Kassam drove the club into the ground

[GodalmingYellow]

Not disagreeing with GY about some of the other sides of investment, but purely on the playing side FK did continue to throw money in (or put back in what he received via sales etc, if you like) to let managers have who they wanted. He, as Chairman, is not responsible for who is signed, that is down to the manager. Infact, most would not like it if he did get involved.

That was the point I was making. ie That Kassam didn't invest in players, he only made signings when he had dispatched other players first. He did the minimum, rather than what was right.

[GodalmingYellow]

Thanks for correcting me on Wilsterman AbOx. I agree with your points about where it went wrong.

GY, you have a strange intrepretation of the word cheap.

I believe the McGuckin story was that the managerof the time hurried Kassam into signing him without a medical because otherwise he would be snapped up by another club. He was never fit to play. I think the figure quoted was that McGut cost the club over 300k in contract and FK paid it off.

His wages were nowhere near any version of cheap.

Bus was on a 2 year deal at 2k per week. With a signing on fee that brought him a nice shinny BMW. That isn't cheap GY?

Cheap was the likes of Ricketts/King who we released when on peanuts.

Like I said DLT, we're not going to agree on this, and it has little to do with my interpretation of cheap.

One day, though not today as I've a busy weekend, I'll work out which of us was right on transfers, but as I said above, I'm not talking just about transfers. As you will know only too well, investment means a lot more than just buying petrol for your cars, even if the price of petrol seems high. And it is the investment in quality which brings rewards, not buying the cheapest cars and then claiming to have invested extensively.

Now if I was you GY I would probably assume that your use of petrol and cheap cars to illustrate your arguement was a piece of personal abuse aimed at me. But let me just say to verify your point I own the only Taxi company in Britain that predominantly buys brand new Mercedes for his taxi fleet.

I believe you are using parameters that should be used to judge either quality or value and using them to analyse expenditure.

I think you misunderstand me DLT. I was simply using cars as a means to compare to Kassam's approach. The only reason I chose cars was because of your business line, not because I think you use cheap cars, and indeed you make my point for me. You have chosen Mercs presumably because of quality and reliability, rather than price, and that investment will bring you future rewards. Kassam on the other hand would almost certainly have chosen Lada's on basis of price first, in the hope they didn't break down.

[Snake]

Not disagreeing with GY about some of the other sides of investment, but purely on the playing side FK did continue to throw money in (or put back in what he received via sales etc, if you like) to let managers have who they wanted. He, as Chairman, is not responsible for who is signed, that is down to the manager. Infact, most would not like it if he did get involved.

That was the point I was making. ie That Kassam didn't invest in players, he only made signings when he had dispatched other players first. He did the minimum, rather than what was right.

How sure are you of that statement Mr. Taylor?

[Isaac]

I'm not sure how people can argue whether or not Kassam &quotinvested&quot in the team or not. As far as I can remember from the accounts, there's no evidence that Kassam ever put any money into the club at all (nor took any out of course) - he only ever spent what was there and guaranteed whatever debt was left over. So how could he be investing on a personal level when he's just spending the clubs income? Or should we be grateful that he wasn't openly ripping the club off?

Anyway, for the record, I've never blamed him for 3 relegations. The first one clearly wasn't his fault, the second I think was although I have some sympathy for the argument that the new ground uncertainties influenced it(although it'd be better if the people who claimed this were not also claiming that he invested heavily at this time). The last one was obviously largely (not totally) his fault - I can tell I'm going to get some quote from Snake about odds, so save me please snake, I'm well aware of your thoughts on that one.

However, most damning I think was sacking Atkins when we were 5th, I think we had a fair chance of promotion that season - if Kassam had shown some of his much discussed &quotinvestment&quot at the right time, we might have got automatic. As it was, he sacked the manager, replaced him with a halfwit who decided on a totally different style of play and we've been in freefall, again, ever since. Cheers Firoz.

[Mally]

Totally agree about getting rid of Atkins. Allowing things to get to that situation was a major mistake.

I think its inaccurate to blame Kassam for lack of investment. On the playing side managers came in and spent the available budget up to the wages cap on the players they wanted. Every manager went on record saying they had funds to bring in players if they needed them. They may well have been crap players but that was the fault of the various managers.

Investment away from the pitch is more complicated but it was massive investment in the stadium and the legal battles surrounding it that saved the club when Kassam took over. Kassam used his other businesses (so his money because he owns the businesses) to either loan money or secure bank loans in order to build the stadium in the first place.

Kassam had and has loads of faults but lack of investment wasn't one of them. Where Kassam screwed up was in the way he treated his employees throughout the club and surrounding businesses, his total disregard for the value of goodwill both locally and in the football world and his decision making when it came to appointing and keeping managers. If there was one area where he could have invested more it was in the appointment of a manager where I think he did try to penny pinch and go for the cheapest option he could get away with.

Isaac - If you look at the accounts you will see he put £2 million into the club which was then paid back by the club when WPL bought it. Its not just a question of guaranteeing debts otherwise the club would go bust and the accounts could not be approved by the auditors - he had to put the money in.

[Guest]

Interesting stuff, all of it.

Issac's point about 'putting money' into the club is worth a question - if the CVA and sale of the Manor is taken into account:

1) How much did Kassam actually invest in completing the stadium?
2) How much did it cost to complete the stadium?

3) Did the money gained from the sale of the Manor (after the CVA) allow for a) completion of the stadium/legal issues and b) a sum of money loaned to the club which he has now got back?

Sorry if all this has been aired before, but the whole sorry business of MF and relegation has the hallmarks of an owner who had absolutely nothing to lose.

[Isaac]

I'd question whether loaning the club £2m (at, I presume, a better than base rate of interest) counts as actual investment the way it's being talked about here.

I don't know the figures, but I suspect that after the Manor sale and after his developments around minchery farm, Kassam has made a considerable amount of money. I don't begrudge him this, it's his risk and his hard work after all, the problem was he was never willing to put the same level of hard work and attention into the club itself (probably, I suspect, because he knew it would never make him any more money).

[Mally]

I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about investment then. I have never expected or known an owner of Oxford United to give money to the club that they don't expect to get back with interest or some sort of profit. Isn't that how our capitalist free market society functions?

Investment to me is putting money into someting in the hope of getting a return but also where there is a risk that you might make a loss.

I'm sure Kassam will make a profit in the end out of the whole Minchery Farm/Manor ground development but the important thing is (or at least was) that he was the only person both able and prepared to INVEST many millions of pounds to build the stadium and pay off debts and ransoms. Of course he did this in the expectation (but not guarantee) of making a profit.

As for whether there was a risk just look at Herd and Cox - they tried to do exactly the same as Kassam but failed and lost.

[Isaac]

I don't think investing in the stadium is necessarily the same as investing in the club, seeing as the club doesn't own the stadium (or even benefit from much of it's income). After all, without the club he'd never have got to develop the Ozone.

Of the 2million he's invested then, I suspect a large part of that was from the CVA, which was basically debt previously secured on the Manor (from which he made a 6million profit). Legally, there was no link once the club sold the Manor to Kassam, but morally, I'm not going to thank him for investing £2m of the profit from the Manor into the club and then charging interest on it, especially as he invested it so badly. And I know that if the club had sold the Manor for £12m it would all have gone to the creditors, so this is something of a moot point.

I've acknowledged that Kassam did much to save the club years back. I just think that he's lived off the credit for this for far too long. 7 years ago now and we're in the conference - he lent money to the club and used it in such a way that there was very little hope of success. It's frankly disgraceful to run the club that way, I'm tired of tugging my forelock to the great man.

And in some ways, Cox and Herd were far worse than Kassam, there's no rose-tinted glasses here.

[Mally]

I mentioned the stadium investment because Guest asked about it and also its part of the equation and the reason that we were about to go under in 1999.

The £2 million loans to the club were nothing to do with the CVA and were put into the club because it spent that much more than it earned.

I don't think you will ever agree despite the evidence but I stick by my stance that it is totally unfair to criticise Kassam for his overall level of investment or investment on the squad.

[Isaac]

Ok, assuming we accept that Kassam has invested through loans and we ignore lack of investment as a criticism, I'm going to criticise him for what he invested in. Just giving manager a set budget and only ever spending cash on new players or paying off old players/managers is no way to run a football club.

His intentions may have been good but he didn't have a clue, despite repeated calls from all and sundry to sort out (or at least look into) scouting, overnight stays, training facilities and the rest, he just ignored it all and showed no signs of ever learning, or particularly caring that he kept getting it wrong. Actually, I thought he got worse as he went on, or perhaps his ability to annoy numerous members of staff meant the club declined naturally under his leadership. This makes him an incompetent chairman, in my opinion and the subsequent use of the club as a bargaining tool rather makes me question his intentions in the first place. Although doubtless I'm just naive to the workings of the business world Firoz exists in.

[GodalmingYellow]

This debate is going back to the same points and is largely circular.

It seems to me there are 5 main elements to the debate. Firstly the player transfers, then player wages and the 2 combined form player budget. The third area is stadium investment. The fourth is the existing elements of the club, and the fifth is expanding the facilities of the club.

Player transfers:
Clearly more has come in than has gone out. Not enough risk taken in buying now for future gains.

Player wages:
Restricted by the wage cap, but the wage cap itself was falsely restricted by Kassam's allocation of revenue streams to his own benefit. Completely in reverse of what he originally said he would do. Indeed the revenues from the Ozone and hotel were originally supposed to be used to support the club, but they never were.

Stadium development:
Yes it was developed, and Kassam must be applauded for that. It took organisation and financial wealth to underwrite the loans during development. Though much of the cost was funded by the profit on the sale of the Manor and the balance was funded by secured loans. None of the investment came from Kassam himself. And he did rather well out of the development of the rest of the land, and now he wants an exorbitant amoutn for the stadium.

Club internals:
Again a process of heavily restricting costs rather than seeking to improve and maintain the existing facilities so that players and staff have an improved working life which itself leads to improved performance, and fans have an improved matchday experience so that they come back. The dwindling performances and dwindling crowds are the result. Kassam's way is somewhat Victorian in this respect.

Expanding facilities:
Kassam liked to say what he would do, but to my knowledge did very little on this score.

I can't really see that Kassam has invested in the club, apart from covering short term losses with a Directors loan until he could sell the club. There was never any element of risk taking to improve the club, once the stadium development had taken place that is, and being the business man he is, I've no doubt that he knew he was going to make a lot of money from the other developments.

He could have changed the revenue streams, but he chose not to. He could have invested in better players but he chose not to. He could have appointed managers with a proven track record, rather than those offering to work for next to nothing, but he chose not to. He could have maintained the stadium properly and installed decent catering, he could have done many things but he chose not to.

[Myles Francis]

Player transfers:
Clearly more has come in than has gone out. Not enough risk taken in buying now for future gains.

At first, I wasn't convinced by this and thought income from tranfers was about the same as what had been spent. Whilst in Kassam's early days that was the case, the past 4 seasons have been damning. Using the figures from Soccerbase.com we have spent £15k (on Odubade) and received £530k (for Blackstock, Whitehead, Hackett, and Davies) and I don't think those figures include any extra payments we've received for appearances/promotions/etc. The total since the 99-00 season is £640k spent compared to £1.17m received.

Player wages:
Restricted by the wage cap, but the wage cap itself was falsely restricted by Kassam's allocation of revenue streams to his own benefit. Completely in reverse of what he originally said he would do. Indeed the revenues from the Ozone and hotel were originally supposed to be used to support the club, but they never were.

A fair point, but the split in revenues was done before the wage cap came in. Pity nothing was done to address things once it was in place though.

Stadium development:
Yes it was developed, and Kassam must be applauded for that. It took organisation and financial wealth to underwrite the loans during development. Though much of the cost was funded by the profit on the sale of the Manor and the balance was funded by secured loans. None of the investment came from Kassam himself. And he did rather well out of the development of the rest of the land, and now he wants an exorbitant amoutn for the stadium.

Not sure about how much funding came from the sale of the Manor as the accounts show bank loans of £6.75m and grant income (from the Football Foundation?) of £2.5m. The received wisdom is that the stadium cost in the region of £10-12m to complete, which doesn't account for the £6m &quotprofit&quot on the Manor.

He could have changed the revenue streams, but he chose not to. He could have invested in better players but he chose not to. He could have appointed managers with a proven track record, rather than those offering to work for next to nothing, but he chose not to. He could have maintained the stadium properly and installed decent catering, he could have done many things but he chose not to.

Can't argue with much of that. What I would say is that I honestly believe that Kassam did want the club to succeed but was incapable of listening to sound advice on how to do that. For someone who is obviously a risk-taker in business (after all, if getting involved in OUFC in the first place wasn't a massive punt, what is) it's a great pity that approach didn't manifest itself in the running of the club.

[Mally]

His intentions may have been good but he didn't have a clue, despite repeated calls from all and sundry to sort out (or at least look into) scouting, overnight stays, training facilities and the rest, he just ignored it all and showed no signs of ever learning, or particularly caring that he kept getting it wrong. Actually, I thought he got worse as he went on, or perhaps his ability to annoy numerous members of staff meant the club declined naturally under his leadership. This makes him an incompetent chairman, in my opinion and the subsequent use of the club as a bargaining tool rather makes me question his intentions in the first place. Although doubtless I'm just naive to the workings of the business world Firoz exists in.

Can't disagree with any of that. Lets hope Merry &amp Co can do a better job over the next few years but I'd be surprised to see any investment from him.

[Kernow Yellow]

I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about investment then. I have never expected or known an owner of Oxford United to give money to the club that they don't expect to get back with interest or some sort of profit. Isn't that how our capitalist free market society functions?

Well, people might have expected Kassam to put some of the money that he made indirectly out of the club back into it - ie from hotels and leisure businesses built on the back of the stadium planning permission. Didn't he vaguely imply that this would happen when he took over?

Presumably this is how clubs like Wigan and, closer to home, Reading have progressed in recent years.