|
Post by Si Bradbury on May 18, 2012 11:16:51 GMT
How long before Kassam came along ? We almost went bust in 1979, 1982 (under Reeves) 1992 (post Maxwell) and 1997 (under Herd) We've never had money and have always been in debt. Bill Reeves went to prison as well but after leaving the Board of Directors. When did Reeves take over OUFC?
|
|
|
Post by ounykee14 on May 18, 2012 12:01:42 GMT
While I appreciate the emotional side of your argument i think what is abundantly clear is that staying at the Manor was simply not a viable option. The Club's 'heart' might be sickly now but had we stayed at the manor it is unlikely that there would have been even that. Ka$$am undoubtedly screwed our club eventually, but without his initial input we might all be supporting AFC Oxford or worse. Staying at the Manor may not have been a viable option, but it didn't need to come to this. It's all about the owner(s) that take a club over and their intentions and ability. What could have been done then? At the end of the day, the club had to take whatever was offered. They were the girl you see in the middle of town going for everyone at the end of the night. The only other viable options were to a. groundshare (and I don't see what good that would be anyway, as it would a. be either with wycombe or reading, and b. would have been a short term measure, only until a new ground was finished, or we found enough money to modernise the manor, which would have costed more than a new ground) or b. finish a ground. Obviously Kassam went on to destroy the club, but at the time he came in, there was no choice we could make, we simply had to let him in, or the club would have failed.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on May 18, 2012 14:36:31 GMT
Staying at the Manor may not have been a viable option, but it didn't need to come to this. It's all about the owner(s) that take a club over and their intentions and ability. What could have been done then? At the end of the day, the club had to take whatever was offered. They were the girl you see in the middle of town going for everyone at the end of the night. The only other viable options were to a. groundshare (and I don't see what good that would be anyway, as it would a. be either with wycombe or reading, and b. would have been a short term measure, only until a new ground was finished, or we found enough money to modernise the manor, which would have costed more than a new ground) or b. finish a ground. Obviously Kassam went on to destroy the club, but at the time he came in, there was no choice we could make, we simply had to let him in, or the club would have failed. Agree. I'm just not sure what else we could have done. Staying was not an option so what do you do then? Brighton lost their ground, sold from under them by the board, and ended up ground-sharing with Gillingham before playing at an athletics track for years. Would it have been better for OUFC to have been playing home games at Northampton for example? With rules governing clubs staying within their 'home' town that couldn't have lasted long so then what? I get where you're coming from Eric I really do but what else could we have done?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 19, 2012 12:50:42 GMT
What could have been done then? At the end of the day, the club had to take whatever was offered. They were the girl you see in the middle of town going for everyone at the end of the night. The only other viable options were to a. groundshare (and I don't see what good that would be anyway, as it would a. be either with wycombe or reading, and b. would have been a short term measure, only until a new ground was finished, or we found enough money to modernise the manor, which would have costed more than a new ground) or b. finish a ground. Obviously Kassam went on to destroy the club, but at the time he came in, there was no choice we could make, we simply had to let him in, or the club would have failed. Agree. I'm just not sure what else we could have done. Staying was not an option so what do you do then? Brighton lost their ground, sold from under them by the board, and ended up ground-sharing with Gillingham before playing at an athletics track for years. Would it have been better for OUFC to have been playing home games at Northampton for example? With rules governing clubs staying within their 'home' town that couldn't have lasted long so then what? I get where you're coming from Eric I really do but what else could we have done? Well, for one we could have given the "Gang of Four" a better hearing. I have spoken with some of them since, and they had a much better proposal than the one bandied around on here. I make no apology for this, but FOUL were too quick to jump into bed with kassam. OK, hindsight is a marvellous thing, and they obviously had the best of intentions, but kassam conned them, as he did lots of other people. The point I'm making through all of this, is that because of the way kassam has got the stadium and club set up, and also because of the idiotic agreement that Merry/Lenegan signed, this club is a much less attractive proposition for potential suitors than it should be. When I say it didn't need to come to this, that is what I mean. Kassam had a plan from the very beginning, to asset strip the club and line his own pockets. He never saved us for any other reason. Herd and Merry have certainly done damage, but they did it with the right intentions, but made appallingly crap decisions. I am desperately unhappy with the way those who have had the privilege, for that's what it is, to steward our club over the years have made such a monumental balls up of it, whereby a c*nt like kassam was allowed through the door. You see, we are paying for it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. Bumbling along in Division Four, and possibly sharing a ground with a rugby club is not the vision that I had for this club, but I fear it's the only kind of destiny that is left for us as long as people meekly accept it as the norm and make apologies for those that make these decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on May 19, 2012 13:29:31 GMT
Agree. I'm just not sure what else we could have done. Staying was not an option so what do you do then? Brighton lost their ground, sold from under them by the board, and ended up ground-sharing with Gillingham before playing at an athletics track for years. Would it have been better for OUFC to have been playing home games at Northampton for example? With rules governing clubs staying within their 'home' town that couldn't have lasted long so then what? I get where you're coming from Eric I really do but what else could we have done? Well, for one we could have given the "Gang of Four" a better hearing. I have spoken with some of them since, and they had a much better proposal than the one bandied around on here. I make no apology for this, but FOUL were too quick to jump into bed with kassam. OK, hindsight is a marvellous thing, and they obviously had the best of intentions, but kassam conned them, as he did lots of other people. The point I'm making through all of this, is that because of the way kassam has got the stadium and club set up, and also because of the idiotic agreement that Merry/Lenegan signed, this club is a much less attractive proposition for potential suitors than it should be. When I say it didn't need to come to this, that is what I mean. Kassam had a plan from the very beginning, to asset strip the club and line his own pockets. He never saved us for any other reason. Herd and Merry have certainly done damage, but they did it with the right intentions, but made appallingly crap decisions. I am desperately unhappy with the way those who have had the privilege, for that's what it is, to steward our club over the years have made such a monumental balls up of it, whereby a c*nt like kassam was allowed through the door. You see, we are paying for it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. Bumbling along in Division Four, and possibly sharing a ground with a rugby club is not the vision that I had for this club, but I fear it's the only kind of destiny that is left for us as long as people meekly accept it as the norm and make apologies for those that make these decisions. Thing is Eric, we had no choice but Kassam did we? The Gang of Four were perhaps unfortunate but we've seen plenty of blaggers and wannabe's use our club as a play thing until the money runs out or they get board. Why do persist in having a a dig at FOUL all these years later - it's like you hold a grudge that your mates didn't get to buy the club. At the time, we all wanted the club to survive, and it was felt Kassam was a better prospect. If I recall, the Gang of Four didn't really publicise their plans as widely as they might have. Even to this day, I can only think they were going to finance the club to the end of the season and stay at the Manor. Our position now is the same for a vast majority of football clubs in England. We're heavily in debt, we cannot sustain ourselves on our income levels and we don't have a meaningful way to pay off our debts other than in dribs and drabs. That's the reality of football, whoever owns us and wherever we play. And we certainly don't have the prospect of OCC giving us planning permission for another football ground.
|
|
|
Post by superox on May 19, 2012 13:36:33 GMT
The Gang of four did not have the proverbial pot to p*ss in though did they ?
It needed serious money to fund the club's anticipated trading losses and fund a new stadium. Staying at the Manor was a complete non starter.
They had a million quid and that was it unfortunately. Chicken feed in the grand scheme of things.
I agree that Kassam was a venture capitalist who saw an opportunity and took a risk.We probably won't progress with his name over the door.
It is painful and the last thing I want to see is a ground share next season with a two bob Rugby outfit from Richmond.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 19, 2012 13:39:36 GMT
Well, for one we could have given the "Gang of Four" a better hearing. I have spoken with some of them since, and they had a much better proposal than the one bandied around on here. I make no apology for this, but FOUL were too quick to jump into bed with kassam. OK, hindsight is a marvellous thing, and they obviously had the best of intentions, but kassam conned them, as he did lots of other people. The point I'm making through all of this, is that because of the way kassam has got the stadium and club set up, and also because of the idiotic agreement that Merry/Lenegan signed, this club is a much less attractive proposition for potential suitors than it should be. When I say it didn't need to come to this, that is what I mean. Kassam had a plan from the very beginning, to asset strip the club and line his own pockets. He never saved us for any other reason. Herd and Merry have certainly done damage, but they did it with the right intentions, but made appallingly crap decisions. I am desperately unhappy with the way those who have had the privilege, for that's what it is, to steward our club over the years have made such a monumental balls up of it, whereby a c*nt like kassam was allowed through the door. You see, we are paying for it day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. Bumbling along in Division Four, and possibly sharing a ground with a rugby club is not the vision that I had for this club, but I fear it's the only kind of destiny that is left for us as long as people meekly accept it as the norm and make apologies for those that make these decisions. Thing is Eric, we had no choice but Kassam did we? The Gang of Four were perhaps unfortunate but we've seen plenty of blaggers and wannabe's use our club as a play thing until the money runs out or they get board. Why do persist in having a a dig at FOUL all these years later - it's like you hold a grudge that your mates didn't get to buy the club. At the time, we all wanted the club to survive, and it was felt Kassam was a better prospect. If I recall, the Gang of Four didn't really publicise their plans as widely as they might have. Even to this day, I can only think they were going to finance the club to the end of the season and stay at the Manor. Our position now is the same for a vast majority of football clubs in England. We're heavily in debt, we cannot sustain ourselves on our income levels and we don't have a meaningful way to pay off our debts other than in dribs and drabs. That's the reality of football, whoever owns us and wherever we play. And we certainly don't have the prospect of OCC giving us planning permission for another football ground. I don't persist in "having a dig at FOUL" as you put it. In fact I don't ever remember mentioning them before on this board or TIU? Swansea, Norwich, Blackpool, Wigan, all evidence straight off the top of my head, of what good owners and good management can achieve with clubs like us.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on May 19, 2012 13:51:12 GMT
Thing is Eric, we had no choice but Kassam did we? The Gang of Four were perhaps unfortunate but we've seen plenty of blaggers and wannabe's use our club as a play thing until the money runs out or they get board. Why do persist in having a a dig at FOUL all these years later - it's like you hold a grudge that your mates didn't get to buy the club. At the time, we all wanted the club to survive, and it was felt Kassam was a better prospect. If I recall, the Gang of Four didn't really publicise their plans as widely as they might have. Even to this day, I can only think they were going to finance the club to the end of the season and stay at the Manor. Our position now is the same for a vast majority of football clubs in England. We're heavily in debt, we cannot sustain ourselves on our income levels and we don't have a meaningful way to pay off our debts other than in dribs and drabs. That's the reality of football, whoever owns us and wherever we play. And we certainly don't have the prospect of OCC giving us planning permission for another football ground. I don't persist in "having a dig at FOUL" as you put it. In fact I don't ever remember mentioning them before on this board or TIU? Swansea, Norwich, Blackpool, Wigan, all evidence straight off the top of my head, of what good owners and good management can achieve with clubs like us. My memory serves you have, but if you haven't apologies. Didn't Snake and yourself get into a disagreement about FOUL? Wigan without Whelan will go down the leagues. I worked with someone who went there to go to games and the locals just aren't interested. £20 for entry with a pie and pint and people would rather go to the pub and watch Liverpool/Man U on the TV in a pub. Swansea seem to be well run but even they've had money problems in the recent past. Blackpool are run by a known criminal! At least they didn't waste the EPL money. Even if Bloomfield Rd is still largely run down. Norwich I'm not sure on. But still it's not a lot of clubs that can pay debts back is it? Football is the ultimate fools gold. I'd have loved the GoF to buy the club if the intimated plans were for real. But we'll never know now will we?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 19, 2012 14:59:46 GMT
I don't persist in "having a dig at FOUL" as you put it. In fact I don't ever remember mentioning them before on this board or TIU? Swansea, Norwich, Blackpool, Wigan, all evidence straight off the top of my head, of what good owners and good management can achieve with clubs like us. My memory serves you have, but if you haven't apologies. Didn't Snake and yourself get into a disagreement about FOUL? Wigan without Whelan will go down the leagues. I worked with someone who went there to go to games and the locals just aren't interested. £20 for entry with a pie and pint and people would rather go to the pub and watch Liverpool/Man U on the TV in a pub. Swansea seem to be well run but even they've had money problems in the recent past. Blackpool are run by a known criminal! At least they didn't waste the EPL money. Even if Bloomfield Rd is still largely run down. Norwich I'm not sure on. But still it's not a lot of clubs that can pay debts back is it? Football is the ultimate fools gold. I'd have loved the GoF to buy the club if the intimated plans were for real. But we'll never know now will we? No, Snake and myself have never argued over FOUL, you're obviously mixing me up with someone else. The Wigan thing kind of makes my point. Their support is much smaller than ours (2,000 or less when in Division 4), but through good management, on and off the pitch, they've gone through the Leagues and sustained Premier League football for 7 or 8 years now. They had/have a man at the helm with a vision and the wherewithal to see it through, whereas we've never been blessed with such a person, Maxwell excepted.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on May 19, 2012 17:12:11 GMT
I haven't read through the whole of this thread so apologies if this has already been covered.
The following is a small extract from Friday's Daily Telegraph rugby Section;-
Meanwhile promotion hopefuls London Welsh will learn on Monday whether they meet the minimum standards criteria for entry to the Premiership next season following an independent audit. They hope to play at Oxford United's Kassam Stadium next season if they beat Cornish Pirates in the championship play-offs.
The professional Game Board discussed the issue yesterday but the final decision will be taken by the RFU board on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2012 20:10:00 GMT
Remind me who Wigan share their ground with, please Eric. Let's ask Ian Lenegan,shall we? Oh yes, a rugby (yes, I know they're League!) club!
|
|
|
Post by Yellowbrains on May 19, 2012 20:16:31 GMT
My memory serves you have, but if you haven't apologies. Didn't Snake and yourself get into a disagreement about FOUL? Wigan without Whelan will go down the leagues. I worked with someone who went there to go to games and the locals just aren't interested. £20 for entry with a pie and pint and people would rather go to the pub and watch Liverpool/Man U on the TV in a pub. Swansea seem to be well run but even they've had money problems in the recent past. Blackpool are run by a known criminal! At least they didn't waste the EPL money. Even if Bloomfield Rd is still largely run down. Norwich I'm not sure on. But still it's not a lot of clubs that can pay debts back is it? Football is the ultimate fools gold. I'd have loved the GoF to buy the club if the intimated plans were for real. But we'll never know now will we? No, Snake and myself have never argued over FOUL, you're obviously mixing me up with someone else. The Wigan thing kind of makes my point. Their support is much smaller than ours (2,000 or less when in Division 4), but through good management, on and off the pitch, they've gone through the Leagues and sustained Premier League football for 7 or 8 years now. They had/have a man at the helm with a vision and the wherewithal to see it through, whereas we've never been blessed with such a person, Maxwell excepted. Well that depends on your definition of 'good management'. If good management is taking a small club and just chucking money at it then maybe Wigan have been well managed. The fact is that we (and most other clubs in the world) don't have a Dave Whelan figure who is happy to buy their way up the leagues - and I'm not sure it's something I agree with from a moral standpoint anyway. Wigan are one of the most indebted clubs in the country with outstanding debts of over £72million and though I'd expect Whelan will write off whatever is owed to him, they also owe more than £20m to the banks. Hardly a sustainable way to run a club, which made a loss of £7m last year. They may be able to sustain a Premier League place for as long as Whelan keeps propping them up, but one day they will sink back towards their more natural level, they will have to reduce their wage budget (which makes up more than 90% of their turnover) and they will have to repay that bank debt.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on May 19, 2012 21:15:27 GMT
It's not my idea either. The locals just don't want to go to games and paying Premier League wages means you need more than a rich owner to stay there once they go. It's a similar situation to Bournemouth. The locals just don't give a toss.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 19, 2012 22:39:01 GMT
So you'd all rather languish in Division Four then?
Do you think Wigan fans would rather swap with us? Of course they wouldn't!
Better to try and fail, than not to try at all. Some of you strike me as risk averse, ie afraid to try in case you fail. Football's all about winning and losing, not pissing about in the bottom division because you have no ambition!
|
|
|
Post by Yellowbrains on May 20, 2012 2:46:06 GMT
So you'd all rather languish in Division Four then? Do you think Wigan fans would rather swap with us? Of course they wouldn't! Better to try and fail, than not to try at all. Some of you strike me as risk averse, ie afraid to try in case you fail. Football's all about winning and losing, not pissing about in the bottom division because you have no ambition! No one has said they want to languish in the bottom division. But you can't offer up Wigan as an example of a well-run football club and not expect to be challenged for it. You seem to expect a multi-millionaire to just turn up on our doorstep with a big pot of cash and just throw it at us. Yes, that kind of thing does happen, but not very often. And look at the clubs which have had the 'fortune' to find themselves a sugar daddy - Wigan, Reading, Fulham.Their fans are, by and large, the most plastic in English football. Even if it did happen to us, you'd be among the first to start moaning about the club 'losing its identity'.
|
|
|
Post by yellowgobshite on May 20, 2012 3:51:51 GMT
players diving, whining, arguing with refs, ridiculous salaries, WAGs, prawn sandwiches, all seater stadiums, I could go on - it aint the same and one might argue its football that has become the posh middle class bore! Rugby players have recently banned for pulling hair, and for scratching eyes, and for stamping on players who are on the floor. Great role models. Footballers aren't great, as we all know, but don't get saying Rugby Players are any better. Out drinking during world cups, jumping off ferries, the list goes on and on. Oh, Gavin Henson. Worse than any footballer. Stick to Cricket, that's where all the decent role models are these days... Flintoff.... Tuffnell.... .....Warne?? .....Botham??
|
|
|
Post by klimt on May 20, 2012 5:40:02 GMT
Eric If the gang of 4 had such a great plan/offer why didn't it materialise? why wasn't it accepted, was it because it amounted to very little at a time when financial rescue was required due to the catastrophic state of affairs the club found itself in?
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 20, 2012 8:33:01 GMT
So you'd all rather languish in Division Four then? Do you think Wigan fans would rather swap with us? Of course they wouldn't! Better to try and fail, than not to try at all. Some of you strike me as risk averse, ie afraid to try in case you fail. Football's all about winning and losing, not pissing about in the bottom division because you have no ambition! No one has said they want to languish in the bottom division. But you can't offer up Wigan as an example of a well-run football club and not expect to be challenged for it. You seem to expect a multi-millionaire to just turn up on our doorstep with a big pot of cash and just throw it at us. Yes, that kind of thing does happen, but not very often. And look at the clubs which have had the 'fortune' to find themselves a sugar daddy - Wigan, Reading, Fulham.Their fans are, by and large, the most plastic in English football. Even if it did happen to us, you'd be among the first to start moaning about the club 'losing its identity'. But plenty of you bang on about slow progress (sic) being acceptable. For the record I don't call two league places acceptable, at that rate it will take us seventeen more years just to reach the Championship. I offered Wigan, as one of the examples, straight off the top of my head. Without Whelan they would not be where they are now, agreed? He was attracted there because of his roots in the town, and his wish to put something back into the community. Also, it did not cost him an arm and a leg to get involved in the first place. Therein lies Oxford United's problem. Thanks to kassam it would cost someone a fortune to get involved with us, I know because I've spoken to people who have looked at doing it, but they would be looking at up to £20 million just to buy the club and a half built stadium, both of which would then need further investment. It just does not stack up as a viable proposition unless you are a Branson or Abramovitch, and they are few and far between. "Normal" wealthy people just cannot afford to do it. Oh, and I don't see anyone picking holes in Norwich or Swansea as examples.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 20, 2012 8:36:41 GMT
Eric If the gang of 4 had such a great plan/offer why didn't it materialise? why wasn't it accepted, was it because it amounted to very little at a time when financial rescue was required due to the catastrophic state of affairs the club found itself in? Because they were told that kassam was the prefered option. Big mistake which we'll be paying for, for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by abba on May 20, 2012 9:54:57 GMT
Eric If the gang of 4 had such a great plan/offer why didn't it materialise? why wasn't it accepted, was it because it amounted to very little at a time when financial rescue was required due to the catastrophic state of affairs the club found itself in? Because they were told that kassam was the prefered option. Big mistake which we'll be paying for, for a very long time. The gang of four would also have had £12m from the sale of the Manor. Kassam was and still is a complete arsehole who has managed to turn a proud football club into a pauper who struggle to exist. He made enough money from being the saviour he could have given the stadium to the fans. He would rather drain £600k from the club every 12 months.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 20, 2012 10:46:54 GMT
Because they were told that kassam was the prefered option. Big mistake which we'll be paying for, for a very long time. The gang of four would also have had £12m from the sale of the Manor. Only if they'd somehow magic'd away the debt secured on it!
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on May 20, 2012 10:57:07 GMT
The gang of four would also have had £12m from the sale of the Manor. Only if they'd somehow magic'd away the debt secured on it! Yes, with a CVA, which is what kassam did. It cost him £1.3m to clear the clubs total liabilities. Difference being they wouldn't have then gone on to assert strip all of the associated development around the new stadium for their own gain. They would have left it as an income stream for the club, which was what it was intended for. Can't believe there are still people sticking up for kassam!!!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on May 20, 2012 12:55:00 GMT
The debts would have been minimised with a CVA, but would the mortgage we had been covered in that? The Manor had no planning permission on it as well. The problem would have been cash to pay bills.
I don't think people are sticking up for Kassam at all. What they aren't doing is endorsing the GoF based on what little information we had at the time, and allowing hindsight to be 20/20 and saying they were great all these years later.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on May 20, 2012 15:14:53 GMT
I think everyone is agreed that Kassam was a deceitful tw#t who ultimately was responsible for doing major harm to the club. What Eric is misinterpreting as 'sticking up' for him is in fact debate as to what his original intentions for the club were and as to whether there was ever an alternative option (which for the record I don't think there was short of going bust and starting again.)
Also I think there is a distinction between being risk averse and not wanting the club to rocket up the leagues propelled by a rich benefactor's bankrolling of the club only to plummet as precipitately into oblivion. After all, what we are talking about now came as a result of just that.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 20, 2012 18:22:11 GMT
Only if they'd somehow magic'd away the debt secured on it! Yes, with a CVA, which is what kassam did. It cost him £1.3m to clear the clubs total liabilities. Difference being they wouldn't have then gone on to assert strip all of the associated development around the new stadium for their own gain. They would have left it as an income stream for the club, which was what it was intended for. Can't believe there are still people sticking up for kassam!!! Woah! I'm not sticking up for Kassam, never for a second! I'm also aware of the CVA that was agreed. I was just pointing out that the situation wasn't quite as simple as Abba glibly suggested.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 20, 2012 18:39:58 GMT
This is an interesting thread and I agree with a lot of what Eric has said although I think his definition of a well run club is somewhat different to my interpretation but I don't see anything to gain by getting into a debate about this. If Kassam had done what he promised and used the revenue/capital growth generated by the developments around the club to "take us on a journey" then maybe we would have a well run club. However, all of that is in the past and cant be undone but I hope we can all learn from what has happened and not rush into bed with people who can not be trusted (eg Kassam & Merry) or those who take on more than they can deal with (eg Herd). I am sure that FOUL acted with the best intentions but they ignored some warnings and helped Kassam push through his plans. The Gang of Four may have been able to raise some cash but did they have access to the expertise that allowed Kassam to do what he did as this was more important to how he finished the stadium than the cash he utilised? I had not seen this book before but it gives some of Kassam's side of the debate(from page 55):- books.google.co.uk/books?id=mLSUZJTrPLAC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=david+mellor+kassam&source=bl&ots=8YCYbTnB3l&sig=BbEOolIlolx6WtR0A4SFhJtK9xg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sDa5T-jBE4Wb1AXt7tieCA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=david%20mellor%20kassam&f=false
|
|
|
Post by Yellowbrains on May 20, 2012 19:36:31 GMT
No one has said they want to languish in the bottom division. But you can't offer up Wigan as an example of a well-run football club and not expect to be challenged for it. You seem to expect a multi-millionaire to just turn up on our doorstep with a big pot of cash and just throw it at us. Yes, that kind of thing does happen, but not very often. And look at the clubs which have had the 'fortune' to find themselves a sugar daddy - Wigan, Reading, Fulham.Their fans are, by and large, the most plastic in English football. Even if it did happen to us, you'd be among the first to start moaning about the club 'losing its identity'. But plenty of you bang on about slow progress (sic) being acceptable. For the record I don't call two league places acceptable, at that rate it will take us seventeen more years just to reach the Championship. I offered Wigan, as one of the examples, straight off the top of my head. Without Whelan they would not be where they are now, agreed? He was attracted there because of his roots in the town, and his wish to put something back into the community. Also, it did not cost him an arm and a leg to get involved in the first place. Therein lies Oxford United's problem. Thanks to kassam it would cost someone a fortune to get involved with us, I know because I've spoken to people who have looked at doing it, but they would be looking at up to £20 million just to buy the club and a half built stadium, both of which would then need further investment. It just does not stack up as a viable proposition unless you are a Branson or Abramovitch, and they are few and far between. "Normal" wealthy people just cannot afford to do it. Oh, and I don't see anyone picking holes in Norwich or Swansea as examples. You're putting words in my mouth talking about 'slow progress', but as you've brought it up we might as well discuss it. Does it not make sense to gradually build the club up, so that when (not if!) it does finally reach the Championship it's in a sustainable manner and doesn't require the club to take on huge debts just to maintain its position. It's interesting that you mentioned Swansea, because they probably are a decent model to follow and they didn't get to where they are now by overspending, but by building gradually from the bottom over a period of several years. Our own circumstances are rather different, but this is surely a far better and more sustainable way of running a club than what you seem to be suggesting Like you, I wasn't happy with last season, and think we should have made greater progress. But I also feel that the budget provided last season should have been enough to win us promotion, we don't need a sugar daddy to get us out of League Two - we may need a new manager, we'll have to wait and see how next season goes, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Out of interest, why did you ignore my last point about the club's identity? I can't believe you would want Oxford to be another Reading, but you seem willing to sell the club's soul in order to get us up the leagues.
|
|
|
Post by swissyellow on May 20, 2012 21:46:44 GMT
I have no problem, answering criticisms about those years, I fully believe we did the right thing. I also stopped going during the later part of Kassam's reign as a sort of protest to the lack of funding to the playing squad, I was fed up and went off for a final stint playing Ice Hockey. I returned after the Woodstock take over and haven't stopped My honest opinion is not that Kassam wanted to asset strip United, I fully believe he ended up being unable to trust anyone, players, staff and those around him and retreated into his shell, his inability to delegate the day to day cost management of the club made the cash run dry. Running a football club is nothing like running a business. He failed at running a football club.
I met with the Gang of Four with the rest of FOUL in the Royal Oxford Hotel. There was around 12 of us there, this was literally days after they announced their interest.
Did he save United- yes Was he good for United after that - no, he was not.
Back to the Gang of Four
1) They had roughly £120k in total. No more. That would have lasted us 1 season. 2) They were committed to stay at the Manor with the reduced capacity of 2,900 3) They were not intending to go through the CVA, they did not want to upset past OUFC Shareholders - like the Coppocks who were set to lose thousands. 4) They, In my opinion were not that upset at having to walk away once the true financial situation was set in front on them 5) It was clear and I believe unanimously to those within FOUL that the Gang of Four's plan was floored and incredibly short term
FOUL also held behind closed doors meetings with both the Playing staff and the Clubs Football Management as well as independent 3rd parties. FOUL also courted other parties to try and drum up interest, none was forthcoming.
We had a potential benefactor, with the money and plan to take Oxford out of the mire.
The ONLY complaints FOUL received from anyone before the takeover was and excuse the language as it's how it was communicated to us.
1) We don't want someone like that owning our club, we want an English person not a **** 2) He's going to use the money from the club to fund terrorist training camps in Pakistan 3) He's ripping of councils in London by filling his hotels with asylum seekers, He'll build hotels next to the ground and fill them with asylum seekers.
Also in the Anti Kassam camp were 2 groups.
1) Legal Advisers, to local people and land owners, who wanted financial recompense for the move 2) Legal Advisers to investors who wanted to set motion a cinema leisure project as part of the Oxpens/IceRink/TrainStation/Westgate development area.
Going back to the reasons for my replies, they are not to apologize or protect Kassam, far from it, my reason is that as Oxford fans we like to shake our fist at him and blame him for everything, yet from what KT tells the press and OxVox that the club has a good working relationship with him, of course we want the ground for ourselves, of course we can blame him for our relegation from League One to Two. Football people HATED working with him, was that because he was an asset stripping fucker or because he didn't trust football people and lacked the persona and ability to run a professional football club?
So the summary was, those anti Kassam people were either mad racists or in it for cash. The Gang of Four retreated amicably leaving Kassam clear to work with the council and then work for an extra 2 years on those hurdles of the local land issues and the Judicial revue by the Oxpens group.
|
|
|
Post by swissyellow on May 20, 2012 21:55:03 GMT
Ask My heart what I'd like to have happened?
Gang of 4 take over. They find an extra £4m Manor somehow transformed into a safe 5,000-8,000 capacity ground Shotton and then perhaps John Aldridge took the reigns Richard Branson took over the club, moved us out to Kidlington next to the Grain silo at the Water Eaton Park and Ride site with a shiny train station. 22,000 capacity BOOM Premiership here we come.
But it was never ever going to happen :-(
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on May 20, 2012 21:57:52 GMT
Thanks for that SwissYellow. Very informative and fills in some gaps.
Interesting how certain elements objected to Kassam's race during the takeover process and were basically incredibly uninformed about his background. I do think you are right about Kassam not trusting people as a basis for his problems.
|
|