OxVox - Heritage Project Extension 'Stadium Signage'

[slappy]

The current cost of the stadium including Freehold property, plant and machinery, fixtures and fittings is disclosed as £12,325,784 in Stadco's 2013 accounts.

From 1994-2000, OUFC incurred costs totalling £10,072,455 in relation to the new stadium, all of which I think were written off. So the total cost of the stadium could be argued to be £22million.

[Snake]

The current cost of the stadium including Freehold property, plant and machinery, fixtures and fittings is disclosed as £12,325,784 in Stadco's 2013 accounts.

From 1994-2000, OUFC incurred costs totalling £10,072,455 in relation to the new stadium, all of which I think were written off. So the total cost of the stadium could be argued to be £22million.

You’re stretching my memory cells, Slappy, but happy to be proved wrong! I thought that Taylor Woodrow got 10% just like the rest of the unsecured creditors. Anyway, looking at an inflation calculator since 2001 you could also argue that £22m in those days is £32m in today’s money. Though of course there is asset depreciation to think about on one hand but on the other hand there is even greater inflation on land prices during this period as anyone who had their house valued in 2001 will know. Either way it seems to me the price being asked for the Stadium is not unreasonable.

[GodalmingYellow]

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.

I wasn't suggesting for a second that you had broken any rules, just voicing my opinion that the actual number of members who voted for the project was small in comparison to the total membership, and proceeding using up not insignificant members funds on that basis, does not seem to me to be reasonable. Maybe I'm just grumpy about it, because I think the responsibility for this lies somewhere between Kassam and Lenagan.

The counter argument to your point about not using a quorum level, is that perhaps more people would vote if they deemed a project worth voting for. Maybe therefore the problem isn't lack of voting, but lack of appeal of something to vote for or against. I am sure that if you asked people to vote for or against the introduction of red shirts for the first choice kit, you would get a strong anti vote, and if you asked people to vote for or against free money, you would get a massive positive vote. The simple point being that these projects don't attract big positive votes because not enough people care about them or believe they are a good use of OxVox funds.

Having a committee does not mean regularly having to spend the money in order to show that OxVox is actually doing something.

[GodalmingYellow]

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.

On point 1, I'm glad you are not accusing me, as I have already done my stint on the committee from its inception through to just prior to the Lenagan take over.

On point 2, I think we'll just have to agree to think differently.

[GodalmingYellow]

The current cost of the stadium including Freehold property, plant and machinery, fixtures and fittings is disclosed as £12,325,784 in Stadco's 2013 accounts.

From 1994-2000, OUFC incurred costs totalling £10,072,455 in relation to the new stadium, all of which I think were written off. So the total cost of the stadium could be argued to be £22million.

You’re stretching my memory cells, Slappy, but happy to be proved wrong! I thought that Taylor Woodrow got 10% just like the rest of the unsecured creditors. Anyway, looking at an inflation calculator since 2001 you could also argue that £22m in those days is £32m in today’s money. Though of course there is asset depreciation to think about on one hand but on the other hand there is even greater inflation on land prices during this period as anyone who had their house valued in 2001 will know. Either way it seems to me the price being asked for the Stadium is not unreasonable.

I'm pretty sure Taylor Woodrow got 10% as well. From memory, they tried to claim a preferential status and failed, and then they tried to fight the CVA, but failed again.

Bit difficult to compare the costs like that Slappy as in those days, Corporation Tax and reporting was very different from today. The OUFC £10m costs may well have included numerous failed planning attempts and costs of advice given, as well as the failed Robin Herd progress and so on, which today would simply be written off. I would say the costs reported by Stadco are pretty accurate, although they will no doubt also include items that would not be regarded as being part of the stadium freehold, such as machinery, fixtures and fittings, IT equipment and so on.

As far as asking price is concerned, there is the moral case, and the factual case.

The factual case would be based on market values, future returns, alternative use and alternative tenants and so on, and also based on what is included in the sale e.g. car parking facilities and the interaction with Ozone. Also of huge importance now is the dual tenancy which inflates the stadium value quite significantly.

The subjective moral argument is that Kassam deserves the extras he got in the overall deal, but the money made from the Manor should rightfully belong to the club and thereby at least part of the stadium should belong to the club already. Not going to happen though is it.

[slappy]

Obviously there were a lot of costs that were genuine write offs, or that had to be incurred again when work recommenced on building.

[Matt D]

The counter argument to your point about not using a quorum level, is that perhaps more people would vote if they deemed a project worth voting for. Maybe therefore the problem isn't lack of voting, but lack of appeal of something to vote for or against. I am sure that if you asked people to vote for or against the introduction of red shirts for the first choice kit, you would get a strong anti vote, and if you asked people to vote for or against free money, you would get a massive positive vote. The simple point being that these projects don't attract big positive votes because not enough people care about them or believe they are a good use of OxVox funds.

Having a committee does not mean regularly having to spend the money in order to show that OxVox is actually doing something.

well, more often than not our surveys are issued at the behest of members raising an issue. but that aside, on that basis, other things that few people care about include:

• the role of the stadium in the future of the club,
  whether the club changes shirt design every season and how they price replica shirts,
  catering at the stadium,
  the right to bid on the stadium,
  ticket pricing and policies.

[GodalmingYellow]

The counter argument to your point about not using a quorum level, is that perhaps more people would vote if they deemed a project worth voting for. Maybe therefore the problem isn't lack of voting, but lack of appeal of something to vote for or against. I am sure that if you asked people to vote for or against the introduction of red shirts for the first choice kit, you would get a strong anti vote, and if you asked people to vote for or against free money, you would get a massive positive vote. The simple point being that these projects don't attract big positive votes because not enough people care about them or believe they are a good use of OxVox funds.

Having a committee does not mean regularly having to spend the money in order to show that OxVox is actually doing something.

well, more often than not our surveys are issued at the behest of members raising an issue. but that aside, on that basis, other things that few people care about include:

• the role of the stadium in the future of the club,
  whether the club changes shirt design every season and how they price replica shirts,
  catering at the stadium,
  the right to bid on the stadium,
  ticket pricing and policies.

Ok let me raise an issue and see if OxVox run a survey on it:
The home shirts should be red.

There you go. No? Why not? Just because someone raises an issue, that doesn't mean it should become the attention of a survey where only one man and his dog vote resulting in use of funding of the much much wider majority.

I'm not sure what point you are making with the rest Matt. Have you missed an "a" from before the word few? I suspect you have as it changes the tense quite a lot!!

I'm not having a go at OxVox generally by the way, although right to bid on the stadium was a waste of time in my view and OxVox used it excessively to try to seek publicity and it all got a bit cheesey and unprofessional.

OxVox of course does some really good things, and even on the original point under discussion, OxVox have done something far better than put up signs, they have (begun to) open up the relationship between club, fans and Kassam, which is much more important and significant to the longer term future of the club.

[Snake]

What he said ^^^^^

Plus, it might be nice if OV were to be a bit more transparent in these emerging relationships just in case the Trust gets carried away in a charm offensive and is used as some kind of positive marketing tool to excuse the complete failure of WPL to move the club forward one inch since they took over. And if Firoz comes across as being nice to you then just bear in mind that there is a good reason for that. The key is to make sure that what he gains out of it the club gets something back in return. 16 years of lessons should be enough without my advice.