. And put ur self in their shoes how some of ur questioning would go down in reverse . If they were asking what's ur businesses do. Where ur going to spend ur money in the next 5 years. And how much u own/earn. Really hope that not only does this meeting bring some of the answers that people want. But that they then believe the answers and support the vision they r alreading showing for the club in the first couple of weeks. Then we can really move forward as a club To be blunt, there's a huge difference between funding the club through equity rather than debt.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jul 21, 2014 19:29:12 GMT
This thread is embarrassing . It's down to the club and it's directors and management what happens regarding debt and clearing it. Why as a fan would you worry about the potential consequences that you can't really do anything about either way ? We are showing real ambition in driving forward as a football club, surely that's a good thing ? Can't see the point in fretting about something that's not got worse / happened yet , Lenegan had enough money to keep the club afloat. Eales is clearly minted etc, maybe Ashton too ... Well if you are minted you can throw money at stuff and if it's likely to do well which on paper it is. Then there will be some returns , Sign no one . People moan. Sign good management and coaches. People moan Enjoy what's happening and what results are to hopefully follow That post is a shallow, hapless effort which would have been lemming-like even if you did not happen to support a club that has been through what has happened over the last 20 years. It is an unthinking insult to those who had to sweat hard in the late 1990s to keep this club going, after fans had been taken in by precisely not worrying too much about what was happening to the club's debt levels. I assume you are very young. If so, do say so and I will happily take you through the history under Robin Herd and Firoz Kassam at length. I'm pretty sure I remember Myles on the founding committee of OxVox all those years ago, so for clowns like you to tell him, and others like him, to sit back and "enjoy what is happening" is shameful. I have nothing against Mark Ashton, Darryl Eales et al. Seem like good blokes to me. But Robin Herd was a good bloke too, and he almost saw this club into the grave. Firoz, according to those who have social contact with him, is a fun chap. Indeed, his friends will tell you that he too wanted the club to succeed. Didn't mean it happened. And who had to be there to pick up the pieces when we finally hit rock bottom following his reign? Yep. It was the fans, yet again, who had to go out and "enjoy" mid-table Conference football whilst going out with the collecting buckets again to try to keep the club in one piece. Trevor Lambert; Snake; Myles Francis; yes, me as well. Together with others, we were there - often disagreeing (sometimes viciously) about what was going on, but caring deeply that we actually have a club to hand over to our children and grand-children to support. We remember all too well what happens when a club has a debt mountain and assets which don't match the debt when the owner gets bored or runs out of cash. And I'm sure that if the names above met now, we wouldn't agree on everything. But one thing I can guarantee (Snake will doubtless contradict this!) is that it is an eminently viable, and very important, thing for supporters who really care to ask deep questions about how and why the club they love is being financed. In the absence of information, a degree of deduction and surmise is required to form the basis for that questioning. It's not personal, it's not nasty - nobody that I can see is questioning the character of Eales - it's just a logical thing to do when you have any understanding at all of history and its propensity to repeat itself. If my consortium had bought the club, we were fully aware of the questions that would have come our way. When announcing the bid we therefore attempted to anticipate and answer some of those questions. You know what: I think Mark Ashton is fully expecting those questions well. He doesn't seem to me, unlike you, to be a Ladybird aficionado who believes that climbing a beanstalk is the route to success. By all means suggest, as some do on here, that Myles and others should wait for the results of the OxVox meeting before airing a view. But to suggest that it all just doesn't matter is, frankly, to borrow your word, embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 21, 2014 19:33:42 GMT
This is where the gamble comes in. How much debt is it acceptable to accrue prior to obtaining the stadium? Again, how is the stadium to be funded, i.e. will it result in more debt on the club? That's the issue here - if the plan is to build up debt in the short term to cover the playing side, and then add on more debt when the stadium is purchased, what position does that realistically leave the club in? Does that not mean that the additional revenues available from the stadium will simply be swallowed up in servicing the debt rather than actually moving the club forward? But who would be the debtors Ashton/Eales for starters they would save 500k+ in rental payments they would also receive rent from the cockney Taffs and any other revenue from income earn for the conference facilities. You seem to have forgotten these things myles. The rent isn't 500k. From memory, about half of that sum is recovery of overheads - gas, electric etc. Things which need paying regardless of who owns the stadium. And I haven't forgotten the other revenue streams - I specifically mentioned them! And, as you seem to accept, these would be used to pay down the debt, not actually benefit the club.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 19:36:06 GMT
This thread is embarrassing . It's down to the club and it's directors and management what happens regarding debt and clearing it. Why as a fan would you worry about the potential consequences that you can't really do anything about either way ? We are showing real ambition in driving forward as a football club, surely that's a good thing ? Can't see the point in fretting about something that's not got worse / happened yet , Lenegan had enough money to keep the club afloat. Eales is clearly minted etc, maybe Ashton too ... Well if you are minted you can throw money at stuff and if it's likely to do well which on paper it is. Then there will be some returns , Sign no one . People moan. Sign good management and coaches. People moan Enjoy what's happening and what results are to hopefully follow That post is a shallow, hapless effort which would have been lemming-like even if you did not happen to support a club that has been through what has happened over the last 20 years. It is an unthinking insult to those who had to sweat hard in the late 1990s to keep this club going, after fans had been taken in by precisely not worrying too much about what was happening to the club's debt levels. I assume you are very young. If so, do say so and I will happily take you through the history under Robin Herd and Firoz Kassam at length. I'm pretty sure I remember Myles on the founding committee of OxVox all those years ago, so for clowns like you to tell him, and others like him, to sit back and "enjoy what is happening" is shameful. I have nothing against Mark Ashton, Darryl Eales et al. Seem like good blokes to me. But Robin Herd was a good bloke too, and he almost saw this club into the grave. Firoz, according to those who have social contact with him, is a fun chap. Indeed, his friends will tell you that he too wanted the club to succeed. Didn't mean it happened. And who had to be there to pick up the pieces when we finally hit rock bottom following his reign? Yep. It was the fans, yet again, who had to go out and "enjoy" mid-table Conference football whilst going out with the collecting buckets again to try to keep the club in one piece. Trevor Lambert; Snake; Myles Francis; yes, me as well. Together with others, we were there - often disagreeing (sometimes viciously) about what was going on, but caring deeply that we actually have a club to hand over to our children and grand-children to support. We remember all too well what happens when a club has a debt mountain and assets which don't match the debt when the owner gets bored or runs out of cash. And I'm sure that if the names above met now, we wouldn't agree on everything. But one thing I can guarantee (Snake will doubtless contradict this!) is that it is an eminently viable, and very important, thing for supporters who really care to ask deep questions about how and why the club they love is being financed. In the absence of information, a degree of deduction and surmise is required to form the basis for that questioning. It's not personal, it's not nasty - nobody that I can see is questioning the character of Eales - it's just a logical thing to do when you have any understanding at all of history and its propensity to repeat itself. If my consortium had bought the club, we were fully aware of the questions that would have come our way. When announcing the bid we therefore attempted to anticipate and answer some of those questions. You know what: I think Mark Ashton is fully expecting those questions well. He doesn't seem to me, unlike you, to be a Ladybird aficionado who believes that climbing a beanstalk is the route to success. By all means suggest, as some do on here, that Myles and others should wait for the results of the OxVox meeting before airing a view. But to suggest that it all just doesn't matter is, frankly, to borrow your word, embarrassing. I hope I haven't one across as someone who just wants us to blindly follow their lead. Not my intention at all. I'm very interested in hearing their answers. My only niggle is that not asking them in the right way, or not believing the answers is just as negative or even worse than not knowing and guessing.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jul 21, 2014 19:38:05 GMT
0the rent was stipulated at 500k+ no other income would not clear the debt for a long time but if Ashton and Eales are here with IL for the long term of the club.....Then maybe just maybe they have a financial plan in place to cover this debt and run this club correctly, With promotion to the championship eventually realising the revenue that could be earned. But you are just a doom and gloom merchant who seems pi**ed off that Charlie didn't get to be the new owner.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 21, 2014 19:38:19 GMT
But who would be the debtors Ashton/Eales for starters they would save 500k+ in rental payments they would also receive rent from the cockney Taffs and any other revenue from income earn for the conference facilities. You seem to have forgotten these things myles. The rent isn't 500k. From memory, about half of that sum is recovery of overheads - gas, electric etc. Things which need paying regardless of who owns the stadium. And I haven't forgotten the other revenue streams - I specifically mentioned them! And, as you seem to accept, these would be used to pay down the debt, not actually benefit the club. But then slowly bringing down the debt is benefiting the club is it not. Then with the advances they r making to the coaching and playing staff. The increased revenue from crowds will benefit the club
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 19:38:43 GMT
Charlie: would you have operated the club as a virtual plc? By that I mean, would you have provided the supporters the type of access to information that a shareholder of a plc would expect?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 21, 2014 19:45:46 GMT
The rent isn't 500k. From memory, about half of that sum is recovery of overheads - gas, electric etc. Things which need paying regardless of who owns the stadium. And I haven't forgotten the other revenue streams - I specifically mentioned them! And, as you seem to accept, these would be used to pay down the debt, not actually benefit the club. But then slowly bringing down the debt is benefiting the club is it not. Then with the advances they r making to the coaching and playing staff. The increased revenue from crowds will benefit the club I hear what you're saying, but I wouldn't say that increasing the debt level and then slowly paying it off is really "benefiting the club". One of the main things which has been held up by numerous people as holding the club back is the lack of additional revenue from the stadium. Buying the stadium by way of debt and using the revenues to pay down that debt does not change that situation in any practical sense.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jul 21, 2014 19:47:57 GMT
This is where the gamble comes in. How much debt is it acceptable to accrue prior to obtaining the stadium? Again, how is the stadium to be funded, i.e. will it result in more debt on the club? That's the issue here - if the plan is to build up debt in the short term to cover the playing side, and then add on more debt when the stadium is purchased, what position does that realistically leave the club in? Does that not mean that the additional revenues available from the stadium will simply be swallowed up in servicing the debt rather than actually moving the club forward? From my perspective, as I suggested earlier, I'm ready to suggest that we're already well past the tipping point. We're already at, what, £7-8 million debt for a club with minimal saleable assets? There's no way we could pay it back if we needed to. Hell, there's no way we could even service it at standard loan rates if we had to. From this point, the only viable endgames that I can see for the club to get out of this are a) some form of big property deal and b) philanthropic moneybags owner. Does £10-12 million debt in a couple of years really make the picture substantially worse? And if not, and Eales is willing to risk his capital, might we not just as well let him - you never know, we might get lucky and go on a historic, money-spinning run!?!
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jul 21, 2014 19:50:52 GMT
This thread is embarrassing . It's down to the club and it's directors and management what happens regarding debt and clearing it. Why as a fan would you worry about the potential consequences that you can't really do anything about either way ? We are showing real ambition in driving forward as a football club, surely that's a good thing ? Can't see the point in fretting about something that's not got worse / happened yet , Lenegan had enough money to keep the club afloat. Eales is clearly minted etc, maybe Ashton too ... Well if you are minted you can throw money at stuff and if it's likely to do well which on paper it is. Then there will be some returns , Sign no one . People moan. Sign good management and coaches. People moan Enjoy what's happening and what results are to hopefully follow That post is a shallow, hapless effort which would have been lemming-like even if you did not happen to support a club that has been through what has happened over the last 20 years. It is an unthinking insult to those who had to sweat hard in the late 1990s to keep this club going, after fans had been taken in by precisely not worrying too much about what was happening to the club's debt levels. I assume you are very young. If so, do say so and I will happily take you through the history under Robin Herd and Firoz Kassam at length. I'm pretty sure I remember Myles on the founding committee of OxVox all those years ago, so for clowns like you to tell him, and others like him, to sit back and "enjoy what is happening" is shameful. I have nothing against Mark Ashton, Darryl Eales et al. Seem like good blokes to me. But Robin Herd was a good bloke too, and he almost saw this club into the grave. Firoz, according to those who have social contact with him, is a fun chap. Indeed, his friends will tell you that he too wanted the club to succeed. Didn't mean it happened. And who had to be there to pick up the pieces when we finally hit rock bottom following his reign? Yep. It was the fans, yet again, who had to go out and "enjoy" mid-table Conference football whilst going out with the collecting buckets again to try to keep the club in one piece. Trevor Lambert; Snake; Myles Francis; yes, me as well. Together with others, we were there - often disagreeing (sometimes viciously) about what was going on, but caring deeply that we actually have a club to hand over to our children and grand-children to support. We remember all too well what happens when a club has a debt mountain and assets which don't match the debt when the owner gets bored or runs out of cash. And I'm sure that if the names above met now, we wouldn't agree on everything. But one thing I can guarantee (Snake will doubtless contradict this!) is that it is an eminently viable, and very important, thing for supporters who really care to ask deep questions about how and why the club they love is being financed. In the absence of information, a degree of deduction and surmise is required to form the basis for that questioning. It's not personal, it's not nasty - nobody that I can see is questioning the character of Eales - it's just a logical thing to do when you have any understanding at all of history and its propensity to repeat itself. If my consortium had bought the club, we were fully aware of the questions that would have come our way. When announcing the bid we therefore attempted to anticipate and answer some of those questions. You know what: I think Mark Ashton is fully expecting those questions well. He doesn't seem to me, unlike you, to be a Ladybird aficionado who believes that climbing a beanstalk is the route to success. By all means suggest, as some do on here, that Myles and others should wait for the results of the OxVox meeting before airing a view. But to suggest that it all just doesn't matter is, frankly, to borrow your word, embarrassing. That is a fare response Charlie, I too would like to see the answers to undoubtedly some very interesting and possibly personal questions. I cant sit back and wait for the answers to materialise and acted upon. I have been a supporter since the 60's and like you have seen the good and bad times at this club and like most fans will argue till I am blue in the face about the club, Its passion am I right or am I wrong at the end of the day it is my view as it is the other fans view in their thoughts on the club. Your consortium were more open than Ashton/Eales consortium but I do believe they wouldn't have been here unless they had a plan, But its knowing the plan that is getting the fans wondering.I would like to know did your consortium ever think if the deal was right jumping on board with them. Tomorrow will be interesting to say the least and I hope Mark Sennet asks the right questions and posts a response. I know he works along with other Oxvox members tirelessly for the fans. So hopefully tomorrow will be a defining one in the clubs history.
|
|
|
Post by yellowilks on Jul 21, 2014 19:58:29 GMT
This thread is embarrassing . It's down to the club and it's directors and management what happens regarding debt and clearing it. Why as a fan would you worry about the potential consequences that you can't really do anything about either way ? That has to be one of the most defeatist things I've ever read on here. why defeat? its known to all that we are in debt, that doesnt mean you cant do well. sometimes you have to get into debt in order to get out of !! a positive post getting shot at. I dont know what people on this forum want to hear sometimes !!
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 21, 2014 20:02:07 GMT
That has to be one of the most defeatist things I've ever read on here. why defeat? its known to all that we are in debt, that doesnt mean you cant do well. sometimes you have to get into debt in order to get out of !! a positive post getting shot at. I dont know what people on this forum want to hear sometimes !! One of the potential consequences of loading the club with debt is liquidation. But you don't think we should worry about that as it's not something we can control. That is as defeatist as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by yellowilks on Jul 21, 2014 20:05:42 GMT
potential as in your thinking negative about a situation thats not very likely to happen, each to their own i stay optimistic mate.. some of the greatest clubs out there are in alot of debt. liquidation is not something we should worry about right now
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jul 21, 2014 20:10:17 GMT
I didn't say that it was "likely" to happen. But it is a potential.
And, yes, some of the greatest clubs out there are in a lot of debt. They also have massive revenue streams to service that debt. It's a question of ensuring that any debt remains proportionate to the revenues and assets.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jul 21, 2014 20:17:27 GMT
I didn't say that it was "likely" to happen. But it is a potential. And, yes, some of the greatest clubs out there are in a lot of debt. They also have massive revenue streams to service that debt. It's a question of ensuring that any debt remains proportionate to the revenues and assets. I understand your concerns myles but you are being so negative since the Ashton/Eales consortium was announced, If they were asset strippers I would be very concerned lets just wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jul 21, 2014 20:49:39 GMT
It's about having an open mindset and accepting your prejudices maybe wrong, or least not as extreme. I would be disappointed if OxVox were confrontational when they first meet the new owners as it's not needed.
|
|
|
Post by yellowilks on Jul 21, 2014 20:51:57 GMT
breath of fresh air the last two posts.........
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Jul 21, 2014 20:56:56 GMT
I didn't say that it was "likely" to happen. But it is a potential. And, yes, some of the greatest clubs out there are in a lot of debt. They also have massive revenue streams to service that debt. It's a question of ensuring that any debt remains proportionate to the revenues and assets. Provided the club manages to keep its "head above water" with regards to paying the rent, PAYE and VAT there is little chance of liquidation as Lenagan would lose everything in that scenario. Lenagan has always managed to pay these commitments I understand. He is the major club creditor holding a debenture over the clubs floating assets and as he has just done a deal with Darryl Eales it is highly unlikely that Administration/Liquidation will happen. Anyone worried that Myles just might be armed when he enters that room tomorrow night for those talks with the club
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jul 21, 2014 21:53:27 GMT
potential as in your thinking negative about a situation thats not very likely to happen, each to their own i stay optimistic mate.. some of the greatest clubs out there are in alot of debt. liquidation is not something we should worry about right now There is a big difference between being indebted and being insolvent. If you have assets worth £20 million, and are £10 million in debt, then you are a viable business. This is almost what our situation was in the 1990s, when we owned the Manor, which was worth, arguably - and proven by Kassam to be - more than the sum of our debts. Our situation now is very different. It is unsecured debt. We have no assets. The moment that any owner, or previous owner, decided - or was forced by financial misfortune - to 'call in' those debts, we would be insolvent, and either forced into administration or liquidation. That is why the bid that I put together was designed to eradicate debt in the club, and finance the ownership of a stadium through equity, and not through debt. I totally understand why people want to "get behind" the new ownership. So do I. Indeed, I am still actively involved in helping that ownership, through being a trustee of the YCT and through rattling buckets and whatever else with the Yellow Army. I am hugely optimistic. Shivering on the touchline of youth games over the last three years seems like a great thing to do when I see Josh Ashby curl a free kick into the top corner, and James Roberts slot home sharp chances. I'm already looking forward to Chrissy Allen (under-appreciated OUFC top man) bringing through yet another batch of talented, well-behaved youngsters. But does that mean that I do not want to consider the future financial well-being of the club? Nope. Fraid not. All power to Myles' elbow. And Sennett's. And the rest of them. And I would have been saying exactly the same if I was the current OUFC ownership. People like them are what great clubs need. If there's nothing to hide then - I say this with 100% confidence, having travelled the length and breadth of the land watching our club with these guys over 20 or 30 years -no-one will be happier than them. Let's all forge ahead together not in fingers-crossed hope, but in belief. That's what brings real united support.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 22:31:03 GMT
Wise words, Charlie.
I hope that the discussions tomorrow take place in a spirit that encourages candour, transparency and starts a constructive relationship between Ox Vox and the ownership.
I am concerned that there are too many who've made up their minds that anyone but your group needs to be confronted and exposed for having the temerity to stop your group buying the club.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jul 21, 2014 22:40:28 GMT
Wise words, Charlie. I hope that the discussions tomorrow take place in a spirit that encourages candour, transparency and starts a constructive relationship between Ox Vox and the ownership. I am concerned that there are too many who've made up their minds that anyone but your group needs to be confronted and exposed for having the temerity to stop your group buying the club. I would be far more concerned if people were afraid to ask difficult questions which need to be answered - whether by me, Mark A or anyone else who owns our club. I don't think it'll worry Ashton and Eales whether questions are asked in a nice way or a less nice way. They're big boys and will decide for themselves whether they are or are not questions they want to answer. I do hope the questions will be the right ones - genuine, deep-rooted concerns, rather than gossipy nonsense. And I hope the answers will be sincere, genuine, sincere attempts to fill everyone in on the truth. If so - great process and much to be applauded. Whether or not chocolates are offered all round.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 22, 2014 5:39:01 GMT
potential as in your thinking negative about a situation thats not very likely to happen, each to their own i stay optimistic mate.. some of the greatest clubs out there are in alot of debt. liquidation is not something we should worry about right now There is a big difference between being indebted and being insolvent. If you have assets worth £20 million, and are £10 million in debt, then you are a viable business. This is almost what our situation was in the 1990s, when we owned the Manor, which was worth, arguably - and proven by Kassam to be - more than the sum of our debts. Our situation now is very different. It is unsecured debt. We have no assets. The moment that any owner, or previous owner, decided - or was forced by financial misfortune - to 'call in' those debts, we would be insolvent, and either forced into administration or liquidation. That is why the bid that I put together was designed to eradicate debt in the club, and finance the ownership of a stadium through equity, and not through debt. I totally understand why people want to "get behind" the new ownership. So do I. Indeed, I am still actively involved in helping that ownership, through being a trustee of the YCT and through rattling buckets and whatever else with the Yellow Army. I am hugely optimistic. Shivering on the touchline of youth games over the last three years seems like a great thing to do when I see Josh Ashby curl a free kick into the top corner, and James Roberts slot home sharp chances. I'm already looking forward to Chrissy Allen (under-appreciated OUFC top man) bringing through yet another batch of talented, well-behaved youngsters. But does that mean that I do not want to consider the future financial well-being of the club? Nope. Fraid not. All power to Myles' elbow. And Sennett's. And the rest of them. And I would have been saying exactly the same if I was the current OUFC ownership. People like them are what great clubs need. If there's nothing to hide then - I say this with 100% confidence, having travelled the length and breadth of the land watching our club with these guys over 20 or 30 years -no-one will be happier than them. Let's all forge ahead together not in fingers-crossed hope, but in belief. That's what brings real united support. So I know this is a long shot and maybe be a billion reasons why not. But could u not speak to eales about joining him and uniting his vision with ur own. Wiping the club debt by say buying lenagan out. ?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 22, 2014 5:47:45 GMT
I know that we are bringing in new people like Ashton, some of which are new roles or were previously cheaper or free, and that we as fans want the club to operate within its means.
But it seems they are taking a fresh approach to the football side of matters, they will have some new ideas, hopefully build on Youth Development and Strength & Conditioning, perhaps drop some things. Wilder left before this all started, Melville's gone, Ian Lenagan's gone as day to day chairman, the FD has been replaced.
It could be seen as an expensive gamble on the route to footballing success, but we've tried the expensive experienced players route like Duberry, Leven, tried the short term loans, bust the wage budget so many times in the last few years. Not re-signing Constable is perhaps another key saving made.
So yes there are many questions to ask about Ensco's motives and ambitions for themselves and the club, the finances, but we would surely have been asking exactly the same of Charlie's consortium. Perhaps in a few years if Ensco haven't achieved what they want and decide to walk away from their debt, then we will be back looking for new owners and backers again.
|
|
|
Post by mcf86 on Jul 22, 2014 7:07:00 GMT
''The new bunch are making financial matters much much worse- Not better''
''The whole deal is being done arse about face, loading the Club with debts''
''It is very difficult to know if they are being honest or not''
''The trick is to be suspicious of everything until you have evidence to prove otherwise''
Why should OxVox bother with having a meeting today? GY Has already sussed them out, and these Incompetent, dishonest and scheming scoundrels should be run out of Town!!
There's having rational concerns- then there's paranoia, the OP borders on the latter imo.
Until we give 'The new Bunch' a chance to answer for themselves let's not pre judge the situation, eh?
|
|
|
Post by wantageyellow on Jul 22, 2014 7:54:25 GMT
I agree and disagree with alot of what is being said in this thread.. the negativity about not ever being at the same level of Leicester or Sheffield Wednesday is silly, with some success over a few years there is no reason why we could not have a much larger fanbase.
However, I do agree I am worried where the money is coming to finance these changes and I would hate to see the club sink back into financial difficulty. I fear the sending is based on a assurance that we will be promoted this coming season or the next which as a business model is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Jul 22, 2014 7:54:39 GMT
''The new bunch are making financial matters much much worse- Not better'' ''The whole deal is being done arse about face, loading the Club with debts'' ''It is very difficult to know if they are being honest or not'' ''The trick is to be suspicious of everything until you have evidence to prove otherwise'' Why should OxVox bother with having a meeting today? GY Has already sussed them out, and these Incompetent, dishonest and scheming scoundrels should be run out of Town!! There's having rational concerns- then there's paranoia, the OP borders on the latter imo. Until we give 'The new Bunch' a chance to answer for themselves let's not pre judge the situation, eh? I think that sums it up very well MCF. I have concerns, lots of them, some will be different to others on here. IE we have sacked a proven league two manager and replaced him with a championship manager, he has worked in some incredibly difficult situations but his record is shit. We have an international coach and these two have to work with league two players, will everyone adapt? Will expectations of the players be too high? We have a data bloke, sounds very premier league, in fact the whole set up is very championship/premier league but we are a league two side with a league two budget. Generally im more in favour of improving the set up rather than splashing a load of money on players that dont give a toss but do we need another data expert? Would this money be better used on a decent striker? My biggest concern is the relentless posting on here by the "Donald clan" who have executed Eales before his trial (I exclude Charlie in that statement). The fact that Myles may be sat in a meeting with the new guys worries me, his posting style is of a man whos mind is made up, no amount of denial alters that. Il has had what Donald wants for years, we are told he has so much money that OUFC's anual losses would be small change to him yet when it came to the crunch he offered two million less than Eales. Why?
|
|