real Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 "Corney abruptly answered "Yes" without offering anything further at all. I didn't believe him." What exactly could he have done? Will OAFC Own it? "YES. Deffo mate, bang on 100%? I guarantee it- honest guv!" - wold that have worked? So you didn't believe him.. why? Is blind pessimism any better or worse than blind optimism? So many of the "wise sages of disbelief" admit that they have no facts to base their pessimism on, and no real reason not to trust TTA. Much of it seems to be based on things that haven't been done and wanting to know why these things haevn't been done - e.g why no consultation about f/w before they announced - well, 'cos you can't really have a vote off 3500 people on what to do with the club. Others say they're pessimistic 'cos TTA haven't looked at other sites like coal pit lane or that land behind alexandra park - but they are both green belt. The one puzzling thing in that feedback from the meeting is how TTA will make a profit if they'll only get £12m for BP. I'd reckon it's abit higher, maybe £18m tops, but that still leaves a loss after stadium build costs - so it's only logical that they'd start selling off the land around BP (as per the previous plans) to raise capital towards the new plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 "Corney abruptly answered "Yes" without offering anything further at all. I didn't believe him." What exactly could he have done? Will OAFC Own it? "YES. Deffo mate, bang on 100%? I guarantee it- honest guv!" - wold that have worked? So you didn't believe him.. why? Is blind pessimism any better or worse than blind optimism? So many of the "wise sages of disbelief" admit that they have no facts to base their pessimism on, and no real reason not to trust TTA. Much of it seems to be based on things that haven't been done and wanting to know why these things haevn't been done - e.g why no consultation about f/w before they announced - well, 'cos you can't really have a vote off 3500 people on what to do with the club. Others say they're pessimistic 'cos TTA haven't looked at other sites like coal pit lane or that land behind alexandra park - but they are both green belt. The one puzzling thing in that feedback from the meeting is how TTA will make a profit if they'll only get £12m for BP. I'd reckon it's abit higher, maybe £18m tops, but that still leaves a loss after stadium build costs - so it's only logical that they'd start selling off the land around BP (as per the previous plans) to raise capital towards the new plan. No facts to base their pessimism on? Have you been in the club shop lately? Bought sponsorship through the club? Seen how we've been run commercially of late? Listened to the rhetoric about ground-sharing, Failsworth or we die and we won't be here in a few years? There's plenty to be concerned about...and after what CM did (after 2 years with no reason to mistrust) you could apply the same theory. I don't see them as anything like CM...but I do see them having lost interest in promoting us and that's a major worry. But no....let's carry on "blindly" anyway... Oh...and as for how Simon could've answered it...no, he could've said "Yes, the money we make from selling the land will go into the stadium. This will initally be owned by Brassbank but then ownership will be transferred to the club. If when we sell, as we won't be here forever, then the club and stadium will be sold as one." A blunt yes offered little comfort in the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 But he said Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 But he said Yes. Chris Moore danced with fans at QPR and said he was going nowhere...I really really don't enjoy harking back to him but seems nothing is being learned. If you think the Yes is enough...good for you. I don't. If TTA deal with every question with Yes and No answers from now on, I hope that will keep you all happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 But by the way you interpret the yes he may have well said no. What do you want a signed agreement written in his own blood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Oh...and as for how Simon could've answered it...no, he could've said "Yes, the money we make from selling the land will go into the stadium. This will initally be owned by Brassbank but then ownership will be transferred to the club. If when we sell, as we won't be here forever, then the club and stadium will be sold as one." A blunt yes offered little comfort in the answer. I understand your concerns in the light of what we've gone through in the past, but on this point the opportunity was there on the night for you to ask for a more comprehensive explanation of what was meant by the "yes" answer. The opportunity is still there to ask questions by emailing the Club, as I keep pointing out, but nobody seems to be interested in finding out the facts from the horse's mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 this new link up with Holroys not good in my view, in terms of maximising revenue for club. A sad day if its been on going for 7 months some crap been released in that time, why the secrecy??? over the link up. Typical Latics. Of what interest would have been to know about these discussions? Do you need to be updated on new catering contracts or which cleaning company we'll be using? As it's been said over and over, these houses were always going to be built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 this new link up with Holroys not good in my view, in terms of maximising revenue for club. A sad day if its been on going for 7 months some crap been released in that time, why the secrecy??? over the link up. Typical Latics. Ah, you must have seen the contract then, along with the offers from mcapline, wimpey, taylor woodrow and barratt? Did the others all offer more then? Or, could it just be that when they announced that ANY builder was starting on the homes that were in BOTH plans, you'd see it as a negative? Jeez. What hope has the club got? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 No facts to base their pessimism on? Have you been in the club shop lately? Bought sponsorship through the club? Seen how we've been run commercially of late? Listened to the rhetoric about ground-sharing, Failsworth or we die and we won't be here in a few years? There's plenty to be concerned about...and after what CM did (after 2 years with no reason to mistrust) you could apply the same theory. I don't see them as anything like CM...but I do see them having lost interest in promoting us and that's a major worry. But no....let's carry on "blindly" anyway... Oh...and as for how Simon could've answered it...no, he could've said "Yes, the money we make from selling the land will go into the stadium. This will initally be owned by Brassbank but then ownership will be transferred to the club. If when we sell, as we won't be here forever, then the club and stadium will be sold as one." A blunt yes offered little comfort in the answer. It seems to me BB80, you will never trust anybody from the answers you ahve given. Perhaps understandable, given your experiences, but at the end of the day unless you earn or win a fortune there's not much you can do about it, our beloved club's fate is in someone elses hands. I suspect you view your role, as a custodian and someone to keep the owners in check. There is an ideal opportunity therefore, in joining the Trust to achive that aim, yet IIRC correctly (for whatever reason) you have spurned that chance too. That would indicate a reluctance to work with anyone or lack of trust of anyone but yourself. At the end of the day, you have to have a degree of trust , as someone somewhere will makes decisions you don't like, and the TTA have earned a bit longer than most. I guess I am saying can you be questioning without being suspicous or cynical. It just seems to come across like a number of posters as them versus us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Believe it! In July 2001 I (and a few others) sat in the boardroom with Sean Jarvis, Alan Hardy and Bob Telfer, CM's lapdog who we got everytime (now deceased) discussing what CM was up to. We were known as SAFE...we got laughed out of town for having no reason to exist any longer and for daring to try and get to speak to CM. Believe it! It happened...and it will again...I'll question TTA...even more so based on what happened in the aftermath of getting nowhere with CM! Nobody wanted to hear it...seems almost identical now... Thank God I couldn't make the meeetings - it was all depressing enough anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Chris Moore did have millions, whether anybody believed in them or not. For my part, I realised that the amount being spent on the club was a bigger percentage of the £45 million or so we were informed CM's paper wealth amounted to to be comfortable about. Like I said, though, I chose to beleve that he must have know what he was doing. Simply, after the terrible times we'd endured over the previous seven years or so, scepticism was, for most people, shelved. As I said recently, the tragedy for Latics is that CM wasn't worth ten times the amount he actually was. He would have been able to see the project through, and we might be looking at a different kind of future right now. No he didn't. Much of his money was tied up in Torex and the Serious Fraud Office haven't finished with that yet. If he had been worth (and by worth I mean have available) ten times £45m I suspect he'd have bought a bigger club in the first place. I realised very soon in his reign that it was built on sand and that played a large part in why, frankly, my main emotion this time round is indifference. I'm very sad about that. Edited September 16, 2009 by Dave_Og Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Brassbank You need to get over this separation of ownership thing mate. OAFC isn't a construction company, it was never going to own the development. And guess what, if it had done, and we'd got the planning past the council a few months earlier, then the weight of the development could very likely have taken the club down the pan with it. Can I make this point again. Whether houses are built now or the land is least unused for a number of years, whether the facilities are owned by OAFC (2004) or Brassbank, or Mr Blitz, makes NO difference to the ability of TTA to take profits from the whole project, now or in the future. Understanding this fundamental fact needs to be the starting point for debating the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nava Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 this new link up with Holroys not good in my view, in terms of maximising revenue for club. A sad day if its been on going for 7 months some crap been released in that time, why the secrecy??? over the link up. Typical Latics. I doubt very much you know what sort of deal the club is getting in terms of maximising our revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I doubt very much you know what sort of deal the club is getting in terms of maximising our revenue. Correct! and after some of the cr*p spouted on this thread it shows why information should be held back rather than TTA being "open" about things. The housing that has been announced was planned even before Failsworth became an option. "7 months" read the facts not part of them. The initial plan was to sell the land at BP for 700 apartments to fund the so called "super duper all singing all dancing 16,000 stadium that would see us propelled into europe." The delay in OMBC granting planning put paid to that plan. The new plan was for TTA to build out the land themselves in partnership as announced yesterday. That takes time to put in place. Drawing up plans, discussions with planners, funding etc etc etc. So, the housing at BP was always going to happen. The point here is that the new scheme was intended to provide funds to start the redevelopment of BP rather than waiting for the housing market to pick up and land prices rise again. Don't forget also that the planning permission that was granted only lasts for 3 years. After that you have to start the process again and there is no guarantee that planning would be granted again especially if there is a change in planning regulations or government guidelines and we are already nearly 2 years down that road, so it makes sense to start the process now. The fact that Failsworth has come on the radar makes no diference to the BP process. All that happens now is that the funds raised go towards the new stadium instead of redeveloping BP. Brassbank have owned the land at BP since TTA took over so what has changed? answer, nothing. Simon Corney was asked at the forum would OAFC own the new stadium? his answer was yes. What else do you want him to say? If you have/had other questions then you should have asked, or as Diego says, send an e-mail. You don't know the figures involved yet you specualte that TTA are going to walk away form this "lining their pockets." Ha! You speculate about what the Failsworth project includes yet you don't know much if anything about it. Why don't you know? Well might that just be because the Architects are still working up the FINAL proposals. I'll hazard a guess that the following are included in the plans when they are announced though: - 1) Hotel 2) banquetting and conferenece facilities 3) 20 corporate/private boxes 4) indoor dome 5) 8-10 5 a side pitches 6) 600+ car parking spaces to be let on a park and ride basis to GMPTE or Metrolink or some similar scheme and maybe some other things. What will all that raise? I'd hazard a guess that it will be more than TTA are putting in annually to keep us afloat. And I'll be more than happy for someone to quote me on that after the palns are announced. We are in the middle of a recession, probably the worst for almost a century. Plans have had to be altered because of that and the club has to move on. But back to the original point made by Leeslover, the plans announced yesterday go ahead and were always going to irrespective of whether BP is re-developed. The money raised goes into the project and as Mark Oasis said "Bingo" Cheers, Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 ... the Architects are still working up the FINAL proposals. I'll hazard a guess that the following are included in the plans when they are announced though: - 1) Hotel 2) banquetting and conferenece facilities 3) 20 corporate/private boxes 4) indoor dome 5) 8-10 5 a side pitches 6) 600+ car parking spaces to be let on a park and ride basis to GMPTE or Metrolink or some similar scheme and maybe some other things. What will all that raise? I'd hazard a guess that it will be more than TTA are putting in annually to keep us afloat. And I'll be more than happy for someone to quote me on that after the palns are announced. IF your educated guess is correct and the Club becomes financially self-sufficient, in spite of moving to Failsworth, it will indeed be Bingo! We all have the Club's best interests at heart, but only TTA have the means of safeguarding its future. Time will prove who is correct but meanwhile it comes down to whether or not we trust TTA. Those who do are scoffed at by those who don't. This is understandable in view of the many promises and false dawns. I would hope that in due course, when the plans are finalised and the consultations with NIMBYs and the relevant authorities have taken place, TTA will spell out in indisputable terms exactly how the Club's future is to be secured in the absence of enough fans coming through the gate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 All that happens now is that the funds raised go towards the new stadium instead of redeveloping BP. That's that question answered, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 That's that question answered....... ....yet again, as it was at the Forum on 10th August. Q's: Where will the money come from to build the new stadium considering we are not moving out of BP until it's built. *Comments about the change in capacity and change in value of the redevelopment.* What happened to the club earning money 364 days a year? A's: IH - we will develop part of BP to bring some capital in, we are also working with some partners. Other facilities will be bringing money into the club, clubs cannot survive on 26 games a season any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 ....yet again, as it was at the Forum on 10th August. Tut tut Diego. You are highlighting information and facts for the dissenters that were there for them in the 1st place yet they continue to choose to ignore. Cheers, Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Tut tut Diego. You are highlighting information and facts for the dissenters that were there for them in the 1st place yet they continue to choose to ignore. Cheers, Harry It may be only our two newest fans who love me for my information! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 ....yet again, as it was at the Forum on 10th August. You are a Blashphemous Herectic I tell you who lets fact get in the way of irrational fear!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 You are a Blashphemous Herectic I tell you who lets fact get in the way of irrational fear!!! Very true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I see the Sanctimonious Twins are at it again. Unfortunately for you, the Q&A you've quoted had nothing to do with my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) Unfortunately for you, the Q&A you've quoted had nothing to do with my post. In what way does the proposal, to develop part of BP to bring some capital in to build the new stadium, have nothing to do with your post saying that Harry's comment that "All that happens now is that the funds raised go towards the new stadium instead of redeveloping BP" answers that question? Edited September 17, 2009 by Diego_Sideburns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's been suggested recently that redeveloping Boundary Park is still an option. Mr. Green Shirt's post contains incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's been suggested recently that redeveloping Boundary Park is still an option. Mr. Green Shirt's post contains incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. No it doesn't. I have never said that redeveloping BP is not an option. However, it is clear that the Failsworth move is now the preferred option. Cheers, Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.