Potential New Ground

[MarkG]

It's always important to ask questions and to understand as much as possible about the finances of our club. But many of the concerns being put forward were ridiculous and undermined any legitimate issues. Myles was telling us about Thai criminals, Russian money launderers, asset stripping etc without any evidence to support this.

Consequently, a huge amount of the fear about Tiger was generated by one or two with a clearly orchestrated campaign on here. That in itself is pretty low, especially if being fed/encouraged by other potential owners. Much of this could have been avoided if Tiger and co. had been more open about their business plan on arrival, but even if they had, would it have been believed?

Words are meaningless from all sides, and it is someone's action that we should truly judge. I would suggest that looking at what is going on at Sunderland and our beloved Charlie, and what has happened to our club with Tiger at the helm, and make your own mind up about who is best for our club.

Take a look at RFC Prop Co Limited. This is the entitity that owns Reading's ground. 51% owned by Empire Assets Group PTE which we think is owned by Pairoj, Tiger and Jack but difficult to tell. Directors of RFC Prop Co include Tiger, Pairoj, Jack, and just to add to the mix, Horst Geicke appointed June 2019.

[edit] it's apparently the land around the ground, not the stadium itself.

 

[Marked Ox]

Take a look at RFC Prop Co Limited. This is the entitity that owns Reading's ground. 51% owned by Empire Assets Group PTE which we think is owned by Pairoj, Tiger and Jack but difficult to tell. Directors of RFC Prop Co include Tiger, Pairoj, Jack, and just to add to the mix, Horst Geicke appointed June 2019.

I thought that was the surrounding development land rather than the stadium which I thought they sold with the club.

Edit: this explains the sale plan:

Reading owners to sell majority shares

Reading's Thai-based owners are on the brink of selling their shares to a Chinese brother and sister.

www.bbc.co.uk

I would suggest this confirms that the Company you mentioned doesn't/didn't own the stadium after Tiger & co sold Reading:

Reading reportedly set for EFL investigation after Mad Stad sale

Royals are one of a number of clubs identified in a report regarding possible financial irregularities

www.getreading.co.uk

Especially as Reading owners have bought the stadium off the football club to try (alledgedly) to get around financial rules for Reading's overspending.

 

[werthersoriginal]

It's always important to ask questions and to understand as much as possible about the finances of our club. But many of the concerns being put forward were ridiculous and undermined any legitimate issues. Myles was telling us about Thai criminals, Russian money launderers, asset stripping etc without any evidence to support this.

Consequently, a huge amount of the fear about Tiger was generated by one or two with a clearly orchestrated campaign on here. That in itself is pretty low, especially if being fed/encouraged by other potential owners. Much of this could have been avoided if Tiger and co. had been more open about their business plan on arrival, but even if they had, would it have been believed?

Words are meaningless from all sides, and it is someone's action that we should truly judge. I would suggest that looking at what is going on at Sunderland and our beloved Charlie, and what has happened to our club with Tiger at the helm, and make your own mind up about who is best for our club.

Blimey, some pretty serious things being implied here. Are you part of an orchestrated campaign as well?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Consequently, a huge amount of the fear about Tiger was generated by one or two with a clearly orchestrated campaign on here. That in itself is pretty low, especially if being fed/encouraged by other potential owners. Much of this could have been avoided if Tiger and co. had been more open about their business plan on arrival, but even if they had, would it have been believed?

That isn't true really. Many of us were skeptical due to his past record at Reading - and ST's first car crash of a press conference certainly didn't help. The repeated HMRC issues showed a lack of planning (at the very least) or a lack of ready funds. That's what caused most concerns.
The one thing at the time was that I never thought the board and the investors on it were 'asset strippers'. Given our situation then (and it hasn't changed much in this regard) we had very few assets to strip!
It does have to be said that ST has made significant progress. The training ground lease most notably - that's something that will benefit the club long after he is gone. There has been investment in young players, which is also a big tick. Of course the fact that we are doing well on the pitch and playing attractive football while doing it means that people are far happier with the situation as it stands than they would be if we were Southend!
The elephant in the room is of course the stadium situation, and that will be (for me) the defining point of ST's ownership. If he can somehow free us of Kassam's malign influence then he will have done the club a great great service. If he signs us up to another 25 years of being tied to him then he will have maybe done some good things, but not really have achieved what I hoped.
As for a new stadium. If he manages to get that over the line, gets the club control and I get to see us play there while paying less rent and maybe even getting some profit from the concessions, advertising etc while the investors make money from the surrounding development, he can have a bloody great 35 foot statue of himself in gold right in front of the entrance.

 

[Scotchegg]

Take a look at RFC Prop Co Limited. This is the entitity that owns Reading's ground. 51% owned by Empire Assets Group PTE which we think is owned by Pairoj, Tiger and Jack but difficult to tell. Directors of RFC Prop Co include Tiger, Pairoj, Jack, and just to add to the mix, Horst Geicke appointed June 2019.

So the business people who own Oxford United also own another business together?

 

[Scotchegg]

Blimey, some pretty serious things being implied here. Are you part of an orchestrated campaign as well?

What is being implied?

 

[Gary Baldi]

Just reading the posts, were the same small group of posters responsible for the asset stripping malarkey when DE took over too? Just wondering...

 

[Scotchegg]

That isn't true really. Many of us were skeptical due to his past record at Reading - and ST's first car crash of a press conference certainly didn't help. The repeated HMRC issues showed a lack of planning (at the very least) or a lack of ready funds. That's what caused most concerns.
The one thing at the time was that I never thought the board and the investors on it were 'asset strippers'. Given our situation then (and it hasn't changed much in this regard) we had very few assets to strip!
It does have to be said that ST has made significant progress. The training ground lease most notably - that's something that will benefit the club long after he is gone. There has been investment in young players, which is also a big tick. Of course the fact that we are doing well on the pitch and playing attractive football while doing it means that people are far happier with the situation as it stands than they would be if we were Southend!
The elephant in the room of course the stadium situation, and that will be (for me) the defining point of ST's ownership. If he can somehow free us of Kassam's malign influence then he will have done the club a great great service. If he signs us up to another 25 years of being tied to him then he will have maybe done some good things, but not really have achieved what I hoped.
As for a new stadium. If he manages to get that over the line, gets the club control and I get to see us play there while paying less rent and maybe even getting some profit from the concessions, advertising etc while the investors make money from the surrounding development, he can have a bloody great 35 foot statue of himself in gold right in front of the entrance.

You are right that the communication pre-Zaki was awful as was the finances this time last year. I don't know, but my gut feeling is that because DE needed a way out quickly, everything was a little rushed. As a result, the immediate cashflow and infrastructure wasn't good enough which led to the problems at the tail end of 2018. It wasn't good enough and there was no excuse.

But some of the accusations being thrown around by Myles and others were laughable. We were told that the consortium was being linked to dodgy foreign businessmen and criminal elements, that we were dependent on Russian loans and that the club was part of a money laundering operation. Also, we were told that Tiger would strip away our assets (that we didn't have) and would run the club into the ground.

The last 12 months have resolved many of those fears with real investment in the playing squad, the training ground and the day to day running of the club. Nothing is being done on the cheap, and nothing is for short term returns. Promotion is not an unrealistic target, and we have several players who have significantly increased their value with a recruitment team who we can have confidence in finding more hidden gems.

Of course the stadium remains the major issue, and our progress can only ever go so far without having our own home. But there is a real and genuine commitment to resolving this, and further details should be available in the coming months that will once again show that Tiger is here for the long haul. I know that we've been here before and caution is needed, but false accusations and fear is not helpful.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

I know that we've been here before and caution is needed, but false accusations and fear is not helpful.

No they aren't. But we still need to be watchful - presumably (hopefully?) OxVox are keeping a close eye on what is going on week to week, and everyone should question what is happening. No accusations, just looking out for what is best for our club. We will still be here long after the current chairman and board are a historical footnote - mind you, that huge gold statue will remind us of ST's tenure - again, hopefully!

 

[Foley]

That isn't true really. Many of us were skeptical due to his past record at Reading - and ST's first car crash of a press conference certainly didn't help. The repeated HMRC issues showed a lack of planning (at the very least) or a lack of ready funds. That's what caused most concerns.
The one thing at the time was that I never thought the board and the investors on it were 'asset strippers'. Given our situation then (and it hasn't changed much in this regard) we had very few assets to strip!
It does have to be said that ST has made significant progress. The training ground lease most notably - that's something that will benefit the club long after he is gone. There has been investment in young players, which is also a big tick. Of course the fact that we are doing well on the pitch and playing attractive football while doing it means that people are far happier with the situation as it stands than they would be if we were Southend!
The elephant in the room is of course the stadium situation, and that will be (for me) the defining point of ST's ownership. If he can somehow free us of Kassam's malign influence then he will have done the club a great great service. If he signs us up to another 25 years of being tied to him then he will have maybe done some good things, but not really have achieved what I hoped.
As for a new stadium. If he manages to get that over the line, gets the club control and I get to see us play there while paying less rent and maybe even getting some profit from the concessions, advertising etc while the investors make money from the surrounding development, he can have a bloody great 35 foot statue of himself in gold right in front of the entrance.

I am almost entirely in agreement with ZerotheHeros comments above.
We has reason to be concerned (although the asset stripping claim was ridiculous as we had no assets)
The communication has improved significantly and the club appears to be in as good a position that we could have expected.
The stadium is, of course the elephant in the room and if Tiger can pull that off leaving the club in a good position ( as Kassam claimed long ago), he will have proved a lot of people wrong.
Incidentally I found that Myles generally posted comments backed up with facts (the backers at Reading and their details for example).
He was raising a lot of concerns , that many of us probably had.

 

[Fred]

The potential for Oxford long-term especially with it's Oxford name could still be the plan. Look at Brighton and Bournemouth

 

[LondonRoader]

You are right that the communication pre-Zaki was awful as was the finances this time last year. I don't know, but my gut feeling is that because DE needed a way out quickly, everything was a little rushed. As a result, the immediate cashflow and infrastructure wasn't good enough which led to the problems at the tail end of 2018. It wasn't good enough and there was no excuse.

But some of the accusations being thrown around by Myles and others were laughable. We were told that the consortium was being linked to dodgy foreign businessmen and criminal elements, that we were dependent on Russian loans and that the club was part of a money laundering operation. Also, we were told that Tiger would strip away our assets (that we didn't have) and would run the club into the ground.

The last 12 months have resolved many of those fears with real investment in the playing squad, the training ground and the day to day running of the club. Nothing is being done on the cheap, and nothing is for short term returns. Promotion is not an unrealistic target, and we have several players who have significantly increased their value with a recruitment team who we can have confidence in finding more hidden gems.

Of course the stadium remains the major issue, and our progress can only ever go so far without having our own home. But there is a real and genuine commitment to resolving this, and further details should be available in the coming months that will once again show that Tiger is here for the long haul. I know that we've been here before and caution is needed, but false accusations and fear is not helpful.

When you say real investment, how is that structured?
Debt, loans, money set aside on our assets, or money put into the club with no interest.

 

[Wallop]

When you say real investment, how is that structured?
Debt, loans, money set aside on our assets, or money put into the club with no interest.

The first question asked at the fans forum last week in relation to the stadium touched on this. Zaki replied that the club would own the stadium (good) but said it was 'too early' to consider on what basis it would own the stadium e.g. gifted from the investors, provided by the investors but with a loan to service etc. I don't buy that it's too early, surely they should know how any stadium ownership would be structured? That's one of the reasons I'm still cautious.

If there is greater clarity wrt this fundamental question that has been provided in earlier fans forums or via other official Board communications, then I'd be grateful if someone could provide it.

 

[Scotchegg]

When you say real investment, how is that structured?
Debt, loans, money set aside on our assets, or money put into the club with no interest.

Off set against future income from moving up the football pyramid, developing and selling players and/or associated income from stadium and additional retail/leisure business.

But this is all pie in the sky fantasy thinking to you, so feel free to come to your own conclusions.

 

[m]

Off set against future income from moving up the football pyramid, developing and selling players and/or associated income from stadium and additional retail/leisure business.

I guess the question then becomes 'what happens if the club do not move up the pyramid'?

Also, what happens if additional retail and leisure opportunity plans are thwarted?

 

[Scotchegg]

I guess the question then becomes 'what happens if the club do not move up the pyramid'?

Also, what happens if additional retail and leisure opportunity plans are thwarted?

Fair points.

The first could be offset by becoming more sustainable as a club. It's potentially more realistic to cover our costs in league 1 with the selling of a Dickie or Brannagan each year, particularly if we are replacing with players from our youth set up. The costs would be considerably higher in the Championship and would need a massive sale or, more likely, 2 or 3 to balance the books.

I'd guess that future retail/leisure facilities would be linked with a new/redeveloped stadium of our own. If we couldn't go ahead with these plans then we also wouldn't make the same kind of investment. It would be very difficult to grow under this situation, but losses would be reduced without the new to fund a new/improved build.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

The first question asked at the fans forum last week in relation to the stadium touched on this. Zaki replied that the club would own the stadium (good) but said it was 'too early' to consider on what basis it would own the stadium e.g. gifted from the investors, provided by the investors but with a loan to service etc. I don't buy that it's too early, surely they should know how any stadium ownership would be structured? That's one of the reasons I'm still cautious.

If there is greater clarity wrt this fundamental question that has been provided in earlier fans forums or via other official Board communications, then I'd be grateful if someone could provide it.

No he didn’t. He said the situation with a new stadium would likely be the same as the current training ground arrangement, which is a leasehold rather than a freehold. One is essentially a glorified tenancy, the other is actual land and asset ownership.

Be very, very careful of the details you choose to overlook.

 

[Wallop]

No he didn’t. He said the situation with a new stadium would likely be the same as the current training ground arrangement, which is a leasehold rather than a freehold. One is essentially a glorified tenancy, the other is actual land and asset ownership.

Be very, very careful of the details you choose to overlook.

ok - for those of us with a limited knowledge of this area, could you please expand? I'm not overlooking anything but I clearly don't understand the detail well enough yet - could you assist?

 

[RyanioBirdio]

ok - for those of us with a limited knowledge of this area, could you please expand? I'm not overlooking anything but I clearly don't understand the detail well enough yet - could you assist?

You can listen to the interview again. Zaki said specifically that any new stadium would be the same as the new training ground agreement. The new training ground agreement is that the club can run the facility and if it can make it profitable then fair play, but it doesn’t own the training ground. It is basically a sub-let situation and OUFC has precisely no outright ownership of the facility or the land. Someone else owns it, they get to ‘run’ it, and they can benefit from it if it goes well. But they don’t own anything. It is essentially renting it in a manner than allows the club to potentially make a profit, but it owns nothing. No assets are in the club’s name and it has no ownership at all of any bricks and mortar. So when someone on the board says “it would be the same as the training ground” the end result is that OUFC owns nothing. It can still be beneficial, especially compared to the current circumstances at the wind tunnel, but the club doesn’t own the stadium in that scenario. It might get free use of it and have the chance to maximise revenue which might totally offset cost, but it doesn’t own the ground.

If Zaki was sloppy with his words that’s a different issue for them to address, but based on precisely what he said, Oxford United would not own a football stadium. It would merely get very favourable terms of use. As I said, this could still be very beneficial, but it is not ownership of any kind based on those words.

 

[Marked Ox]

You can listen to the interview again. Zaki said specifically that any new stadium would be the same as the new training ground agreement. The new training ground agreement is that the club can run the facility and if it can make it profitable then fair play, but it doesn’t own the training ground. It is basically a sub-let situation and OUFC has precisely no outright ownership of the facility or the land. Someone else owns it, they get to ‘run’ it, and they can benefit from it if it goes well. But they don’t own anything. It is essentially renting it in a manner than allows the club to potentially make a profit, but it owns nothing. No assets are in the club’s name and it has no ownership at all of any bricks and mortar. So when someone on the board says “it would be the same as the training ground” the end result is that OUFC owns nothing. It can still be beneficial, especially compared to the current circumstances at the wind tunnel, but the club doesn’t own the stadium in that scenario. It might get free use of it and have the chance to maximise revenue which might totally offset cost, but it doesn’t own the ground.

If Zaki was sloppy with his words that’s a different issue for them to address, but based on precisely what he said, Oxford United would not own a football stadium. It would merely get very favourable terms of use. As I said, this could still be very beneficial, but it is not ownership of any kind based on those words.

Tbf, the lease would be an asset and if the terms are favourable (ie. like the training ground, keep the income, no/low rent) then that would still be a massive improvement on the current situation.