|
Post by Si Bradbury on Feb 8, 2017 17:21:55 GMT
One game having that stand up in which Eales has already said that would mean the club making a loss. Can hardly blame Eales for turning the offer down. Can I ask you what makes you believe that the stand would have been able to stay up when OGB has refused previously? I don't want to carry on this discussion really, it will only agitate people but you've asked several times so speaking on behalf of OxVox, I will say we have no need to spin anything other than relay the facts as we see it. Some people reading this need to understand the term 'Independent'. OxVox spoke to FK personally and we asked him if he would consider allowing the club to erect the 4th Stand for the Newcastle game. Because we are speaking regularly on the Stadium situation with him, he was quite happy to agree in principle and asked for the club to deal with the Stadium Manager to action it. We relayed that to the club, they looked into it, decided not to pursue it, for a variety of reasons. You'll need to ask them why. 'Our' understanding was the stand could remain in place until such a time the club and stadium company agreed on a 'deal'. That 'deal' is frankly none of our business but may have resulted in some charges/rent/profit share (we don't know, that's not what we were involved in or needed to be involved in). Note - the club remain in arbitration before people suggest Kassam is out to do the club and Daryl/The Board over again. The reason Kassam refused previously is because the club are in arbitration with him. My question is why the club, the day before the Newcastle game, stated in the Oxford Mail that FK hadn't granted permission yet the following day had to accept they had been. Regarding the term financial viability, that's a little different to not making a profit. No one Junior has ever said the club would have made a loss from it. www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15054994.Oxford_United__Fourth_stand_for_Newcastle_clash_was__not_viable_/
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 8, 2017 17:27:53 GMT
Junior loves to ask questions, but still fails to answer the big one. Are you a member of oxvox ?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Feb 8, 2017 18:33:20 GMT
Junior loves to ask questions, but still fails to answer the big one. Are you a member of oxvox ? Some of us know the answer to that.................
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 8, 2017 18:36:01 GMT
I think a lot of us know the answer to it, would just like him to either sign up, so that he has the right to ask you guys questions, or to at least admit it
|
|
|
Post by wizzard on Feb 8, 2017 18:54:04 GMT
I dont understand,why should someone have to sign up before being allowed to ask a question?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 8, 2017 18:59:39 GMT
Sorry I didn't mean ask questions, more ask to ask questions. Junior has a habit of saying can u find out this, could you ask the club that, but isn't a member of oxvox. It's not expensive, and I don't think there is anyone that doesn't recognise the great work that oxvox has done and are doing. The more members they have the better they can reflect the views of the fan base.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 8, 2017 19:01:49 GMT
Back on topic, I have revived a second email in 3 days about the restaurant and it's all over Facebook and twitter. A sign it's maybe not selling so well, or just the club drumming up trade ? Seen it advertised more than the actual game
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Feb 8, 2017 19:26:11 GMT
I dont understand,why should someone have to sign up before being allowed to ask a question? Is this an Oxvox message board or do Oxvox and its committee use it and other forms of social media to reach people other than they have on their small database. If they don't want questions from people who may or may not be a member then they should stick to their usual channels of communication. Failing that, people will ask questions when they see fit. Nobody is saying they should be entitled to an answer but you can't use the avenues mentioned without questions being asked. Back to BB's post. When the initial stand idea was mentioned i'm sure Eales or GBT said that it needed to be filled 3/4 times for the club to make any money from it. Now OGB said we could have it for the (forget about maybe extendable after) Newcastle game. Now going on that, why would the club go with it if they are knew they were to make a loss on it? Now that info was in the public domain so OGB would know that. So that's why some people would suggest it's an empty gesture and one he knows will get people questioning the club as to the merits of said stand.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Feb 8, 2017 20:40:44 GMT
One game having that stand up in which Eales has already said that would mean the club making a loss. Can hardly blame Eales for turning the offer down. Can I ask you what makes you believe that the stand would have been able to stay up when OGB has refused previously? I don't want to carry on this discussion really, it will only agitate people but you've asked several times so speaking on behalf of OxVox, I will say we have no need to spin anything other than relay the facts as we see it. Some people reading this need to understand the term 'Independent'. OxVox spoke to FK personally and we asked him if he would consider allowing the club to erect the 4th Stand for the Newcastle game. Because we are speaking regularly on the Stadium situation with him, he was quite happy to agree in principle and asked for the club to deal with the Stadium Manager to action it. We relayed that to the club, they looked into it, decided not to pursue it, for a variety of reasons. You'll need to ask them why. 'Our' understanding was the stand could remain in place until such a time the club and stadium company agreed on a 'deal'. That 'deal' is frankly none of our business but may have resulted in some charges/rent/profit share (we don't know, that's not what we were involved in or needed to be involved in). Note - the club remain in arbitration before people suggest Kassam is out to do the club and Daryl/The Board over again. The reason Kassam refused previously is because the club are in arbitration with him. My question is why the club, the day before the Newcastle game, stated in the Oxford Mail that FK hadn't granted permission yet the following day had to accept they had been. Regarding the term financial viability, that's a little different to not making a profit. No one Junior has ever said the club would have made a loss from it. www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15054994.Oxford_United__Fourth_stand_for_Newcastle_clash_was__not_viable_/I think Oxvox need to get a grip on the spin as much as anybody else. The fact it was raised in the meeting minutes issued itself was hardly conciliatory especially as when by your own admission you had no knowledge of the actual facts of club v stadco discussions. Only one reason for it being in there and that was to make the club look poor! No?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 9, 2017 8:31:41 GMT
I don't want to carry on this discussion really, it will only agitate people but you've asked several times so speaking on behalf of OxVox, I will say we have no need to spin anything other than relay the facts as we see it. Some people reading this need to understand the term 'Independent'. OxVox spoke to FK personally and we asked him if he would consider allowing the club to erect the 4th Stand for the Newcastle game. Because we are speaking regularly on the Stadium situation with him, he was quite happy to agree in principle and asked for the club to deal with the Stadium Manager to action it. We relayed that to the club, they looked into it, decided not to pursue it, for a variety of reasons. You'll need to ask them why. 'Our' understanding was the stand could remain in place until such a time the club and stadium company agreed on a 'deal'. That 'deal' is frankly none of our business but may have resulted in some charges/rent/profit share (we don't know, that's not what we were involved in or needed to be involved in). Note - the club remain in arbitration before people suggest Kassam is out to do the club and Daryl/The Board over again. The reason Kassam refused previously is because the club are in arbitration with him. My question is why the club, the day before the Newcastle game, stated in the Oxford Mail that FK hadn't granted permission yet the following day had to accept they had been. Regarding the term financial viability, that's a little different to not making a profit. No one Junior has ever said the club would have made a loss from it. www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15054994.Oxford_United__Fourth_stand_for_Newcastle_clash_was__not_viable_/I think Oxvox need to get a grip on the spin as much as anybody else. The fact it was raised in the meeting minutes issued itself was hardly conciliatory especially as when by your own admission you had no knowledge of the actual facts of club v stadco discussions. Only one reason for it being in there and that was to make the club look poor! No? Not sure that's how I read it. People like you were continually on here, trolling on about how OxVox were clueless, Kassam was evil and taking everyone for a ride again and was going to walk all over Jem and co. That note rather neatly pointed out that OxVox is in pro-active and productive discussions with a fair degree of goodwill on both sides. As an example, FK agreeing to do something he had previously refused to countenance, to demonstrate his goodwill. We are all aware that that goodwill on getting something from OxVox and the Council, but that is rather the point, isn't it? OxVox and the Council have something to trade with him, whereas the club (through no fault of the current Board) has nothing to trade with. Which is why endless trolls on here suggesting that the club had to be involved in the discussions were so barmy.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Feb 9, 2017 10:35:45 GMT
I think Oxvox need to get a grip on the spin as much as anybody else. The fact it was raised in the meeting minutes issued itself was hardly conciliatory especially as when by your own admission you had no knowledge of the actual facts of club v stadco discussions. Only one reason for it being in there and that was to make the club look poor! No? OxVox are an Independent Supporters Trust. It has become apparent that some people don't want it to be independent.
We haven't spun anything. I have clearly explained the situation, we got an agreement from FK, we presented it to the club, they didn't take it forward. They then suggest the day before the Cup game that it's a shame FK can't help this football club and how a 4th stand would have helped the FAC4 tie. Unfortunately, the night before, we sent an update to members saying something different. Then the day of the cup match, the club had to come back to the Oxford Mail and actually point out an offer had been made. I am sorry that they put themselves in that position. That's not spin and I am very sorry that some people (not necessarily on this forum) have an issue with OxVox reporting facts to our members. I said we had no facts or involvement in any future negotiation/deal on the future use of the stand, AFTER the Newcastle game. So stop putting words into our mouth and stop trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Feb 10, 2017 13:34:08 GMT
I dont understand,why should someone have to sign up before being allowed to ask a question? Is this an Oxvox message board or do Oxvox and its committee use it and other forms of social media to reach people other than they have on their small database. If they don't want questions from people who may or may not be a member then they should stick to their usual channels of communication. Failing that, people will ask questions when they see fit. Nobody is saying they should be entitled to an answer but you can't use the avenues mentioned without questions being asked. Back to BB's post. When the initial stand idea was mentioned i'm sure Eales or GBT said that it needed to be filled 3/4 times for the club to make any money from it. Now OGB said we could have it for the (forget about maybe extendable after) Newcastle game. Now going on that, why would the club go with it if they are knew they were to make a loss on it? Now that info was in the public domain so OGB would know that. So that's why some people would suggest it's an empty gesture and one he knows will get people questioning the club as to the merits of said stand. Surprised my post didn't get a reply....
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Feb 10, 2017 13:49:33 GMT
That's outrageous , they get padded bloody seats The downside though is they have to watch Peterborough.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Feb 10, 2017 14:03:22 GMT
Surprised my post didn't get a reply.... But it got the reply it merited.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on Feb 10, 2017 16:36:06 GMT
Surprised my post didn't get a reply.... But it got the reply it merited. Nah, not really.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 12, 2017 13:18:05 GMT
Dunno what it holds, I would guess 200/300. But there was only 40/50 people in there yesterday, room looked very empty with only 5 tables and one of them was for Mks officials
|
|
|
Post by grenobleroad on Feb 12, 2017 13:25:18 GMT
Is there an option to have just a meal and sit elsewhere/in your own seat?
Wouldn't mind trying it out but don't particularly want to sit in the ssu.
|
|
|
Post by upthecowboys on Feb 12, 2017 15:06:52 GMT
Is there an option to have just a meal and sit elsewhere/in your own seat? Wouldn't mind trying it out but don't particularly want to sit in the ssu. Yes - you can sit elsewhere, in your usual seat etc. They'll amend the price, just like they'll amend the price if you have a season ticket etc. I had a season ticket last year, did the lounge deal and just paid for the food element.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Feb 12, 2017 15:24:52 GMT
Is there an option to have just a meal and sit elsewhere/in your own seat? Wouldn't mind trying it out but don't particularly want to sit in the ssu. Yes - you can sit elsewhere, in your usual seat etc. They'll amend the price, just like they'll amend the price if you have a season ticket etc. I had a season ticket last year, did the lounge deal and just paid for the food element. Price quoted to lounge season ticket holders is £37.00 just for the meal. Given that it is a 2 course meal with debatable quality, I find this a little steep. However, given that the club has to buy this meal at £25.00 - £30.00 a time not profiteering.
|
|
|
Post by grenobleroad on Feb 12, 2017 15:29:44 GMT
Cheers for the info lads. That does sound pretty steep.
For that money i expect blackbird style dining.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 12, 2017 15:34:35 GMT
Yes - you can sit elsewhere, in your usual seat etc. They'll amend the price, just like they'll amend the price if you have a season ticket etc. I had a season ticket last year, did the lounge deal and just paid for the food element. Price quoted to lounge season ticket holders is £37.00 just for the meal. Given that it is a 2 course meal with debatable quality, I find this a little steep. However, given that the club has to buy this meal at £25.00 - £30.00 a time not profiteering. We pay £26 per game on a season ticket. So if fk is charging £30 That leaves the club making £23 on it. More on people who are in cheaper seats . That does seem steep and probably why the uptake wasn't very good yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Feb 12, 2017 15:49:28 GMT
Price quoted to lounge season ticket holders is £37.00 just for the meal. Given that it is a 2 course meal with debatable quality, I find this a little steep. However, given that the club has to buy this meal at £25.00 - £30.00 a time not profiteering. We pay £26 per game on a season ticket. So if fk is charging £30 That leaves the club making £23 on it. More on people who are in cheaper seats . That does seem steep and probably why the uptake wasn't very good yesterday. Personally, I wouldn't have bothered reinstating the restaurant. Wait for developments with the stadium purchase. Research what other clubs are offering, get some quotes from caterers who can advise the club on costing a meal from start to finish with location considered. Couple of chaps on our table in the Manor lounge were season ticket holders in the restaurant last season (and renewed for this season) and they are less than impressed with the offer. They go to quite a few away games and say that the catering offers are much better value elsewhere. ( Cobblers and Wycombe included!)
|
|