|
Post by nottsyellow on Jan 16, 2017 19:08:32 GMT
Really could do with statement from FK confirming that he considers negotiations are on track, there are no significant hurdles and timetable for completion is likely to be X Y Z.
|
|
|
Post by wizzard on Jan 16, 2017 19:52:01 GMT
The board of directors statement today,in my opinion,was not very helpful. Firoz we know can be an awkward beggar and basically telling him to get his finger out may not be the best way forward.
|
|
|
Post by salaghaf on Jan 16, 2017 20:08:34 GMT
But we could have started looking to move elsewhere at any point? We still can. The club could be/should be looking at that anyway, with out trying to force though a deal, that when started they didn't think was necessary. They might see it as a clever move trying to force fk's hand, but I would say there is more of a chance it will either make him string it out longer or pull out, meaning the club have just screwed the only real chance oufc has had of owing its stadium in 15years Maybe this is all a clever ploy by FK to prompt us to look elsewhere and move. I'm sure if DE requested a meeting to discuss cancellation of the lease, a very amicable FK would turn up the very next day. I'm convinced these recent negotiations with Oxvox are simply a means to an end for FK, namely making another hefty profit from the land sale. Either with or without the permission of DE. A sweeter for us fans, would be a chunk of money to enable us to build a community stadium, probably with his name on it. Assuming land sale is worth £50 million, less £15 million to enable us to build a new stadium, and £5million to satisfy DE (when DE sues him). £30 million in his pocket.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 16, 2017 20:10:13 GMT
But we could have started looking to move elsewhere at any point? We still can. The club could be/should be looking at that anyway, with out trying to force though a deal, that when started they didn't think was necessary. They might see it as a clever move trying to force fk's hand, but I would say there is more of a chance it will either make him string it out longer or pull out, meaning the club have just screwed the only real chance oufc has had of owing its stadium in 15years Maybe this is all a clever ploy by FK to prompt us to look elsewhere and move. I'm sure if DE requested a meeting to discuss cancellation of the lease, a very amicable FK would turn up the very next day. I'm convinced these recent negotiations with Oxvox are simply a means to an end for FK, namely making another hefty profit from the land sale. Either with or without the permission of DE. A sweeter for us fans, would be a chunk of money to enable us to build a community stadium, probably with his name on it. Assuming land sale is worth £50 million, less £15 million to enable us to build a new stadium, and £5million to satisfy DE (when DE sues him). £30 million in his pocket. Why would he need a clever plot to prompt us, if he wanted that he could make it happen much easier
|
|
|
Post by fat bloke on Jan 16, 2017 20:21:32 GMT
He was never bovered about football he knows land is much more profitable with housing or a bigger hotel complex etc,as it is the stadium is getting worse by the season as not enough is being spent on refurbishment always drab place.Tell him shove it go in with council get some big sponsorship build our own purpose built even invite City in as well....
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Jan 16, 2017 20:28:15 GMT
If we had the money, if we could get planning permission, if we had the big sponsorship, if we weren't tied into a lease, if the council was behind it ....
... that would be a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by headingtonoldboy on Jan 16, 2017 20:42:05 GMT
Pardon me for sounding a total d***head but what would happen if we just stopped paying the rent? We would get kicked out presumably. We would have to find somewhere else to play but is that such a bad thing? No doubt we would have to pay compensation or something but then we would save on extortionate rent. As you can tell I am not au fait with legal matters so humour me.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 16, 2017 20:44:35 GMT
I'm sure he would take us to court and we would end up still paying the extortionate rent, plus fines as well as new rent somewhere else with probably less income .
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Jan 16, 2017 21:01:40 GMT
Oh, for heaven's sake , I wish some would look at the history of Oxford United and their plans for grounds - it has NEVER been easy.
I quite agree with Herr Methven, there are a whole host of vested interests in play here - this is never going to be sorted out over a couple of emails. 'Heads of terms' can take years to thrash out - there is no one size fits all 'heads of terms' scenario.
On the other hand I can quite understand why Eales is upping the ante, he is wanting to increase the value of his investment. For whatever reason. (In my view I reckon he wants out.) He is an experienced businessman and it's now time for brinkmanship.
We CANNOT be an effective Championship contender unless the ground status quo is sorted. Appleton has worked wonders with the squad, we are on a rapidly upward curve and we are now as high up the pyramid as we can get - under the current unsatisfactory ground arrangements. Matters have come to a head. Why? Because we have an excellent team!
Certainty of tenure and control over additional revenue stream will add value to his investment.
If we don't get 'progress' of some sort in next 10 days I reckon 1 or 2 players will get flogged.
Pressure is on - for all parties.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jan 16, 2017 22:13:46 GMT
Ermmmmm I hate to say it but HoT are not just a briefing note of what all parties are planning to do. From an easily accessible legal guidance website: "Heads of terms are a set of agreed principles which precede the signing of a negotiated contract, and which the parties intend to be reflected in the written contract. They set out the basis of the deal in broad terms. It is important to record the contract discussions so that there are minimal surprises when the first draft of the contract is produced. There is no universal practice on whether or not heads of terms are legally binding - some are and some aren’t. However, care is needed to make sure that the parties do not inadvertently drift into a binding contract on the basis of the heads of terms alone, when initially they were not intended to be legally binding. This situation sometimes occurs where the parties by their conduct show a mutual intention to be bound by the heads of terms without having signed the written contract. This is a fertile ground for disputes." There are several aspects in that that make me think it would be better to take some time rather than rush................. Key words there are "not legally binding" and "precedes the signing of a negotiated contract"
|
|
|
Post by minime on Jan 17, 2017 0:04:48 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks the board should stop running off and gobbing off to the Oxford Mail everytime they are not happy?
Surely, now is THE right time for a public OUFC forum to be held and attended by all?
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Jan 17, 2017 6:14:19 GMT
Am I the only one that thinks the board should stop running off and gobbing off to the Oxford Mail everytime they are not happy? Surely, now is THE right time for a public OUFC forum to be held and attended by all? Wasn't that suggested by Eales? The other week? If not him, I'm sure someone connected to Oxford Utd suggested it.
|
|
|
Post by fourthstand on Jan 17, 2017 7:39:19 GMT
According to Bob 'never one to pass up a headline' Price, United fans could 'desert' club if it moves from K@ssam. What nonsense. We have followed our team through thick and thin.
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Jan 17, 2017 8:05:58 GMT
Really could do with statement from FK confirming that he considers negotiations are on track, there are no significant hurdles and timetable for completion is likely to be X Y Z. ...and when Ka££am has confirmed these issues around the Priory works he should then provide the media with an update on the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 17, 2017 9:25:01 GMT
Kassam isn't going to update anyone on the situation, he has no need to.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jan 17, 2017 9:58:13 GMT
Mark, so if I've understood what you are saying, and please forgive me if I haven't, then this is basically DE wanting the club to look more attractive to a new buyer? I hope you are wrong as for the first time in years I actually like the chairman and I think we are on the brink of something special here. .... oh well it's never easy being an OUFC supporter That would be one explanation for today's statement It's an explanation which makes sense. In corporate financing terms, announcements of agreements, heads of terms etc, affects a business' share price. It's only when those deals are implemented that it affects the business' cash flow. If an announcement on heads of terms was made today, it would make absolutely no difference to the club in terms of budget setting for next season - clearly a deal isn't going to be completed in that timescale, considering the complexities of what is likely to be involved here. What it would make a difference to is the club's "share price". Having an agreement in place which is likely to be more favourable to the club makes it a more attractive business to invest in, and that's what investors do everyday - take a punt on businesses with potential. And that's what I believe Darryl is doing here, trying to push for an announcement of an agreement to make the club a more saleable proposition. In his programme notes last week he said that he has invested around £8m in the club over the last two and a half seasons. It was widely believed that he had around £10m to play with, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that he is coming towards the end of that. So, it would make sense for him to be looking at some sort of exit strategy and try to maximise the return he can get.
|
|
|
Post by pooroldboy on Jan 17, 2017 9:58:27 GMT
Kassam wont sell GR and OXVOX are being led up the garden path time will tell hope im wrong but he has history
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 17, 2017 9:59:37 GMT
Kassam wont sell GR and OXVOX are being led up the garden path time will tell hope im wrong but he has historyInteresting. Tell us more ....
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 17, 2017 10:04:41 GMT
And that's what I believe Darryl is doing here, trying to push for an announcement of an agreement to make the club a more saleable proposition. So, it would make sense for him to be looking at some sort of exit strategy and try to maximise the return he can get. Yep. Unfortunately those two words would seem to be more and more likely. Love Mr Eales, can't blame him if he wants to get out (etc etc), but shame there's more than a hint of denigrating OxVox (and therefore the fans) in doing so. PS I realise not every fan is a member of OxVox and, therefore, OxVox cannot speak for every fan, but they're the only fans' organisation we have and, in my opinion, are doing a sterling job of acting in the fanbase's best interests.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 17, 2017 10:07:03 GMT
I must get me one of those crystal balls, any chance of 2moros lottery numbers, I chuck the lot in to get the stadium
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 17, 2017 10:21:53 GMT
Kassam wont sell GR and OXVOX are being led up the garden path time will tell hope im wrong but he has history He has a history of doing what is right for him. If a deal to sell the ground and gain certain land/building rights and money works for him then he may well do that. I'm not sure if the deal will work out or not, it's complex and is being made more so by press releases and outside intervention but are you saying that OxVox shouldn't bother because it might not work out?
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jan 17, 2017 10:38:46 GMT
That would be one explanation for today's statement It's an explanation which makes sense. In corporate financing terms, announcements of agreements, heads of terms etc, affects a business' share price. It's only when those deals are implemented that it affects the business' cash flow. If an announcement on heads of terms was made today, it would make absolutely no difference to the club in terms of budget setting for next season - clearly a deal isn't going to be completed in that timescale, considering the complexities of what is likely to be involved here. What it would make a difference to is the club's "share price". Having an agreement in place which is likely to be more favourable to the club makes it a more attractive business to invest in, and that's what investors do everyday - take a punt on businesses with potential. And that's what I believe Darryl is doing here, trying to push for an announcement of an agreement to make the club a more saleable proposition. In his programme notes last week he said that he has invested around £8m in the club over the last two and a half seasons. It was widely believed that he had around £10m to play with, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that he is coming towards the end of that. So, it would make sense for him to be looking at some sort of exit strategy and try to maximise the return he can get. I don't agree with this. Investing in anything is about assessing risk and return, whether that be hedge funds, stocks and shares, premium bonds and indeed football club playing staff. Having an HoT in place significantly reduces the risk to DE of investing in the playing staff of OUFC and pushing for promotion either this season or next, which are in effect governed by this transfer window and the summer respectively. There is no point DE going for promotion to the Championship by investing in the playing staff, if the business model at that level is unsustainable. As I am sure OxVox and indeed everyone with any sense would agree, that OUFC playing in the Championship in a 3 sided limited capacity stadium with no non-matchday revenues would be near suicidal for the club, and we could easily see the club playing in the Conference again within a relatively short space of time. So for promotion, which I am sure every one of us would like to see, there has to be movement on the stadium ownership. It is in Mr Kassam's interest to hold on to the stadium as long as he can. The license if fast running out. Yes there are 9 years left but given the timescales required to achieve alternative accommodation, 9 years is nothing, and whilst Kassam cannot use the site for non sporting activities, he can impose big rent rises and higher maintenance costs and to avoid that would mean going through a lengthy and expensive tribunal, which might not even decide in the club's favour. And all that whilst we the supporters had expected DE to dip even deeper into his pockets and fund a promotion squad? I don't think so. If that were not enough, and I think this has been long forgotten by many, the rental terms of even the existing license are much more costly for playing in the Championship, than for playing in League 1 or 2. Movement on the stadium ownership is very important for OUFC to progress, and anyone using this as an opportunity to bash DE with unfounded myths of selling the club, is fundamentally wrong in my view. It is a simple situation that Championship football is not an option without access to non-matchday revenues. To be fair, even League 1 is not sustainable without big player sales unless we get the 24/7 use of the stadium. Now I agree with those who say buying the stadium is a complex issue, an issue made even more complex by the set up of a community trust to own the stadium (and I would agree that is the best long term option), BUT DE is not a bottomless pit of cash. He has previously made it clear that he has a budget for subsidising the club. An announcement of the existence of an HoT would make it very publicly clear that OxVox is serious about community ownership, that OxVox has access to third party funding, that Kassam is serious about selling, and all that with absolutely no need to breach confidentiality or divulge identities. It is not a guarantee of stadium ownership that might allow DE to invest further, but it is a hell of a reduced risk. And to those who say it takes a long time to create an HoT. Well you don't really understand what an HoT is, how and why it is created, and what it represents. It is not a lengthy or costly process, and it is not legally binding unless the parties specifically wish to make it so.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Jan 17, 2017 10:45:25 GMT
👆🏻 This. 100%
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 17, 2017 10:51:51 GMT
.... except that, despite GY's assertions, I think a number of people on this thread DO understand very well what an HoT is, how and why it is created, and what it represents. How lengthy or costly the process is depends on the project, surely? GY himself correctly says that a HoT for the Irish Peace process is a different animal to a HoT for buying a football stadium.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jan 17, 2017 11:13:21 GMT
.... except that, despite GY's assertions, I think a number of people on this thread DO understand very well what an HoT is, how and why it is created, and what it represents. How lengthy or costly the process is depends on the project, surely? GY himself correctly says that a HoT for the Irish Peace process is a different animal to a HoT for buying a football stadium. The Irish Peace Process is not even on the same planet as buying a small football stadium in Oxfordshire. For the purposes of an HoT, buying the KasStad is pretty small beer. Yes it is more complex than buying a cream cake from Tesco, or a second hand length of rope on ebay, if you wish to make ridiculous comparisons, but it is not that big a deal for half decent legal teams to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Jan 17, 2017 11:15:47 GMT
That's not comparing apples with apples, though.
I'm involved with M&A activities in my daily life and I would say that the development of HoTs between WILLING participants is normally very quick, especially if it grants a period of exclusivity.
I'm not privy to this deal in anyway, so my ramblings are uninformed in that regard. But for a commercial agreement, which the proposed deal is, I am informed of the norm, an that is, in my opinion, at odds with the proposed timescales.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 17, 2017 11:16:19 GMT
.... except that, despite GY's assertions, I think a number of people on this thread DO understand very well what an HoT is, how and why it is created, and what it represents. How lengthy or costly the process is depends on the project, surely? GY himself correctly says that a HoT for the Irish Peace process is a different animal to a HoT for buying a football stadium. The Irish Peace Process is not even on the same planet as buying a small football stadium in Oxfordshire. For the purposes of an HoT, buying the KasStad is pretty small beer. Yes it is more complex than buying a cream cake from Tesco, or a second hand length of rope on ebay, if you wish to make ridiculous comparisons, but it is not that big a deal for half decent legal teams to deal with. I don't wish to make any sort of comparison, ridiculous or otherwise. The Irish Peace process / stadium comparison was yours. My point is that you may say a HoT can be achieved quickly, others disagree. On the assumption that those others are not stupid or totally without experience, I think it's fair they've disagreed.
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 17, 2017 11:17:56 GMT
And to those who say it takes a long time to create an HoT. Well you don't really understand what an HoT is, how and why it is created, and what it represents. It is not a lengthy or costly process, and it is not legally binding unless the parties specifically wish to make it so. So what you are saying is an HoT is easy to cobble together and is not legally binding and means little in the grand scheme of things and yet a savvy business man who has run the club for three years and placed little importance on the stadium until recently will suddenly be able to use it as proof he can spend in the transfer window and get us promoted?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 17, 2017 11:20:07 GMT
That's not comparing apples with apples, though. I'm involved with M&A activities in my daily life and I would say that the development of HoTs between WILLING participants is normally very quick, especially if it grants a period of exclusivity. I'm not privy to this deal in anyway, so my ramblings are uninformed in that regard. But for a commercial agreement, which the proposed deal is, I am informed of the norm, an that is, in my opinion, at odds with the proposed timescales. Fair enough. I think / hope the coming OxVox statement will clarify the proposed HoT timescale, amongst other things.
|
|
|
Post by pooroldboy on Jan 17, 2017 11:26:40 GMT
Am member of Oxvox and want it to work do i trust FK no, HISTORY HISTORY never ignore history .Kassam could say something to calm things down but he wont and never will. Would like to be proved wrong.
|
|