• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

General The Board & Senior Management

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RgYellows said:
Literally all I’m asking is where in the rules this is.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry,

I am just going by my understanding of what has been said on here on occassion.

I'll be honest, beyond that I haven't researched.
 
Billyox said:
Nothing in the rules that stats that
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

A few months back I questioned why they owner couldn't just put the required funds in to avoid the embargo... That is how it was explained to me in terms of why it was not possible, and it seemed reasonable.

I have no further knowledge on the subject :) .
 
Village-Yellow said:
Fair enough.

A few months back I questioned why they owner couldn't just put the required funds in to avoid the embargo... That is how it was explained to me in terms of why it was not possible, and it seemed reasonable.

I have no further knowledge on the subject :) .
Click to expand...
At the very beginning of all this when no one really knew what the rules were it was stated that the other 50% had to be spent on infrastructure thats not the case now

Pages 262-265 and 285

We can also look at this

League One and Two owner investment to be restricted - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c36e4068113o

This older but it does state in this
owners remained free to spend unlimited amounts on non-player costs SUCH AS infrastructure and community projects.

Key words such as
 
Billyox said:
Nothing in the rules that stats that
Click to expand...
Ok, that is also my understanding.

So the situation we have is that the owner isn't willing to pull the plug and let us go under but equally isn't willing to have capital just sitting within the club doing nothing and long term inaccessible to him.

It must mean he is hoping to get the stadium agreed and sell to try and recoup what he can.
 
Billyox said:
At the very beginning of all this when no one really knew what the rules were it was stated that the other 50% had to be spent on infrastructure thats not the case now

Pages 262-265 and 285

We can also look at this

League One and Two owner investment to be restricted - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c36e4068113o

This older but it does state in this
owners remained free to spend unlimited amounts on non-player costs SUCH AS infrastructure and community projects.

Key words such as
Click to expand...

But it can't be left sat in the bank unallocated. Is that still correct?
 
OtteryYellow said:
Ok, that is also my understanding.

So the situation we have is that the owner isn't willing to pull the plug and let us go under but equally isn't willing to have capital just sitting within the club doing nothing and long term inaccessible to him.

It must mean he is hoping to get the stadium agreed and sell to try and recoup what he can.
Click to expand...
Club without stadium = no club = et gets nothing
So that was never in the equation
While many blame et for this situation look around grant gone timmy pushed or jumped mix of both id say you dont get rid of your 2 seniors players within months if they didnt cause this mess leaving et to try and sort it
 
Last edited:
Billyox said:
Club without stadium = no club = et gets nothing
So that was never in the equation
While many blame et for this situation look around grant gone timmy pushed or jumped mix of both id say you dont get rid of your 2 seniors players within months if they didnt cause this mess leaving et to try and sort it
Click to expand...
Yes, I definitely agree that no stadium = no club.

He clearly thinks he can extract some of the huge amount he has sunk once the stadium is signed off as otherwise he would opt to discontinue his financing of the losses, my inference was that his unwillingness to put in yet more to allow player trading perhaps implies he wants out.

A possible alternative is that he doesn't want any additional money spent until he has entirely replaced the UK SMT as upto now it hasn't been used especially wisely.

As you illustrated with your example, with a few sales it is relatively small beer required to allow us to become active in the market again.

All eyes on what type of replacement we get as CEO.
 
OtteryYellow said:
Yes, I definitely agree that no stadium = no club.

He clearly thinks he can extract some of the huge amount he has sunk once the stadium is signed off as otherwise he would opt to discontinue his financing of the losses, my inference was that his unwillingness to put in yet more to allow player trading perhaps implies he wants out.

A possible alternative is that he doesn't want any additional money spent until he has entirely replaced the UK SMT as upto now it hasn't been used especially wisely.

As you illustrated with your example, with a few sales it is relatively small beer required to allow us to become active in the market again.

All eyes on what type of replacement we get as CEO.
Click to expand...
But as was stated in the first statement july 9th he is still putting money in just not in a big lump sum

only et knows why whether because it just couldn't get that amount out of his country or he just wanted to continue the same way hes always done it
If if was a case of club needed the money stan mills transfer for example would of happened a lot sooner

While I agree communications are non existent
Read what was said then and look at what has happened by and large squad retain and if it wasnt for a parent of a player it could of looked even better
 
One day I’ll have the time to read the rules rather than just run AI through it.

But so far as I can see the financing of OUFC has been by loans rather than issued share capital in recent years.

I’ve seen much bigger clubs like Newcastle issue the share capital so it counts as “equity contribution”

Whether this is relevant to our transfer embargo I don’t know.

FWIW: depending on who you are reporting to, there are different measures of revenue , capital , equity.

So HMRC, Companies House, EFL championship and EFL1 can have different numbers reported against their own measures.
 
MarkG said:
One day I’ll have the time to read the rules rather than just run AI through it.

But so far as I can see the financing of OUFC has been by loans rather than issued share capital in recent years.

I’ve seen much bigger clubs like Newcastle issue the share capital so it counts as “equity contribution”

Whether this is relevant to our transfer embargo I don’t know.

FWIW: depending on who you are reporting to, there are different measures of revenue , capital , equity.

So HMRC, Companies House, EFL championship and EFL1 can have different numbers reported against their own measures.
Click to expand...
The board never wanted equity aka ownership, they want to be repaid with interest.
 
Billyox said:
No it cant be taken out
and it Doesn't need to be spent on infrastructure can be spent on anything
Click to expand...

If the money didn't need to be spent straight away why didn't Erick and co put the required money in to stop us entering an embargo and then keep that money for when it could be spent on the stadium works?

It seems either they don't have the money or have no intention of sticking around to build the stadium.
 
OX14 said:
If the money didn't need to be spent straight away why didn't Erick and co put the required money in to stop us entering an embargo and then keep that money for when it could be spent on the stadium works?

It seems either they don't have the money or have no intention of sticking around to build the stadium.
Click to expand...

Billy is wrong.

Money can't just be put in and removed. It would make a complete mockery of the need for financial sustainability.
 
OX14 said:
If the money didn't need to be spent straight away why didn't Erick and co put the required money in to stop us entering an embargo and then keep that money for when it could be spent on the stadium works?

It seems either they don't have the money or have no intention of sticking around to build the stadium.
Click to expand...
As I said above if they didn't have the money then stans transfer would of gone through a lot sooner
And et is still funding the club just not in the wsy us or the efl would like

And as has been stated several times stadium finance is separate from the club
 
Scotchegg said:
Billy is wrong.

Money can't just be put in and removed. It would make a complete mockery of the need for financial sustainability.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be removed it would be spent on infrastructure but in the future which as far as I'm aware isn't against the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Sarge
General Post Match, Post Season Board Gathering
Replies
12
Views
5K
Mellowyellow
Mellowyellow
Mellowyellow
  • Poll Poll
Current Staff If many feel so strongly ,what would you do to let the board know enough is enough?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
14K
arthurturner
arthurturner
Paul Cannell
Current Staff Proper question for a poll to inform the OUFC board of our belief K. Robinson should be summarily dismissed
Replies
20
Views
5K
Paul Cannell
Paul Cannell
Malc
  • Poll Poll
Board A message for the board, with a poll "I have lost all faith in the manager"
Replies
3
Views
5K
Berliner
Berliner
Royalstandard74
  • Locked
Current Staff A message for the board.
2
Replies
53
Views
9K
Malc
Malc
Back
Top Bottom