Conference Level

Anything yellow and blue
ty cobb
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 6:55 pm

Post by ty cobb »

Isn't it fortunate that we've got a club secretary who knows the rules inside out.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotboris&quot wrote:My understanding is that we get a £300,000 parachute payment for dropping out the league (reduced next season to £20,000 if we don't go back up). In addition we have that £50,000 that was won in the Boycott Coca Cola competition.

It's unclear (at least to me) from those rules what benefits accrue from increasing the club's turnover, so how much it benefits the club to take possession of the stadium in order to increase and maximise alternative revenue streams (although I'm in no doubt that it is in the club's interests to get the stadium for other reasons). Once we're over the £1,000,001 figure then the basic squad budget doesn't increase.
Not quite right Boris. Increases in turnover, result in an increase in wage cap of 25% of that increase in turnover. So the formula for everyone with turnover of more than £1m is £350,000 || 25% of turnover. Therefore an increase of £100,000 turnover results in an increase of £25,000 in the wage cap.

My understanding is that the parachute payment is much less than that Boris (£100,000). Where does your info come from?

Both the parachute payment and the £50k payment will only be one offs of course, and only count towards turnover, so (if my numbers are right) they will result in only £37,500 additional wage cap, which is maybe one more player.
Mooro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3010
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Hellenic/Spartan border

Re:

Post by Mooro »

[quote=&quotGodalmingYellow&quot
My first reaction to these rules is, how come we've only released 8 players?[/quote]

Mainly because the rest are under contract I think. The only OOC players who might get new deals are Tardif, Turley and Quinn (tho I'd be happy if only the first did). My guess is that it was the imminent reduction in wage bill that did for Roget, tho looking at the list of other releasees, I think he is the only one who would have survived had we stayed up...

The other thing is that I sense that at least one or two of those under contract may disappear before August, either paid off or on free transfers.
Mally
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2564
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:32 am
Location: Thame

Post by Mally »

So if I understand this correctly we have £350,000 plus 25% of approx £2.2million (estimated average of last 2 seasons). Which gives us approximately £900,000 to spend.

In 2005 the club spent £1.75 on wages and salaries. Once you account for admin and marketing staff the playing budget was about £1.5 million. So its a fairly big drop even if last season was lower than 04/05. Hopefully there were clauses in recent contracts that reduced the salary if we got relegated.

Buying the stadium and any resultant turnover uplift sounds like it is irrelevant this year as the cap is calculated from previous seasons' turnover.

Talking of contracts I have an email from the then Chief Executive of OCC that states that:
The Heads of Terms (of the stadium land deal) does require the Stadium Company to apply its
profits and Kassam's dividend income as a share holder of the Stadium Company first to the running of the club and secondly to provide financial support to the Club for 25 years.
I wonder how they squared that one when the club was sold off without the stadium. I can't believe that Kassam is going to support a business he doesn't own from the profits of one that he does. Somebody with connections in the City Council should perhaps do some digging into the curent status.
SuperOx

OCC

Post by SuperOx »

Who signed the Heads of Terms on behalf of the city?

Is Heads of Terms a legally binding document I wonder.

PS: when are the District Auditors findings re the &quotland Deal&quot going to be made public?

I predict a whitewash.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotMally&quot wrote:So if I understand this correctly we have £350,000 plus 25% of approx £2.2million (estimated average of last 2 seasons). Which gives us approximately £900,000 to spend.

In 2005 the club spent £1.75 on wages and salaries. Once you account for admin and marketing staff the playing budget was about £1.5 million. So its a fairly big drop even if last season was lower than 04/05. Hopefully there were clauses in recent contracts that reduced the salary if we got relegated.

Buying the stadium and any resultant turnover uplift sounds like it is irrelevant this year as the cap is calculated from previous seasons' turnover.

Talking of contracts I have an email from the then Chief Executive of OCC that states that:
The Heads of Terms (of the stadium land deal) does require the Stadium Company to apply its
profits and Kassam's dividend income as a share holder of the Stadium Company first to the running of the club and secondly to provide financial support to the Club for 25 years.
I wonder how they squared that one when the club was sold off without the stadium. I can't believe that Kassam is going to support a business he doesn't own from the profits of one that he does. Somebody with connections in the City Council should perhaps do some digging into the curent status.
As SuperOx says Heads of Terms mean diddly squat in legal terms, they are just statements of intent. However, it is common for similar clauses to the Heads to make it into final contracts, so it might be worth a look to make sure.

On the turnover front, there are supposedly special arrangements for those relegated from the league, so one would hope that additional known turnover would be agreed for the playing budget, subject to subsequent audits.

Mally makes the same point I was trying to though, that there is potentially a huge drop in the playing budget.
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: OCC

Post by Snake »

&quotSuperOx &quot wrote:Who signed the Heads of Terms on behalf of the city?

Is Heads of Terms a legally binding document I wonder.

PS: when are the District Auditors findings re the &quotland Deal&quot going to be made public?

I predict a whitewash.
“PS: when are the District Auditors findings re the &quotland Deal&quot going to be made public?
Last edited by Snake on Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matt D
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Stayed at the Manor.

Post by Matt D »

with only one automatic promotion spot available, i don't like all this talk of putting in a shed load of money to buy our way out first time round - i just think it's far too risky.

the first headline i see on my return is that mcsporran has turned us down as he doesn't want to drop down to non-league. i'm not surprised, and suspect we'll see this kind of case too.

have we not learnt over the last few seasons that having the money is one thing, spending it wisely is another? good players are going to need more than a big brown envelope of cash to come and join us now.

if we had stayed in the league, i would have felt very optimistic about promotion next season. but with no league status to attract players, a tighter financial belt, and two promotion spots, i think this is going to be at least as hard as the pessimists think.

i want jim to put a team together on a sensible budget, and see how we go. then if we're looking good come christmas, hopefully we have the chairman now who might back us.
Frank
Puberty
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:17 pm
Location: Headington - but would prefer Cancun

Post by Frank »

Personally, I would be disappointed if the plan for next year was anything but &quotGet us out of the conference&quot.

If we dont invest heavily now, we certainly wont be in a good position come January.

Kassam had lots of chances over the years where IF he had invested 50-100K we would have either not got relegated or got promotion.

No player will come to us if we say &quotwe are trying to get out next year - but it may take between 2 and X&quot.

How ever hard it is to attract players to us this year, it will be twice as hard in the 2nd year in the conference. In theory, this year we have a good chance, some ex league players, decent budget etc. The 2nd year none of that will count.

I am glad Smith is at the club (not as manager though) as he SHOULD be able to attract players - well, that what everyone told us! Doesn't look great so far but I am happy to eat my words come Aug.

Happy days
Matt D
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Stayed at the Manor.

Re: OCC

Post by Matt D »

&quotSuperOx &quot wrote: PS: when are the District Auditors findings re the &quotland Deal&quot going to be made public?

I predict a whitewash.
“land deal was fair according to auditor
Matt D
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Stayed at the Manor.

Post by Matt D »

sorry, i should've added the connection between points 1 and 2:

&quotA lack of evidence and the passing of time meant that mr. burns could not conclusively prove [whether the council got the proper value for the land] and has given the Town Hall the benefit of the doubt.&quot
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Post by Snake »

One other thing you forgot to mention, Matt, is the fact that this is just the Oxford Mail’s version of District Auditor Andy Burns’ story. It originated from a verbal update to City officers and elected councillors about a week ago and there is still no document to read as yet.

It also does not say what the City Council’s valuation was, and what the land was actually worth, though Newsquest already know all the figures as a key report was leaked to them a few weeks ago.

Once we have an internet link to the final report on the matter then I’ll be more likely to comment in depth, but as a taster I think the Audit Commission should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why it took six years to finally come to a decision about how the Minchery Farm deal was done.

And for SuperOx in particular. Just what's your problem with this issue?
Matt D
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Stayed at the Manor.

Post by Matt D »

i note the oxford times doesn't report where or how the report is given, but it was reported as an 'executive summary' style report, ahead of the full report, so i took the findings as representative of his overall conclusions.
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Post by Snake »

Thanks for that, Matt.

The Audit Commission have so far submitted only a draft report and I’m not sure if Newsquest have seen/been leaked it or not yet, to be honest.
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Post by Snake »

Just to finish this thread off here is the last word on the matter from those nice people in the Audit Commission...

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/meetingd ... em%206.pdf
Post Reply