Wow

Anything yellow and blue
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re: Wow

Post by Kernow Yellow »

GodalmingYellow wrote:IL had stated that this year's budget would be the same as last year's, so you can't make assumptions on wages savings.
Really? When was that then? When the takeover happened IL stated quite clearly that there would only have been one more signing had it not gone ahead. So, given that we let several players go at the end of the season (including the highest wage earner) and only signed one player thereafter (Hylton), the budget would, quite clearly and demonstrably, have been significantly lower.

And frankly, I haven't seen much evidence yet of reckless spending on the playing side. With Kitson's retirement we're ridiculously threadbare (and have yet more wage savings to benefit from).
GodalmingYellow wrote:I think your assumption that the new coaches are not on significantly more than the previous ones is more to suit your argument than a representation of reality. As for more bums on seats, my understanding is that season ticket sales are notably down on last year, which if true not only negates your point, but adds to the unsustainable costs argument.
It's surely quite clear that a successful team has the capacity to put bums on seats - significantly more than were turning up last season. Current season ticket numbers are irrelevant to that argument. They're a reflection of IL's previous mismanagement of on-field affairs. It might take a few weeks or months for the benefits of this investment to materialise, or they may never do so, but it's a risk the new owners consider worth taking. And again, getting a couple of decent coaches in doesn't look wholly reckless from where I'm sitting. Last season we were crying out for that!
GodalmingYellow wrote:On the losses of Eales et al, these will be secured on club assets. So as soon as any land deal is done, the club immediately is at risk of the fallout of Eales leaving. If there is no land deal, and Eales leaves, any new owner would have to accept repayment of debts to Eales, which would be huge, as well as debts to Lenagan, which are already huge. No new owner will do that for a club the size of OUFC. So that results in no new owner, which results in club going to the wall, unless Eales and Lenagan, out of their personal generosity and affection, decide to write off millions. There is no club owner in history who has agreed to do that, except one or two with very close family links to their respective clubs, and to assume Eales and Lenagan would do so is a touch too close to fantasy land.
Darryl Eales and Ian Lenagan are business people with good reputations who either are already or want to be respected as sports club owners. That is not going to happen if they become the first people for decades to wind up a football league club - and because of debts they themselves accrued. If they want to get out in the future and no-one will cover the full extent of the debts to them, I see no reason at all why they wouldn't accept partial repayment as a way of cutting their losses. Better than winding the club up and getting nothing! Why on earth is this 'fantasy land'? It is clearly what Methven and co thought IL would do only a month ago, but it turns out he had a better offer on the table.

If a stadium deal is done, then of course debts could be secured against that, and that wouldn't be ideal. But I don't see how it's much worse than the situation we were in a month ago (millions in debt and not owning a ground).

This looks like progress to me, but I'm waiting for sensible questions to be properly answered at events like OxVox's Q&A tonight - and a fans' forum would be a good idea too.
ty cobb
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 6:55 pm

Re: Wow

Post by ty cobb »

Although GY is quite right to raise concerns and we should go into this with our eyes open, after being stuck at league 2 or below for 53% of my Oxford United supporting life I'm quite prepared for someone to spend some money and roll the dice as I really don't think it could get worse than it has been of late.

What is the worst that can happen? The club gets wound up. Well that would mean the fans would start a club as AFC Wimbledon have done and work their way through the leagues. We would then be left with a club owned by it's supporters playing in a stadium which it owns itself.

That to me is far better than the mess we find ourselves in now. Best/medium case we start playing good football, get promoted start filling our ground again and watch some players who do things you don't see at your local park, unlike currently where it's not uncommon in most games to see a clearence sliced out for a throw in.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow »

Kernow Yellow wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:IL had stated that this year's budget would be the same as last year's, so you can't make assumptions on wages savings.
Really? When was that then? When the takeover happened IL stated quite clearly that there would only have been one more signing had it not gone ahead. So, given that we let several players go at the end of the season (including the highest wage earner) and only signed one player thereafter (Hylton), the budget would, quite clearly and demonstrably, have been significantly lower.

And frankly, I haven't seen much evidence yet of reckless spending on the playing side. With Kitson's retirement we're ridiculously threadbare (and have yet more wage savings to benefit from).
GodalmingYellow wrote:I think your assumption that the new coaches are not on significantly more than the previous ones is more to suit your argument than a representation of reality. As for more bums on seats, my understanding is that season ticket sales are notably down on last year, which if true not only negates your point, but adds to the unsustainable costs argument.
It's surely quite clear that a successful team has the capacity to put bums on seats - significantly more than were turning up last season. Current season ticket numbers are irrelevant to that argument. They're a reflection of IL's previous mismanagement of on-field affairs. It might take a few weeks or months for the benefits of this investment to materialise, or they may never do so, but it's a risk the new owners consider worth taking. And again, getting a couple of decent coaches in doesn't look wholly reckless from where I'm sitting. Last season we were crying out for that!
GodalmingYellow wrote:On the losses of Eales et al, these will be secured on club assets. So as soon as any land deal is done, the club immediately is at risk of the fallout of Eales leaving. If there is no land deal, and Eales leaves, any new owner would have to accept repayment of debts to Eales, which would be huge, as well as debts to Lenagan, which are already huge. No new owner will do that for a club the size of OUFC. So that results in no new owner, which results in club going to the wall, unless Eales and Lenagan, out of their personal generosity and affection, decide to write off millions. There is no club owner in history who has agreed to do that, except one or two with very close family links to their respective clubs, and to assume Eales and Lenagan would do so is a touch too close to fantasy land.
Darryl Eales and Ian Lenagan are business people with good reputations who either are already or want to be respected as sports club owners. That is not going to happen if they become the first people for decades to wind up a football league club - and because of debts they themselves accrued. If they want to get out in the future and no-one will cover the full extent of the debts to them, I see no reason at all why they wouldn't accept partial repayment as a way of cutting their losses. Better than winding the club up and getting nothing! Why on earth is this 'fantasy land'? It is clearly what Methven and co thought IL would do only a month ago, but it turns out he had a better offer on the table.

If a stadium deal is done, then of course debts could be secured against that, and that wouldn't be ideal. But I don't see how it's much worse than the situation we were in a month ago (millions in debt and not owning a ground).

This looks like progress to me, but I'm waiting for sensible questions to be properly answered at events like OxVox's Q&A tonight - and a fans' forum would be a good idea too.
I'm not interested in having a debate where someone says black is white.

I've set out my points, I've seen nothing to suggest any of them are materially wrong, and the notes from OxVox meeting only serves to confirm the points I have raised.

You can believe what you want KW. As a practising accountant of nearly 30 years, I have seen many businesses small and large that improve and many that fail. OUFC is presently much nearer to the latter and that is not simply the voice of conservatism as Tim would have you believe.
neilw
Puberty
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:14 am

Re: Wow

Post by neilw »

GY, what's your proposed strategy towards being a sustainable business?
dr ceri
Brat
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:50 pm

Re: Wow

Post by dr ceri »

Does anyone know how long is left on OUFC's Kasstad license?

And what's the situation with our current training ground/facilities? How long are we there for and does anyone have an idea how much we pay per year?

I'm starting to wonder if Water Eaton could come on stream sooner as a development if we used the Kasstad for training purposes only (ie we didn't buy the Kasstad, and we didn't run down our license, or do a deal with Kassam for early release) Expensive for training I'm sure, but if it means a way for our current shareholders to get some/most of their investment back by accelerating the new development and not being penalised by FK, then it might be a way ahead.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow »

neilw wrote:GY, what's your proposed strategy towards being a sustainable business?
TBH that's a really tough question Neil.

Lenagan has taken the club to a very difficult position where continuing as we are equals big losses unless we are fortunate to get a promotion, breaking even could result in a broken club, and buying the stadium would result in the club drowning in debt. Between a rock, a hard place and a diamond wall.

I guess the answer is what outcome would be your worst case but acceptable scenario. For me it is survival of the club at whatever level. I would rather have OUFC alive and kicking in non-league, than bankrupt under a mountain of debt. I appreciate others less died in the wool will have less care.

Lets look at what we do know and run a basic analysis of the business side of the club:

We do know that the club can be run more or less sustainably and at break even, but that might mean years or even decades of stagnation in League 2 with occasional forays towards promotion and similarly occasional forays towards relegation, especially whilst at the KasStad.

The club cannot easily move from the KasStad without buying out the license, whilst the stadium is not owned or controlled by OUFC major shareholders. So we are stuck with high rent and therefore a lower proportion of ticket revenue available to buy a top level squad.

The club cannot afford to buy out the license which runs until 21 March 2026 (to answer Dr C's question) as it would be too expensive to do so. So moving stadia without first buying the KasStad is a non-starter. Buying the KasStad obviously means the club can release itself from the license without incurring extra costs.

We now know that there is no set price agreement between the present regime and Kassam for the purchase of the KasStad.

I would find it difficult to believe that Kassam would not be aware of the housing demands in the area and therefore also the land value at Minchery Farm. Not to mention the double tenant status at the ground. The value of the stadium is now significantly higher than say 5 years ago.

However, the difficulty for Kassam is that he is not able to sell the ground for housing because of the license and to a small extent the covenants. I suppose Kassam could build OUFC a new stadium at Water Eaton and then sell Minchery for housing, but I can't see him being bothered to do so. He now has increasing value land and probably profit in StadCo for the first time, so he can do nothing and still make money.

So that leaves Eales and Co to try a land deal, buying the KasStad, selling the land for housing and using the profit to build a new stadium at Water Eaton. Whether that is possible is down to loads of factors, not least of which is whether Kassam wants cash for KasStad in lieu of future rent and land value appreciation, and if he does, would that be at a price that would mean sufficient profit for Eales and Co to build Water Eaton and have a wedge left for themselves. Then there is the question of buying land from CDC, getting planning permission, kicking CPRE into the long grass and actually building at Water Eaton. It isn't an easy option either.

Having control of KasStad and staying there, in my view does very little for OUFC. It would be a huge pointless burden on the club, especially if Welsh decided to move when their license is up in 3 years time.

So your only potentially viable options appear to be get the whole land deal done, with the risks that come with such a major project, or accept a club with lower standing in the Football League until the license runs out in 12 years time, when other opportunities might present themselves and risk losing the opportunity of Water Eaton.

If there was a guarantee that the Water Eaton development could be done, I would back it tot he hilt. But have no doubt, it is a high risk strategy. with high risk can come benefits and it would provide huge opportunities for OUFC to benefit not just from owning its own stadium and so not paying rent, but the commercial revenue could be big at that site - much bigger than at KasStad, because the location is so much better.

So its high risk land deal or safety net stagnation. I'm far from against the former. I just have big concerns that the new board need to answer to convince me that going down that road is mainly their risk rather than that of the football club and why the club needs to spend so much money on new backroom staff and board members, which brings in few benefits at this level, but lots of losses and debts.
tomoufc
Dashing young thing
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:56 pm

Re: Wow

Post by tomoufc »

Apparently there'll be a fans' forum in a month's time. If I were able to go I'd be saying pretty much what you've said there GY.

The environmentalist in me hates the idea of knocking down one perfectly serviceable stadium and replacing it with another, however, and to be honest I think that's the view the various protectors of rural England will say too.
&quotI've been a slave to football. It follows you home, it follows you everywhere, and eats into your family life. But every working man misses out on some things because of his job. &quot
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow »

tomoufc wrote:Apparently there'll be a fans' forum in a month's time. If I were able to go I'd be saying pretty much what you've said there GY.

The environmentalist in me hates the idea of knocking down one perfectly serviceable stadium and replacing it with another, however, and to be honest I think that's the view the various protectors of rural England will say too.
The environmentalist in me says the same thing, but needs must when the devil is driving.

As an aside, CPRE have some good intentions, some of which I would support, but they basically block everything and ignore that the country is chronically desperate for new cheap housing and green energy.

In 30 years time, there will be wind turbines (which I happen to think can be quite elegant, and which do little harm along motorway corridors anyway) everywhere as the need for carbon lite energy escalates in a hyperbolic fashion. I don't think anyone in the country would wish to be at the mercy of Russian fuel supplies, which is pretty much the only non-nuclear serious alternative. And I for one am totally against nuclear proliferation either for energy or military purposes.
recordmeister
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1808
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
Location: London

Re: Wow

Post by recordmeister »

The environmentalist in me says "build a stadium near a railway station and a park & ride"

But then the environmentalist in me died long ago.
tomoufc
Dashing young thing
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:56 pm

Re: Wow

Post by tomoufc »

recordmeister wrote:The environmentalist in me says "build a stadium near a railway station and a park & ride"

But then the environmentalist in me died long ago.
Or a tram-train to Blakbird Leys via Grenoble Road using the Cowley branch (or a monorail!). Scroll to the bottom: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/news ... xfordshire

On the other hand new stadiums don't neessarily need to 'cost the earth' (even if it very useful to have 1.8billion Euros rolling in each year from a German insurane conglomorate): http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news ... 46286.html
&quotI've been a slave to football. It follows you home, it follows you everywhere, and eats into your family life. But every working man misses out on some things because of his job. &quot
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Wow

Post by Snake »

No idea of what is being planned, but I guess you get what you pay for in terms of how good a ground you want, but this is a nice link, and even Oxford United get a mention!

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/developments.htm
tomoufc
Dashing young thing
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:56 pm

Re: Wow

Post by tomoufc »

I assumed that a potential housing development at Grenoble Road would be a formality, as opposed to the contentious 'plans' at Water Eaton. Not so, apparently: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/opinio ... ay/?ref=la
&quotI've been a slave to football. It follows you home, it follows you everywhere, and eats into your family life. But every working man misses out on some things because of his job. &quot
Post Reply