Lukers1 Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Barry, via this thread, can I ask one question. Is any of the Vaughan family or their known associates money, either directly or indirectly going to the building of the new stand? I think I can help with this.. I was told my a respected source that the council have the funds for the stand and are paying the builders directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Larry the Loafer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Do you honestly think SC would turn down an offer meeting or exceeding his asking price even if the bidder couldn't guarantee the long-term future of the club or there were doubts?! Call me a cynic but he'd take the money and run. I thought that SC had invested heavily, financially, emotionally and energy-wise in our club.He has given so much, more than most would ever do, to get us to this exciting stage. I donl;t believe he would take the first offer, or even money he knew to be extremely dodgy. He's seen what has happened to Rangers and their owners, and the villification he would get, even if he goes back to america. I cannot beleive he would ride out the deepest REcession in history and bail out as things were on the cusp of being so much better. A meeting with vaughan, yes PErhaps he was not aware of Vaughan's involvement until some time later But once he knew, I'd be very disappointed. AS others have said, Bury got some seemingly decent backing, although that was maybe due to a cut price deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Whilst the trust only have 3% shares. I hope that they are not sold, it is vital that someone from outside of the club is kept on the board. Is it? Has it really made any difference? I would be worried though, if someone came in who wasn't willing to allow the Trust to retain its 3%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 takeover = investment=new players=ground redevelopment=better crowds=promotion=better income=better players luvin it 'kin 'ell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I think prozac means the evidence is clear, GMR got its info from the horses mouth, the Consortiums spokesman, of their interest and months of negs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22755197 I mean about agreeing with 2*****s (asterixed to avoid sig quoting ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw_oldh857 Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 i dont see a problem with this, i think prozac mentioned it but weve gone from losing fortunes to making a small profit last season an this season a big one. im gratefull to sc for what hes done for us but we struggle to stay in l1 every season, with the new stand coming were prime for a takeover an a bit of investment. bring it on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Corney's in New York and likely to be for some time Didn't he take an extended trip to New York around the time this rumour last cropped up? I think talk of whether Corney would accept is redundant. I'm still convinced he's acting as trustee for Blitz and Gazal. Barry's statement says to me that it's not just a rumour but he's not telling us anything. I'm not saying there's anything with that; as mentioned, he's no doubt bound by confidentiality. If someone offers TTA what they want, they'll sell. I don't believe ethics will play much of a part in that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukers1 Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Didn't he take an extended trip to New York around the time this rumour last cropped up? I think talk of whether Corney would accept is redundant. I'm still convinced he's acting as trustee for Blitz and Gazal. Barry's statement says to me that it's not just a rumour but he's not telling us anything. I'm not saying there's anything with that; as mentioned, he's no doubt bound by confidentiality. If someone offers TTA what they want, they'll sell. I don't believe ethics will play much of a part in that decision. I agree Stevie, they are business men, as long as they get a chunk of their money back they wont give it a second thought whos involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I cannot believe he would ride out the deepest recession in history and bail out as things were on the cusp of being so much better. There's no sentiment in business. You wouldn't sell when value is low but riding out the recession and sell when the value appreciates is exactly what any reasoned businessman would do. The value of the club won't appreciate massively until this new stand is built, which is exactly why the club is now at lot more attractive for potential buyers. I'd love to share your view but if an offer came in close to Corney's valuation then he'll be gone regardless of who's bidding and Larry the Loafer will be out on his ear too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 takeover = investment=new players=ground redevelopment=better crowds=promotion=better income=better players luvin it Are you totally :censored:ing deluded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I'd be surprised if any offer was anywhere near what they wanted 18+ months ago.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Are you totally :censored:ing deluded? I think he has the formula nail on head myself. However with this charlatan hovering round us I think it stops right at step #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) I think prozac means the evidence is clear, GMR got its info from the horses mouth, the Consortiums spokesman, of their interest and months of negs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22755197 I would say the horse is Vaughan and they didn't get it from him. They got it from random bloke who no ones ever heard of. Hardly bang on evidence. The BBC story only mentions the stumbling blocks quote nothing direct about SV and no further information as to who Keeling is, how is he linked to the consortium or whether SV is anything to do with it. Not much evidence here. Edited June 4, 2013 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I agree Stevie, they are business men, as long as they get a chunk of their money back they wont give it a second thought whos involved. Unless those funds are dodgy, say paid for as a part of a missing trader VAT fraud and SC/TTA end up having their assets frozen as they didn't ask enough questions and could be seen as complicit. SV has previous so I think many businessmen would like employ the 'barge pole' method in regards to dealing with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Lets just firm a couple of things up here.......Because some people just dont understand business on this website, Mr Vaughan isnt allowed to be a named director of a business, however he is still a wealthy man with many business interests, from what i are now in the name of his son, who has a clean record. But that is just in name and he will still work for those businesses. Band from being a director this is a shareholding director. Probably can still sit on the board or be a CEO and ultimatley run those businesses. If Mr Vaughan is putting a consortium together to buy the club which is fronted by his son or another memeber of the consortium, his son/member will pass the FA test, lets be fair from what we have seen at different clubs anyone could pass it. Also lets be honest about SC, if he sees a way of getting his and Blitz cash out of the club he will be on the next flight to New York with the largest bottle of Bubbles. BA's statement did not deny any discussion it only confirmed that a "formal offer" had not been made! I think this says alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Lets just firm a couple of things up here.......Because some people just dont understand business on this website, Mr Vaughan isnt allowed to be a named director of a business, however he is still a wealthy man with many business interests, from what i are now in the name of his son, who has a clean record. But that is just in name and he will still work for those businesses. Band from being a director this is a shareholding director. Probably can still sit on the board or be a CEO and ultimatley run those businesses. If Mr Vaughan is putting a consortium together to buy the club which is fronted by his son or another memeber of the consortium, his son/member will pass the FA test, lets be fair from what we have seen at different clubs anyone could pass it. Also lets be honest about SC, if he sees a way of getting his and Blitz cash out of the club he will be on the next flight to New York with the largest bottle of Bubbles. BA's statement did not deny any discussion it only confirmed that a "formal offer" had not been made! I think this says alot. I don't care how he manipulates the rules, my application for a season ticket refund will go in if this consortium takes over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) I would say the horse is Vaughan and they didn't get it from him. They got it from random bloke who no ones ever heard of. Hardly bang on evidence. The BBC story only mentions the stumbling blocks quote nothing direct about SV and no further information as to who Keeling is, how is he linked to the consortium or whether SV is anything to do with it. Not much evidence here. Assuming its the same person, this shows links with the Latics; http://uk.linkedin.c...ling/13/633/224 Edited June 4, 2013 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgaz Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) An official statement needs to be made one way or another and quickly. Edited June 4, 2013 by welshgaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 But we have, this shows he's had links with the Latics; http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/alan-james-keeling/13/633/224 Is it the same person BP and how is SV linked to Keeling as the direct quote doesn't mention SV. Are the BBC putting 2+2 together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Is it the same person BP and how is SV linked to Keeling as the direct quote doesn't mention SV. Are the BBC putting 2+2 together? You are right Jim thanks, I have amended accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavageTheBeast Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 An official statement needs to be made one way or another and quickly. We won't get one more bothered showing us about former players leaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I don't think you can blame the club staff or website for that. There can only be an official statement if Corney is willing to deny that talks are underway or could happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) Lets just firm a couple of things up here.......Because some people just dont understand business on this website, Mr Vaughan isnt allowed to be a named director of a business, however he is still a wealthy man with many business interests, from what i are now in the name of his son, who has a clean record. But that is just in name and he will still work for those businesses. Band from being a director this is a shareholding director. Probably can still sit on the board or be a CEO and ultimatley run those businesses. If Mr Vaughan is putting a consortium together to buy the club which is fronted by his son or another memeber of the consortium, his son/member will pass the FA test, lets be fair from what we have seen at different clubs anyone could pass it. Also lets be honest about SC, if he sees a way of getting his and Blitz cash out of the club he will be on the next flight to New York with the largest bottle of Bubbles. BA's statement did not deny any discussion it only confirmed that a "formal offer" had not been made! I think this says alot. Let's firm something up by guessing??? If you're a banned director, you can't be involved in forming, marketing or running a club. CEO's in Britain have traditionally been called Managing Directors. A director sits on the board of a company. Edited June 4, 2013 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) takeover = investment=new players=ground redevelopment=better crowds=promotion=better income=better players luvin it =books not balanced = bankruptcy =no more Oldham Athletic Edited June 4, 2013 by razza699 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.