OxVox meeting Live

Well, decent meeting last night, reflecting the day after the meeting

Those of us who there are (more )aware of, well not much really- bar a few minor crumbs of information, apart from the fact the current regime certainly do seem to think giving supporters the proverbial mushroom treatment on real issues is the way forward. Judging on the two OUFC directors evasiveness, perhaps the answer to Englands test cricket openers issue could be solved with these two? They 'left' , parried or sidestepped many of the more serious questions asked, with the occasional 'we'll get back to you'

despite few answers of any substance, (from OUFC directors there last night... and even after they were pressed on several points)
both FFs and Oxvox members meetings ( and Shareholders AGMs too - promised one for 2018, yet its not happening in 2018 despite Tiger himself agreeing to one at his first FFs!), these meetings give OUFC supporters the opportunity to ask questions directly to those in a position to provide an answer. The fact that questions were evaded, unanswered or ignored, (By OUFC directors) frustrating though it is, it demonstrates what a hard job OxVox committee members obviously have when dealing with the current regime, as I doubt if the 'Keep em in the dark and feed em s**t' approach to supporters in general (like at last nights meeting), changes much when OUFC club officials are meeting with elected members of Ox Vox committee.

The current regime it seems to me, want to fleece as much £ out of loyal OUFC fans, and in return treat Loyal OUFC supporters like mushrooms at best.
It seems the current board have little else but contempt plus an air of superiority when it comes to interacting with OUFC supporters- the same supporters who were 'here' before this lot rocked up, and will be here after they've gone, the same supporters who spend £ on official club merch, buy sTs, buy membership cards, , replica kits etc etc etc .... but who are not, it seems, to be trusted with any real information, by avoiding answering direct questions put to them.


picture of OxVox open members meeting last night ( how the OUFC saw the Oxvox membership? :unsure:


View attachment 883
"The current regime it seems to me, want to fleece as much £ out of loyal OUFC fans, and in return treat Loyal OUFC supporters like mushrooms at best."

Really? That's a massive worry then. After Firoz Ka$$am took money and land from our club, the last thing we need is anything like this again. It does appear Tiger has no money, and the new x3 board members are not putting money in either, not sure where we go from here?!
 
"The current regime it seems to me, want to fleece as much £ out of loyal OUFC fans, and in return treat Loyal OUFC supporters like mushrooms at best."

Really? That's a massive worry then. After Firoz Ka$$am took money and land from our club, the last thing we need is anything like this again. It does appear Tiger has no money, and the new x3 board members are not putting money in either, not sure where we go from here?![/QUOTE

yes, Really @Hackney Jack .... based on last nights Ox Vox open members meeting, along with "Tigers" latest statement, which basically said nothing ,(certainly nothing about the 2nd HMRC issue, in 7 months, under HIS watch.... the same subject which was actively being evaded, even after being pressed, by the 2 OUFC directors) , except asking for a big gate for the home game on boxing day... which is demanding £ (via ticket receipts etc) from OUFC supporters. The way I see it, since Tigers arrival, OUFC supporters have been fed all manner of bullshit & non-information, or have had legitimate questions ignored by the board members.

I am certainly concerned, and worried, that the current OUFC board members appear to think that OUFC supporters are idiots and will accept questions going unanswered if they evade them long enough.
 
I thought in the interview on radio Oxford after the Wycombe league game Zaki said he would be investing in the club. Why would successful business people turn up otherwise. Yes we’ve got millions so invest would automatically mean every transfer fee would inflate dramatically as of January.
 
If they think they are going to make their fortunes fleecing OUFC supporters, they might want to go back to business school. Nonetheless, if they are going to be as evasive as Sarge suggests in response to some pretty basic and hardly controversial questions, it does make you wonder what this curious collection of 'international businessmen' are doing at Oxford.
 
Kassam said he would take us on a journey and Eales said he would write off any debt accrued under his ownership....
Do we know whether Eales left us with more debt than when he took us on Myles?
 
I think @myles was suggesting you can't always believe or take at face value what senior people in the club say.
People have moaned we are not getting told anything from the board so I point out what Zaki said and at least 1 person says other owners/ directors have lied (not proven in Eales case) so it draws me to 2 conclusions, 1 that certain people think everything said is a lie so then 2 why bother saying anything because they get accused of 1.
 
People have moaned we are not getting told anything from the board so I point out what Zaki said and at least 1 person says other owners/ directors have lied (not proven in Eales case) so it draws me to 2 conclusions, 1 that certain people think everything said is a lie so then 2 why bother saying anything because they get accused of 1.
Or maybe try conclusion 3: take what people say with a pinch of salt and judge them by their actual actions.
 
Do we know whether Eales left us with more debt than when he took us on Myles?
Unfortunately, we will have to wait until March to find out for certain.

What we do know is that at the end of June 2014, the club had net liabilities of £8.6m. By June 2017 that had grown to £11.4m - and that was after a £650k profit that year. We also know that Ensco are/were taking over £4m out of the club as part of Tiger's takeover deal. There was also the slight of hand with the WPL debt.

How that will all stack up in the final analysis is yet to be seen, but my strong suspicion is that Eales didn't simply write off his investment as he said he would.
 
Or maybe try conclusion 3: take what people say with a pinch of salt and judge them by their actual actions.
Try waiting on your option 3 regarding the current directors then as they can’t invest in much at present as we already have a training base for a number of years, a ground which lets face it we won’t own and a transfer window that doesn’t open for 5 weeks. There are certainly things going on behind the scenes that we will know about in due course that it’s not in the clubs interest to divulge at present.
 
How that will all stack up in the final analysis is yet to be seen, but my strong suspicion is that Eales didn't simply write off his investment as he said he would.

But Eales never said that he'd write off his investment, he said that the club wouldn't incur any debt during his watch. He could have taken out every penny he put in and still be true to his word if the debt was also cleared.
 
But Eales never said that he'd write off his investment, he said that the club wouldn't incur any debt during his watch. He could have taken out every penny he put in and still be true to his word if the debt was also cleared.
The vast majority of his investment was through debt rather than equity, so I don’t see the logic in your point?
 
The vast majority of his investment was through debt rather than equity, so I don’t see the logic in your point?

As long as the debt to the club hasn't increased from when DE first got involved then he would be right in not incurring any debt on his watch. He funded players and recouped some/all of this investment via initial/deferred payments. So he can both clear his investment and not incur any debt during his tenure. Fairly logical no?
 
But Eales never said that he'd write off his investment, he said that the club wouldn't incur any debt during his watch. He could have taken out every penny he put in and still be true to his word if the debt was also cleared.

My interpretation was that if Eales had to walk away from the club , then he’d write off the debt to him. Like Donald did at Eastleigh. Writing off ten million. Which he’d do all again But Eales sold players and found a willing buyer.
 
As long as the debt to the club hasn't increased from when DE first got involved then he would be right in not incurring any debt on his watch.

I'm with Scotchers here. What isn't clear (to me at least):

  1. Debt incurred pre-Slippery: do we still owe money to WPL and how much? If not, who do we owe this to and under what terms?
  2. Debt incurred under Tiger's watch: under what terms will this be i.e. soft or interest bearing? Has Tiger gone on record to say that the club will not incur debt on his watch in the same way as his predecessor?
 
I'm with Scotchers here. What isn't clear (to me at least):

  1. Debt incurred pre-Slippery: do we still owe money to WPL and how much? If not, who do we owe this to and under what terms?
  2. Debt incurred under Tiger's watch: under what terms will this be i.e. soft or interest bearing? Has Tiger gone on record to say that the club will not incur debt on his watch in the same way as his predecessor?
Shareholders AGM tends to include a financial report (of sorts) ...albeit 12 months or so out of date.... including outstanding debts (and who debts are owed to)
Tiger agreed to a shareholders AGM for 2018, at his first FF, ...yet it hasnt , and very likely wont happen now in 2018

legally an AGM isnt an annual requirement, however, IF an AGM isnt held, it may mean that certain information is being withheld from minority shareholders ( that proverbial mushroom treatment. Again!

when the club owner agrees , in public, to hold an AGM, then reneges on that agreement, speculation naturally will be rife as to why, after agreeing to hold an AGM, that subsequently the owner turns out to not be a man of his word. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, however it does make me wonder what is it that the owner and incoming board members too, are actively trying to keep 'hidden' from shareholders, and supporters , A train of thought amplified by the MD and Zakki both being reluctant to answer most direct questions at a supporters trust open meeting, evading and sidestepping when pressed, or claiming not to know the answer and saying theyll get back to you at some, non specified time in the future.
 
I'm with Scotchers here. What isn't clear (to me at least):

  1. Debt incurred pre-Slippery: do we still owe money to WPL and how much? If not, who do we owe this to and under what terms?
  2. Debt incurred under Tiger's watch: under what terms will this be i.e. soft or interest bearing? Has Tiger gone on record to say that the club will not incur debt on his watch in the same way as his predecessor?
1- WPL transferred the OUFC debtor to Ensco, so no, the club doesn't owe WPL anymore. However there was (and perhaps still is) a book debt owed to Ensco. What isn't clear is what happened to that debt when Tiger took over. Was it written off, paid off, or is it still there and on what terms.
2. Tiger has actually put some money into OUFC as shares. But nowhere near enough to run the club, so presumably the rest as debt. And Eales never said the club wouldn't incur debt on his watch. The fans' forum question was if he ran out of money and had to walk away, what would happen, and the answer was in those circumstances he would write his debt off. Whereas here there were two willing purchasers actually looking to buy the club.
 
1- WPL transferred the OUFC debtor to Ensco, so no, the club doesn't owe WPL anymore. However there was (and perhaps still is) a book debt owed to Ensco. What isn't clear is what happened to that debt when Tiger took over. Was it written off, paid off, or is it still there and on what terms.
2. Tiger has actually put some money into OUFC as shares. But nowhere near enough to run the club, so presumably the rest as debt. And Eales never said the club wouldn't incur debt on his watch. The fans' forum question was if he ran out of money and had to walk away, what would happen, and the answer was in those circumstances he would write his debt off. Whereas here there were two willing purchasers actually looking to buy the club.
The WPL debt is the most interesting one. It's worth mentioning that Ensco bought the £4m+ debt from WPL for £1. If Eales has sought repayment of that in any way (and I have no idea if he has), that is morally questionable at least.

As for the question at the fans' forum, it was me who asked it, and it was much more blunt than you are recalling. I simply asked Eales if he would write off any debt accrued under his tenure and he replied "Yes" without any further qualification.
 
Back
Top Bottom