The question

[Myles Francis]

I do feel that folks are missing the point.

Whilst the club has lease on the ground, at a rental it can afford, then its tenancy is reasonably secure.

I tend to agree with that Dave. Whilst ownership of the ground may be nice, I feel that currently it would be more expensive to the club than the current arrangement.

Provided that the issue of revenue streams is adequately sorted out (which, to be honest, I can't actually see happening) we could have the best of both worlds.

[GodalmingYellow]

I do feel that folks are missing the point.

Whilst the club has lease on the ground, at a rental it can afford, then its tenancy is reasonably secure.

I tend to agree with that Dave. Whilst ownership of the ground may be nice, I feel that currently it would be more expensive to the club than the current arrangement.

Provided that the issue of revenue streams is adequately sorted out (which, to be honest, I can't actually see happening) we could have the best of both worlds.

I don't think DLT was saying that, and he would be incorrect if he was. DLT will no doubt clarify what he meant though.

Sure it's a relatively low cost and reasonably secure option compared to market value rental, but not compared to removal of Kassam from ownership (and I've chosen my words carefully there!).

[boris]

There's another point that seems to be being missed here, though. That is, while the club is a tenant rather than an owner/occupier there are a lot of commercial opportunities that it is missing out on (sponsorship, events, matchday experience, commercial units, etc etc). So, while it may be true that in term of expenditure it would be cheaper to rent than to pay a mortgage, those extra costs would be covered, plus additional income generated, if the club had the say on stadium usage.

[GodalmingYellow]

I do feel that folks are missing the point.

Whilst the club has lease on the ground, at a rental it can afford, then its tenancy is reasonably secure.

As I have said, and wish I could have bowled a goofly to Kelvin. The fact that the exact ownership of the club is a mystery and something theboard are not prepared to elaborate on is a worry to me.

Can't be bothered to search out the request but I think I am on record asking that OXVOX asks about this issue at every opportunity and it appears that the committee have failed to so.

Perhaps OxVox committee have asked the question...

[DLT]

What I am saying is this.

Whilst I can understand the desire to own the stadium for all the reasons listed previously (such as advertising, matchday experience etc) as well as the relief of not having to haggle with the Firoka empire at every turn, I feel the current position sustainable for the medium term.

So while it is an important issue I don't think it is a crucial matter of urgency.

But for me, clarifying who actually owns the football club is important and should not be ignored.

For Neil's benefit he should know that FOUL paid money to monitor, literally daily Firoka transactions involving the club. We also dug deep trying to find the 'backers' behind the Kassam empire. All we found was evidence to suggest it was just him.

Koenig tried hard as well and failed miserably.

[neilw]

Exactly, Dave. When you discovered that the Kassam empire was in fact purely Kassam, then that was the time to worry. For me, Merry backed by Lucifer is a preferable choice.

[GodalmingYellow]

What I am saying is this.

Whilst I can understand the desire to own the stadium for all the reasons listed previously (such as advertising, matchday experience etc) as well as the relief of not having to haggle with the Firoka empire at every turn, I feel the current position sustainable for the medium term.

So while it is an important issue I don't think it is a crucial matter of urgency.

But for me, clarifying who actually owns the football club is important and should not be ignored.

For Neil's benefit he should know that FOUL paid money to monitor, literally daily Firoka transactions involving the club. We also dug deep trying to find the 'backers' behind the Kassam empire. All we found was evidence to suggest it was just him.

Koenig tried hard as well and failed miserably.

I agree you are right in the short term (this season) that stadium ownership is not vital and the tenant position is sustainable. Beyond that it becomes more difficult to justify the current position.

I think we all know that Lenaghan is the financial bigwig, so I'm not bothered about that. I am bothered why they won't say though, which may or may not amount to the same issue DLT is concerned by.

[Resurrection Ox]

What I am saying is this.

Whilst I can understand the desire to own the stadium for all the reasons listed previously (such as advertising, matchday experience etc) as well as the relief of not having to haggle with the Firoka empire at every turn, I feel the current position sustainable for the medium term.

So while it is an important issue I don't think it is a crucial matter of urgency.

But for me, clarifying who actually owns the football club is important and should not be ignored.

For Neil's benefit he should know that FOUL paid money to monitor, literally daily Firoka transactions involving the club. We also dug deep trying to find the 'backers' behind the Kassam empire. All we found was evidence to suggest it was just him.

Koenig tried hard as well and failed miserably.

I agree you are right in the short term (this season) that stadium ownership is not vital and the tenant position is sustainable. Beyond that it becomes more difficult to justify the current position.

I think we all know that Lenaghan is the financial bigwig, so I'm not bothered about that. I am bothered why they won't say though, which may or may not amount to the same issue DLT is concerned by.

Not a massive immediate priority - getting the team out of the Conference is of course - but the commercial opportunities from club/stadium combined ownership are very very considerable.

In addition I am totally teed off at the thought of my beer money/food money at games etc going to that man after what he did to WRECK our football club.

I have no idea why the club owners are so cloistered about WPL's ownership. What is the problem?

[neilw]

&quotI have no idea why the club owners are so cloistered about WPL's ownership. What is the problem?&quot ....... Consider this: &quotHi Mr Kassam, we are WPL, a consortium backed by the extremely wealthy Mr Lenaghan. How much money would you like for your football stadium, Sir&quot. Not great for negotiating and not the best for OUFC, I'd suggest.

[Isaac]

&quotI have no idea why the club owners are so cloistered about WPL's ownership. What is the problem?&quot ....... Consider this: &quotHi Mr Kassam, we are WPL, a consortium backed by the extremely wealthy Mr Lenaghan. How much money would you like for your football stadium, Sir&quot. Not great for negotiating and not the best for OUFC, I'd suggest.

It's quite easy to find out who the directors of any company are via companies house (for a fee), I don't imagine this is beyond Kassam.

It's a weird one though, there must be a reason for the lack of an announcement.

[boris]

We know who the directors of OUFC are (Nick Merry, Jim Smith, and Kelvin Thomas). It's the ownership of the club that is unclear. We know it's 50% Merry, and 50% Woodstock Family Trust. What we don't know is who runs teh family trust (which is not a limited company, and therefore will not be info available in the public domain, unless the trust releases that info). Now the reason why this info is confi may well be to do with the stadium negotiations (I guess we'll find out once the stad is in club hands), but it may not, in which case should we be worried?

[Resurrection Ox]

&quotI have no idea why the club owners are so cloistered about WPL's ownership. What is the problem?&quot ....... Consider this: &quotHi Mr Kassam, we are WPL, a consortium backed by the extremely wealthy Mr Lenaghan. How much money would you like for your football stadium, Sir&quot. Not great for negotiating and not the best for OUFC, I'd suggest.

Kassam et al no doubt knows how to use the Companies House website as well as certain OUFC supporters.

So your point is ?

[Resurrection Ox]

We know who the directors of OUFC are (Nick Merry, Jim Smith, and Kelvin Thomas). It's the ownership of the club that is unclear. We know it's 50% Merry, and 50% Woodstock Family Trust. What we don't know is who runs teh family trust (which is not a limited company, and therefore will not be info available in the public domain, unless the trust releases that info). Now the reason why this info is confi may well be to do with the stadium negotiations (I guess we'll find out once the stad is in club hands), but it may not, in which case should we be worried?

What about Lenagan's debenture then Boris?

[boris]

My understanding, which I admit is partial, is that having a debenture on a family trust does not mean that he is the sole legal owner of that trust. He will almost certainly be a trustee, but there could be several, and as a trustee it doesn't mean that he is a beneficiary.

[GodalmingYellow]

&quotI have no idea why the club owners are so cloistered about WPL's ownership. What is the problem?&quot ....... Consider this: &quotHi Mr Kassam, we are WPL, a consortium backed by the extremely wealthy Mr Lenaghan. How much money would you like for your football stadium, Sir&quot. Not great for negotiating and not the best for OUFC, I'd suggest.

Without meaning to sound patronising, anyone who can raise roughly £20m to buy the stadium is going to be very very wealthy. Having a name attached to that is not going to drive the price up at this level of negotiation.