|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 17, 2017 10:30:05 GMT
I think one thing people tend to forget is that DE now has a really genuine love for the club. This may not have been the case when he first invested the money, but it's now clear in everything he says and does. Perhaps you're confusing Oxford United with My Fair Lady?
|
|
|
Post by Bue Guado on Aug 17, 2017 10:39:24 GMT
Who on earth is banging on about Sartori? I can only see one person doing that. He has barely been mentioned on here since some ill-advised mudslinging AGAINST him a few weeks ago. As DE said recently, and quite rightly, the Sartori bid is now irrelevant history. It was brought up on social-media and I've seen it used as a hashtag. I don't tweet, nor Facebook, so am only going by what I've witnessed on Instagram, but get the impression that there are some on other webspaces who are of the same mind. I merely brought him up again as an example to support my point. But I am non-partisan here, have no desire of getting into any mud-slinging myself, and was just answering your question.
|
|
|
Post by CheltenhamYellow on Aug 17, 2017 10:45:03 GMT
I think one thing people tend to forget is that DE now has a really genuine love for the club. This may not have been the case when he first invested the money, but it's now clear in everything he says and does. Perhaps you're confusing Oxford United with My Fair Lady? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 17, 2017 10:46:11 GMT
Not Svengali and Trilby, I hope?
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Aug 17, 2017 10:54:15 GMT
Stockholm syndrome, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 17, 2017 10:56:12 GMT
It's interesting to see which posters are all over this story. Mark you say Oxford have been brought into the story? The only mention of the football club is saying DE is now our owner. I wouldn't say that means it is bad press for Oxford United as a football club. It's also interesting to see which posters are desperate to say "Move along; nothing to see here"... As others have rightly pointed out, regardless of the individuals involved, this appears to be a tale of sordid corporate greed which has negatively impacted some of the most vulnerable members of our society who were simply trying to improve their employment prospects and better themselves. And this isn't some piece of tittle-tattle on Twitter, this is a banner headline on the front page of probably the most conservative newspaper going - the FT pretty much never points the finger unless it has a cast iron story. So, feel free to dismiss this as another anti-Eales rant. But if you, and others, think this doesn't matter because it doesn't directly affect events on the pitch, or it doesn't raise any questions about where Eales' money came from, then I would suggest that your moral compass needs a bit of a reset.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 17, 2017 10:57:20 GMT
I think one thing people tend to forget is that DE now has a really genuine love for the club. This may not have been the case when he first invested the money, but it's now clear in everything he says and does. How many chairman can you name who have that emotional tie to their club (particularly those in the top two tiers of football)? Putting money into an average fourth tier club with a set of journeymen players wasn't a great financial investment - but perhaps his love of football generally has gradually morphed into a love of the club which is clearly shared by many of us. Ah bless you Cheltenham Yellow, that's so nice. I haven't felt this warm, cozy and fuzzy since the conclusion to the latest episode of Long Lost Family yesterday evening.
|
|
|
Post by CheltenhamYellow on Aug 17, 2017 10:59:08 GMT
I think one thing people tend to forget is that DE now has a really genuine love for the club. This may not have been the case when he first invested the money, but it's now clear in everything he says and does. How many chairman can you name who have that emotional tie to their club (particularly those in the top two tiers of football)? Putting money into an average fourth tier club with a set of journeymen players wasn't a great financial investment - but perhaps his love of football generally has gradually morphed into a love of the club which is clearly shared by many of us. Ah bless you Cheltenham Yellow, that's so nice. I haven't felt this warm, cozy and fuzzy since the conclusion to the latest episode of Long Lost Family yesterday evening. Lovely
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2017 11:47:42 GMT
This.
I understand why it might be of interest due to Eales being our owner but I really can't see how something that happened before Eales even owned the football club can have a negative impact in the press for OUFC.
People who keep banging on about Satori being some saviour need to get over it. Eales rejected his approach and that is the end of that. No one knows if he would of gone through with all his promises or invested as heavily as he suggested he would.
Who on earth is banging on about Sartori? I can only see one person doing that. He has barely been mentioned on here since some ill-advised mudslinging AGAINST him a few weeks ago. As DE said recently, and quite rightly, the Sartori bid is now irrelevant history. You infect thread after thread with your paranoia about people wanting to defenestrate DE, without understanding that nobody can have this agenda because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. DE owns OUFC, a private business, and will only sell it if and when he wants to. I read a post by oufcyellows - an old adversary of mine, as many will attest - with some sadness just now. He said that he thinks he is gojng to stop posting because everything he writes ends up in an argument. That is you, wiggy. It is YOU who turns every thread into an argument. Because you cannot accept that people will have independent thoughts on issues without it being a conspiracy. Please can you stop doing this. Post what YOU think, rather than constantly trying to tell other people what THEY think. I promise to you that it is much more fun, much less divisive and you might, you never know, learn something. Ironically, Myles Francis and I became friends after clashing swords on here over Firoz Kassam. He thought FK was a great feller at the time - I disagreed vehemently. But without the kind of allegations of wishing ill on OUFC that you constantly make we were able both to disagree and become mates. Although he will never admit it, oufcyellows and I have been on a bit of a similar journey! Start off from the presumption that everyone wants the best for the club. I shall be travelling to Scunthorpe on Saturday, and hat would be an odd thing indeed to do if I wanted us to lose, wouldn't it? Once we all agree that we are all OUFC supporters, strong and true, we can then disagree and agree without fear or favour. And the arguments can remain civil. But once you routinely go arond telling OUFC fans that they are trying to damage their club, things will disintegrate pretty quickly. Stop it ur making me emotional. Does this mean I'm on ur Christmas card list now
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 17, 2017 11:50:47 GMT
It's interesting to see which posters are all over this story. Mark you say Oxford have been brought into the story? The only mention of the football club is saying DE is now our owner. I wouldn't say that means it is bad press for Oxford United as a football club. It's also interesting to see which posters are desperate to say "Move along; nothing to see here"... As others have rightly pointed out, regardless of the individuals involved, this appears to be a tale of sordid corporate greed which has negatively impacted some of the most vulnerable members of our society who were simply trying to improve their employment prospects and better themselves. And this isn't some piece of tittle-tattle on Twitter, this is a banner headline on the front page of probably the most conservative newspaper going - the FT pretty much never points the finger unless it has a cast iron story. So, feel free to dismiss this as another anti-Eales rant. But if you, and others, think this doesn't matter because it doesn't directly affect events on the pitch, or it doesn't raise any questions about where Eales' money came from, then I would suggest that your moral compass needs a bit of a reset. Mm. Bastard capitalist runs football club shock! I mean, the whole LDC affair's a strong morality tale against the thieves who "liberalised" the provision of social and training services and the bunch of their fellow thieves who then ripped off the taxpayer and the poor bloody strivers they failed to train adequately. But that Eales is one of that crowd has never been in dispute since day 1 so it's hardly a revelation now and it seems kind of beside the point to get all aerated about it at this moment. What next? Eels eat nice colourful fish horror?
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Aug 17, 2017 12:08:11 GMT
I am not part of any consortium. I am not part of any clique. I tend not to get too binary about the world and find it frustrating that so much is painted as either black or white. I also find modern indulgent populism painfully vacuous and short of credible thought. I don't believe there is a static sense of right and wrong. People can move between making right and wrong decisions, and simultaneously be more right on one thing and more wrong on another in the opinion of others. That doesn't make the other right or wrong either.
I watch this debate unfold on this thread and it mirrors modern politics. The subject matter is completely lost in a nonsense of personality assessments. It's perfectly valid to debate matters and it doesn't mean that the person you're debating with is a bad oerson and you're a good person. Perhaps your life experiences have just shaped you to a different place at this time.
For the record I was very pro-kassam for many years but completely lost faith in him the last two years of his tenure. I would say that my current Day sense of wanting to ask questions of any chairman comes from the fact that I felt so duped on that journey. I don't want to be prone to that mistake again because I can witness a direct correlation between my last 17 years of matchday experiences with his actions. He created a tangible negative environment and destroyed enjoyment of my hobby through his asset strippping and the infrastructure and remnants he gifted us. Our collective error of trust is still haunting us today.
With regards Darryl Eales and this story it might be helpful to try and discuss the matter in isolation to start off with. We can get into a whole debate about his motives for oufc and whether he has been good or bad for the club.
On this matter I would bullet the following:
1. I do not think any reputational damage should be a collective concern for oufc and it's many stakeholders. The connection is too intangible for the wider populous and is very unlikely to be negative enough to impact on any of our revenue streams. These papers and the ones with the follow up stories will be fish and chip wrappers soon. Our commercial backers and our fans don't care from the perspective of investing their dollar with the product.
2. There is unlikely to be any direct financial impact upon the club. The disconnect is too strong with regards financial structures in place. This will potentially be a rough process for Darryl. It may impact his personal reputation outside of the football world. It may cause him distraction. It may cause him stress and impact how he feels about other things in his life like the club but on a direct basis it's not going to impact us. It may even impact how he makes decisions for oufc but that's an impossible thing to quantify and pure conjecture.
The committtee process will be asking some very serious questions of him though. And rightfully so. Public funds and a learning body are not things that should be willfully manipulated by a VC fund. The 84%as a raw statistic and without context is very ugly looking. I will be interested to see the context that emerges around this. The public, the media and parliament are still very sensitive about the public funds investment into RBS and Lloyds (the 1%ers) and the use of those funds, and accordingly the activity of those bodies. Throw in a failing learning institution and it's a story with legs. Scrutiny is just and appropriate. But we mustn't prejudge and that's the point of having a process like this. I hope they will ask some very serious questions of the government department that allowed a contract to be drawn up so vulnerable to such redirection of public funds through this pseudo PFI operation.
3. Is there any relevance to oufc? I think we will all make up our own minds on this with time. I think we end up going back to the point about motives. Depending on background and life experience we may all fairly reach different conclusions. I work in risk management for a major corporation so perhaps should hold my hands up as being more naturally cynical. I often assess the history of decisions by individuals as context when trying to formulate views on current risk. A nugget like this might make me more sceptical about intent and make me want to scrutinize a set of decisions more. But ultimately I would need to revert to the facts.
And at this stage I don't feel we have all the facts on this case so would choose to reserve judgment. But would still be more than happy to openly analyze and debate as I think we should be mature enough as a group to ask questions, seek answers, and not turn it into a personality based slanging match.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 17, 2017 12:40:31 GMT
I am not part of any consortium. I am not part of any clique. I tend not to get too binary about the world and find it frustrating that so much is painted as either black or white. I also find modern indulgent populism painfully vacuous and short of credible thought. I don't believe there is a static sense of right and wrong. People can move between making right and wrong decisions, and simultaneously be more right on one thing and more wrong on another in the opinion of others. That doesn't make the other right or wrong either. I watch this debate unfold on this thread and it mirrors modern politics. The subject matter is completely lost in a nonsense of personality assessments. It's perfectly valid to debate matters and it doesn't mean that the person you're debating with is a bad oerson and you're a good person. Perhaps your life experiences have just shaped you to a different place at this time. For the record I was very pro-kassam for many years but completely lost faith in him the last two years of his tenure. I would say that my current Day sense of wanting to ask questions of any chairman comes from the fact that I felt so duped on that journey. I don't want to be prone to that mistake again because I can witness a direct correlation between my last 17 years of matchday experiences with his actions. He created a tangible negative environment and destroyed enjoyment of my hobby through his asset strippping and the infrastructure and remnants he gifted us. Our collective error of trust is still haunting us today. With regards Darryl Eales and this story it might be helpful to try and discuss the matter in isolation to start off with. We can get into a whole debate about his motives for oufc and whether he has been good or bad for the club. On this matter I would bullet the following: 1. I do not think any reputational damage should be a collective concern for oufc and it's many stakeholders. The connection is too intangible for the wider populous and is very unlikely to be negative enough to impact on any of our revenue streams. These papers and the ones with the follow up stories will be fish and chip wrappers soon. Our commercial backers and our fans don't care from the perspective of investing their dollar with the product. 2. There is unlikely to be any direct financial impact upon the club. The disconnect is too strong with regards financial structures in place. This will potentially be a rough process for Darryl. It may impact his personal reputation outside of the football world. It may cause him distraction. It may cause him stress and impact how he feels about other things in his life like the club but on a direct basis it's not going to impact us. It may even impact how he makes decisions for oufc but that's an impossible thing to quantify and pure conjecture. The committtee process will be asking some very serious questions of him though. And rightfully so. Public funds and a learning body are not things that should be willfully manipulated by a VC fund. The 84%as a raw statistic and without context is very ugly looking. I will be interested to see the context that emerges around this. The public, the media and parliament are still very sensitive about the public funds investment into RBS and Lloyds (the 1%ers) and the use of those funds, and accordingly the activity of those bodies. Throw in a failing learning institution and it's a story with legs. Scrutiny is just and appropriate. But we mustn't prejudge and that's the point of having a process like this. I hope they will ask some very serious questions of the government department that allowed a contract to be drawn up so vulnerable to such redirection of public funds through this pseudo PFI operation. 3. Is there any relevance to oufc? I think we will all make up our own minds on this with time. I think we end up going back to the point about motives. Depending on background and life experience we may all fairly reach different conclusions. I work in risk management for a major corporation so perhaps should hold my hands up as being more naturally cynical. I often assess the history of decisions by individuals as context when trying to formulate views on current risk. A nugget like this might make me more sceptical about intent and make me want to scrutinize a set of decisions more. But ultimately I would need to revert to the facts. And at this stage I don't feel we have all the facts on this case so would choose to reserve judgment. But would still be more than happy to openly analyze and debate as I think we should be mature enough as a group to ask questions, seek answers, and not turn it into a personality based slanging match. Excellent post Ricky. I agree with every word.
|
|
|
Post by guyellow on Aug 17, 2017 12:41:23 GMT
I am not part of any consortium. I am not part of any clique. I tend not to get too binary about the world and find it frustrating that so much is painted as either black or white. I also find modern indulgent populism painfully vacuous and short of credible thought. I don't believe there is a static sense of right and wrong. People can move between making right and wrong decisions, and simultaneously be more right on one thing and more wrong on another in the opinion of others. That doesn't make the other right or wrong either. I watch this debate unfold on this thread and it mirrors modern politics. The subject matter is completely lost in a nonsense of personality assessments. It's perfectly valid to debate matters and it doesn't mean that the person you're debating with is a bad oerson and you're a good person. Perhaps your life experiences have just shaped you to a different place at this time. For the record I was very pro-kassam for many years but completely lost faith in him the last two years of his tenure. I would say that my current Day sense of wanting to ask questions of any chairman comes from the fact that I felt so duped on that journey. I don't want to be prone to that mistake again because I can witness a direct correlation between my last 17 years of matchday experiences with his actions. He created a tangible negative environment and destroyed enjoyment of my hobby through his asset strippping and the infrastructure and remnants he gifted us. Our collective error of trust is still haunting us today. With regards Darryl Eales and this story it might be helpful to try and discuss the matter in isolation to start off with. We can get into a whole debate about his motives for oufc and whether he has been good or bad for the club. On this matter I would bullet the following: 1. I do not think any reputational damage should be a collective concern for oufc and it's many stakeholders. The connection is too intangible for the wider populous and is very unlikely to be negative enough to impact on any of our revenue streams. These papers and the ones with the follow up stories will be fish and chip wrappers soon. Our commercial backers and our fans don't care from the perspective of investing their dollar with the product. 2. There is unlikely to be any direct financial impact upon the club. The disconnect is too strong with regards financial structures in place. This will potentially be a rough process for Darryl. It may impact his personal reputation outside of the football world. It may cause him distraction. It may cause him stress and impact how he feels about other things in his life like the club but on a direct basis it's not going to impact us. It may even impact how he makes decisions for oufc but that's an impossible thing to quantify and pure conjecture. The committtee process will be asking some very serious questions of him though. And rightfully so. Public funds and a learning body are not things that should be willfully manipulated by a VC fund. The 84%as a raw statistic and without context is very ugly looking. I will be interested to see the context that emerges around this. The public, the media and parliament are still very sensitive about the public funds investment into RBS and Lloyds (the 1%ers) and the use of those funds, and accordingly the activity of those bodies. Throw in a failing learning institution and it's a story with legs. Scrutiny is just and appropriate. But we mustn't prejudge and that's the point of having a process like this. I hope they will ask some very serious questions of the government department that allowed a contract to be drawn up so vulnerable to such redirection of public funds through this pseudo PFI operation. 3. Is there any relevance to oufc? I think we will all make up our own minds on this with time. I think we end up going back to the point about motives. Depending on background and life experience we may all fairly reach different conclusions. I work in risk management for a major corporation so perhaps should hold my hands up as being more naturally cynical. I often assess the history of decisions by individuals as context when trying to formulate views on current risk. A nugget like this might make me more sceptical about intent and make me want to scrutinize a set of decisions more. But ultimately I would need to revert to the facts. And at this stage I don't feel we have all the facts on this case so would choose to reserve judgment. But would still be more than happy to openly analyze and debate as I think we should be mature enough as a group to ask questions, seek answers, and not turn it into a personality based slanging match. The most reasoned assessment of this story on here.
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Aug 17, 2017 13:52:25 GMT
This.
I understand why it might be of interest due to Eales being our owner but I really can't see how something that happened before Eales even owned the football club can have a negative impact in the press for OUFC.
People who keep banging on about Satori being some saviour need to get over it. Eales rejected his approach and that is the end of that. No one knows if he would of gone through with all his promises or invested as heavily as he suggested he would.
Who on earth is banging on about Sartori? For someone with the skin of a rhino you do show yourself as having the breaking strain of a soggy kitkat at times!! For someone so desperate to protect the image of your clients, you do an awful job of looking at your own image on here. Your waffling posts very rarely add any real content (despite threats to out the truth) and are laced with a huge dose of bitterness. You actually do a disservice to those who you throw your weight behind in the same way Zach does for DE (his son?!) And I know this post only demonstrates that some of us are playing the man not the ball, but it's a man's game and I'd rather be the on doing the tackling rather than the one screaming like a girl on the floor!! (Please don't publicly challenge me Chazza, I'm only joking!!!)
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Aug 17, 2017 13:53:46 GMT
I am not part of any consortium. I am not part of any clique. I tend not to get too binary about the world and find it frustrating that so much is painted as either black or white. I also find modern indulgent populism painfully vacuous and short of credible thought. I don't believe there is a static sense of right and wrong. People can move between making right and wrong decisions, and simultaneously be more right on one thing and more wrong on another in the opinion of others. That doesn't make the other right or wrong either. I watch this debate unfold on this thread and it mirrors modern politics. The subject matter is completely lost in a nonsense of personality assessments. It's perfectly valid to debate matters and it doesn't mean that the person you're debating with is a bad oerson and you're a good person. Perhaps your life experiences have just shaped you to a different place at this time. For the record I was very pro-kassam for many years but completely lost faith in him the last two years of his tenure. I would say that my current Day sense of wanting to ask questions of any chairman comes from the fact that I felt so duped on that journey. I don't want to be prone to that mistake again because I can witness a direct correlation between my last 17 years of matchday experiences with his actions. He created a tangible negative environment and destroyed enjoyment of my hobby through his asset strippping and the infrastructure and remnants he gifted us. Our collective error of trust is still haunting us today. With regards Darryl Eales and this story it might be helpful to try and discuss the matter in isolation to start off with. We can get into a whole debate about his motives for oufc and whether he has been good or bad for the club. On this matter I would bullet the following: 1. I do not think any reputational damage should be a collective concern for oufc and it's many stakeholders. The connection is too intangible for the wider populous and is very unlikely to be negative enough to impact on any of our revenue streams. These papers and the ones with the follow up stories will be fish and chip wrappers soon. Our commercial backers and our fans don't care from the perspective of investing their dollar with the product. 2. There is unlikely to be any direct financial impact upon the club. The disconnect is too strong with regards financial structures in place. This will potentially be a rough process for Darryl. It may impact his personal reputation outside of the football world. It may cause him distraction. It may cause him stress and impact how he feels about other things in his life like the club but on a direct basis it's not going to impact us. It may even impact how he makes decisions for oufc but that's an impossible thing to quantify and pure conjecture. The committtee process will be asking some very serious questions of him though. And rightfully so. Public funds and a learning body are not things that should be willfully manipulated by a VC fund. The 84%as a raw statistic and without context is very ugly looking. I will be interested to see the context that emerges around this. The public, the media and parliament are still very sensitive about the public funds investment into RBS and Lloyds (the 1%ers) and the use of those funds, and accordingly the activity of those bodies. Throw in a failing learning institution and it's a story with legs. Scrutiny is just and appropriate. But we mustn't prejudge and that's the point of having a process like this. I hope they will ask some very serious questions of the government department that allowed a contract to be drawn up so vulnerable to such redirection of public funds through this pseudo PFI operation. 3. Is there any relevance to oufc? I think we will all make up our own minds on this with time. I think we end up going back to the point about motives. Depending on background and life experience we may all fairly reach different conclusions. I work in risk management for a major corporation so perhaps should hold my hands up as being more naturally cynical. I often assess the history of decisions by individuals as context when trying to formulate views on current risk. A nugget like this might make me more sceptical about intent and make me want to scrutinize a set of decisions more. But ultimately I would need to revert to the facts. And at this stage I don't feel we have all the facts on this case so would choose to reserve judgment. But would still be more than happy to openly analyze and debate as I think we should be mature enough as a group to ask questions, seek answers, and not turn it into a personality based slanging match. Very well put, even from someone so clearly immature that I can't resist a little dig at Charlie!!
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Aug 17, 2017 13:58:11 GMT
As long as DE hasn`t piled loads of the cash into ENSCO/OUFC then its only by association we are discussing it. Where would you guess the 10m that funded ENSCO came from? There could be many sources as DE has his fingers in many pies. Proving or knowing where it came from is another thing. The audit trails from such dealings have a propensity to disappear. Its odd that folk talk about Maxwell like he was a heinous villain yet he was never charged with anything and at the time the OUFC roller-coaster was hitting the high points! Kevin M went bankrupt for around £400 million, was discharged from bankruptcy in 2005 IIRC and went on to run a very lucrative property business in London before getting disqualified again in 2011 for 8 years after another insolvency investigation. Ian M still happily bumbles along in the publishing world. These people are teflon coated and just leave the rest of us in their wake.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 17, 2017 14:10:59 GMT
I am not part of any consortium. I am not part of any clique. I tend not to get too binary about the world and find it frustrating that so much is painted as either black or white. I also find modern indulgent populism painfully vacuous and short of credible thought. I don't believe there is a static sense of right and wrong. People can move between making right and wrong decisions, and simultaneously be more right on one thing and more wrong on another in the opinion of others. That doesn't make the other right or wrong either. I watch this debate unfold on this thread and it mirrors modern politics. The subject matter is completely lost in a nonsense of personality assessments. It's perfectly valid to debate matters and it doesn't mean that the person you're debating with is a bad oerson and you're a good person. Perhaps your life experiences have just shaped you to a different place at this time. For the record I was very pro-kassam for many years but completely lost faith in him the last two years of his tenure. I would say that my current Day sense of wanting to ask questions of any chairman comes from the fact that I felt so duped on that journey. I don't want to be prone to that mistake again because I can witness a direct correlation between my last 17 years of matchday experiences with his actions. He created a tangible negative environment and destroyed enjoyment of my hobby through his asset strippping and the infrastructure and remnants he gifted us. Our collective error of trust is still haunting us today. With regards Darryl Eales and this story it might be helpful to try and discuss the matter in isolation to start off with. We can get into a whole debate about his motives for oufc and whether he has been good or bad for the club. On this matter I would bullet the following: 1. I do not think any reputational damage should be a collective concern for oufc and it's many stakeholders. The connection is too intangible for the wider populous and is very unlikely to be negative enough to impact on any of our revenue streams. These papers and the ones with the follow up stories will be fish and chip wrappers soon. Our commercial backers and our fans don't care from the perspective of investing their dollar with the product. 2. There is unlikely to be any direct financial impact upon the club. The disconnect is too strong with regards financial structures in place. This will potentially be a rough process for Darryl. It may impact his personal reputation outside of the football world. It may cause him distraction. It may cause him stress and impact how he feels about other things in his life like the club but on a direct basis it's not going to impact us. It may even impact how he makes decisions for oufc but that's an impossible thing to quantify and pure conjecture. The committtee process will be asking some very serious questions of him though. And rightfully so. Public funds and a learning body are not things that should be willfully manipulated by a VC fund. The 84%as a raw statistic and without context is very ugly looking. I will be interested to see the context that emerges around this. The public, the media and parliament are still very sensitive about the public funds investment into RBS and Lloyds (the 1%ers) and the use of those funds, and accordingly the activity of those bodies. Throw in a failing learning institution and it's a story with legs. Scrutiny is just and appropriate. But we mustn't prejudge and that's the point of having a process like this. I hope they will ask some very serious questions of the government department that allowed a contract to be drawn up so vulnerable to such redirection of public funds through this pseudo PFI operation. 3. Is there any relevance to oufc? I think we will all make up our own minds on this with time. I think we end up going back to the point about motives. Depending on background and life experience we may all fairly reach different conclusions. I work in risk management for a major corporation so perhaps should hold my hands up as being more naturally cynical. I often assess the history of decisions by individuals as context when trying to formulate views on current risk. A nugget like this might make me more sceptical about intent and make me want to scrutinize a set of decisions more. But ultimately I would need to revert to the facts. And at this stage I don't feel we have all the facts on this case so would choose to reserve judgment. But would still be more than happy to openly analyze and debate as I think we should be mature enough as a group to ask questions, seek answers, and not turn it into a personality based slanging match. And that is that, really. There was a calm rational debate going on about quite a big and thorny issue. Not a debate I was involved in, but quite a number of long-standing and respected posters were, on both sides of the fence. And then some kids got involved and made it all about personality issues and agendas. That is happening serendipitously on an increasing basis and (note two posters on here suggesting they're going to stop posting) it is entirely against the spirit of a site that has been chugging along for many years. Those under attack are placed in an insidious position, in which situation the kids post something like 'Ha. See. His silence speaks volumes.' Or you fight back, in which case they scream 'See!!! Look how thin-skinned he is.' I would suggest as a starting point that unless there is evidence to the contrary that posters do each other the basic courtesy of accepting that we all are basically well-intentioned when it comes to the club we support.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 17, 2017 14:16:27 GMT
Surely this is just how Private Equity / Hedge Fund managers are supposed to make their fortunes? Buy a bloated, inefficient but profitable entity, strip out the cash and liquidate the carcass. Take a look at the Southern Cross Care Homes saga to see this done on a much grander scale. I can't see that Darryl has put a foot wrong here (as a Private Equity / Hedge Fund manager that is).Fm the 'Niad. "The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinkthank calculated that the company has received £631m of public money since its controversial privatisation. An FT/FE Week investigation this week found that in the four years since it was sold off, it parent company spent 84% of its income, most of which came from the taxpayer, on payments to managers and financiers." This might sound like 84% of the government funding for learn direct has been taken out by managers and financiers. In fact, this is the Holding Company of Learn Direct, so all that is being said is that a management company spends the money it has received. Yes that income is derived from Learn Direct, but it is nowhere near 84% of the actual funding that Learn Direct got. Also the Marussia sponsorship may seem like it was hidden under the carpet or somehow syphoning off public funds, but this is all disclosed in the LearnDirect accounts as it should be for a related party transaction. As a Chartered Accountant, I'm sure Eales will have made sure this was all above board.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 17, 2017 14:40:45 GMT
If a holding company was receiving money to enable it's subsidiaries to do business surely it would transfer the money to the companies involved rather than their (or the holding company's) individual managers and the IPPR wouldn't have mentioned it.?
As an English Speaker etc whiffle....
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Aug 17, 2017 14:46:15 GMT
Where would you guess the 10m that funded ENSCO came from? There could be many sources as DE has his fingers in many pies. Proving or knowing where it came from is another thing. The audit trails from such dealings have a propensity to disappear. Its odd that folk talk about Maxwell like he was a heinous villain yet he was never charged with anything and at the time the OUFC roller-coaster was hitting the high points! Kevin M went bankrupt for around £400 million, was discharged from bankruptcy in 2005 IIRC and went on to run a very lucrative property business in London before getting disqualified again in 2011 for 8 years after another insolvency investigation. Ian M still happily bumbles along in the publishing world. These people are teflon coated and just leave the rest of us in their wake. Audit trails tend to disappear? Bold statement sir. Not sure on that one.
|
|
|
Post by osleroad on Aug 17, 2017 15:32:03 GMT
And there are a number of ways an org. like learndirect can fail with self led learning if evidence and scrutiny is not up to scratch..funding depends on such paper trails of learning hours/contracts/ILPs for example and managers who are paid for this is an issue if substandard. Since Cameron time the dishing out of learning progs often went to a handful of big players.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Aug 17, 2017 15:34:21 GMT
There could be many sources as DE has his fingers in many pies. Proving or knowing where it came from is another thing. The audit trails from such dealings have a propensity to disappear. Its odd that folk talk about Maxwell like he was a heinous villain yet he was never charged with anything and at the time the OUFC roller-coaster was hitting the high points! Kevin M went bankrupt for around £400 million, was discharged from bankruptcy in 2005 IIRC and went on to run a very lucrative property business in London before getting disqualified again in 2011 for 8 years after another insolvency investigation. Ian M still happily bumbles along in the publishing world. These people are teflon coated and just leave the rest of us in their wake. Audit trails tend to disappear? Bold statement sir. Not sure on that one. Maybe less so in this computer age but how often have "key documents" gone missing just when the stuff hits the fan? I was speaking/typing very metaphorically but the world of venture capital, multiple companies gambling/investing huge sums & football club ownership is a different world from the average "fan on the street". Couple if times I`ve met DE he`s been perfectly straight forward about the joys of being an owner & I`m more than happy to have him along on the next chapter....its what makes us love this club, everything is very "close", ...and its never boring!!
|
|
|
Post by pooroldboy on Aug 17, 2017 15:46:35 GMT
Come on moderator remove DE on front of FT as not true !!! Well not on the 15-8-2017 thats a lie and your part of it ,REMOVE
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 17, 2017 17:26:09 GMT
Mm. Bastard capitalist runs football club shock! I mean, the whole LDC affair's a strong morality tale against the thieves who "liberalised" the provision of social and training services and the bunch of their fellow thieves who then ripped off the taxpayer and the poor bloody strivers they failed to train adequately. But that Eales is one of that crowd has never been in dispute since day 1 so it's hardly a revelation now and it seems kind of beside the point to get all aerated about it at this moment.What next? Eels eat nice colourful fish horror? I'd suggest two things.... 1) The majority of OUFC fans probably have minimal experience with private equity, and therefore don't have an automatic understanding of how sordid the industry can be - particularly at this later stage of deal. Therefore DE suddenly being held up in multiple national newspapers as the newest example of the exploitative fat cat may have come as a bit of a surprise to some. 2) From that FT report, this particular deal looks a little seedy even by the standards of private equity. For the most part, whilst they're going to try to cut costs, consolidate and streamline an asset, most PE managers are going to be looking to improve efficiency, increase profits and maximise the value of the company they've purchased. Because that's how they're going to be able to sell it on for a big gain or syphon off bulky dividends. On face value, here they seem to have simply run the company into the ground, preferring to just maximise their income through government grants whilst providing a progressively crappier service. Not saying that anything would seem to have been illegal - just on the seedier side at the seedier end of a seedy industry. Course the open question is - how much do we care about the morality of our owner/chairman, as long as he continues to do an excellent job managing the football club. Do we care that he appears to have been complicit in pocketing a wedge of taxpayer money whilst a socially relevant company is being driven off a cliff? Before it was possible to go ostrich and bury heads in the sand about DE's business activities. As this case develops, and more facts become clear, it may become harder to do that.
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Aug 17, 2017 18:52:30 GMT
Mm. Bastard capitalist runs football club shock! I mean, the whole LDC affair's a strong morality tale against the thieves who "liberalised" the provision of social and training services and the bunch of their fellow thieves who then ripped off the taxpayer and the poor bloody strivers they failed to train adequately. But that Eales is one of that crowd has never been in dispute since day 1 so it's hardly a revelation now and it seems kind of beside the point to get all aerated about it at this moment.What next? Eels eat nice colourful fish horror? I'd suggest two things.... 1) The majority of OUFC fans probably have minimal experience with private equity, and therefore don't have an automatic understanding of how sordid the industry can be - particularly at this later stage of deal. Therefore DE suddenly being held up in multiple national newspapers as the newest example of the exploitative fat cat may have come as a bit of a surprise to some. 2) From that FT report, this particular deal looks a little seedy even by the standards of private equity. For the most part, whilst they're going to try to cut costs, consolidate and streamline an asset, most PE managers are going to be looking to improve efficiency, increase profits and maximise the value of the company they've purchased. Because that's how they're going to be able to sell it on for a big gain or syphon off bulky dividends. On face value, here they seem to have simply run the company into the ground, preferring to just maximise their income through government grants whilst providing a progressively crappier service. Not saying that anything would seem to have been illegal - just on the seedier side at the seedier end of a seedy industry. Course the open question is - how much do we care about the morality of our owner/chairman, as long as he continues to do an excellent job managing the football club. Do we care that he appears to have been complicit in pocketing a wedge of taxpayer money whilst a socially relevant company is being driven off a cliff? Before it was possible to go ostrich and bury heads in the sand about DE's business activities. As this case develops, and more facts become clear, it may become harder to do that. Excellent post and a perfect articulation of the choices that the PE funds have. As I said we should certainly wait for facts before making too many judgements. But if a group have consciously chosen to avoid the route of performance, efficiency and cost savings, and opted for a deliberate siphoning strategy these are two very different things even in the realms of PFI. The real spike in this one is that we're talking public money, and as Tony rightly says, a social tool for those near the bottom looking to make something better of themselves. You couldn't paint a more Shakespearean tail for the tabloids of good versus bad regardless of the actual and relevant facts.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 17, 2017 19:06:05 GMT
Come on moderator remove DE on front of FT as not true !!! Well not on the 15-8-2017 thats a lie and your part of it ,REMOVE Why? Is this North Korea? The post title is slightly inaccurate (if you're a pedant) but the story is there in print, in a number of publications now. It may or may not involve Darryl in any wrongdoing, as I'm sure will become apparent in time, but censoring something because you may not like it is the beginning of the kind of society none of us want to live in. Do you also propose to stop the publication of the FT, the Daily Mail, the Guardian and any other publication that runs the story? I hope it's not true, or as it sounds, but you can't just erase it because you don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 17, 2017 19:45:38 GMT
Mm. Bastard capitalist runs football club shock! I mean, the whole LDC affair's a strong morality tale against the thieves who "liberalised" the provision of social and training services and the bunch of their fellow thieves who then ripped off the taxpayer and the poor bloody strivers they failed to train adequately. But that Eales is one of that crowd has never been in dispute since day 1 so it's hardly a revelation now and it seems kind of beside the point to get all aerated about it at this moment.What next? Eels eat nice colourful fish horror? I'd suggest two things.... 1) The majority of OUFC fans probably have minimal experience with private equity, and therefore don't have an automatic understanding of how sordid the industry can be - particularly at this later stage of deal. Therefore DE suddenly being held up in multiple national newspapers as the newest example of the exploitative fat cat may have come as a bit of a surprise to some. But, judging by his previous posts, not to Myles. Hence my post.
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Aug 17, 2017 19:52:55 GMT
The question about our chairman's morals is an interesting one. How important is this to us as a fan base of Oxford united and as a whole in football? I would say most chairman of football clubs are not the most moral of people and football as a whole isn't the most moral of sports with under the tables happening on a daily basis up and down the country.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 17, 2017 20:08:13 GMT
I pointed out from the start that Eales was from a private equity background but I don't remember too many objections. There isn't government or tax payers money flooding into oufc to fleece out. The 'plan' as I understand from this forum was to sell on at a profit.
[edit] actually quite a lot of people were suspicious of Eales's motives right at the start, querying why a Birmingham City fan would buy OUFC, was it a property play etc?
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Aug 17, 2017 20:45:04 GMT
The question about our chairman's morals is an interesting one. How important is this to us as a fan base of Oxford united and as a whole in football? I would say most chairman of football clubs are not the most moral of people and football as a whole isn't the most moral of sports with under the tables happening on a daily basis up and down the country. Unfortunately the morals of our chairman are not the problem. The problem lies in how he may be censured following investigation. It would be a great pity if OUFC were to suffer as a result of his, how shall we describe them, less than scrupulous historical transactions?
|
|