Page 2 of 3

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:02 pm
by OtmoorYellow
Myles Francis wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:31 pm
OtmoorYellow wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:58 pm
Unfortunately, it does not recognise the practical realities of the cost and infrastructure required to own and run a stadium.
And this is why I think the KasStad is a dead duck in terms or providing a sustainable future for OUFC. If someone somehow managed to take control of the stadium, it simply doesn't have the year-round revenue raising ability that is needed. The vision presented by FK at the start would have worked - using the revenues generated by the leisure complex to subsidise the football club.

It's also why, if somebody had the vision to take the idea by the scruff of the neck and run with it, the Water Eaton proposal could have worked. That would have been a full retail and leisure complex of which the stadium would have been a small part, with 365-day revenues. Luton have taken a similar approach by buying a large plot of land adjacent to J10 of the M1 on which they will bid a large retail development, and that will support the building of the new stadium at Power Court.
I agree with you Myles, but the point I was making is that any independent trust of similar body, would never get the capital funding required to build the stadium in the first place.

That level of funding requires guarantees both in terms of ongoing revenue to make repayments, and underwritten cross guaranteed security for the debt over and above the stadium complex itself.

No independent trust would be able to achieve that without a big financial backer prepared to risk a lot of money.

Rock. Hard place.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:40 am
by ty cobb
Quite frankly I'm astonished that Kassam enjoys this level of support. His regime was a disaster on and off the pitch and continues to haunt us to this day. I was at the meeting when he said the leisure complex would support the club. Instead, none of the income the ground or surrounding areas (which in reality got planning permission because he was associated with OUFC) goes to the club so the owners that have followed have found it impossible to make a success of it.

I have no idea what Tigers motives are but he is funding a loss making club with nothing to get out of it. He paid for overnight stays for the squad after Tue night (Kassam allegedly wouldn't pay for food on the coach) and our squad is large. The fact it is unbalanced and injured most the time is not his fault. He isn't to blame for the lack of full backs or decent strikers we have on our books. He has been with us for less than a season and seemingly has found a lot of problems and also had the hangover from the stadium situation to deal with which seems to be now biting.

Is he ideal and the perfect chairman? No. Does he may all the bills on time? No. However, all the bills have been paid and I struggle to see what he is going to get out of this. Kassam got £6m for flipping the Manor and got 2 hotels, a leisure complex a listed pub and a conference centre out of it. He isn't Donald, but he stumped up the cash to buy the club - Donald didn't.

Despite this he continues to make it impossible for the club to thrive - if he had any decency he would gift the stadium to a trust (it can have his name on it for evermore and for good reason unlike now) and give us a shot of making it. Yet everyone who has voted in this poll would rather he took over as chairman - WTAF?!?

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:33 pm
by slappy
Even if club and stadium were reunited under common ownership, the stadium only makes around £500K per year, and adding back the rent the club wouldn't be paying still leaves under £1million to subsidise the football side of matters.

The danger is that Tiger's history is of asset stripping a ground at Reading, and that somehow he finds a way to do the same again with OUFC. In particular he somehow finds a new site and then keeps excess land or gets some sort of middle-man fee for leaving the Kassam stadium if that is now developable for housing. I heard a very vague rumour of Hinksey - would that be Hinksey Heights golf or Hinksey rugby?

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:57 pm
by Werthers Original
Hinksey? Jolly good. We could have an upmarket snack at the Fishes beforehand

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:29 pm
by Roo
OtmoorYellow wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:47 am
A: Staying at the Kassam Stadium, with Kassam as owner of both club and stadium, given Kassam’s history with the club

Or

B: Moving to a new stadium, with Tiger as owner of both club and stadium, given Tiger’s history with Reading

I’ve enabled the option to change your mind after voting
I sincerely hope that this isn't where we actually find ourselves!

What a choice! It's like being asked:

'Would you like a baseball bat round the back of your head..... OR......... a swift kick in the Gentleman's Jewels?!'


I'd hope for a more palatable, third option personally!

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:02 pm
by Kernow Yellow
I agree with much of what Ty says (though he’s too kind to Tiger, who has been shown to be an incompetent idiot from his first press conference).

But the shortness of memory being shown to the Kassam era is astonishing. It was pretty unremittingly awful (bar a couple of months under Diaz). And Kassam blatantly lied to Us outright, both about associated stadium complex revenues benefitting the club (which could have completely transformed our fortunes for ever, but never happened), then about how he would never sell the club without the ground (which he did within weeks of making the statement).

Tiger has at least kept a decent level of funding available for the team, which is more than Kassam ever did, even if the off field stuff is clearly not right. Remember, in the first season of Kassam’s tenure we were relegated by now.

Sure, I would rather Tiger wasn’t our owner, but I sure as hell don’t wish it was Kassam again instead.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:25 am
by slappy
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/oxfo ... -robinson/

Robinson on Tiger “It’s amazing, we’re talking about new grounds, building stadiums, new land opportunities and changing the mentality. "

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:51 pm
by Myles Francis
slappy wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:25 am
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/oxfo ... -robinson/

Robinson on Tiger “It’s amazing, we’re talking about new grounds, building stadiums, new land opportunities and changing the mentality. "
My favourite line is when he says of Tiger: "When he comes in he’s infectious". Yeah, and so is syphilis....

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:05 pm
by slappy
It does also make it a lot more certain that Tiger's plans involve some sort of stadium and land deal.

As someone else said, the club does seem to be doing well supporting the U-23s and U-18s teams, we are signing players like Sykes with potential to sell on, which you wouldn't necessarily bother with if trying to cut all unnecessary costs.

So the options with OUFC could be:-
Make it an attractive club to buy. Basically what Eales achieved by getting from L2 to L1 with cup runs and good football, and it's then a relatively small jump to get to the Championship.
Make it a sustainable club by combining ancillary stadium revenues into subsidising the team. Implement the player trading model. This really needs whoever is funding any new stadium to want it to be for the benefit of the club though.
Make it an unsustainable club by asset stripping ancillary stadium revenues.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:25 pm
by tomoufc
slappy wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:05 pm
It does also make it a lot more certain that Tiger's plans involve some sort of stadium and land deal.

As someone else said, the club does seem to be doing well supporting the U-23s and U-18s teams, we are signing players like Sykes with potential to sell on, which you wouldn't necessarily bother with if trying to cut all unnecessary costs.

So the options with OUFC could be:-
Make it an attractive club to buy. Basically what Eales achieved by getting from L2 to L1 with cup runs and good football, and it's then a relatively small jump to get to the Championship.
Make it a sustainable club by combining ancillary stadium revenues into subsidising the team. Implement the player trading model. This really needs whoever is funding any new stadium to want it to be for the benefit of the club though.
Make it an unsustainable club by asset stripping ancillary stadium revenues.
I'm always confused when people put this forward as a possibility. I don't think there's a single professional club below the Premiership that doesn't lose money hand over fist every year. That's because clubs compete for players, so there's always an incentive to borrow a bit, or inject someone's personal cash, to get a better team. All recent purchases of OUFC have involved a nominal fee in exchange for taking on an ever increasing mountain of debt. The current winding-up petition relates to a previous owner's debts to the stadium company, which themselves resulted from the compounding of inherited debt. Using good football to create a profitable club that might realise significant sales receipts is simply non-starter, especially without the ownership of valuable physical assets. Eventually, other things being equal, all clubs face the same choice: either get lucky and be bought by a multimillionaire prepared to waste vast amounts of money, or start again as a fan-owned lower league team without pretentions to the higher leagues.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:11 pm
by OtmoorYellow
tomoufc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:25 pm
The current winding-up petition relates to a previous owner's debts to the stadium company, which themselves resulted from the compounding of inherited debt.
No it doesn't. Without intending to sound rude, that is the type of lack of understanding of corporate ownership normally reserved for Yellows Forum.

The debt is that of the club, not of the shareholders. That's why companies are called limited. It means limited liability of the shareholders to the amount they have invested in the shares.

The fact that someone bought a majority shareholding from the previous majority shareholder has nothing to do with it. If there were debts outstanding, then the value paid for the shares should have been adjusted down accordingly, given that the club was sold on a "with all debts" basis.

If Tiger failed to do his due diligence properly and didn't identify the debts due by the club, then that is Tiger's fault, and it does not alter who is responsible for the debts. If Tiger did do his due diligence properly, then it is still Tiger's fault for not reserving sufficient funds within the club to pay the debts.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:41 pm
by tomoufc
OtmoorYellow wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:11 pm
tomoufc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:25 pm
The current winding-up petition relates to a previous owner's debts to the stadium company, which themselves resulted from the compounding of inherited debt.
.

The debt is that of the club, not of the shareholders. That's why companies are called limited. It means limited liability of the shareholders to the amount they have invested in the shares.

The fact that someone bought a majority shareholding from the previous majority shareholder has nothing to do with it. If there were debts outstanding, then the value paid for the shares should have been adjusted down accordingly, given that the club was sold on a "with all debts" basis.

If Tiger failed to do his due diligence properly and didn't identify the debts due by the club, then that is Tiger's fault, and it does not alter who is responsible for the debts. If Tiger did do his due diligence properly, then it is still Tiger's fault for not reserving sufficient funds within the club to pay the debts.
Fair enough, although I'm not sure if you need to be an expert in accounting to have a view. In crises such as these, we should be supporting each other in understanding of the situation, rather than trashing others arguments. Just replace that sentence with "The current winding-up petition relates to the club's debts to the stadium company incurred under a previous owner, which themselves resulted from (or least were not helped by) the compounding of inherited debt." I don't really mind if you want to simply blame Tiger, I just think your'e missing the wider point that piling debt onto the club has been a process that has gone on for years, and that there was bound to eventually be a breaking point, save for some extraordinary bout of generosity from a member of the super-rich.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:33 pm
by OtmoorYellow
tomoufc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:41 pm
OtmoorYellow wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:11 pm
tomoufc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:25 pm
The current winding-up petition relates to a previous owner's debts to the stadium company, which themselves resulted from the compounding of inherited debt.
.

The debt is that of the club, not of the shareholders. That's why companies are called limited. It means limited liability of the shareholders to the amount they have invested in the shares.

The fact that someone bought a majority shareholding from the previous majority shareholder has nothing to do with it. If there were debts outstanding, then the value paid for the shares should have been adjusted down accordingly, given that the club was sold on a "with all debts" basis.

If Tiger failed to do his due diligence properly and didn't identify the debts due by the club, then that is Tiger's fault, and it does not alter who is responsible for the debts. If Tiger did do his due diligence properly, then it is still Tiger's fault for not reserving sufficient funds within the club to pay the debts.
Fair enough, although I'm not sure if you need to be an expert in accounting to have a view. In crises such as these, we should be supporting each other in understanding of the situation, rather than trashing others arguments. Just replace that sentence with "The current winding-up petition relates to the club's debts to the stadium company incurred under a previous owner, which themselves resulted from (or least were not helped by) the compounding of inherited debt." I don't really mind if you want to simply blame Tiger, I just think your'e missing the wider point that piling debt onto the club has been a process that has gone on for years, and that there was bound to eventually be a breaking point, save for some extraordinary bout of generosity from a member of the super-rich.
It wasn't meant to be a dig at you Tom. I've been reading YF a fair bit of late and the same point is inaccurately made over there.

On the wider point of piling on debt, I wholeheartedly agree with you and a read of my posting history under Godalmingyellow would confirm that. It would be less of a problem if there were an obvious plan in place that would result in debt replacement, but very few owners are prepared to effectively write off their investment. So their risk v reward ratio is kept to a minimum, whereas the risk to club continuity and even existence is disproportionately high. That's the very reason that allowing Sartori and Donald to take the reins could have been benefical, because Donald is a true supporter, and I doubt he would leave the club in the shit.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:46 pm
by tomoufc
OtmoorYellow wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:33 pm
tomoufc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:41 pm
OtmoorYellow wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:11 pm
.

The debt is that of the club, not of the shareholders. That's why companies are called limited. It means limited liability of the shareholders to the amount they have invested in the shares.

The fact that someone bought a majority shareholding from the previous majority shareholder has nothing to do with it. If there were debts outstanding, then the value paid for the shares should have been adjusted down accordingly, given that the club was sold on a "with all debts" basis.

If Tiger failed to do his due diligence properly and didn't identify the debts due by the club, then that is Tiger's fault, and it does not alter who is responsible for the debts. If Tiger did do his due diligence properly, then it is still Tiger's fault for not reserving sufficient funds within the club to pay the debts.
Fair enough, although I'm not sure if you need to be an expert in accounting to have a view. In crises such as these, we should be supporting each other in understanding of the situation, rather than trashing others arguments. Just replace that sentence with "The current winding-up petition relates to the club's debts to the stadium company incurred under a previous owner, which themselves resulted from (or least were not helped by) the compounding of inherited debt." I don't really mind if you want to simply blame Tiger, I just think your'e missing the wider point that piling debt onto the club has been a process that has gone on for years, and that there was bound to eventually be a breaking point, save for some extraordinary bout of generosity from a member of the super-rich.
It wasn't meant to be a dig at you Tom. I've been reading YF a fair bit of late and the same point is inaccurately made over there.

On the wider point of piling on debt, I wholeheartedly agree with you and a read of my posting history under Godalmingyellow would confirm that. It would be less of a problem if there were an obvious plan in place that would result in debt replacement, but very few owners are prepared to effectively write off their investment. So their risk v reward ratio is kept to a minimum, whereas the risk to club continuity and even existence is disproportionately high. That's the very reason that allowing Sartori and Donald to take the reins could have been benefical, because Donald is a true supporter, and I doubt he would leave the club in the shit.
Thanks. Yes, it's difficult to see where the club goes from here. I maintain that, even if it still remains not the preferred option (which is mainly almost blind hope), then it would be a good idea for a group of fans to look into how to set-up a fan-owned club. This would be very difficult indeed, not least because it would make the stadium problem even worse for us, probably, but if we're going that way anyway, it would be better to have done some preparatory work in the meantime.

Re: Which would you choose?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:06 am
by Jimski
Kernow Yellow wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:02 pm
I agree with much of what Ty says (though he’s too kind to Tiger, who has been shown to be an incompetent idiot from his first press conference).

But the shortness of memory being shown to the Kassam era is astonishing. It was pretty unremittingly awful (bar a couple of months under Diaz). And Kassam blatantly lied to Us outright, both about associated stadium complex revenues benefitting the club (which could have completely transformed our fortunes for ever, but never happened), then about how he would never sell the club without the ground (which he did within weeks of making the statement).

Tiger has at least kept a decent level of funding available for the team, which is more than Kassam ever did, even if the off field stuff is clearly not right. Remember, in the first season of Kassam’s tenure we were relegated by now.

Sure, I would rather Tiger wasn’t our owner, but I sure as hell don’t wish it was Kassam again instead.
This.