doctor evil Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. That the wage situations around M'voto and Wellens, that Dunn was always standby, that we had four new players who were supposed to join after Millwall but didn't, that Russell wasn't appointed because we couldn't agree payment for him to travel up from Stoke aren't in the article? None of its fact though, its just meaningless conjecture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing. That the wage situations around M'voto and Wellens, that Dunn was always standby, that we had four new players who were supposed to join after Millwall but didn't, that Russell wasn't appointed because we couldn't agree payment for him to travel up from Stoke aren't in the article?As I said, the wages is new but with a huge caveat of not the final offer. None of the rest is new. Dunn on standby is new? Ha! Stated on the day he joined. Wonder how that got out too.... The fact we could not agree terms is not new, It does not say we couldn't agree payment for him to travel from Stoke, it says pay him (enough) to make it viable for him. We did not offer him enough salary. That's not new. There is a very wide range of what different people would feel was sufficient to compensate. I used to work on London, I moved to a local position of over a 10k salary cut as was no worse of financially, and miles better off work life balance wise. I'd not go for a job with an extra £20k salary now in London. So my level to make it viable is very high, it's not just the cost of travel. Neatly worded. But means we did not pay enough, but we have no idea what was he looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Eh? It's all pretty much common knowledge. Isn't it? Of course it is. Those who have been listening, reading and watching carefully could've written 95% of that article themselves. Brassbank is common knowledge. Ian Hill joining the board to sell the houses (was meant to be apartments originally through Oldham Arena etc) is common knowledge. If the journo wanted to have gone further he could've added the fact the club apparently put the building of the new stand out to tendor and was won by a company who has Corney, Blitz and Gazal as directors (along with Paul Whitehead). Or that Corney triumphed securing OAFC making a deal to stay at BP for 20yrs which was basically a handshake with his 2 American based mates that OAFC pays rent to stay at BP. There's hundreds of snippets of info out there that most idley dismiss (or don't want to see) that makes up this complex murky jigsaw. The sum of all parts is that OAFC is of very little importance to them with preference focused on getting the stand fully operational at our expense and selling us for maximum gain. By then, where will we be? Down with Tranmere or even Stockport? Just wish they would sell it now at a lesser price and let someone else finish the stand and possible future redevelopments. And give it a go at doing a Rotherham or Brentford etc with us. Edited January 23, 2016 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I take umbridge over the £6m 'loan' that was simply a plaything / gamble that didn't work out. However, I've read that the creditors won't call it in unless we reach the Premier League. Is this promise available in contractual form, because I'm sure it would make us a whole lot more saleable if it was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Analysis paralysis... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1onheartNew Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I take umbridge over the £6m 'loan' that was simply a plaything / gamble that didn't work out. However, I've read that the creditors won't call it in unless we reach the Premier League. Is this promise available in contractual form, because I'm sure it would make us a whole lot more saleable if it was? Well, it is now in writing and has been published. Unless Latics are looking to sue the Independent over a libellous statement, then it is fair to assume that there is more than a modicum of truth in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I take umbridge over the £6m 'loan' that was simply a plaything / gamble that didn't work out. However, I've read that the creditors won't call it in unless we reach the Premier League. Is this promise available in contractual form, because I'm sure it would make us a whole lot more saleable if it was? The reason why they will only call it in if we reach the PL is that is the only time we are likely to make a substantial profit. If they tried to get it back now they would bankrupt the club before they got the vast majority of it back. The debt is probably around the £10 million mark now anyway however it's not as bigger problem as some think it is their is different types of debt. Owing it to an individual like Simon Blitz is a lot different to the debt that man United have to the bank which works like a mortgage I. E. You pay the bank back so much over so many years and if you fail to meet it the bank repossess your house and then sells it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I agree with Harry, alll the main points are common knowledge, for a decade or more in. some cases. The salary details are new, but the are not fact, for the reasons I gave. They have not given all the info or the whole picture. If it said Wellens salary at Shrews, and our final offer then it would be. What is Mvoto on now.... I agree with Harry, alll the main points are common knowledge, for a decade or more in. some cases. The salary details are new, but the are not fact, for the reasons I gave. They have not given all the info or the whole picture. If it said Wellens salary at Shrews, and our final offer then it would be. What is Mvoto on now.... So if it is common knowledge why the indignation at its publication. It will not be common knowledge to a Portsmouth fan or a Brighton fan.....and if it is common knowledge does that mean it is accurate? ..and do we all believe the club is being ripped off as implied and the previous 2 managers did not have a realistic chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 As I said, the wages is new but with a huge caveat of not the final offer. None of the rest is new. Dunn on standby is new? Ha! Stated on the day he joined. Wonder how that got out too.... The fact we could not agree terms is not new, It does not say we couldn't agree payment for him to travel from Stoke, it says pay him (enough) to make it viable for him. We did not offer him enough salary. That's not new. There is a very wide range of what different people would feel was sufficient to compensate. I used to work on London, I moved to a local position of over a 10k salary cut as was no worse of financially, and miles better off work life balance wise. I'd not go for a job with an extra £20k salary now in London. So my level to make it viable is very high, it's not just the cost of travel. Neatly worded. But means we did not pay enough, but we have no idea what was he looking for. Take the the Latics-centric glasses off. It wasn't written for us particularly. Take the established facts, add a few more current unknowns - yes, if all of that is common knowledge to you you're ITK - thread it into a wider narrative and you've got yourself a journalistic article. How it's :censored:e is beyond me. It appears fairly accurate and reflective of our current situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 You have hit the nail on the head NewBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Not sure how this has taken over a decade to print and how people are surprised by it. Wow. Heads in the sand or what!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) I'm assuming the writer of the article has no affinity to us? If so, I fail to see how it's written with an agenda. To anyone who doesn't know we're secondary to the land and the income its generated, I'd say it's a fairly interesting read. They've got away with a lot as they've not made as much as they thought they would... I'm pretty sure if it'd gone to plan, a lot more people would be pissed off. The journalist's got enough of it 100% right to make me think he's probably got an inkling into the bits we're not sure about. Edited January 23, 2016 by longtimeblue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The bits he's got right are well into the public domain . Hardly a recommendation as to his investigative powers about the rest. Whoever has fed him other stuff obviously has an agenda , more likely to be sour grapes than the nobility of whistleblowing Anyway, the piece hasn't done the club any favours as far as I can see so that's a negative about its publication. Has it done anyone any good .....? Only those not involved at Latics I'd suggest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm assuming the writer of the article has no affinity to us? If so, I fail to see how it's written with an agenda. To anyone who doesn't know we're secondary to the land and the income its generated, I'd say it's a fairly interesting read. They've got away with a lot as they've not made as much as they thought they would... I'm pretty sure if it'd gone to plan, a lot more people would be pissed off. The journalist's got enough of it 100% write to make me think he's probably got an inkling into the bits we're not sure about. Yep, we're a case study for the topic. Northampton and other clubs are in the same boat. Having read an article like that and then be more than willing to allow your club to be sold to another 'investor' shows suicidal tendencies. Somebody needs to at least step up to the plate and give options as to a fan-owned model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The bits he's got right are well into the public domain . Hardly a recommendation as to his investigative powers about the rest. Whoever has fed him other stuff obviously has an agenda , more likely to be sour grapes than the nobility of whistleblowing Anyway, the piece hasn't done the club any favours as far as I can see so that's a negative about its publication. Has it done anyone any good .....? Only those not involved at Latics I'd suggest Send them an email and ask them to only print uplifting articles. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The Independent is not a PR arm of Oldham Athletic.. The indignants seem split to me.....those who think it is all common knowledge ....and those who think new information has been leaked . I think that very dichotomy alone justifies the article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeroyboy Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 What about the 7000 fans you talk about? Would that be £1000 apiece, £10000, or some other unlikely figure. A few have run it by us before but never with any substance. They want someone else to do the donkey work. I love the club but I wouldn't touch fan ownership with a barg pole. We would still need to be lucky with a manager who would need to be lucky with a group of players. You would need a group of wealthy individuals to kick it off - this is not F C United. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Send them an email and ask them to only print uplifting articles. ;-)No problem with their publishing an article - but surely you don't object to me saying that it doesn't do us any favours? Or maybe people think that it's going to have new investors queuing up ? Or that it will help attract new players? Or sponsors? We live in an environment where there's positive and negative coverage. I get that - but don't see the merits of welcoming the latter (unless it brings change for the better) Edited January 23, 2016 by LaticsPete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Whoever has fed him other stuff obviously has an agenda , more likely to be sour grapes than the nobility of whistleblowing I notice there's an accounts assistant vacancy at the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 No problem with their publishing an article - but surely you don't object to me saying that it doesn't do us any favours? Or maybe people think that it's going to have new investors queuing up ? Or that it will help attract new players? Or sponsors? We live in an environment where there's positive and negative coverage. I get that - but don't see the merits of welcoming the latter (unless it brings change for the better) It probably hasn't. Looking at it objectively though, it's a warranted story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Bit of a hit and miss article. Leaves the reader thinking we have a stand that isn't open and still unavailable. Aside from that it seems fairly accurate and frankly I have no problem with the situation. What was the alternative? Not sure why a national newspaper want to take a pop at a small club like us. Was it written by a Dale fan? You know... those holier than thou lot from the team with no assets whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Do we have any disgruntled ex employees known for being frank and honest who would of been privvy to the Wellens pay offer then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Not sure why a national newspaper want to take a pop at a small club like us. Was it written by a Dale fan? You know... those holier than thou lot from the team with no assets whatsoever. Presumably you have seen the Accounts of Rochdale AFC and compared them with ours? I have and I know which company is on a much firmer footing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Bit of a hit and miss article. Leaves the reader thinking we have a stand that isn't open and still unavailable. Aside from that it seems fairly accurate and frankly I have no problem with the situation. What was the alternative? Not sure why a national newspaper want to take a pop at a small club like us. Was it written by a Dale fan? You know... those holier than thou lot from the team with no assets whatsoever. I think it's sympathetic to us as fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Match on today lads. 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.