|
Post by foley on Mar 24, 2016 9:12:28 GMT
Kassam will only do something if he can gain from it. If a way is found that the club can also gain from his plans, in both the short and medium term, then it makes sense. There's a saying - keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It appears that this is the tactic that Darryl is following at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Mar 24, 2016 9:16:22 GMT
Kassam will only do something if he can gain from it. If a way is found that the club can also gain from his plans, in both the short and medium term, then it makes sense. There's a saying - keep your friends close and your enemies closer. You're right when you say that Kassam will only do something if he's to gain from it, but what is also more important is our negotiation strength and at this moment we're in a strong position. Once he's had his wicked way with us again that might not be the case. For example, why doesn't the club purchase the stadium that would include the overflow car park land and get the planning permission to do what Kassam's planning on doing. A bit like what he did for the Manor. He took the club on with £5m debt, but got planning permission on the land and sold for £12m. Then we could use the revenue from that to build the fourth stand and remaining funds to offset against the purchase of the stadium! Or better still, move to Water Eton? I'm sure Kassam would pay us a handsome fee to move in order that he can make more money with the stadium land, plus grants and sponsorship etc. You never know, we could be in a new stadium with no mortgage! I'm pretty sure they have thought about doing that! But there is a difference between thinking about it, and finding the 10s of millions of pounds to do it
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Mar 24, 2016 9:25:08 GMT
You're right when you say that Kassam will only do something if he's to gain from it, but what is also more important is our negotiation strength and at this moment we're in a strong position. Once he's had his wicked way with us again that might not be the case. For example, why doesn't the club purchase the stadium that would include the overflow car park land and get the planning permission to do what Kassam's planning on doing. A bit like what he did for the Manor. He took the club on with £5m debt, but got planning permission on the land and sold for £12m. Then we could use the revenue from that to build the fourth stand and remaining funds to offset against the purchase of the stadium! Or better still, move to Water Eton? I'm sure Kassam would pay us a handsome fee to move in order that he can make more money with the stadium land, plus grants and sponsorship etc. You never know, we could be in a new stadium with no mortgage! I'm pretty sure they have thought about doing that! But there is a difference between thinking about it, and finding the 10s of millions of pounds to do it Depends which option the club went for. If they went for Water Eton then they could potentially be mortgage free. If they went for the Kassam there might be a small proportion left to pay, but we'd still own the ground with a fourth stand built. It's difficult to know the exact figures because we don't know what the planning permission value would be or how much we'd get off Ksssam to move away from the Kassam, and any grants/sponsorships we may get to aid the building of a new stadium at Water Eton, but my guess is we'd be better off than we are now!
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Mar 24, 2016 9:27:36 GMT
Kassam will only do something if he can gain from it. If a way is found that the club can also gain from his plans, in both the short and medium term, then it makes sense. There's a saying - keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It appears that this is the tactic that Darryl is following at the moment. Not sure I understand the tactic that Darryl is using? And what would he/we gain exactly from Kassam's plans?
|
|
|
Post by scotters on Mar 24, 2016 9:42:54 GMT
I'm pretty sure they have thought about doing that! But there is a difference between thinking about it, and finding the 10s of millions of pounds to do it Depends which option the club went for. If they went for Water Eton then they could potentially be mortgage free. If they went for the Kassam there might be a small proportion left to pay, but we'd still own the ground with a fourth stand built. It's difficult to know the exact figures because we don't know what the planning permission value would be or how much we'd get off Ksssam to move away from the Kassam, and any grants/sponsorships we may get to aid the building of a new stadium at Water Eton, but my guess is we'd be better off than we are now! Some time ago on here, Charlie mentioned that his costing for the Water Eaton stadium involved a £7 million mortgage for the club. I think - I'll see if I can dig up the post. That was also relying on some very significant amounts from a) Kassam for us to vacate the current ground b) sponsors for the new stadium naming rights etc c) no-strings cash injections from interested backers. and so on. I can't argue with his sums, but it all seemed very optimistic thinking to me when I saw it. And that's completely beside the issue of planning permission. Speaking as someone with no particular insight into things, staying at the Kassam seems a more feasible option to me.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Mar 24, 2016 11:01:35 GMT
Depends which option the club went for. If they went for Water Eton then they could potentially be mortgage free. If they went for the Kassam there might be a small proportion left to pay, but we'd still own the ground with a fourth stand built. It's difficult to know the exact figures because we don't know what the planning permission value would be or how much we'd get off Ksssam to move away from the Kassam, and any grants/sponsorships we may get to aid the building of a new stadium at Water Eton, but my guess is we'd be better off than we are now! Some time ago on here, Charlie mentioned that his costing for the Water Eaton stadium involved a £7 million mortgage for the club. I think - I'll see if I can dig up the post. That was also relying on some very significant amounts from a) Kassam for us to vacate the current ground b) sponsors for the new stadium naming rights etc c) no-strings cash injections from interested backers. and so on. I can't argue with his sums, but it all seemed very optimistic thinking to me when I saw it. And that's completely beside the issue of planning permission. Speaking as someone with no particular insight into things, staying at the Kassam seems a more feasible option to me. Feasible if you're happy with losing large sums in ad infinitum, and not being able to pay our way even in the Championship. Let's be quite clear: the financing package for Water Eaton wasn't some fresh new thinking. It was an off-the-peg package pursued by numerous other clubs. The kicker being that in meetings with Kassam he indicated that in a partnership deal the club would benefit from the re-development of the WHOLE Kassam site (other clubs are usually selling their old ground). The sum we put in there was very conservative, as it was Firoz' opening offer! The stadium naming rights deal we had three firm offers on the table for the sum suggested, on a 5 year deal. The grants available were verified thru Supporters Direct. So the only variable was bank financing - tho the council indicated that they would consider doing a low interest loan thru them, given certain conditions. Anyhow, onto the lazy thinker's option. Whoops. Sorry. I mean that wobbly phrase "staying at the Kassam". What do we mean by this? Continuing to rent the Kassam? If we do so, then we cannot be sustainable in League 1 or League 2. The £750,000 we drop in rent and lost hospitality revenues, set against revenues which are max £3.5 million (or maybe £4 million in League 1) is simply too big a burden to bear. It means that even in a successful year we lose £1 million. In bad times, it will be much more than this. Critically, though, it could be about to get worse than that. Because the dream has always been that if we win thru to the Championship we would be able to afford to buy the existing stadium, increase its size and have a sustainable Championship club with a 20,000 capacity. I have never seen the detailed thinking around this. Buying the stadium would cost £13 million, and upgrading it to a 20k capacity would cost another £7 million, minimum, in reality more than that. Anyhow, it'd be a £20 million spend, with no help from Firoz, no stadium naming rights deal (or massively reduced), no new build grants. So the whole flabby thinking was, to my mind, unrealistic without someone like the Donald family getting very generous. However, that scenario was reasonably palatable, compared to what I fear we are about to see. Which is that Uncle Firoz decides to press ahead with his development plans, builds a basic 'fourth stand' of 2,500 capacity, bring us to just over 14k. In return, we have to sign up to a new lease, and see housing built around the ground in such a way that makes it near impossible to develop in the future. That, in turn, would make us unsustainable in the lower leagues, as we would still be paying rent etc, and unsustainable in the Championship, as - with that league's average attendance being over 17k AND us paying rent - we would, just like in the old days at the Manor, be the league's poor relations. Even if we filled the stadium every week - and attendances don't work that way - we would be almost at the bottom of the attendances table. It may be that, to get this deal off the ground, Firoz offers some sort of short-term rent reduction to get OUFC to support it. It'd be a cheap way to get his planning thru without opposition. Sign up to that, at the expense of medium-term strategic planning, and - as with under Merry - the club deserves everything it gets. The moment that Firoz wants further development is the last little bit of leverage that OUFC will ever have. We, or the club, throws it away at our own long-term peril. I'm sure that OxVox will want to make a pronouncement on all this at some point in the (very) near future. If EVER there was an issue where a true Supporters Trust should be taking a long-term view then this is it.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Mar 24, 2016 11:33:54 GMT
Is it a certain that Cherwell will allow it then ? As everything they have said is that planning will be apposed and rejected for the site at water eaton
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 11:50:11 GMT
It seems to me that this could possibly be a Win, Win, Win Situation for most of the major parties concerned. But then again, I am Lazy. Oxford get Planning permission and help with funds to develop a new site at Water Eaton. Uncle Firoz gets to make masses more cash by booting out OUFC and redeveloping the WHOLE Grenoble Road site. The Council get additional Housing. Charlie, in your opinion would the Oxford City Council be able to influence the relevant council for Water Eaton?
|
|
|
Post by scotters on Mar 24, 2016 11:56:37 GMT
Feasible if you're happy with losing large sums in ad infinitum, and not being able to pay our way even in the Championship. Let's be quite clear: the financing package for Water Eaton wasn't some fresh new thinking. It was an off-the-peg package pursued by numerous other clubs. The kicker being that in meetings with Kassam he indicated that in a partnership deal the club would benefit from the re-development of the WHOLE Kassam site (other clubs are usually selling their old ground). The sum we put in there was very conservative, as it was Firoz' opening offer! The stadium naming rights deal we had three firm offers on the table for the sum suggested, on a 5 year deal. The grants available were verified thru Supporters Direct. So the only variable was bank financing - tho the council indicated that they would consider doing a low interest loan thru them, given certain conditions. Anyhow, onto the lazy thinker's option. Whoops. Sorry. I mean that wobbly phrase "staying at the Kassam". What do we mean by this? Continuing to rent the Kassam? If we do so, then we cannot be sustainable in League 1 or League 2. The £750,000 we drop in rent and lost hospitality revenues, set against revenues which are max £3.5 million (or maybe £4 million in League 1) is simply too big a burden to bear. It means that even in a successful year we lose £1 million. In bad times, it will be much more than this. Critically, though, it could be about to get worse than that. Because the dream has always been that if we win thru to the Championship we would be able to afford to buy the existing stadium, increase its size and have a sustainable Championship club with a 20,000 capacity. I have never seen the detailed thinking around this. Buying the stadium would cost £13 million, and upgrading it to a 20k capacity would cost another £7 million, minimum, in reality more than that. Anyhow, it'd be a £20 million spend, with no help from Firoz, no stadium naming rights deal (or massively reduced), no new build grants. So the whole flabby thinking was, to my mind, unrealistic without someone like the Donald family getting very generous. However, that scenario was reasonably palatable, compared to what I fear we are about to see. Which is that Uncle Firoz decides to press ahead with his development plans, builds a basic 'fourth stand' of 2,500 capacity, bring us to just over 14k. In return, we have to sign up to a new lease, and see housing built around the ground in such a way that makes it near impossible to develop in the future. That, in turn, would make us unsustainable in the lower leagues, as we would still be paying rent etc, and unsustainable in the Championship, as - with that league's average attendance being over 17k AND us paying rent - we would, just like in the old days at the Manor, be the league's poor relations. Even if we filled the stadium every week - and attendances don't work that way - we would be almost at the bottom of the attendances table. It may be that, to get this deal off the ground, Firoz offers some sort of short-term rent reduction to get OUFC to support it. It'd be a cheap way to get his planning thru without opposition. Sign up to that, at the expense of medium-term strategic planning, and - as with under Merry - the club deserves everything it gets. The moment that Firoz wants further development is the last little bit of leverage that OUFC will ever have. We, or the club, throws it away at our own long-term peril. I'm sure that OxVox will want to make a pronouncement on all this at some point in the (very) near future. If EVER there was an issue where a true Supporters Trust should be taking a long-term view then this is it. You might think a plan involving the Kassam stadium is lazy thinking Charlie. I doubt Darryl Eales does, which is why he's taking it seriously by all accounts. And for someone who's constantly reminding everyone here about how dangerous the indebted position of this club is, you're remarkably cavalier about taking the club much much deeper into debt (and proper debt this time, not the soft debt that worries you so much). You've said the plan to move to Water Eaton relies on a club that's already millions of pounds in debt being able to: a) Raise ~24 million in cash, which even with your own optimistic calculations is going to involve £7m+ more of debt. b) Negotiate the planning process in what must be one of the most hostile places for big developments in the country. I think given the history of this club it's pretty understandable why many are skeptical about a utopian plan that will lead the club into a bright new future (oh and will cost a bit up front but never mind about that). Call that lazy thinking if you want - I think others might call it realism. You've created this doom-laden scenario of us being the poor relations of the Championship. Well as you acknowledge, we've been in that situation before. And we've been taken on a journey involving a new stadium before. People are naturally going to be wary of the next journey we're promised, and trying to browbeat them as short-termers is fairly dispiriting stuff from someone who claims to have the best interest of the fans at heart.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Mar 24, 2016 12:01:00 GMT
Is it a certain that Cherwell will allow it then ? As everything they have said is that planning will be apposed and rejected for the site at water eaton And if permission was granted we could be looking at 7 years before we would be able to move in its not just Cherwell it would be the Kidlington and Water Eaton councils and the Parish councils to get past first and lets not forget the no brigade and there will be plenty of those. Plus another major factor is we have a 17 year old ground already so why should the councils want to vote in favour.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Mar 24, 2016 12:22:46 GMT
Charlie, in your opinion would the Oxford City Council be able to influence the relevant council for Water Eaton? Good question. I think it's important to remember that the Oxon councils don't work in total isolation and there is often a sharing and exchange of responsibilities and liabilities. For example, the boundary between Oxford City and South Oxon was moved to facilitate the Greater Leys development on the proviso that there would be no further encroachment onto the green belt. We now have a situation where Oxford City is up against it to fulfill its housing allocation going forward. In the past, some of this had been eased by the district councils allowing additional housing development in return for the City doing some other form of development which benefits the districts. So, the possible redevelopment of the whole KasStad site in return for a new stadium with additional community leisure and retail facilities may be seen by Cherwell as a more palatable option than coming under pressure to pick up additional housing requirements from the City. Influence is probably the wrong word, but there will certainly be scope for negotiation and compromise to get a mutually beneficial solution.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Mar 24, 2016 12:25:20 GMT
Did u also do a traffic study for water eaton as the only real benefit is the station, and that relying on extra trains being put on? How big a car park would we get, how long would it take to get out of Kidlington? Would extra eating and drinking facilities be built around the stadium or would we all just have to sit on the concourses?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Mar 24, 2016 13:08:51 GMT
It seems to me that this could possibly be a Win, Win, Win Situation for most of the major parties concerned. But then again, I am Lazy. Oxford get Planning permission and help with funds to develop a new site at Water Eaton. Uncle Firoz gets to make masses more cash by booting out OUFC and redeveloping the WHOLE Grenoble Road site. The Council get additional Housing. Charlie, in your opinion would the Oxford City Council be able to influence the relevant council for Water Eaton? Perversely, Oxford City Council are against it. Because they want to keep the club (just) inside the city boundary, whereas Water Eaton is (just) outside the city boundary. It is a misconception that Cherwell are against it. They gave a non-committal response, as would be usual in public from a planning authority. But ultimately, private info is that they are 'for' it, as it is already a developed site (don't get much more developed than a major railway station) and would bring in more cash thru business rates. It would also raise the amount of houses built inside City boundary, thus reducing the amount that the District Councils need to take off OCC's quota. So Bob Price and co want to do the deal with Firoz. Doesn't make it the right long-term thing for the football club. Doesn't make it wrong either, by the way. It COULD be that the City Council have secured, as part of the deal, a cheap deal to buy the stands and that the Council is going to loan the club money cheaply to buy the stands. That would, at least, make us sustainable in League 1 and League 2, even if it stitched us up with regards to the Championship. As I say, these are big, meaty issues, with many stakeholders with varying agenda - and very few, if any, of those agenda are precisely aligned to the long-term sustainability of OUFC. Which, of course, is where - as a member of OxVox - I am looking forward to seeing a truly independent investigation of it all. The only body that can deliver that is the Supporters Trust who also hold the RTB, which can also be used as leverage to get people to level on what the plans really are.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Mar 24, 2016 13:21:09 GMT
It seems to me that this could possibly be a Win, Win, Win Situation for most of the major parties concerned. But then again, I am Lazy. Oxford get Planning permission and help with funds to develop a new site at Water Eaton. Uncle Firoz gets to make masses more cash by booting out OUFC and redeveloping the WHOLE Grenoble Road site. The Council get additional Housing. Charlie, in your opinion would the Oxford City Council be able to influence the relevant council for Water Eaton? Perversely, Oxford City Council are against it. Because they want to keep the club (just) inside the city boundary, whereas Water Eaton is (just) outside the city boundary. It is a misconception that Cherwell are against it. They gave a non-committal response, as would be usual in public from a planning authority. But ultimately, private info is that they are 'for' it, as it is already a developed site (don't get much more developed than a major railway station) and would bring in more cash thru business rates. It would also raise the amount of houses built inside City boundary, thus reducing the amount that the District Councils need to take off OCC's quota. So Bob Price and co want to do the deal with Firoz. Doesn't make it the right long-term thing for the football club. Doesn't make it wrong either, by the way. It COULD be that the City Council have secured, as part of the deal, a cheap deal to buy the stands and that the Council is going to loan the club money cheaply to buy the stands. That would, at least, make us sustainable in League 1 and League 2, even if it stitched us up with regards to the Championship. As I say, these are big, meaty issues, with many stakeholders with varying agenda - and very few, if any, of those agenda are precisely aligned to the long-term sustainability of OUFC. Which, of course, is where - as a member of OxVox - I am looking forward to seeing a truly independent investigation of it all. The only body that can deliver that is the Supporters Trust who also hold the RTB, which can also be used as leverage to get people to level on what the plans really are. Have u passed all or research paper work onto oxvox for them to use ?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Mar 24, 2016 15:16:30 GMT
Perversely, Oxford City Council are against it. Because they want to keep the club (just) inside the city boundary, whereas Water Eaton is (just) outside the city boundary. It is a misconception that Cherwell are against it. They gave a non-committal response, as would be usual in public from a planning authority. But ultimately, private info is that they are 'for' it, as it is already a developed site (don't get much more developed than a major railway station) and would bring in more cash thru business rates. It would also raise the amount of houses built inside City boundary, thus reducing the amount that the District Councils need to take off OCC's quota. So Bob Price and co want to do the deal with Firoz. Doesn't make it the right long-term thing for the football club. Doesn't make it wrong either, by the way. It COULD be that the City Council have secured, as part of the deal, a cheap deal to buy the stands and that the Council is going to loan the club money cheaply to buy the stands. That would, at least, make us sustainable in League 1 and League 2, even if it stitched us up with regards to the Championship. As I say, these are big, meaty issues, with many stakeholders with varying agenda - and very few, if any, of those agenda are precisely aligned to the long-term sustainability of OUFC. Which, of course, is where - as a member of OxVox - I am looking forward to seeing a truly independent investigation of it all. The only body that can deliver that is the Supporters Trust who also hold the RTB, which can also be used as leverage to get people to level on what the plans really are. Have u passed all or research paper work onto oxvox for them to use ? I divided the work into three parts: 1. Top-line stuff - interviewing councils, speaking to supporters direct, speaking to other clubs who have built new stadia etc. This was largely done in conjunction with the then OxVox leadership, and GBT in fact, who put together a top-line doc summarising their findings. OxVox has this. 2. Commercial research, done by then OUFC Commercial boss Tony Davison, who spoke to potential naming rights sponsors and Chiltern Railways etc. Tony passed on this info to me and to the Lenagans. It's hardly relevant anymore, except as a rough guide to the then market. 3. The much more detailed property work - done both on Water Eaton and on the Kassam - which was performed by a property investment chap called Steve Webster, whom I introduced to IL. The basis of this intro was that if IL progressed then Steve would be the consultant on the project and, if equity investment was required, he would be mandated to find it. On that basis, he went out to speak to landowners, councillors, and - critically - Firoz several times. This work was coming to its summary at around the time of the takeover. The information he acquired was proprietary because he was not being paid for his work. None the less, I know that he subsequently went to present his main findings to DE, a few months after DE took over. So that is where it all sits. But I should emphasise that all this was two years ago. Things change in that time. Politically, planning-wise, finance-wise. Effectively that work needs to be done again. And, most importantly, as he said to us at the time Firoz has got impatient and, understandably, decided to move on, so time is short. In the intervening period there has been much jaw jaw and warbling on, by many different people, about "speaking to stakeholders", but the only relevant stakeholders can be spoken to in about two weeks flat. What is needed is an assessment and a plan. A plan that encompasses OUFC's sustainable future as a club in the Championship and the lower leagues. At the moment, the club and OxVox still hold a couple of relevant cards, which means that any plan they come up will be taken seriously by all parties. And this season has demonstrated what I always thought: that there is a Championship club's support waiting out there to come. But it has also shown the limitations of the current site (transport links and parking) and the current financial model.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Mar 24, 2016 15:20:43 GMT
That's good then, any head start that the current oxvox committee can gain from work u have done in the past can only help the situation. Hopefully gbt can make headway on it as well once he starts.
|
|
|
Post by old on Mar 24, 2016 16:24:19 GMT
We'll it appears that HP Charlie has all the answers and that those stakeholders that have seen the PowerPoint presentation are failing in their duty to invest THEIR fortune in taking the risk. Why o why is it that these investors do not have the foresight to support HP Charlie with their money?? After all HP Charlie has form in convincing investors to part with substantial sums of money. As for DE he needs to deal with the real problem. Thank goodness we have a new MD that has the ear of someone so knowledgable and for free.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Mar 24, 2016 16:35:42 GMT
That's good then, any head start that the current oxvox committee can gain from work u have done in the past can only help the situation. Hopefully gbt can make headway on it as well once he starts. And this flags up one of the problems here. As Charlie says, the original proposal for Water Eaton was fairly well advanced two years ago. Since then the club have said more than once that finding a solution for the stadium issue is their "Number one priority". But precious little in terms of real progress has been made - there has been nearly two years without any apparent headway! As a result, we now have Firoz saying that he is going to move forward with a plan which, make no mistake about this, will be in HIS best interests and not the clubs. We also have OxVox saying that they are meeting with the key stakeholders etc and will be sharing their findings with Darryl Eales (or words to that effect - apologies, the OxVox website is down at the moment so can't quote the exact wording which was in the performance report from the AGM). I'm sorry, but if the club are serious about the stadium being the number one priority, they should already be in possession of such information. The important thing here is for OxVox to do an INDEPENDENT examination of the pros and cons of the options and share their findings with their members, with the focus being on what is in the best long-term interest of our football club. Some people are keen to write off the potential for Water Eaton largely based on presumptions about what councils will or will not give planning permission for, or the possible timescales. Again, this is why there is a need for a proper INDEPENDENT analysis of the options to see how realistic the proposals are. Certainly, moving stadia is hardly revolutionary and other clubs have overcome what would appear to be much more significant hurdles to secure ground moves - think of Swansea, Brighton and Rotherham to start with. If people had taken the "it'll never happen so why bother looking" approach these clubs would never have been able to progress in the way they have. Also, moving "again" shouldn't be seen as a bar to at least looking in depth at the proposal, nor would we be the first to do so - Scunthorpe have just secured planning permission for a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Mar 24, 2016 16:44:02 GMT
It's not revolutionary, but how many of those clubs have moved stadium just 15 years after moving into a new one. And as il was given the job of sorting the stadium when de came in, surely some of the blame lies at his door. As he knew the most about it from his time. Like I said I'm sure oxvox will do their own work on it, as will/has de but any info that can be passed from previous investigations and committees and only be helpful in the situation. The key factor being both should be looked at with equal optimism, with out one site being heavily favoured as seems the case last time. Not saying that it's the wrong option but u can only get a true picture if u look at it with no bias. Proved slightly since with Charlie going from being against the kassam cos of transport links to admitting that it would be a heavily improved option if several improvements were made. Like a train station, more access roads into the car park and better bus services
|
|
|
Post by foley on Mar 24, 2016 16:44:28 GMT
We'll it appears that HP Charlie has all the answers and that those stakeholders that have seen the PowerPoint presentation are failing in their duty to invest THEIR fortune in taking the risk. Why o why is it that these investors do not have the foresight to support HP Charlie with their money?? After all HP Charlie has form in convincing investors to part with substantial sums of money. As for DE he needs to deal with the real problem. Thank goodness we have a new MD that has the ear of someone so knowledgable and for free. That is all well and good, but why don't you try and offer an answer to what seems to be a sensible question from Charlie, namely can we ever get to the stage that we are self financing as a football club. Do you not agree that this is a worry (if we do seem to make losses of £1M per annum and Darryl will eventually run out of money/ the desire to lose such money year after year)? Sarcastic bickering on what is a pretty important subject to the club doesn't really help?
|
|
|
Post by old on Mar 24, 2016 16:53:06 GMT
We'll it appears that HP Charlie has all the answers and that those stakeholders that have seen the PowerPoint presentation are failing in their duty to invest THEIR fortune in taking the risk. Why o why is it that these investors do not have the foresight to support HP Charlie with their money?? After all HP Charlie has form in convincing investors to part with substantial sums of money. As for DE he needs to deal with the real problem. Thank goodness we have a new MD that has the ear of someone so knowledgable and for free. That is all well and good, but why don't you try and offer an answer to what seems to be a sensible question from Charlie, namely can we ever get to the stage that we are self financing as a football club. Do you not agree that this is a worry (if we do seem to make losses of £1M per annum and Darryl will eventually run out of money/ the desire to lose such money year after year)? Sarcastic bickering on what is a pretty important subject to the club doesn't really help? All Charlie is doing is undermining both the club and Oxvox for his own agenda. HP Charlie stated on a post that he would desist from posting on here. desist: Stop doing something; cease or abstain: each pledged to desist from acts of sabotage. Both the club and the newly elected members of Oxvox do not need his constant essays on owning the stadium etc at such an important time in the clubs recent history. I'm sure that if CM has the investment DE would welcome his financial input, if not then but out.
|
|
|
Post by stewdonald on Mar 24, 2016 20:52:01 GMT
I saw Darryl yesterday - how much money has he got to run our/his club? Didn't ask him and none of my business but he is generously giving what he feels comfortable with for the sole benefit of OUFC. I would take the view though that he is doing a great job and spending huge sums in trying to make OUFC successful, inclusive and available to everyone. He was extremely passionate and talking long term plans - can't really expand obviously but i was vey enthused but he is thinking long term and willing to spend his hard earned money on OUFC. We can't ask anymore than that and he may not get everything right (almost though!) but he and Cheryl (who is a great credit to him) are working extremely hard. There is always stuff to improve but I don't think we can ask anymore of him than what he is giving.
Onto the Ground
We know this is difficult but vital. It is something that I feel we as fans should try and help and support Darryl with. I do not know about the real likelyhood of moving but if Firoz Kassam is willing to pay us to leave to maximise his potential revenue on the site - which makes perfect sense to me - then seriously exploring other options is sensible and would not take long and I am sure this would be considered.
However if we can't move or indeed feel it more beneficial to stay then I would approach the purchase on the basis that Firoz Kassam has regularly pointed out over the last 18 months that he is the custodian of the club and wants to safeguard the club - on that basis an offer from the club and fans has to be what he wants as fan involvement secures this. The deal I would try and get if we stayed therefore is as follows:-
1) Agree a purchase price of £10 million - don't know its true value but guessing. Sure Darryl values at less and Kassam values at more. 2) The council give Firoz the spare land by the school and value it at £5 million to develop we take on the loan from the council for this at favourable terms. Really should be a £3 million gift to the club in return for community projects and £2 million repaid at say 3.5% 3) Firoz can then develop the site including this extra land where he can make more money allowing him the return he wants and enabling him to let the club have the stadium at the £10 million along with the corners and fourth stand land so the club can develop post sale. 4) The remaining should be raised by 5000 fans offering £1000 per person - £5 million. I will start and offer to cover 1000 fans minimum - If we could then find another 10 fans to cover £200,000 each that would leave us actually needing 2000 to cover £1000 and we would be there.
Darryl would then be free to use his funds to strengthen the team rather than have it sucked into the land. The club could own 50% (the money put forward by the council and the fans the other 50% which they had raised). If there was a shortfall or Darryl wanted control he could maybe put in some to make up the difference - or persuade the more significant investors to do more ( I am sure they would!!!).
Therefore the council get the houses they need and a community club. Firoz makes his money and helps his reputation and the club gets the ground with minimal financial exposure and is not stuck with huge mortgage payments and we then kick on.
I do not know the correct asking price but there is definitely the bones of a deal there that may work for all. There you go Oxvox - what do you reckon Eric Read/Simon Bradbury - I voted for you, make it happen please !!! It does feel like the time is now with the heightened interest with Wembley etc and all the parties just needing pulling together
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Mar 24, 2016 21:04:04 GMT
That's good then, any head start that the current oxvox committee can gain from work u have done in the past can only help the situation. Hopefully gbt can make headway on it as well once he starts. And this flags up one of the problems here. As Charlie says, the original proposal for Water Eaton was fairly well advanced two years ago. Since then the club have said more than once that finding a solution for the stadium issue is their "Number one priority". But precious little in terms of real progress has been made - there has been nearly two years without any apparent headway! As a result, we now have Firoz saying that he is going to move forward with a plan which, make no mistake about this, will be in HIS best interests and not the clubs. We also have OxVox saying that they are meeting with the key stakeholders etc and will be sharing their findings with Darryl Eales (or words to that effect - apologies, the OxVox website is down at the moment so can't quote the exact wording which was in the performance report from the AGM). I'm sorry, but if the club are serious about the stadium being the number one priority, they should already be in possession of such information. The important thing here is for OxVox to do an INDEPENDENT examination of the pros and cons of the options and share their findings with their members, with the focus being on what is in the best long-term interest of our football club. Some people are keen to write off the potential for Water Eaton largely based on presumptions about what councils will or will not give planning permission for, or the possible timescales. Again, this is why there is a need for a proper INDEPENDENT analysis of the options to see how realistic the proposals are. Certainly, moving stadia is hardly revolutionary and other clubs have overcome what would appear to be much more significant hurdles to secure ground moves - think of Swansea, Brighton and Rotherham to start with. If people had taken the "it'll never happen so why bother looking" approach these clubs would never have been able to progress in the way they have. Also, moving "again" shouldn't be seen as a bar to at least looking in depth at the proposal, nor would we be the first to do so - Scunthorpe have just secured planning permission for a new stadium. Myles, you seem to be highlighting the importance of OxVox remaining INDEPENDENT towards their review of the pros and cons regarding the stadia options which would be the least us supporters would expect, so what are your concerns? I actually think what's just as important is their understanding of Darryl's long-term plans (+4 years etc), and why he might not see it being a viable options to either move to a new stadium or purchase the Kassam at the moment e.g. not just taking his opinion at face value. I mean, how long will Darryl be around? If for example he only anticipates staying around for the next 3-5 years, then he might not have the ambition, desire, finances etc to consider moving to a new stadium or purchasing the current one in the short-term. (By the way, I hope he is here for the long-term, but as we know nothing good seems to last forever) I'm sure that with the likes of Colin on the committee this won't be the case, as he knows the main objective is the club's short, medium and long term interests.
|
|
|
Post by Barts on Mar 24, 2016 21:23:19 GMT
I saw Darryl yesterday - how much money has he got to run our/his club? Didn't ask him and none of my business but he is generously giving what he feels comfortable with for the sole benefit of OUFC. I would take the view though that he is doing a great job and spending huge sums in trying to make OUFC successful, inclusive and available to everyone. He was extremely passionate and talking long term plans - can't really expand obviously but i was vey enthused but he is thinking long term and willing to spend his hard earned money on OUFC. We can't ask anymore than that and he may not get everything right (almost though!) but he and Cheryl (who is a great credit to him) are working extremely hard. There is always stuff to improve but I don't think we can ask anymore of him than what he is giving. Onto the Ground We know this is difficult but vital. It is something that I feel we as fans should try and help and support Darryl with. I do not know about the real likelyhood of moving but if Firoz Kassam is willing to pay us to leave to maximise his potential revenue on the site - which makes perfect sense to me - then seriously exploring other options is sensible and would not take long and I am sure this would be considered. However if we can't move or indeed feel it more beneficial to stay then I would approach the purchase on the basis that Firoz Kassam has regularly pointed out over the last 18 months that he is the custodian of the club and wants to safeguard the club - on that basis an offer from the club and fans has to be what he wants as fan involvement secures this. The deal I would try and get if we stayed therefore is as follows:- 1) Agree a purchase price of £10 million - don't know its true value but guessing. Sure Darryl values at less and Kassam values at more. 2) The council give Firoz the spare land by the school and value it at £5 million to develop we take on the loan from the council for this at favourable terms. Really should be a £3 million gift to the club in return for community projects and £2 million repaid at say 3.5% 3) Firoz can then develop the site including this extra land where he can make more money allowing him the return he wants and enabling him to let the club have the stadium at the £10 million along with the corners and fourth stand land so the club can develop post sale. 4) The remaining should be raised by 5000 fans offering £1000 per person - £5 million. I will start and offer to cover 1000 fans minimum - If we could then find another 10 fans to cover £200,000 each that would leave us actually needing 2000 to cover £1000 and we would be there. Darryl would then be free to use his funds to strengthen the team rather than have it sucked into the land. The club could own 50% (the money put forward by the council and the fans the other 50% which they had raised). If there was a shortfall or Darryl wanted control he could maybe put in some to make up the difference - or persuade the more significant investors to do more ( I am sure they would!!!). Therefore the council get the houses they need and a community club. Firoz makes his money and helps his reputation and the club gets the ground with minimal financial exposure and is not stuck with huge mortgage payments and we then kick on. I do not know the correct asking price but there is definitely the bones of a deal there that may work for all. There you go Oxvox - what do you reckon Eric Read/Simon Bradbury - I voted for you, make it happen please !!! It does feel like the time is now with the heightened interest with Wembley etc and all the parties just needing pulling together I'm sorry, but this is without doubt the post of the season. I think if the £10 million deal could be done then that would be unbelievable and a win win for all parties. Stewart, do you know whether this kind of deal has been mentioned to Darryl or Firoz? Or is it your personal opinion? If this kind of deal takes off, it'd be amazing and I believe the supporters would without doubt lead the charge to raise the money!! Coyys!!
|
|
|
Post by johnox37en on Mar 24, 2016 21:28:01 GMT
Post of the Year. Count me and three others in for a grand.
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Mar 24, 2016 21:49:28 GMT
Count me in!
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Mar 24, 2016 22:25:05 GMT
I saw Darryl yesterday - how much money has he got to run our/his club? Didn't ask him and none of my business but he is generously giving what he feels comfortable with for the sole benefit of OUFC. I would take the view though that he is doing a great job and spending huge sums in trying to make OUFC successful, inclusive and available to everyone. He was extremely passionate and talking long term plans - can't really expand obviously but i was vey enthused but he is thinking long term and willing to spend his hard earned money on OUFC. We can't ask anymore than that and he may not get everything right (almost though!) but he and Cheryl (who is a great credit to him) are working extremely hard. There is always stuff to improve but I don't think we can ask anymore of him than what he is giving. Onto the Ground We know this is difficult but vital. It is something that I feel we as fans should try and help and support Darryl with. I do not know about the real likelyhood of moving but if Firoz Kassam is willing to pay us to leave to maximise his potential revenue on the site - which makes perfect sense to me - then seriously exploring other options is sensible and would not take long and I am sure this would be considered. However if we can't move or indeed feel it more beneficial to stay then I would approach the purchase on the basis that Firoz Kassam has regularly pointed out over the last 18 months that he is the custodian of the club and wants to safeguard the club - on that basis an offer from the club and fans has to be what he wants as fan involvement secures this. The deal I would try and get if we stayed therefore is as follows:- 1) Agree a purchase price of £10 million - don't know its true value but guessing. Sure Darryl values at less and Kassam values at more. 2) The council give Firoz the spare land by the school and value it at £5 million to develop we take on the loan from the council for this at favourable terms. Really should be a £3 million gift to the club in return for community projects and £2 million repaid at say 3.5% 3) Firoz can then develop the site including this extra land where he can make more money allowing him the return he wants and enabling him to let the club have the stadium at the £10 million along with the corners and fourth stand land so the club can develop post sale. 4) The remaining should be raised by 5000 fans offering £1000 per person - £5 million. I will start and offer to cover 1000 fans minimum - If we could then find another 10 fans to cover £200,000 each that would leave us actually needing 2000 to cover £1000 and we would be there. Darryl would then be free to use his funds to strengthen the team rather than have it sucked into the land. The club could own 50% (the money put forward by the council and the fans the other 50% which they had raised). If there was a shortfall or Darryl wanted control he could maybe put in some to make up the difference - or persuade the more significant investors to do more ( I am sure they would!!!). Therefore the council get the houses they need and a community club. Firoz makes his money and helps his reputation and the club gets the ground with minimal financial exposure and is not stuck with huge mortgage payments and we then kick on. I do not know the correct asking price but there is definitely the bones of a deal there that may work for all. There you go Oxvox - what do you reckon Eric Read/Simon Bradbury - I voted for you, make it happen please !!! It does feel like the time is now with the heightened interest with Wembley etc and all the parties just needing pulling together Very interesting Stewart. Will we ever get to hear Darryl's long term plans? Also, what's your opinion on the best option for us? e.g. New stadium or purchase Kassam?
|
|
|
Post by foley on Mar 24, 2016 22:33:21 GMT
I do not know the correct asking price but there is definitely the bones of a deal there that may work for all. There you go Oxvox - what do you reckon Eric Read/Simon Bradbury - I voted for you, make it happen please !!! It does feel like the time is now with the heightened interest with Wembley etc and all the parties just needing pulling together So Eric is on the oxvox committee. Good to see. I never knew!
|
|
|
Post by stewdonald on Mar 24, 2016 22:37:02 GMT
Darryl's plans I am sure will be communicated over time but essentially they are just all about building a community club.
My personal view is that if it was at all possible I would move.
The Kassam is run down and would need serious investment I think to bring it up to standard and ultimately I feel we will always end up overpaying.
If there was an option to move and Kassam would write a substantial cheque to vacate then this money coupled with stadium naming rights/Grants/loans etc would be very appealing. This though may not be possible.
I do genuinely feel that the stands are too far away from the pitch especially in the South Stand and that to create a really good atmosphere because of this is really difficult. I would build a 15000 seater elsewhere close to the pitch, enclosed with the capability to double its capacity in phases if and when needed. I think the numbers would work better and the facility and feel of the new ground could be so much better than what we have. I do find the Kassam a very soulless place and even with a fourth stand it won't help - tight and compact like the Manor would be better and improve the match day experience hugely and I feel it would make more financial sense ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Mar 24, 2016 22:40:19 GMT
Darryl's plans I am sure will be communicated over time but essentially they are just all about building a community club. My personal view is that if it was at all possible I would move. The Kassam is run down and would need serious investment I think to bring it up to standard and ultimately I feel we will always end up overpaying. If there was an option to move and Kassam would write a substantial cheque to vacate then this money coupled with stadium naming rights/Grants/loans etc would be very appealing. This though may not be possible. I do genuinely feel that the stands are too far away from the pitch especially in the South Stand and that to create a really good atmosphere because of this is really difficult. I would build a 15000 seater elsewhere close to the pitch, enclosed with the capability to double its capacity in phases if and when needed. I think the numbers would work better and the facility and feel of the new ground could be so much better than what we have. I do find the Kassam a very soulless place and even with a fourth stand it won't help - tight and compact like the Manor would be better and improve the match day experience hugely and I feel it would make more financial sense ultimately. Blimmin hell Stewart, what a shame that you weren't around when Herd/ Kassam etc were leading the club to where we are today....
|
|