leeslover Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 So, who has paid for it and what are the revenue arrangements? It's been presented to fans as if it is, to some degree, a potential money-spinner for OAFC but if the revenue arrangements are that a number of parties outside OAFC receive the revenue, then that is something that should be transparent in my opinion. Much like the car park revenue should be. This I agree with. I would at least like to know whether various things I might spend on go to the total for the Fair Play thing. Barry? I'm sure most of us accept paying a bit over the odds for this and that if it's for the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) There are many instances of joint ventures; the term is often used in the public sector - for example I believe that Manchester Airport (MA) is reported as a joint venture due to its ownership by all of the former GMC councils. Each owner (e.g OMBC) reports the impact of their share of MA in their own accounting returns.What if their Accounting returns are overdue at Companies House, does that mean that the impact of their share is not apparent? Edited April 1, 2014 by ChaddySmoker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC0AFC Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 money well spent wizzo or? not a dig, but at the moment i can't find anything that we didn't already know... and there's nothing at all that has made me turn against the developers or infact the owners! okay, we're not the best run club but we're still standing in league one with a new stand on the verge of coming up lets stop wasting our efforts on trying to get one over on someone and use those efforts to get behind the lads on saturdays ey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 So, who has paid for it and what are the revenue arrangements? It's been presented to fans as if it is, to some degree, a potential money-spinner for OAFC but if the revenue arrangements are that a number of parties outside OAFC receive the revenue, then that is something that should be transparent in my opinion. Much like the car park revenue should be. Who takes the revenue for the Car Park, do we actually know or is this speculation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 1 I would like to know how the revenue from the new stand will be split? 2 at what point will sb and dg leave their involvement in the club. When they get the money invested back or do they want profit on the land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Latics fans on the board. Latics fans building the new stand. All intent on shafting the club they love? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 No idea about that. Whoevers paying for it! Blitz and gazal own the new stand according to the planning application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Blitz and gazal own the new stand according to the planning application. And why shouldn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 The developer is the biggest Latics fan I know, he won't blow his own trumpet but the hours the lad has put in just to get to this stage is incredible. All he can do is build it whatever happens with the ownership and revenue streams is down to the owners. To question his integrity is crazy. And yet he still works for :censored:all every match day and has done for 40 odd years. Question the owners fair enough but slating a true blue that is building the thing we have been yearning for is seriously :censored:ting on our own doorstep. If you have questions simply ask the man, he's a visible face around the ground on match day. And everything there is already in the public domain and has been for some time. Digging? :censored: me I dug deeper the last time I picked my nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshOWTB Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Blitz and gazal own the new stand according to the planning application. No they don't, the certificate of ownership relates to the land and not the development. Anyone can apply for a planning application for any land as long as they have the land owner's approval. They can only build on that land with the land owners approval too - so I assume we either pay ground rent or have a lease for the ground for a nominal fee. The club probably own the asset but they also have the debt associated with the build and ongoing costs including the possible ground rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 1. No they don't, the certificate of ownership relates to the land and not the development. 2. Anyone can apply for a planning application for any land as long as they have the land owner's approval. 3. They can only build on that land with the land owners approval too - so I assume we either pay ground rent or have a lease for the ground for a nominal fee. 4. The club probably own the asset but they also have the debt associated with the build and ongoing costs including the possible ground rent. 1. OK 2. Correct, I believe 3. Do OA (2014) AFC Ltd have a current on going lease past August 2014? 4. We do not know any of that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 The developer is the biggest Latics fan I know, he won't blow his own trumpet but the hours the lad has put in just to get to this stage is incredible. All he can do is build it whatever happens with the ownership and revenue streams is down to the owners. To question his integrity is crazy. And yet he still works for :censored:all every match day and has done for 40 odd years. Question the owners fair enough but slating a true blue that is building the thing we have been yearning for is seriously :censored:ting on our own doorstep. If you have questions simply ask the man, he's a visible face around the ground on match day. And everything there is already in the public domain and has been for some time. Digging? :censored: me I dug deeper the last time I picked my nose. Has anyone actually questioned PWs integrity on this thread? I can't even see anything that questions SCs integrity, nor that of SB or DG. The OP just put up some information, which many people said they already knew. Some people say that DG & SB own the stand (sholver blue says this is already known), to which macca says so what / others say OAFC own it. Why does it matter? Well it matters to:- The FL as the revenue affects spending power The Taxman The customers - people have a certain level of rights to know who they are spending their money with The shareholders of the companies - which includes The Trust who own shares in OAFC If people are paying £5 for car parking, perhaps they think it should really be £3 but they don't mind if they pay £2 over the odds as it goes towards our playing budget - unless it actually goes to brassbank? If it's going to be £60 for an executive package, it matters if all of that £60 (less costs) goes to OAFC rather than only half of it, with the other half going to Brassbank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Has anyone actually questioned PWs integrity on this thread? I can't even see anything that questions SCs integrity, nor that of SB or DG. The OP just put up some information, which many people said they already knew. It would appear as simple as that if you had no prior experience of Wizzo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I don't have prior experience of Wizzo, I'm just going off what's been posted in this thread. So many people are saying "we knew this" and then explaining the facts, but they all have different versions of these facts, which kind of suggests that a lot of people don't know the real facts. One poster says the £1m assets in PCW is to build the stand, but others say Brassbank is building the stand, and others say OAFC. These are pretty much mutually exclusive. The fact that the net assets of OAFC stand at -£5.4m at least tells me that with a £6m liability, there must be £600k of assets. That's something I didn't know. Also, if the lease exists as an actual guarantee, it should in theory have some value. That it appears not to have suggests that it has restrictive clauses that reduce its value to nil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I don't have prior experience of Wizzo, I'm just going off what's been posted in this thread. So many people are saying "we knew this" and then explaining the facts, but they all have different versions of these facts, which kind of suggests that a lot of people don't know the real facts. One poster says the £1m assets in PCW is to build the stand, but others say Brassbank is building the stand, and others say OAFC. These are pretty much mutually exclusive. The fact that the net assets of OAFC stand at -£5.4m at least tells me that with a £6m liability, there must be £600k of assets. That's something I didn't know. Also, if the lease exists as an actual guarantee, it should in theory have some value. That it appears not to have suggests that it has restrictive clauses that reduce its value to nil. From what I've seen, there's been quite a bit tonight on Twitter, in regards to exchanges between Wizzo and Paul Whitehead. People are delving into business that is quite frankly, none of their business. I think as fans, some demand too much. Yes, transparency is needed in some cases but people get far too caught up in OAFC (2004) with Brassbank etc. This separation of assets is probably more of a good thing, if God forbid, Latics did go into administration again, the assets, such as the land could not be taken and sold by creditors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 From what I've seen, there's been quite a bit tonight on Twitter, in regards to exchanges between Wizzo and Paul Whitehead. People are delving into business that is quite frankly, none of their business. I think as fans, some demand too much. Yes, transparency is needed in some cases but people get far too caught up in OAFC (2004) with Brassbank etc. This separation of assets is probably more of a good thing, if God forbid, Latics did go into administration again, the assets, such as the land could not be taken and sold by creditors. Erm who would get the land then? Its already in the hands of "creditors". And whilst on the one hand I can see the advantage of putting assets into a different company, (although in this case it's essentially a different owner now) the question that matters to me is whether that company is taking revenues that people think are being given to OAFC. I'm looking at this from the perspective and rights of any consumer to know that the money they spend is going to the organisation they are being led to believe it is going to. The current board haven't covered themselves with glory in the past on this front- SC claiming to have lost money on pies despite the fact that the concessions are actually rented to Azure (or whatever they are now called) and its them who made the loss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 If ever there were proof needed that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", its this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Come on now people, Wizzo's worked really hard here doing a lot of research and telling us what we already know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshOWTB Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 From what I've seen, there's been quite a bit tonight on Twitter, in regards to exchanges between Wizzo and Paul Whitehead. People are delving into business that is quite frankly, none of their business. I think as fans, some demand too much. Yes, transparency is needed in some cases but people get far too caught up in OAFC (2004) with Brassbank etc. This separation of assets is probably more of a good thing, if God forbid, Latics did go into administration again, the assets, such as the land could not be taken and sold by creditors. Hear hear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFC_Ryan Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) . Edited April 1, 2014 by OAFC_Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4oafc Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Not saying this is the case here but maybe they have made the books look worse than they are for tax reasons , I know a lot of company's do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Digging? :censored: me I dug deeper the last time I picked my nose. Bang on oh and Wizzo - If you really want to stir things up and imply nefarious motives at least have the bollocks to actually do it in a real name. Edited April 1, 2014 by Dave_Og Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 It would appear as simple as that if you had no prior experience of Wizzo....Sorry I was not aware of Wizzo's form either, so was taking it face value from the post too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I'm starting to piece it all together... Someone had to say it. Oh no, actually they didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Bang on oh and Wizzo - If you really want to stir things up and imply nefarious motives at least have the bollocks to actually do it in a real name. TBF as Harry Bosch has pointed out there is previous to this on twitter, where Wizzo posts under his real name. 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.