Diego_Sideburns Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Tony Philliskirk and Simon Corney on BBC Radio Manchester earlier tonight The point of concern that keeps turning up on here was raised by BB80 and read out to SC: Nobody would realistically buy the club without the land too, and some of the fans, myself included, don’t believe that the land is for sale with the club. Simon Corney: "Whoever comes along, if they want to buy the land, of course it’s for sale and, no offence to Oldham, but it’s a piece of land in Oldham and is not where myself and my partners are based. Of course we’d give it up, but, at the same time, we’re in for a lot of money and we’d like to get a fair price for it. We’ll never recoup the money we’ve put into it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsrblue Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Tony Philliskirk and Simon Corney on BBC Radio Manchester earlier tonight TP does a great job selling the Latics youth set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 TP does a great job selling the Latics youth set up. Angers me that there have been two occassions under SC where it has genuinely been mooted to do away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Simon Corney: "Whoever comes along, if they want to buy the land, of course it’s for sale and, no offence to Oldham, but it’s a piece of land in Oldham and is not where myself and my partners are based. Of course we’d give it up, but, at the same time, we’re in for a lot of money and we’d like to get a fair price for it. We’ll never recoup the money we’ve put into it." So they could buy the land and NOT the club? So they could buy the club and NOT the land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong here but TTA paid £1 for the land? Since then they have sold of around half of it? And over that time they have loaned us £8m? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeroyboy Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Angers me that there have been two occassions under SC where it has genuinely been mooted to do away with it. But it never happened. Whose decision would that have been? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Simon Corney: "Whoever comes along, if they want to buy the land, of course it’s for sale and, no offence to Oldham, but it’s a piece of land in Oldham and is not where myself and my partners are based. Of course we’d give it up, but, at the same time, we’re in for a lot of money and we’d like to get a fair price for it. We’ll never recoup the money we’ve put into it." So they could buy the land and NOT the club? So they could buy the club and NOT the land? Only if you read that out of context with the point raised by BB80. SC's reply was about buying the land with the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 I'm not sure its out of context. maybe if I should have written: So they could buy the land and NOT the club? So they could buy the club and NOT the land? So they couth buy BOTH land and the club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong here but TTA paid £1 for the land? Since then they have sold of around half of it? And over that time they have loaned us £8m?The landlords paid £1 for the club, the Council owned the land and as part of the deal for the Council owning the land a special clause was included that meant the club, or presumably those acting on behalf of the club, could buy the land back from the Council for a reduced price (possibly the amount the Council paid for it + interest). Due to the land prices at the time it meant that the landlords got the land cheaply. However, I'm not sure if land values have recovered since the financial crisis to mean that the land is now worth more than what the landlords paid for it. Factor in how much of the land has already been sold and if the landlords are asking the same as what they paid for it, then they are seriously over-valuing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Who is Paul Blackwell the fan who was supposed to be on? Does he post on here or Twitter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Angers me that there have been two occassions under SC where it has genuinely been mooted to do away with it. No, there have been two occasions for the fans to rally around the policy the clue wanted to pursue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) The landlords paid £1 for the club, the Council owned the land and as part of the deal for the Council owning the land a special clause was included that meant the club, or presumably those acting on behalf of the club, could buy the land back from the Council for a reduced price (possibly the amount the Council paid for it + interest). Due to the land prices at the time it meant that the landlords got the land cheaply. However, I'm not sure if land values have recovered since the financial crisis to mean that the land is now worth more than what the landlords paid for it. Factor in how much of the land has already been sold and if the landlords are asking the same as what they paid for it, then they are seriously over-valuing it. Pretty much spot on this. David Brierley sold the land to OMBC for approx £3.5m to which the land could be bought back at the same price by any new owners with an agreement that football had to be played at BP for 10yrs. According to Sean Jarvis, during a SAFE meeting in the 2001/2 season, Chris Moore attempted to buy back the land but the council requested an extra £500,000 for the new pitch that had been installed to which CM told them to sod off as he never asked for the pitch and he wanted the land at the price originally set out. The last we have heard about the land value was after the recession/economic turn where it was valued at £9m according to this article. http://oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic/34205/wealthy-clubs-hold-all-the-aces And back in the day... November 1999 http://www.geocities.ws/Colosseum/Midfield/3860/bb11nov99.htm Edited November 19, 2013 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) The landlords paid £1 for the club, the Council owned the land and as part of the deal for the Council owning the land a special clause was included that meant the club, or presumably those acting on behalf of the club, could buy the land back from the Council for a reduced price (possibly the amount the Council paid for it + interest). Due to the land prices at the time it meant that the landlords got the land cheaply. However, I'm not sure if land values have recovered since the financial crisis to mean that the land is now worth more than what the landlords paid for it. Factor in how much of the land has already been sold and if the landlords are asking the same as what they paid for it, then they are seriously over-valuing it. According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 2004: "To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land, while guaranteeing that Boundary Park will still be a football ground in 10 years' time." Edited November 20, 2013 by Mark59 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong here but TTA paid £1 for the land? Since then they have sold of around half of it? And over that time they have loaned us £8m? Land was 4.7 million I think (edit see above). Edited November 19, 2013 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 1994: "To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land, while guaranteeing that Boundary Park will still be a football ground in 10 years' time." That's why they only paid £1 for the club, it included the debts which they then took on and paid a decent % back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 1994: "To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land, while guaranteeing that Boundary Park will still be a football ground in 10 years' time." Sounds like they paid for the pitch and extras from the price David Brierley/OAFC received for it. Good info that BTW even if the date looks slightly suspect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 1994: "To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land, while guaranteeing that Boundary Park will still be a football ground in 10 years' time." How the hell did he know about all this in 1994? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 According to David Conn in 'The Independent' in March 1994: "To finance this dream, they (Blitz and Gazal) funded the club for three months in administration, which cost them £522,500. The preferential creditors, the Inland Revenue and VAT, were owed £715,000 and were paid 32p in the pound: £237,000. "Football Creditors" - other clubs, players and the League's pension deficit - are to be paid £428,000, while Blitz and Gazal paid £120,000 for Oldham's office equipment and other assets. Unsecured creditors, the usual victims including a £30,000 policing bill, local family firms and £1,856.50 unpaid to St John Ambulance, got nothing. The club's ongoing losses are estimated at £1m, and their shoring-up of the club adds up to £2.4m. They are paying £4.6m more for the ground and land, while guaranteeing that Boundary Park will still be a football ground in 10 years' time." Although unsecured creditors got nothing, TTA took on board the cost of season ticket holders' payments, when the money had disappeared over the hill with Moore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 How the hell did he know about all this in 1994? The article was actually published on 6th March 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Here is the full 2004 David Conn article in The Independent: http://www.joinmust.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-9254.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Although unsecured creditors got nothing, TTA took on board the cost of season ticket holders' payments, when the money had disappeared over the hill with Moore.ST money was safe guarded before moore could get to it wasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 ST money was safe guarded before moore could get to it wasn't it? Pretty sure like Diego says, Moore nicked it all - cos he's a :censored:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Did he actually have it away out of the club or did it drop into the sea of debt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 ST money was safe guarded before moore could get to it wasn't it? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_balls Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Go on..own up...who went on their website www.cncg.com ??? 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.