Rage Online

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:35 am**

Kairdiff Exile wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:I believe there are something in the region of 450 members give or take.

That would mean just 15% of the OxVox membership voted in favour of the signs then. Not quite the resounding success that the 75% stated statistic would suggest.
GY, the world is run by the people who turn up. If 90 of 450(ish) members voted and the overwhelming majority were in favour, that seems like a representative enough sample. For those members who didn't vote (and I suspect I was one of them), the opportunity was there to have a say and that's all OxVox can do. We should all be thanking the OxVox committee for their hard work; we may not agree with every decision, but they're the ones giving up their time for free and if the rest of us think we could do a better job then the onus is on us to put ourselves forward.

Kernow Yellow wrote:So £6-£7m debt. The rest was investment for Kassam's own stadium that has NEVER been owned by OUFC. Even though he made £millions from selling our old ground.

I understand your point about some heavy-handed idiots effectively forcing FK to sell the club to people that proved less than perfect, but let's not repaint Firoz as some benefactor to whom we must be eternally grateful.
Quite. Snake's revisionism on this thread is breathtaking. Ka££am did very well out of Oxford United, thank you very much - and since he sold up, he has generally done next to nothing to help the club; GY pointed out above that he initially refused to allow these new signs to go up, but we could equally point to the poor maintenance of the pitch, the debacle over the Priory and any number of other things as well.

For the most part of his tenure, Ka££am cut every last budget he could at the club (scrapping the academy, no overnight stays for away trips; the players even had to buy their own orange squash at the training ground!) and the resultant slump on the pitch after a litany of cheap-but-useless managers (Rix, Talbot) or bizarre business setups (Jean-Marc Gorian, Ramon Diaz) was a surprise to no-one. And let us not forget, he lied to us all about not selling the club without the ground.

Maybe he would have built the fourth stand, and OUFC would have made billions from their share of casino profits. But I'd be sceptical of that, given that the one consistent thread running through every deal he did whilst in charge of OUFC had one other, more pressing, motive - lining the pockets of Firoz Ka££am. Just because we replaced one awful owner with another does not make the first one less awful.

I don't agree with your first point Kairdiff. Polling is not sampling and voting for or against use of OxVox funds is not a first past the post political system. You cannot assume that those who did not vote would have voted in the same way as those who did. You should assume abstentions from those who do not vote for or against. the money belongs to the 75% of the membership who did not vote, just as much as it belongs to the 25% who did. With such a low participation for something so fundamental as spending trust funds, the point has to be made that perhaps the trust is not enthusing its membership with ideas of sufficient merit that warrant greater participation.

And that has nothing to do with being grateful to those who put themselves forward or ungrateful to those who do not, so I'm not sure why you even mention that.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:30 am**

My point is twofold:

i) The people who run OxVox are well-meaning amateurs (insofar as they don't get paid, and are just ordinary supporters trying to help the club/fans as best they can in their free time), who get a ridiculous amount of hassle and abuse (particularly on a certain other forum) from people who don't have the gumption to put themselves forward to try and do a better job. I'm not saying you personally are guilty of that, by the way, just that I can see why many committee members after a while find themselves thinking "why bother?" and give up.

ii) The survey and actions following from it are a case in point. All members had a chance to say whether they thought this would be a good use of funds. Most members (including, as it happens, me) either couldn't be bothered to reply or weren't fussed either way. But of those who did (around 25%), there was a strong level of support to spend the money in this way. The committee go ahead on that basis, and then get slammed for doing so which strikes me as a) unfair and b) ungrateful. As I said in my previous post, the world is run by the people who turn up - and people who don't bother to vote (whether in an OxVox poll or in a general election) only have themselves to blame if decisions are then taken with which they disagree.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:07 pm**

It seems fair enough to have decisions made by survey, and 25% is not a bad return rate for this kind of thing. There's always room for improvement for response rates, of course. Surveys are especially beneficial for those that wouldn't be able to make AGM meetings like myself. Obviously you don't want to have too many surveys a year, otherwise you risk overload.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:44 pm**

If I understand it correctly, whilst it may be "spending Oxvox funds", three businesses provided the majority of the money and/or the materials and labour to erect these signs.

So without this project, the funds wouldn't have been there.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:47 pm**

GodalmingYellow wrote:I don't agree with your first point Kairdiff. Polling is not sampling and voting for or against use of OxVox funds is not a first past the post political system. You cannot assume that those who did not vote would have voted in the same way as those who did. You should assume abstentions from those who do not vote for or against. the money belongs to the 75% of the membership who did not vote, just as much as it belongs to the 25% who did. With such a low participation for something so fundamental as spending trust funds, the point has to be made that perhaps the trust is not enthusing its membership with ideas of sufficient merit that warrant greater participation.

And that has nothing to do with being grateful to those who put themselves forward or ungrateful to those who do not, so I'm not sure why you even mention that.

well there's nothing in the trust rules that say the members need to sign off on spending GY. the committee can take that decision on its own. since we've been using the survey monkey system we've used it to consult on a range of things on the principle that it is important to do so. prior to that the decision was taken by the committee, possibly with consultation at member meetings (although i can't remember that happening).

however, we can't make people vote. for the change of rules, where we needed a certain number of members participating, we sent out a larger number of reminders to try and ensure we made this, and yet still (from memory) we had about 150 members or so responding. that's the highest response we've had to any survey. so if you want to put in place some kind of quorum, i'd suggest nothing would ever happen.

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:15 pm**

For what it’s worth then “well done OxVox” and shame on the many members who could not be bothered to fill in a simple internet survey. And the only reason I’m on here right now is because Costa Rica are winning and I don’t think I can watch this football nightmare any more.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:39 am**

Snake wrote:For what it’s worth then “well done OxVox” and shame on the many members who could not be bothered to fill in a simple internet survey. And the only reason I’m on here right now is because Costa Rica are winning and I don’t think I can watch this football nightmare any more.

Interesting. I assumed you are Welsh.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:29 pm**

tomoufc wrote:
Snake wrote:For what it’s worth then “well done OxVox” and shame on the many members who could not be bothered to fill in a simple internet survey. And the only reason I’m on here right now is because Costa Rica are winning and I don’t think I can watch this football nightmare any more.
Interesting. I assumed you are Welsh.

I’m British as it happens and a massive fan of football at all levels of the English Pyramid. Watching last night was just too painful once Costa Rica scored. Welsh national football performances have been a joke since I was born so I’ll throw that rock for you from inside your greenhouse. What’s your thesis based on btw as it’s clearly not on perception.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:59 pm**

Snake wrote:Secured creditors - Lloyds Bank 1.5 million against an overdraft facility of 1.55 million. Corbett/Energy Holdings 1.5 Million. Robin Herd 2.3 Million,

Unsecured creditors 1.1 million.

Cost of land from OCC 1 million.

Payment to Les Wells for covenant lifting 1 million.

Nick Pentith, Morrells, OCC and other legal costs approx 1 million.

Cost of stadium build 12 million (though the original build cost was 22 million).

Benefits of a casino = decent 4th stand that joined the corners up with an agreement that x % of casino profits would go directly into club funds as part of the s106 agreement.

Hope those dozen or so protestors like looking at the fence and the westerly wind that howls over it some days

I'll help you out here snake:

UNSECURED CREDITORS

Taylor Woodrow £6.07m
Oxford City Council £1.6m
Cox Clitheroe Solicitors £308k
Thames Water £235k
Nick Harris £10k
Geoff Coppock £10k
Thames Valley Police £9k

SECURED CREDITORS

Energy Holdings £1.5m
Lloyds Bank £1.5m
Robin Herd £2.5m

Kassam bought the Manor for £6m and this cleared the secured debt and a further £1m went into the CVA.
He (Kassam) then sold the Manor with planning permission to Nuffield Hospitals for £12m.

Yes, Kassam had to pay off Les Wells for £1m but he was also allowed to buy the freehold of 30 acres
of prime land from Oxford City Council for a bargain £1M in 2000/2001.

This was made up of the 22 acres of the main stadium site and 8 acres of
surrounding land for a hotel and leisure centre. These land parcels were sold to Firoka (Oxford leisure) Ltd,
Firoka (Oxford United Stadium) Ltd and Firoka (Oxford Hotels) Ltd.

As at 30th September 2013 these three companies
had combined net assets of more than £23m (including the stadium valuation
which is reported to be £13m against a balance sheet written down value of £7.3m)

The combined freeholds for the three companies now exceeds £31m as per the
latest balance sheet valuations.

Kassam took a risk and it paid off handsomely for him.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:46 pm**

Thanks for that OUFC4eva. Our figures broadly agree then, though I’d marked down the unsecured creditors post-CVA at £1.1m as they only got 10% of what they were owed. Which was nice as Keith Cox had been charging the club £125 an hour and only got £12.50 an hour in the end before he abdicated on the basis that he was wanted in the USA on a fraud charge that later turned out he was innocent of.

The biggest net gain was in the protracted planning issue on the Manor as it was valued at £6m for residential use but after permission for a private hospital was gained he doubled his money.

And yes, it was a risk for Firoka and it paid off given he had no exit strategy. The same plan was attempted by Robin Herd pre-Kassam but never really pursued but he at least got every penny back he ‘invested’ as his backup plan was to secure his debt again the Manor. Things don’t look too bright for IL though as he has no workable Plan A and his an exit strategy appears to be simply keeping his outgoings/debt to a minimum by cutting down on expenditure and hope to somehow find players and a manager that will take #oufc up to Division III where the club could be sold for about £4m.

I still visit the Manor far too often for my liking (it’s more like an upmarket hotel than a hospital), and as a consequence it won’t be long now before I stop cluttering up this board.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:56 am**

Agree with your IL analysis and it is worrying.He is not a bottomless pit.

My records show that the original build cost for the Minchery Farm Stadium was £17m
but was scaled down to £10-£12m to finish the three stands and fit out the conference centre.

Incidently, FK was only going to be granted a 125 year LEASE of the site for £2m
and in actual fact FK managed to buy the freehold of 30 acres (12 hectares) for £1m and the City was to take a
20% stake in the Stadium Company. The stadium has a covenant stating that football
must be played there for a minimum 25 years.

The City voted to sell that stake to the Stadium Company - which actually turned out to be 13% for £494k
during 2001/2002.

Kassam cleared up one helluva of mess and has profited enormously from it
and I have no issue with that but the future of the club looks parlous again
in my view which is incredibly sad.

IL surely needs help with the financial burden?

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:24 am**

Snake wrote:I still visit the Manor far too often for my liking (it’s more like an upmarket hotel than a hospital), and as a consequence it won’t be long now before I stop cluttering up this board.

Can't let this pass unremarked - hope all is ok with you?

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:31 am**

I am no expert on finance, and I have not lived in the Oxford area since 1982, but what seems odd to me is the lack of community (by which I mean more than the fan base) will to see the club thrive. I look at examples like Rotherham, where there appears to have been a positive commitment to the club, and compare it to Oxford, where there appears to have been nearly 50 years of seeing the club as a problem. Is this fair?

Put another way, if you did have money to spend, why not spend it attached to a world-famous concept like Oxford, rather than some more obscure town or even city? A certain American appears to have come to this view, thankfully avoiding United, but over the years, I am surprised that some university alumnus or anglophile entrepreneur has not wanted to be associated with Oxford through the football club.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:42 pm**

OUFC4eva wrote:Agree with your IL analysis and it is worrying.He is not a bottomless pit.

My records show that the original build cost for the Minchery Farm Stadium was £17m
but was scaled down to £10-£12m to finish the three stands and fit out the conference centre.

Incidently, FK was only going to be granted a 125 year LEASE of the site for £2m
and in actual fact FK managed to buy the freehold of 30 acres (12 hectares) for £1m and the City was to take a
20% stake in the Stadium Company. The stadium has a covenant stating that football
must be played there for a minimum 25 years.

The City voted to sell that stake to the Stadium Company - which actually turned out to be 13% for £494k
during 2001/2002.

Kassam cleared up one helluva of mess and has profited enormously from it
and I have no issue with that but the future of the club looks parlous again
in my view which is incredibly sad.

IL surely needs help with the financial burden?

The £22m build price that I quoted included a lot of luxury items when Cox and Herd were in negotiations with Stradivarius and a Japanese bank that included a fourth stand, padded seats and a ‘business area’ in the vacant bit behind and underneath the East Stand seats that was meant to be some sort of half-executive big box that would be affordable on a match-by match basis, plus all the corners being filled in with seats. When the internet got invented the club put out a nice set of images of what it would look like but I can’t find them now.

There is indeed a covenant that states that football must be played at Minchery Farm for 25 years but I’ve already pointed out somewhere on this board that this is valueless now as it’s been broken countless times since it was signed.

At the time of the Land Deal the City and County Council voted for whatever FOUL and its 1308 registered members asked them to do because Labour in the Town Hall were desperate for any cross on the ballot papers and the Conservatives at County Hall liked any venture capitalist. John Tanner and Alex Hollingsworth played their part and as a result the club was saved and Labour clung on to power in the City with a very slender majority.

Posted: **Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:33 am**

Kairdiff Exile wrote:Ka££am did very well out of Oxford United, thank you very much - and since he sold up, he has generally done next to nothing to help the club...

If you were treated the way he was, how deep would your pockets be?

Rage Online

OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

Re: OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'