|
Post by foley on Jan 27, 2017 22:44:40 GMT
I have heard from somebody in Oxvox that they rated him (was some time ago). I am more and more thinking that the change in PR, did however change significantly when he arrived. Hopefully I am totally wrong though. Whatever, the clubs PR in recent times has got infinitely worse. I would be fairly certain that neither Greig nor Simon Kelner (the other PR/comms guy on the board) would have willingly put out a statement like today's. OK Myles, I don't know the individuals so if you know them fine. WTF is going on then? The only remote thought that I can come up with is that DE seriously running out of cash and is desperate. Do you have any alternative view? If GBT is not happy with what is going out his position must be getting close to being untenable (on the basis that he is getting linked to the strange comments coming out of the club) tatements going out)?
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 27, 2017 22:56:57 GMT
It certainly seems ill-advised for OxVox to be communicating Kassam's "offer" to the club for a temporary stand for the Newcastle game to the public. Give we have no idea what the "heads of terms" of that offer was, let alone the details ot the timescale, it reads as though they have allowed themselves to be part of the Make Kassam Popular Again campaign.
And frankly the fact that Kassam won't consider it under normal circumstances shows what a poor landlord he is.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Jan 28, 2017 0:24:15 GMT
I could understand the the board and fans backing Darryl if he had an alternative plan( and by backing him I mean just on the stadium). But his plan is now oxvox. Read what Darryl says ultimately if oxvox fail he can't afford to keep us going and we could end up playing at Wycombe or reading. Oxvox have not had a dig at the club they are just replying to the shots that the club fired across the bow. Put simply Darryls plan is relying on oxvox, oufc long term future is relying on oxvox. Who do u think should have our full support ? .... and a lot of the criticism of OxVox's statement seems to be around it being 'negative' or even - heaven forbid - confrontational towards Mr Eales, and / or not providing microscopic detail of what (most people realise) must be discussions cloaked in a confidentiality agreement. Mr Eales (he is wonderful, etc) is not above criticism. The OUFC board are not above making threatening statements. There is no other viable plan - given the well-versed problems with Water Eaton or similar - for retrieving the stadium from Kassam than the community asset one being pursued by OxVox / OCC / Kassam. Mr Eales does not have the financial resources to bank roll us should we reach the Championship. If the community stadium idea falls by the wayside and / or Mr Eales walks, I await the bleating of a few who will blame the whole failure on OxVox, but who won't be able to substantiate that claim. Kind of agree Pete, but if DE goes, can OxVox fill the financial void until everything is resolved? Dont like to see the clear divisions - DE is keeping us going, FK must be loving it, he doesn't need to do a thing, but sit and watch as this is played out in public
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Jan 28, 2017 0:27:17 GMT
DE has every right to be getting hacked off with OxVox and OCC. They're at best season ticket holders with no financial stake in the FOOTBALL CLUB. DE has invested the money. FK is waiting to see if OUFC get promoted as he can then increase the rent or sell expansion plans! FK playing these numpties like a fiddle. DE please take over or find a way of doing a Coventry City and leave FK with a white elephant and the OXVox & OCC fools with a community trust order on 500 affordable houses because that's all the site is good for. ST Holders who are a SUPPORTERS group! Why would they want to screw the club over??? Kassam cannot increase the rent until this current deal is over? But only a shall percentage of our core support
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 28, 2017 9:36:31 GMT
It certainly seems ill-advised for OxVox to be communicating Kassam's "offer" to the club for a temporary stand for the Newcastle game to the public. Give we have no idea what the "heads of terms" of that offer was, let alone the details ot the timescale, it reads as though they have allowed themselves to be part of the Make Kassam Popular Again campaign. And frankly the fact that Kassam won't consider it under normal circumstances shows what a poor landlord he is. Hang on a second. First they are meant to make every element of their dealings with Kassam public. And then they are supposed to keep every element of their dealings with Kassam private because it is 'ill-advised' to make them public. Oh dear. I guess what they were doing is demonstrating that (doubtless for his own reasons) Kassam is in a 'good place' with them and showing goodwill. Which is relevant, because plenty of anti-fan posters like you have basically implied that they have not a chance of dealing successfully with him. I remember well dealing with Firoz. His underlying attitude was 'show me why you're not wasting my time, because I only have so many days in the year I can spend in UK'. So the fact that they have had three lengthy meetings with FK is proof positive to me that they are in a very serious dialogue with the man. Under those circs, and to keep goowdill going, FK has clearly been asked by OxVox to consider the 4th Stand and he has clearly relented because he doesn't want small issues like that affecting the bigger deal. So letting members know that is germane. There seems to be a misunderstanding about OxVox from some of the anti-fan posters. Chiefly, they do not seem to understand the nature of the Supporters Trust movement. I'd advise that you (and they) go and look it up. Clue: the definition is not: 'bunch of lackeys who offer their clubs unpaid menial labour'.
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Jan 28, 2017 11:09:26 GMT
It certainly seems ill-advised for OxVox to be communicating Kassam's "offer" to the club for a temporary stand for the Newcastle game to the public. Give we have no idea what the "heads of terms" of that offer was, let alone the details ot the timescale, it reads as though they have allowed themselves to be part of the Make Kassam Popular Again campaign. And frankly the fact that Kassam won't consider it under normal circumstances shows what a poor landlord he is. Hang on a second. First they are meant to make every element of their dealings with Kassam public. And then they are supposed to keep every element of their dealings with Kassam private because it is 'ill-advised' to make them public. Oh dear. I guess what they were doing is demonstrating that (doubtless for his own reasons) Kassam is in a 'good place' with them and showing goodwill. Which is relevant, because plenty of anti-fan posters like you have basically implied that they have not a chance of dealing successfully with him. I remember well dealing with Firoz. His underlying attitude was 'show me why you're not wasting my time, because I only have so many days in the year I can spend in UK'. So the fact that they have had three lengthy meetings with FK is proof positive to me that they are in a very serious dialogue with the man. Under those circs, and to keep goowdill going, FK has clearly been asked by OxVox to consider the 4th Stand and he has clearly relented because he doesn't want small issues like that affecting the bigger deal. So letting members know that is germane. There seems to be a misunderstanding about OxVox from some of the anti-fan posters. Chiefly, they do not seem to understand the nature of the Supporters Trust movement. I'd advise that you (and they) go and look it up. Clue: the definition is not: 'bunch of lackeys who offer their clubs unpaid menial labour'. But Charlie if there have been meetings since October then uncle f has had ample opportunity to show goodwill regarding the 4th stand when the club first made a request. It's fine saying he wants to help the club but as with many things in life actions speak louder than words. When this particular offer was made was there sufficiant time given? if not which seems apparent then why the need to mention it. Every poster will express their views and opinions but it does not mean they are anti-fan posters as you put it.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jan 28, 2017 11:54:59 GMT
When this particular offer was made was there sufficiant time given? if not which seems apparent then why the need to mention it. I'm sorry, but I am hugely suspicious of the claim from the club that there wasn't time to get a 4th stand in place for today. My reasons for this are: - The column in Friday's OxMail makes no mention of the offer. Instead the lack of a 4th stand is used as a stick to beat Kassam. - They were clearly caught with their pants down as when they submitted copy to the OxMail they wouldn't have been aware of the content of the OxVox letter issued the night before. They have then had to come up with a plausible reason why it hasn't happened. - Plenty of other clubs manage to get a temporary stand in at short notice. Merstham managed it, so why couldn't we? If anything a club of that size should be less well equipped to manage such a situation!
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Jan 28, 2017 12:09:17 GMT
When this particular offer was made was there sufficiant time given? if not which seems apparent then why the need to mention it. I'm sorry, but I am hugely suspicious of the claim from the club that there wasn't time to get a 4th stand in place for today. My reasons for this are: - The column in Friday's OxMail makes no mention of the offer. Instead the lack of a 4th stand is used as a stick to beat Kassam. - They were clearly caught with their pants down as when they submitted copy to the OxMail they wouldn't have been aware of the content of the OxVox letter issued the night before. They have then had to come up with a plausible reason why it hasn't happened. - Plenty of other clubs manage to get a temporary stand in at short notice. Merstham managed it, so why couldn't we? If anything a club of that size should be less well equipped to manage such a situation! Sorry myles but the timing is crucial in this case,don't forget it is a cup tie so any additional stand adds to capacity so therefore the away club are entitled to a higher number of tickets. if tickets have already been sold then you have a problem unless you just give the additional stand to away fans as well which would not go down too well.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 12:09:57 GMT
Your response shows that the reason why it was released as part of the ongoing conflict between Kassam and the club.
It's very important in my view that OxVox should not take sides in this dispute. The attitude of those close to Oxvox seems to be to attack Eales and the board (despite the many good things he has acheived for the club so far since his association with us ) and to defend Kassam despite the many more ways he has damaged the club since he began his (for him) very profitable relationship with Oxford United.
As far as Charlie's response -either they maintain confidentiality or they don't. Selective leaking to favour one side is utterly inappropriate, and suggests there's a danger (like FOUL before them) that OxVox are becoming Firoz Kassam's useful idiots.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jan 28, 2017 12:13:25 GMT
I'm sorry, but I am hugely suspicious of the claim from the club that there wasn't time to get a 4th stand in place for today. My reasons for this are: - The column in Friday's OxMail makes no mention of the offer. Instead the lack of a 4th stand is used as a stick to beat Kassam. - They were clearly caught with their pants down as when they submitted copy to the OxMail they wouldn't have been aware of the content of the OxVox letter issued the night before. They have then had to come up with a plausible reason why it hasn't happened. - Plenty of other clubs manage to get a temporary stand in at short notice. Merstham managed it, so why couldn't we? If anything a club of that size should be less well equipped to manage such a situation! Sorry myles but the timing is crucial in this case,don't forget it is a cup tie so any additional stand adds to capacity so therefore the away club are entitled to a higher number of tickets. if tickets have already been sold then you have a problem unless you just give the additional stand to away fans as well which would not go down too well. Erm, Merstham was a cup tie too. And for this game, if there had been a stand of around 500 capacity, I really doubt anybody would have serious issues with that being given over to Newcastle. It's not like they would have been given the whole of the North Stand!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 28, 2017 12:20:00 GMT
Your response shows that the reason why it was released as part of the ongoing conflict between Kassam and the club. It's very important in my view that OxVox should not take sides in this dispute. The attitude of those close to Oxvox seems to be to attack Eales and the board (despite the many good things he has acheived for the club so far since his association with us ) and to defend Kassam despite the many more ways he has damaged the club since he began his (for him) very profitable relationship with Oxford United. As far as Charlie's response -either they maintain confidentiality or they don't. Selective leaking to favour one side is utterly inappropriate, and suggests there's a danger (like FOUL before them) that OxVox are becoming Firoz Kassam's useful idiots. That isn't sensitive leaking, it has nothing to do with ongoing negotiations over the stadium, the club are not involved in those. Anyway if things go to form as they have over the last two months, oxvox or firoz will now confirm that it wasn't for 1 game, and the clubs claim in the press, like with the training ground gets made to look a bit silly . Never ending
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 12:25:50 GMT
It is selective leaking of information with the intent of making Kassam look better and the board look worse. that's the reason it's highly inappropriate and IMO makes Oxvox look as though they are Kassam's cheerleaders.
(Maybe he'd pay for an outfit for them and they can do a little dance before the game.)
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jan 28, 2017 12:26:05 GMT
but if DE goes, can OxVox fill the financial void until everything is resolved? Dont like to see the clear divisions - DE is keeping us going, FK must be loving it, he doesn't need to do a thing, but sit and watch as this is played out in public Not personal or particularly at this post. If DE goes it will not be because of OxVox, it will not be because of Kassam, it will be because xmas is over and his toy isn't shiny enough anymore. He couldn't care less about the ground when he came here - and said so. Now he's changed his tune. He must know that all the verbal fist-pumping and statements mean nothing in the negotiation (since the club isn't part of it) - he is a talented businessman. So: DE's using the statements to give him an excuse for if he wants to bail out (sell) and makes him look great if the ground is sold to a community and he continues to invest. Pushing a wedge between Oxvox and the non-specialist herd of fans who naturally believe what they see or read but neither see nor read much. Some people are blaming GBT for the PR. Don't be silly, no company releases that sort of incendiary guff without the bull-goose loony giving the go-ahead. Kassam is not our friend, but he's not our enemy either - vilifying Kassam achieves nothing except to make poor old DE look less bad when he sells out, which he can't be; remember those drinks he bought us all.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Jan 28, 2017 12:28:03 GMT
I'm sorry, but I am hugely suspicious of the claim from the club When are you not, Myles? I've no doubt you mean well, but you were suspicious of Eales and Ashton from the very first moment they came onto the scene. I don't recall you subsequently offering any sort of comment that perhaps you'd been wrong, even as the good times rolled in. Yet, when the times are tough, here you are again with the knives out and with a constant stream of anti Eales rhetoric. Maybe I just misunderstand you, but I think not.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jan 28, 2017 12:30:29 GMT
It's very important in my view that OxVox should not take sides in this dispute. The attitude of those close to Oxvox seems to be to attack Eales and the board (despite the many good things he has acheived for the club so far since his association with us ) and to defend Kassam despite the many more ways he has damaged the club since he began his (for him) very profitable relationship with Oxford United.. I agree with that first sentence, and heartily disagree with the second. As I've discussed at length elsewhere on this forum, Eales' achievements to date do not absolve him from questioning and appropriate criticism. And let's just spin this around a moment. The club's OxMail column yesterday contained a criticism of Kassam based around not being able to have a fourth stand for today's game. Even if the OxVox letter to members hadn't been sent out on Thursday night, with the knowledge they had of Kassam's offer, would you expect them not to comment on that?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 28, 2017 12:34:29 GMT
The attitude of those close to Oxvox seems to be to attack Eales and the board (despite the many good things he has acheived for the club so far since his association with us ) and to defend Kassam despite the many more ways he has damaged the club since he began his (for him) very profitable relationship with Oxford United. Who are 'those close to OxVox'? If you mean the committee, say so. Or do you mean the 700 members? Or do you mean specific posters on this forum? I assume you do not mean the committee, as I see no evidence that their attitude is to 'attack the board', rather their intention is to achieve something the board cannot, at least at present. Neither are they defending Kassam. They're just dealing with him, as they must. EDIT - You seem keen to identify 'agendas'. Well, for what it's worth, your own agenda comes across strongly as anti-OxVox. Some of your comments - including the Kassam's cheerleaders nonsense - are unnecessary when aimed at a bunch of hard-working volunteers who wouldn't bother if they didn't have the best interests of OUFC at heart.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jan 28, 2017 12:36:34 GMT
I'm sorry, but I am hugely suspicious of the claim from the club When are you not, Myles? I've no doubt you mean well, but you were suspicious of Eales and Ashton from the very first moment they came onto the scene. I don't recall you subsequently offering any sort of comment that perhaps you'd been wrong, even as the good times rolled in. Yet, when the times are tough, here you are again with the knives out and with a constant stream of anti Eales rhetoric. Maybe I just misunderstand you, but I think not. To be honest, Dave, you are largely right about my opinion. My position regarding Eales has remained fairly consistent. But I have also acknowledged the good stuff which has happened over the past couple of years, and did so again on this forum yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Jan 28, 2017 12:38:22 GMT
I'm not Dave. But I know my forum name can lead people to think that I am. 👍
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 28, 2017 12:40:26 GMT
I'm not Dave. But I know my forum name can lead people to think that I am. 👍 Sorry OY, but from now on, you are 'Dave'! (Fools & Horses anyone?)
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 12:41:22 GMT
We're talking hypotheticals, but in that case I would hope they would write a more nuanced statement, we are not party to the details of any offer and whether or not it was feasible.
If you agree it's important that they should not take sides they shouldn't be issuing (aseriesof )press releases defending Kassam and attacking Eales.
Of course Eales can be criticised. I imagine both sides are playing a long game, and a football club at Championship level can be a worthwhile asset particularly one in of. the wealthiest areas of the UK based in a city known all over the world.
But I judge people on what I know of them.Kassam and Oxford United have been in an abusive relationship over many years - he has used the club to make himself an extremely wealthy man and given very little in return .Personally I don't think that's likely to change.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 12:43:40 GMT
The attitude of those close to Oxvox seems to be to attack Eales and the board (despite the many good things he has acheived for the club so far since his association with us ) and to defend Kassam despite the many more ways he has damaged the club since he began his (for him) very profitable relationship with Oxford United. Who are 'those close to OxVox'? If you mean the committee, say so. Or do you mean the 700 members? Or do you mean specific posters on this forum? I assume you do not mean the committee, as I see no evidence that their attitude is to 'attack the board', rather their intention is to achieve something the board cannot, at least at present. Neither are they defending Kassam. They're just dealing with him, as they must. EDIT - You seem keen to identify 'agendas'. Well, for what it's worth, your own agenda comes across strongly as anti-OxVox. Some of your comments - including the Kassam's cheerleaders nonsense - are unnecessary when aimed at a bunch of hard-working volunteers who wouldn't bother if they didn't have the best interests of OUFC at heart. I mean specific posters on this forum. I have said that I don't think OxVox should be selectively leaking information that favours one side. Do you think they should?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Jan 28, 2017 12:51:16 GMT
We're talking hypotheticals, but in that case I would hope they would write a more nuanced statement, we are not party to the details of any offer and whether or not it was feasible. If you agree it's important that they should not take sides they shouldn't be issuing (aseriesof )press releases defending Kassam and attacking Eales. Personally, I don't think they have particularly defended Kassam nor attacked Eales. It seems to me that they have reported factual information and, where necessary, responded to criticism from others.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 28, 2017 12:53:26 GMT
Who are 'those close to OxVox'? If you mean the committee, say so. Or do you mean the 700 members? Or do you mean specific posters on this forum? I assume you do not mean the committee, as I see no evidence that their attitude is to 'attack the board', rather their intention is to achieve something the board cannot, at least at present. Neither are they defending Kassam. They're just dealing with him, as they must. EDIT - You seem keen to identify 'agendas'. Well, for what it's worth, your own agenda comes across strongly as anti-OxVox. Some of your comments - including the Kassam's cheerleaders nonsense - are unnecessary when aimed at a bunch of hard-working volunteers who wouldn't bother if they didn't have the best interests of OUFC at heart. I mean specific posters on this forum. I have said that I don't think OxVox should be selectively leaking information that favours one side. Do you think they should? Who, specifically? I will always defend the current OxVox committee and therefore the organisation as a whole, but I'm not 'close' to OxVox other than being a member. In a way it's a shame that the OxVox committee are too professional to react to comments like yours personally. Rather, they have to sit on their hands and suck up the shit thrown at them while working on behalf of the OUFC support. What specific information has been leaked by OxVox?
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 13:01:49 GMT
"The goodwill generated by the manner in which we are conducting discussions has, for example, resulted in a couple of weeks ago, Firoz Kassam offering to allow the club to put up a temporary 4th stand for the Newcastle United FA Cup game. We forwarded that offer to the club, but were informed that it was not possible due to operational difficulties. "
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 28, 2017 13:28:40 GMT
"The goodwill generated by the manner in which we are conducting discussions has, for example, resulted in a couple of weeks ago, Firoz Kassam offering to allow the club to put up a temporary 4th stand for the Newcastle United FA Cup game. We forwarded that offer to the club, but were informed that it was not possible due to operational difficulties. " Yes, I think that could reasonably be interpreted as leaking information. It is the sort of information that should be known about by OUFC supporters though, don't you think.? I have absolutely no doubt that if the board had specific information that showed OxVox in a poor light they would have included it in a statement too.
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 28, 2017 13:33:51 GMT
We're talking hypotheticals, but in that case I would hope they would write a more nuanced statement, we are not party to the details of any offer and whether or not it was feasible. If you agree it's important that they should not take sides they shouldn't be issuing (aseriesof )press releases defending Kassam and attacking Eales. Of course Eales can be criticised. I imagine both sides are playing a long game, and a football club at Championship level can be a worthwhile asset particularly one in of. the wealthiest areas of the UK based in a city known all over the world. But I judge people on what I know of them.Kassam and Oxford United have been in an abusive relationship over many years - he has used the club to make himself an extremely wealthy man and given very little in return .Personally I don't think that's likely to change. I'm not trying to be pedantic (i'll leave that to Charlie ) but Kassam was a very rich man before he got to us and our small (but beautifully formed) corner of the the world is a very small part of his business empire. I bring this up because I think some people assume that 'screwing us over' or indeed making a deal with OxVox is a major part of his life. I really don't think it is. This I suspect is one of the many reasons this whole thing is taking so much time and from what I understand he is not even in the country all that much.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 13:34:38 GMT
"The goodwill generated by the manner in which we are conducting discussions has, for example, resulted in a couple of weeks ago, Firoz Kassam offering to allow the club to put up a temporary 4th stand for the Newcastle United FA Cup game. We forwarded that offer to the club, but were informed that it was not possible due to operational difficulties. " Yes, I think that could reasonably be interpreted as leaking information. It is the sort of information that should be known about by OUFC supporters though, don't you think.? I have absolutely no doubt that if the board had specific information that showed OxVox in a poor light they would have included it in a statement too. I have no idea what the board would or wouldn't do. Those who are critical of speculation seem very keen to introduce their own in order to muddy the waters. I'll reiterate -I don't think OxVox should be selectively leaking information which appears to favour one of the parties in this dispute. And yes Kassam was a rich man when he first came into contact with Oxford United-having made substantial amounts from the money to be made exploiting the homeless and local authorities He was substantially wealthier once he owned & quickly sold on the freehold of the manor. Wealthier still when he got planning permission for the Ozone.when did he move to Monaco?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 28, 2017 13:52:02 GMT
I'll reiterate -I don't think OxVox should be selectively leaking information which appears to favour one of the parties in this dispute. Here is poster old's thread 'bleed the club dry': yellowsforum.co.uk/thread/25135/bleed-club-dryQuote from the club in the Oxford Mail: "The indications we were given was that Mr Kassam wanted a financial cut, and by the time you have that, the money we would have to give to Newcastle and the FA it was just not financially viable.”
This information wasn't in the public domain either, until the board 'leaked it'.
|
|
|
Post by ag on Jan 28, 2017 13:54:26 GMT
The Board were put in the position of having to respond to OxVox' leak -which is why I consider selective leaking by OxVox is counterproductive and extremely stupid.
It makes them appear that they have taken sides in the conflict between our current owners and the former owner of the club and landlord. In short they seem like cheerleaders for Kassam
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 28, 2017 13:59:15 GMT
The Board were put in the position of having to respond to OxVox' leak -which is why I consider selective leaking by OxVox is counterproductive and extremely stupid. The bottom line is both sides have leaked information, yet it appears only OxVox are 'extremely stupid'. The board didn't have to respond at all.
|
|