Stadium rent

[Snake]

Any more?

No idea.

Ask Ian Lenagan, if you can find him.

He doesn't get the criticism that the pig's head did, but it's surely his hand at the other end of the stick.

Another good point.

Assuming we do get a fans forum soon then I hope it will be Ian fronting it and not Kelvin.

[Snake]

I haven't been able to find too much about what comparable rents would be.

The things which KT could be doing is appealing to Firoka for a rent freeze/ discount / deferment until such time as the club is back in league 2. There is no reason for Firoka to agree, but if not and he busts the club he is then left with an empty stadium with no contribution to the costs from OUFC.

How can paying £278k a year in rent “bust the club

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

[quote=&quotSnake&quot]How can paying £278k a year in rent “bust the club

[slappy]

I haven't been able to find too much about what comparable rents would be.

The things which KT could be doing is appealing to Firoka for a rent freeze/ discount / deferment until such time as the club is back in league 2. There is no reason for Firoka to agree, but if not and he busts the club he is then left with an empty stadium with no contribution to the costs from OUFC.

How can paying £278k a year in rent “bust the club

[Ancient Colin]

And if you are a resident of Oxford City then this also includes you, as the Council now collects £720,000 a year in business rates from the Minchery Farm site with no more effort than trotting off to the bank to cash the cheque, so I’d call that a decent deal for the community.

Hang on, hang on - local councils don't retain business rates - that's a central government precept, which gets aggregated and returned to councils on a flat per capita basis (unless you happen to be the Corporation of London, of course). Local authorities do get to keep a small percentage of it to cover collection costs.

Always thought that was a great way to stifle initiatives and encourage councils to be anti-development and NIMBYist. That was argued for in the second Barker enquiry, but got written out of the final report, left to Lyons, who bottled it.

[ty cobb]

I don’t think anyone will defend what happened on the pitch under Kassam, it was poor and got poorer as time went on.

However, only one relegation should be put down to him. I find it laughable that people trot out phases like plummeting down the divisions. He took over on the 1 April, the transfer window was shut, and we had won 3 league games between Dec and April – I always feel people who blame Kassam for this relegation are pretty blinkered in their view of him.

He of course has to share some of the blame for our relegation from the Conference, but when he sold out we were pretty comfortably clear of the bottom two and we were looking like we were going to get out of it (last game was a win against play off chasing Bristol Rovers.

As for crowds shrinking if you take away the huge number of away fans from the Championship our home attendances weren’t much above 6000 in our last season there, which actually held up pretty well when we moved to the new stadium and continued under Atkins. Of course as the football got worse the fans dropped off as they are doing now – this isn’t due to Kassams attitude to the fans but just what happens on the pitch.

So yes things didn’t improve on the pitch but they weren’t exactly very good before or since were they?

However, throughout his time at Oxford the word administration wasn’t mentioned once, and at no point did he withdraw his financial support from the club.

Administration has been mentioned a few times recently and it would appear that WPL have decided not to spend anymore money on us given that we are no longer paying rent.

I’ve no doubt this will be classed as defending him to the hilt by some people, but it’s not, there are enough people to point out his shortcomings as has been done but lets not change history and hold him responsible for our fall from the Championship to the Conference as it’s just plain wrong.

He invested in Oxford United in order (as with all investments) to make some money for himself which he did. By doing so he secured the future of the club at a time when we looked doomed and enabled us to move to a very good stadium and then ensured the club didn’t run up unmanageable debts.

As WPL have proven it’s very easy to spend spend spend this doesn’t ensure success.

[Snake]

And if you are a resident of Oxford City then this also includes you, as the Council now collects £720,000 a year in business rates from the Minchery Farm site with no more effort than trotting off to the bank to cash the cheque, so I’d call that a decent deal for the community.

Hang on, hang on - local councils don't retain business rates - that's a central government precept, which gets aggregated and returned to councils on a flat per capita basis (unless you happen to be the Corporation of London, of course). Local authorities do get to keep a small percentage of it to cover collection costs.

Always thought that was a great way to stifle initiatives and encourage councils to be anti-development and NIMBYist. That was argued for in the second Barker enquiry, but got written out of the final report, left to Lyons, who bottled it.

Ah, silly me. I should know better. Anyway, the government gets those taxes and they probably need the cash more than the local authority right now!

I should also have mentioned the fact that a lot of new local jobs have been created both at the leisure site and at The Manor Hospital.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

I’ve no doubt this will be classed as defending him to the hilt by some people

Not by me, because it's not: it bothers to see both sides of the story and it doesn't engage in fantasies.

However - I don't think it's quite accurate. The exact timing of his takeover isn't really the issue. He was essentially in control of the club before this became true de jure. I do think he was worse for the club football-wise that what came before and after, and this was down to some pretty fundamental things about his approach to working with other people as well as his basic disinterest in football. It was extraordinary, after all: normally it's clubs with no support or money who get relegated from the League. How on Earth did we even come close?

He didn't &quotsecure the future of the club&quot. He certainly put the club on a healthier footing, but while there's separation of club and stadium then the future of the club is anything but secure and while much of that is down to WPL (for whom I have no time) it's also down to having somebody with a stranglehold on the club with a &quotfuck you&quot attitude. Such men are dangerous, and whule they may be good to have on your side when you need to get something done, you need to get away from them as soon as possible. And we didn't.

[ty cobb]

I’ve no doubt this will be classed as defending him to the hilt by some people

Not by me, because it's not: it bothers to see both sides of the story and it doesn't engage in fantasies.

However - I don't think it's quite accurate. The exact timing of his takeover isn't really the issue. He was essentially in control of the club before this became true de jure. I do think he was worse for the club football-wise that what came before and after, and this was down to some pretty fundamental things about his approach to working with other people as well as his basic disinterest in football. It was extraordinary, after all: normally it's clubs with no support or money who get relegated from the League. How on Earth did we even come close?

He didn't &quotsecure the future of the club&quot. He certainly put the club on a healthier footing, but while there's separation of club and stadium then the future of the club is anything but secure and while much of that is down to WPL (for whom I have no time) it's also down to having somebody with a stranglehold on the club with a &quotfuck you&quot attitude. Such men are dangerous, and whule they may be good to have on your side when you need to get something done, you need to get away from them as soon as possible. And we didn't.

In 1999 (and for the 10 years before that) we lurched from one crisis to another losing money along the way. When Kassam took over the debts were wiped off (not all by him) and we were on a stable footing going forward in a new stadium, I feel we were secure, if WPL could come up with the agreed price then the club could own the stadium again. By not owning the stadium it meant all the debts of the club couldn't be built up against that (as done previously) so when someone like WPL came in any money they spent they would not be able to use the stadium to get their money back.

If he really did have a 'fuck you' attitude to the club why would he have bothered turning up to watch us lose every week and why is he being so reasonable about missing the rent?

I think he wanted us to do well and it frustrated him greatly that he couldn't get it right on the pitch. Not many people think this though and I can understand why.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

By not owning the stadium it meant all the debts of the club couldn't be built up against that (as done previously) so when someone like WPL came in any money they spent they would not be able to use the stadium to get their money back.

I'm very unclear about what you're trying to say here. That it's good not to own the stadium because debts can't be built up because there's no stadium to borrow against? Sorry, I'm genuinely unsure as to what you're driving at.

If he really did have a 'fuck you' attitude to the club

I don't say he did. I think that's his attitude generally as to people who he thinks have crossed him or got in his way or don't do as he wants.

why is he being so reasonable about missing the rent?

Is he? He may be, but what's your reason for saying so?

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

I think he wanted us to do well and it frustrated him greatly that he couldn't get it right on the pitch. Not many people think this though and I can understand why.

I think there was a period when this was true (I also seem to remember a fairly long period when it wasn't). But the answer as to why he couldn't get it right may have lain within himself, and I doubt he was in a position to understand that, let alone to accept it.

[Snake]

I think he wanted us to do well and it frustrated him greatly that he couldn't get it right on the pitch. Not many people think this though and I can understand why.

I think there was a period when this was true (I also seem to remember a fairly long period when it wasn't). But the answer as to why he couldn't get it right may have lain within himself, and I doubt he was in a position to understand that, let alone to accept it.

I think that statement could apply equally to FK as it does to IL.

History appears to be repeating itself.

[ty cobb]

I think he wanted us to do well and it frustrated him greatly that he couldn't get it right on the pitch. Not many people think this though and I can understand why.

I think there was a period when this was true (I also seem to remember a fairly long period when it wasn't). But the answer as to why he couldn't get it right may have lain within himself, and I doubt he was in a position to understand that, let alone to accept it.

I think there was a period when this was true (I also seem to remember a fairly long period when it wasn't). But the answer as to why he couldn't get it right may have lain within himself, and I doubt he was in a position to understand that, let alone to accept it.[/quote]

Agree.

Do you feel the reluctance to 'ask' for help was due to what happened with JK, someone brought in to take care of the football side only to appoint a couple of old mates who played dreadful football causing us to be relegated?

[ty cobb]

I think he wanted us to do well and it frustrated him greatly that he couldn't get it right on the pitch. Not many people think this though and I can understand why.

I think there was a period when this was true (I also seem to remember a fairly long period when it wasn't). But the answer as to why he couldn't get it right may have lain within himself, and I doubt he was in a position to understand that, let alone to accept it.

I think that statement could apply equally to FK as it does to IL.

History appears to be repeating itself.

But FK didn't effectivly withdraw all funding from the club. He also faced the fans yearly even at the bitter end. IL has been conspicious by his absence (both at the ground and with OxVox) since getting involved with Wigan.

[Pe├▒a Oxford United]

Do you feel the reluctance to 'ask' for help was due to what happened with JK, someone brought in to take care of the football side only to appoint a couple of old mates who played dreadful football causing us to be relegated?

I don't know. But I'm thinking more of that if you don't, actually, know very much about something (which he didn't) and yet your style and instinct is very much to control everything (which it was) then that's a really bad and probably unresolvable contradiction.