|
Post by myles on Jul 17, 2017 17:23:30 GMT
So, back in May, the OxMail published this story about the new partnership with Oxford City: www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/15300400.Oxford_United_and_Oxford_City_excited_over_new_partnership_at_Court_Place_Farm/On the face of it, this looks like a good deal providing, as the article states, both clubs with additional revenue streams. But is all as it appears to be? Having now had a chance to look at the Companies House documents for the new partnership, I would suggest not. The shareholding in the new partnership is split 50:50 and one would expect OCFC to hold one half, with OUFC holding the other half. But no; OCFC do indeed hold half of the new partnership, but the other half is held by Ensco, not OUFC. So, it's not OUFC who benefits from the additional revenue streams, it's Darryl Eales personally. Now, there is a "So what?" question to be answered here. If Eales is underwriting the club's losses, so what if the money goes to him instead; it's simply off-setting what he's losing on the club, isn't it? And. to an extent, that is true. But it's also an argument that was used to justify what Kassam was doing to the club too. It holds water to a degree whilst in common ownership, but once the club changes owner, the argument falls apart. At that point, we would have, say, OUWFC locked into a deal to play at OCFC which simply puts money into the pocket of the club's previous owner. We all know how palatable a position that is.... And, IMHO, it's even more significant than that. At the moment, we are a club which, setting aside transfer income, loses £1.5m+ each year and racking up significant amounts of debt. Now, Darryl may be true to his word and write off anything incurred on his watch, but he may also use those debts as a bargaining tool to extract more from a potential buyer. This is where it becomes a big issue, because some of those debts would be from what the club has payed for use of the OCFC facilities and from which Darryl would have received some revenue. Now, if it were the club who were directly benefiting from this, I would have no problem. But the way this has been set up and subsequently mis-represented to fans, frankly, stinks.
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on Jul 17, 2017 17:37:59 GMT
So, back in May, the OxMail published this story about the new partnership with Oxford City: www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/15300400.Oxford_United_and_Oxford_City_excited_over_new_partnership_at_Court_Place_Farm/On the face of it, this looks like a good deal providing, as the article states, both clubs with additional revenue streams. But is all as it appears to be? Having now had a chance to look at the Companies House documents for the new partnership, I would suggest not. The shareholding in the new partnership is split 50:50 and one would expect OCFC to hold one half, with OUFC holding the other half. But no; OCFC do indeed hold half of the new partnership, but the other half is held by Ensco, not OUFC. So, it's not OUFC who benefits from the additional revenue streams, it's Darryl Eales personally. Now, there is a "So what?" question to be answered here. If Eales is underwriting the club's losses, so what if the money goes to him instead; it's simply off-setting what he's losing on the club, isn't it? And. to an extent, that is true. But it's also an argument that was used to justify what Kassam was doing to the club too. It holds water to a degree whilst in common ownership, but once the club changes owner, the argument falls apart. At that point, we would have, say, OUWFC locked into a deal to play at OCFC which simply puts money into the pocket of the club's previous owner. We all know how palatable a position that is.... And, IMHO, it's even more significant than that. At the moment, we are a club which, setting aside transfer income, loses £1.5m+ each year and racking up significant amounts of debt. Now, Darryl may be true to his word and write off anything incurred on his watch, but he may also use those debts as a bargaining tool to extract more from a potential buyer. This is where it becomes a big issue, because some of those debts would be from what the club has payed for use of the OCFC facilities and from which Darryl would have received some revenue. Now, if it were the club who were directly benefiting from this, I would have no problem. But the way this has been set up and subsequently mis-represented to fans, frankly, stinks. RIP OUFC then is it? I don't get all the negativity about at the moment. Things are as good as they have been for 15 years, I'm pleased with the ownership, his plans and positive about the club's future both in the short term and long term.
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on Jul 17, 2017 18:20:32 GMT
I know it's difficult to be optimistic about owners and the future of the club as we have had so many bad ones in the past. We're so used to dodgey chairman and bust ups that when we do have a good we're not used to it and revert to negativity and believe the 'In the know' bloke in the pub that there's bust ups and Eales is going to walk away next week!
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Jul 17, 2017 18:35:10 GMT
This is indeed a worrying set up. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being, frankly, a little naive. If the set up at OCFC is entirely for the benefit of OUFC then why is the deal in someone else's name?
Another question for the fans forum.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Jul 17, 2017 18:48:17 GMT
DE will certainly cash in here! He must be looking at several million a year from such a lucrative deal. I always knew that he was an asset stripping bastard!!!!
|
|
|
Post by foley on Jul 17, 2017 18:52:12 GMT
It does seem very strange that it is not in the name of OUFC.
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jul 17, 2017 19:25:25 GMT
Does this mean if the new partnership makes a loss then it won't be against the club?
|
|
|
Post by followtheox (the original) on Jul 17, 2017 19:29:13 GMT
DE will certainly cash in here! He must be looking at several million a year from such a lucrative deal. I always knew that he was an asset stripping bastard!!!! I reckon several billion.
|
|
|
Post by ascotyellow on Jul 17, 2017 19:56:16 GMT
This is very important to discuss with Eales but such questions won't get much of a response at a fans forum. This should be something that Oxvox take on for private questioning in depth with Eales before reporting back.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Jul 17, 2017 20:20:42 GMT
So, back in May, the OxMail published this story about the new partnership with Oxford City: www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/15300400.Oxford_United_and_Oxford_City_excited_over_new_partnership_at_Court_Place_Farm/On the face of it, this looks like a good deal providing, as the article states, both clubs with additional revenue streams. But is all as it appears to be? Having now had a chance to look at the Companies House documents for the new partnership, I would suggest not. The shareholding in the new partnership is split 50:50 and one would expect OCFC to hold one half, with OUFC holding the other half. But no; OCFC do indeed hold half of the new partnership, but the other half is held by Ensco, not OUFC. So, it's not OUFC who benefits from the additional revenue streams, it's Darryl Eales personally. Now, there is a "So what?" question to be answered here. If Eales is underwriting the club's losses, so what if the money goes to him instead; it's simply off-setting what he's losing on the club, isn't it? And. to an extent, that is true. But it's also an argument that was used to justify what Kassam was doing to the club too. It holds water to a degree whilst in common ownership, but once the club changes owner, the argument falls apart. At that point, we would have, say, OUWFC locked into a deal to play at OCFC which simply puts money into the pocket of the club's previous owner. We all know how palatable a position that is.... And, IMHO, it's even more significant than that. At the moment, we are a club which, setting aside transfer income, loses £1.5m+ each year and racking up significant amounts of debt. Now, Darryl may be true to his word and write off anything incurred on his watch, but he may also use those debts as a bargaining tool to extract more from a potential buyer. This is where it becomes a big issue, because some of those debts would be from what the club has payed for use of the OCFC facilities and from which Darryl would have received some revenue. Now, if it were the club who were directly benefiting from this, I would have no problem. But the way this has been set up and subsequently mis-represented to fans, frankly, stinks. Could it be as simple as one club being unable to financially support another? The potential revenue streams are fairly limited so can't see this being significant either way. And do we know that the club will be paying DE to use the facilities as this seems to be the only way anyone would lose out? Finally, are you attending the fans forum to raise these concerns directly?
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Jul 17, 2017 20:30:49 GMT
Myles what are your thoughts on Eales using Ensco to put the coaching staff on their pay roll so that OUFC have more money to spend on the playing budget?
Eales has every right of assigning his money to which ever company he wishes too. He is making himself more money which in turn will mean more money for OUFC. Maybe I'm being naive but he is the first owner who I don't think will screw oufc over.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jul 17, 2017 20:40:59 GMT
So, back in May, the OxMail published this story about the new partnership with Oxford City: www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/15300400.Oxford_United_and_Oxford_City_excited_over_new_partnership_at_Court_Place_Farm/On the face of it, this looks like a good deal providing, as the article states, both clubs with additional revenue streams. But is all as it appears to be? Having now had a chance to look at the Companies House documents for the new partnership, I would suggest not. The shareholding in the new partnership is split 50:50 and one would expect OCFC to hold one half, with OUFC holding the other half. But no; OCFC do indeed hold half of the new partnership, but the other half is held by Ensco, not OUFC. So, it's not OUFC who benefits from the additional revenue streams, it's Darryl Eales personally. Now, there is a "So what?" question to be answered here. If Eales is underwriting the club's losses, so what if the money goes to him instead; it's simply off-setting what he's losing on the club, isn't it? And. to an extent, that is true. But it's also an argument that was used to justify what Kassam was doing to the club too. It holds water to a degree whilst in common ownership, but once the club changes owner, the argument falls apart. At that point, we would have, say, OUWFC locked into a deal to play at OCFC which simply puts money into the pocket of the club's previous owner. We all know how palatable a position that is.... And, IMHO, it's even more significant than that. At the moment, we are a club which, setting aside transfer income, loses £1.5m+ each year and racking up significant amounts of debt. Now, Darryl may be true to his word and write off anything incurred on his watch, but he may also use those debts as a bargaining tool to extract more from a potential buyer. This is where it becomes a big issue, because some of those debts would be from what the club has payed for use of the OCFC facilities and from which Darryl would have received some revenue. Now, if it were the club who were directly benefiting from this, I would have no problem. But the way this has been set up and subsequently mis-represented to fans, frankly, stinks. Could it be as simple as one club being unable to financially support another? The potential revenue streams are fairly limited so can't see this being significant either way. And do we know that the club will be paying DE to use the facilities as this seems to be the only way anyone would lose out? Finally, are you attending the fans forum to raise these concerns directly? That could be the answer. I recall there was an issue with Stewart Donald sponsoring 2 clubs shirts, so maybe regulations have tightened. Worth researching on the FAs website I feel.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jul 17, 2017 20:53:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 18, 2017 5:46:31 GMT
Myles what are your thoughts on Eales using Ensco to put the coaching staff on their pay roll so that OUFC have more money to spend on the playing budget? Eales has every right of assigning his money to which ever company he wishes too. He is making himself more money which in turn will mean more money for OUFC. Maybe I'm being naive but he is the first owner who I don't think will screw oufc over. Quite possibly so, but answer this truthfully, if you read myles post but changed the words Daryl to firoz and ensco to firoka. Would u be feeling the same way about it being not in oufc name ?
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Jul 18, 2017 6:47:06 GMT
Absolutely right for OP to raise the issue.
But the emotive language used ....' it stinks'... does him no credit.
I suspect the answer is something to do with rules on club ownership.
Definitely a question to raise at fans forum though.
Another question to ask is does all transfer revenue accrue to the club alone or is it sometimes paid out as bonus to members of management team?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jul 18, 2017 7:11:47 GMT
The bottom point would depend on their contract of employment wouldn't it? Something that I gather is quite prevalent in football.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Jul 18, 2017 7:32:25 GMT
Myles what are your thoughts on Eales using Ensco to put the coaching staff on their pay roll so that OUFC have more money to spend on the playing budget? Eales has every right of assigning his money to which ever company he wishes too. He is making himself more money which in turn will mean more money for OUFC. Maybe I'm being naive but he is the first owner who I don't think will screw oufc over. Quite possibly so, but answer this truthfully, if you read myles post but changed the words Daryl to firoz and ensco to firoka. Would u be feeling the same way about it being not in oufc name ? I would look at FK and see someone who is happy to take £500k a year whilst allowing the stadium to fall apart and blocking every reasonable effort to provide a long term deal to help the club. I would then look at DE, who in all honesty is probably confined by FA rules, doing a deal that might cover his loses by a few quid at best (or maybe reducing further debt to the club). Comparing the two is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 18, 2017 7:55:56 GMT
Quite possibly so, but answer this truthfully, if you read myles post but changed the words Daryl to firoz and ensco to firoka. Would u be feeling the same way about it being not in oufc name ? I would look at FK and see someone who is happy to take £500k a year whilst allowing the stadium to fall apart and blocking every reasonable effort to provide a long term deal to help the club. I would then look at DE, who in all honesty is probably confined by FA rules, doing a deal that might cover his loses by a few quid at best (or maybe reducing further debt to the club). Comparing the two is irrelevant. Not really, as your comparing firoz in hindsight. 2/3 years into his ownership not that many fans were questioning his motives, he'd just appointed an Argentinian manager rated high than sir Alex. Only very few people on here myles was one questioned what he was doing, cutting the academy, cutting staff, having the ground under separate ownership to the club (it didn't matter at that point). There might very well be a very good reason it's been done, but again it's not quite what the press release said it was. My point was it's surely better to ask these questions now, before u get to the point that firoz took us to rather than waiting until its happened. I'll ask again if firoz had stayed in charge, and u read myles post changing the names would you be saying the same thing ?
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jul 18, 2017 8:04:05 GMT
Feels like a pretty clear COI for one club to hold a controlling interest in another. What if they drew each other in the cup?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 18, 2017 8:16:44 GMT
Feels like a pretty clear COI for one club to hold a controlling interest in another. What if they drew each other in the cup? Is it any different ? Ensco now own oufc and have a controlling influence in city
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Jul 18, 2017 8:41:12 GMT
Feels like a pretty clear COI for one club to hold a controlling interest in another. What if they drew each other in the cup? Is it any different ? Ensco now own oufc and have a controlling influence in city Ensco don't own Oxford City FC, they are involved in a joint partnership with Oxford City. Without Ensco a club the size of Oxford City would not of been able to have a 3g pitch put down and be able to rent that pitch out for the community to use. I get that you don't trust Eales and keep mentioning how he changes the goal posts in press releases. Well he has explained in today's article why we don't need to sell a player this summer due to the club getting near on £2 million in the bank from last years player sells. Things change in football very quickly so if something was said 3 months ago can now not be the case due to a change in circumstances. Going back to the Oxford City issue I would bet my last tenner that it is due to ownership issues and having a certain amount of interest in another club. I assume you will be going to the fans forum to ask Eales about the concerns you have regarding the different comments in the press?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 18, 2017 9:02:01 GMT
I certainly hope to, family dependant.
I can't see how there are ownership issues in the name being oufc but not in the name ensco which now have a controlling state as u put in, in two clubs. Oufc wouldnt own oxford city, they would be involved in a joint partnership.
It's not even that I don't trust Darryl, I think these questions should be asked who ever is in charge for the god of the club. Again if it was firoz doing it u can't tell me u wouldn't have questioned it
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Jul 18, 2017 9:13:22 GMT
I certainly hope to, family dependant. I can't see how there are ownership issues in the name being oufc but not in the name ensco which now have a controlling state as u put in, in two clubs. Oufc wouldnt own oxford city, they would be involved in a joint partnership. It's not even that I don't trust Darryl, I think these questions should be asked who ever is in charge for the god of the club. Again if it was firoz doing it u can't tell me u wouldn't have questioned it This point about if it was Kassam is pretty pointless considering we know exactly what Kassam is like. Things only tend to come out properly once a person leaves. For example when Thomas left it was left to IL to pick up the pieces after he put his trust in Thomas only for it to back fire horribly. With regards to Eales then I do think he owns OUFC for some of his own benefit but then who would spend millions of pounds of your own money just for the fun of it? These benefits could be to massage his ego, connect in circles that only football gives you, right debt off against other companies to help with tax or to make some money (very unlikely in football).
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 18, 2017 9:19:54 GMT
I certainly hope to, family dependant. I can't see how there are ownership issues in the name being oufc but not in the name ensco which now have a controlling state as u put in, in two clubs. Oufc wouldnt own oxford city, they would be involved in a joint partnership. It's not even that I don't trust Darryl, I think these questions should be asked who ever is in charge for the god of the club. Again if it was firoz doing it u can't tell me u wouldn't have questioned it This point about if it was Kassam is pretty pointless considering we know exactly what Kassam is like. Things only tend to come out properly once a person leaves. For example when Thomas left it was left to IL to pick up the pieces after he put his trust in Thomas only for it to back fire horribly. With regards to Eales then I do think he owns OUFC for some of his own benefit but then who would spend millions of pounds of your own money just for the fun of it? These benefits could be to massage his ego, connect in circles that only football gives you, right debt off against other companies to help with tax or to make some money (very unlikely in football). So it's not that pointless then is it? As like u say u only really find out about people when they leave, why not question before when there are signs there? If we had questioned firoz before we knew what he was like could we have stopped him scrapping the academy? You say we know what he's like but that's only with hindsight. And while no one should assume Darryl has anything but the best interests of the club at heart, if it's the case then asking the questions shouldn't be a problem should it. Oxvox sent these questions to Darryl after their agm, as of yet I haven't seen the answers.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jul 18, 2017 10:01:42 GMT
I would look at FK and see someone who is happy to take £500k a year whilst allowing the stadium to fall apart and blocking every reasonable effort to provide a long term deal to help the club. I would then look at DE, who in all honesty is probably confined by FA rules, doing a deal that might cover his loses by a few quid at best (or maybe reducing further debt to the club). Comparing the two is irrelevant. Not really, as your comparing firoz in hindsight. 2/3 years into his ownership not that many fans were questioning his motives, he'd just appointed an Argentinian manager rated high than sir Alex. Only very few people on here myles was one questioned what he was doing, cutting the academy, cutting staff, having the ground under separate ownership to the club (it didn't matter at that point). There might very well be a very good reason it's been done, but again it's not quite what the press release said it was. My point was it's surely better to ask these questions now, before u get to the point that firoz took us to rather than waiting until its happened. I'll ask again if firoz had stayed in charge, and u read myles post changing the names would you be saying the same thing ? From what I remember a decent number of supporters were questioning Kassam by that time due to what happened with the Ground and the Manor.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jul 18, 2017 10:19:27 GMT
Is it any different ? Ensco now own oufc and have a controlling influence in city Ensco don't own Oxford City FC, they are involved in a joint partnership with Oxford City. Without Ensco a club the size of Oxford City would not of been able to have a 3g pitch put down and be able to rent that pitch out for the community to use. I get that you don't trust Eales and keep mentioning how he changes the goal posts in press releases. Well he has explained in today's article why we don't need to sell a player this summer due to the club getting near on £2 million in the bank from last years player sells. Things change in football very quickly so if something was said 3 months ago can now not be the case due to a change in circumstances. Going back to the Oxford City issue I would bet my last tenner that it is due to ownership issues and having a certain amount of interest in another club. I assume you will be going to the fans forum to ask Eales about the concerns you have regarding the different comments in the press? Hate to take your money, chum, but I'm going to have to. This (a facilities revenue sharing scheme) bears no relevance to club control. It would make zero difference if the JV partner was OUFC. Indeed, we could own the entire facility and rent it to them without having any ownership control over OCFC. What has clearly happened is that ensco has made an investment at court place and expects to realise that investment thru revenue sharing. No problem, no problem at all. As long as you weren't expecting Oufc to benefit.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jul 18, 2017 10:36:09 GMT
Ensco don't own Oxford City FC, they are involved in a joint partnership with Oxford City. Without Ensco a club the size of Oxford City would not of been able to have a 3g pitch put down and be able to rent that pitch out for the community to use. I get that you don't trust Eales and keep mentioning how he changes the goal posts in press releases. Well he has explained in today's article why we don't need to sell a player this summer due to the club getting near on £2 million in the bank from last years player sells. Things change in football very quickly so if something was said 3 months ago can now not be the case due to a change in circumstances. Going back to the Oxford City issue I would bet my last tenner that it is due to ownership issues and having a certain amount of interest in another club. I assume you will be going to the fans forum to ask Eales about the concerns you have regarding the different comments in the press? Hate to take your money, chum, but I'm going to have to. This (a facilities revenue sharing scheme) bears no relevance to club control. It would make zero difference if the JV partner was OUFC. Indeed, we could own the entire facility and rent it to them without having any ownership control over OCFC. What has clearly happened is that ensco has made an investment at court place and expects to realise that investment thru revenue sharing. No problem, no problem at all. As long as you weren't expecting Oufc to benefit. Which you would be expecting seeing that was what the press release said. Hence why I've said they confuse people and lead to questioning. www.oufc.co.uk/news/2017/january/oxford-united-oxford-city-and-city-council-agree-new-partnership/
|
|
|
Post by upthecowboys on Jul 18, 2017 19:19:02 GMT
Is it any different ? Ensco now own oufc and have a controlling influence in city Ensco don't own Oxford City FC, they are involved in a joint partnership with Oxford City. Without Ensco a club the size of Oxford City would not of been able to have a 3g pitch put down and be able to rent that pitch out for the community to use. I get that you don't trust Eales and keep mentioning how he changes the goal posts in press releases. Well he has explained in today's article why we don't need to sell a player this summer due to the club getting near on £2 million in the bank from last years player sells. Things change in football very quickly so if something was said 3 months ago can now not be the case due to a change in circumstances. Going back to the Oxford City issue I would bet my last tenner that it is due to ownership issues and having a certain amount of interest in another club. I assume you will be going to the fans forum to ask Eales about the concerns you have regarding the different comments in the press? I think Myles has raised something worth talking about. However agree the word 'stinks' at the end of his post doesn't help his argument. Maybe him and Charlie need to go on a PR course.. DE may have said we don't 'need' to sell, lets revisit this thread in mid-August. My guess is that Lundstram, and Johnson won't be with us at the start of the season. If that happens then we'll have received 4 fees from players / manager trading.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 18, 2017 19:20:33 GMT
Didn't see many complaints when Ashton was employed by Ensco when realistically it was a club cost.
Anyway I take Myles's point that a potential buyer could end up with a long term commitment to paying Ensco , but surely that would be covered by due diligence? So an onerous lease would presumably make the club less saleable? When most of us think the Eales project is to sell the club on at a decent profit.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 18, 2017 19:38:08 GMT
Also one of those two links suggested it was a direct partnership between oufc and ocfc. But then again lots of others in the past haven't been fully open. There are deals everywhere , do oufc get a cut from stadium food and drink or pitch side advertising? Sometimes they do , sometimes the deal changes with no notice to fans.
|
|