General The Board & Senior Management

[Northstandboy]

 

[Belgium Yellow]

Only just caught up with the fact that Tim Williams has 'stepped down'. Fantastic news, hope he is completely gone and doesn't resurface anywhere else. Surprised this doesn't have its own thread so we can properly thank him for all his achievements... oh, wait...

 

[Upthecowboys]

This is why i find it strange people celebrating TW departure - since what over the past 6 months gives people confidence someone better will be put in place.

Yep. Pretty poor state of affairs when there seems to be a lack of faith that ET / club will appoint anyone better. Those are the feelings I have. I don’t think the early weeks of Dusan’s exploits have left anyone thinking he’s an upgrade..

When Jon Clarke left in August 2025, Tim Williams statement said ‘The team for the next phase of the project is now being put together and updates will follow in due course’ .

I’m not sure if ‘due course’ can expire, but we are 12 months on. Aimee McKenzie joined, from info on LinkedIn her background is Ops Management, Head of Ops & Facilities, Venue Director. Others know more than me about the skills in the next phase of the development. I’m guessing her previous experience of Ops & Venue Management at the new development in Fulham will be needed at the new stadium. But how is the team for the next phase of the development going? The team that will actually get the stadium built? The whole leadership structure just seems light, inexperienced and a bit all over the place at the moment, and Dusan’s early actions have been disappointing and completely underwhelming.

Maybe when we get the ‘full’ green light for the stadium there will be announcements about appointments and funding. Maybe..

So did I think Tim Williams do a good job , No I didn’t. Am I confident that he’ll be replaced with a more effective CEO, No I’m not.

 

[werthersoriginal]

We definitely need to be asking Erick questions, the rest a mere puppets.

We don’t have his email address though

 

[Billyox]

Yep. Pretty poor state of affairs when there seems to be a lack of faith that ET / club will appoint anyone better. Those are the feelings I have. I don’t think the early weeks of Dusan’s exploits have left anyone thinking he’s an upgrade..

When Jon Clarke left in August 2025, Tim Williams statement said ‘The team for the next phase of the project is now being put together and updates will follow in due course’ .

I’m not sure if ‘due course’ can expire, but we are 12 months on. Aimee McKenzie joined, from info on LinkedIn her background is Ops Management, Head of Ops & Facilities, Venue Director. Others know more than me about the skills in the next phase of the development. I’m guessing her previous experience of Ops & Venue Management at the new development in Fulham will be needed at the new stadium. But how is the team for the next phase of the development going? The team that will actually get the stadium built? The whole leadership structure just seems light, inexperienced and a bit all over the place at the moment, and Dusan’s early actions have been disappointing and completely underwhelming.

Maybe when we get the ‘full’ green light for the stadium there will be announcements about appointments and funding. Maybe..

So did I think Tim Williams do a good job , No I didn’t. Am I confident that he’ll be replaced with a more effective CEO, No I’m not.

That next phase became much clearer when formal permission was issued in February 2026. Oxford United themselves described it as:
discharging the pre-commencement planning conditions → enabling works → construction

Aimee McKenzieShe is COO and Oxford specifically says she will “play a lead role in the delivery of Oxford United’s new stadium.” Her background is actually much more relevant to this phase than the you Are suggesting. She wasn't merely running turnstiles at Fulham. She sat on the Management Board for the Riverside Stand development and has experience with capital expenditure projects and operational delivery.

Then there is the professional development team that already exists:
Ridge & Partners — project management and cost management, as well as planning, transport, sustainability and health & safety. In other words, Ridge is particularly important once you start moving towards actually delivering the building

AFL Architects — lead architect. They take the approved stadium design through the necessary detailed architectural stages.

Mott MacDonald — engineering. Structures, building services and specialist engineering, with expertise including fire safety, acoustics and crowd modelling.

Fabrik — landscape architecture, dealing with the external environment and landscaping package.

And then ultimately you have the main construction contractor and its subcontractors actually physically building it.

 

[ThatSlopesATwelfthMan]

That next phase became much clearer when formal permission was issued in February 2026. Oxford United themselves described it as:
discharging the pre-commencement planning conditions → enabling works → construction

Aimee McKenzieShe is COO and Oxford specifically says she will “play a lead role in the delivery of Oxford United’s new stadium.” Her background is actually much more relevant to this phase than the you Are suggesting. She wasn't merely running turnstiles at Fulham. She sat on the Management Board for the Riverside Stand development and has experience with capital expenditure projects and operational delivery.

Then there is the professional development team that already exists:
Ridge & Partners — project management and cost management, as well as planning, transport, sustainability and health & safety. In other words, Ridge is particularly important once you start moving towards actually delivering the building

AFL Architects — lead architect. They take the approved stadium design through the necessary detailed architectural stages.

Mott MacDonald — engineering. Structures, building services and specialist engineering, with expertise including fire safety, acoustics and crowd modelling.

Fabrik — landscape architecture, dealing with the external environment and landscaping package.

And then ultimately you have the main construction contractor and its subcontractors actually physically building it.

Brilliant summary of the expertise we have onboard but which is all much less visible than looking at club staff, roles and headcount. I do wonder if there may be a similar move made on the operational side of the club now to make greater use of specialist experts. It was always a bit weird that Tim as CEO was positioned as the football finance/accounting expert and perhaps not surprising that he wasn't really able to excel at either role

 

[Billyox]

Brilliant summary of the expertise we have onboard but which is all much less visible than looking at club staff, roles and headcount. I do wonder if there may be a similar move made on the operational side of the club now to make greater use of specialist experts. It was always a bit weird that Tim as CEO was positioned as the football finance/accounting expert and perhaps not surprising that he wasn't really able to excel at either role

Development is completely different to club side of things

 

[Basham Wonderland]

That next phase became much clearer when formal permission was issued in February 2026. Oxford United themselves described it as:
discharging the pre-commencement planning conditions → enabling works → construction

Aimee McKenzieShe is COO and Oxford specifically says she will “play a lead role in the delivery of Oxford United’s new stadium.” Her background is actually much more relevant to this phase than the you Are suggesting. She wasn't merely running turnstiles at Fulham. She sat on the Management Board for the Riverside Stand development and has experience with capital expenditure projects and operational delivery.

Then there is the professional development team that already exists:
Ridge & Partners — project management and cost management, as well as planning, transport, sustainability and health & safety. In other words, Ridge is particularly important once you start moving towards actually delivering the building

AFL Architects — lead architect. They take the approved stadium design through the necessary detailed architectural stages.

Mott MacDonald — engineering. Structures, building services and specialist engineering, with expertise including fire safety, acoustics and crowd modelling.

Fabrik — landscape architecture, dealing with the external environment and landscaping package.

And then ultimately you have the main construction contractor and its subcontractors actually physically building it.

So we essentially need Dusan or Aimee to be bloody good at holding all of those different contractors together. Looks like Aimee is the best candidate to do that on paper - albeit you do wonder if she led construction of the new stand at Fulham (in which case great stuff), or if her role was more focused on dealing with match day ops.

 

[ThatSlopesATwelfthMan]

Development is completely different to club side of things

Which is why i said "I do wonder (not conclude) if there may (not definitely) be a similar (not identical) move made on the operational side (distinct from development) of the club now to make greater use of specialist experts (versus relying on a light and blurry set of internal roles)". It was remarkable how little our operational capacity and profile changed even when our budgets, risk profile and complexity challenges increased highly after promotion. The development project is obviously completely separate and it's resourced well as your summary shows, our operations even at a basic level? Given the number of avoidable cockups in the last few years I do wonder.

 

[Billyox]

So we essentially need Dusan or Aimee to be bloody good at holding all of those different contractors together. Looks like Aimee is the best candidate to do that on paper - albeit you do wonder if she led construction of the new stand at Fulham (in which case great stuff), or if her role was more focused on dealing with match day ops.

I don't think Aimee needs to have personally “led construction” at Fulham. That's not really what her Oxford role requires
. Ridge/project management, the architects, engineers and ultimately the main contractor are the people coordinating the technical construction process.

 

[carefreeoufc]

So we essentially need Dusan or Aimee to be bloody good at holding all of those different contractors together. Looks like Aimee is the best candidate to do that on paper - albeit you do wonder if she led construction of the new stand at Fulham (in which case great stuff), or if her role was more focused on dealing with match day ops.

Not necessarily. They’ll appoint a Main/Principal Contractor and it’ll be their job to project manage/oversee the delivery of the project and the various tiers of subcontractors that will be on the job. I’d imagine it would possibly go to someone like Sir Robert McAlpine or Mace and then you’ll end up with the Tier 1s and do on. But she’ll be dealing with the main company overseeing the project.

 

[charliesghost]

It really isn't simples is it? Again, I've not had previous boardroom experience in football clubs, but I have read a lot of this and spoke to people who may have a better understanding of this. And my interpretation is that you explicitly can not just put money into a club and then take it out again. Nor can it be used to pay for day to day costs or saved for a rainy day.

Any matched funding must be used solely on the type of infrastructure that we simply do not have.

All speculation either way, but also, in my opinion, unnecessary.

Sorry, you're just wrong. I was on a committee that first examined these rules.
Think about the aim of it, old boy.
The aim is to ensure that clubs can meet their planned outgoings for the season ahead. That is the point.
It was specifically to prevent owners from committing to large wage bills and then walking away from those commitments.
'Ok, you want to overspend, we want to see not just about enough money in the club; we want to see plenty enough money in your club', so that if ticketing revenue falls a bit short, or a sponsor doesnt pay up, you dont end up slamming the club into admin.
Once you have put the money in, that's it. It's in, and you have ticked the box u til next June. You can spend it on whatever you want, except for First Team matters. But you cant take it out.
In June next year, we will assess you anew for the coming season. If you modify your plans and your spending falls within the 50% then at that point of course you can do whatever you want with your own private company's money. Because you are not stepping outside the guidelines/ rules.

 

[londonyellow]

Sorry, you're just wrong. I was on a committee that first examined these rules.
Think about the aim of it, old boy.
The aim is to ensure that clubs can meet their planned outgoings for the season ahead. That is the point.
It was specifically to prevent owners from committing to large wage bills and then walking away from those commitments.
'Ok, you want to overspend, we want to see not just about enough money in the club; we want to see plenty enough money in your club', so that if ticketing revenue falls a bit short, or a sponsor doesnt pay up, you dont end up slamming the club into admin.
Once you have put the money in, that's it. It's in, and you have ticked the box u til next June. You can spend it on whatever you want, except for First Team matters. But you cant take it out.
In June next year, we will assess you anew for the coming season. If you modify your plans and your spending falls within the 50% then at that point of course you can do whatever you want with your own private company's money. Because you are not stepping outside the guidelines/ rules.

I've questioned the same point on here a few times as this was also my understanding. Nice to have it cleared up.

So it pretty much comes down to Thohir et al either not having the money or not wanting to put it in, right?

 

[Sarge]

Sorry, you're just wrong. I was on a committee that first examined these rules.
Think about the aim of it, old boy.
The aim is to ensure that clubs can meet their planned outgoings for the season ahead. That is the point.
It was specifically to prevent owners from committing to large wage bills and then walking away from those commitments.
'Ok, you want to overspend, we want to see not just about enough money in the club; we want to see plenty enough money in your club', so that if ticketing revenue falls a bit short, or a sponsor doesnt pay up, you dont end up slamming the club into admin.
Once you have put the money in, that's it. It's in, and you have ticked the box u til next June. You can spend it on whatever you want, except for First Team matters. But you cant take it out.
In June next year, we will assess you anew for the coming season. If you modify your plans and your spending falls within the 50% then at that point of course you can do whatever you want with your own private company's money. Because you are not stepping outside the guidelines/ rules.

not if promotion back to the championship is acheived. Its different rules n regs applied there

 

[Billyox]

Sorry, you're just wrong. I was on a committee that first examined these rules.
Think about the aim of it, old boy.
The aim is to ensure that clubs can meet their planned outgoings for the season ahead. That is the point.
It was specifically to prevent owners from committing to large wage bills and then walking away from those commitments.
'Ok, you want to overspend, we want to see not just about enough money in the club; we want to see plenty enough money in your club', so that if ticketing revenue falls a bit short, or a sponsor doesnt pay up, you dont end up slamming the club into admin.
Once you have put the money in, that's it. It's in, and you have ticked the box u til next June. You can spend it on whatever you want, except for First Team matters. But you cant take it out.
In June next year, we will assess you anew for the coming season. If you modify your plans and your spending falls within the 50% then at that point of course you can do whatever you want with your own private company's money. Because you are not stepping outside the guidelines/ rules.

No surprise but slightly wrong

Every League One club has to make a Mid-Season SCMP Submission by 1 December for the current SCMP period. That is Rule 3.4 in the League One SCMP section

And it is not just a copy of the summer submission. The December submission has to be updated for things such as:
changes in assumptions
player movements
manager movements
new, terminated or renegotiated contracts
changes to Relevant Turnover
changes to Allowable Injection Income
changes to player/manager expenditure

The rules also say clubs have to keep the SCMP position updated throughout the season, not merely wait until December.

Which makes the idea that an owner has to put every penny required for the entire season in on day one even less convincing. The rules specifically contemplate the club's financial position changing and being updated during the season, with a formal mid-season submission by 1 December.

But you knew all that didn't you charlie

 

[kingoftheroad]

And there lies the issue , complete and utter silence

 

[OUFCwaffle]

Has it been confirmed that we have secured all the required funding for the stadium? I know Tim was working on that which is my only concern. Yes all the other departments and companies are in place but if there's no investment then we're stuffed.

 

[Billyox]

Has it been confirmed that we have secured all the required funding for the stadium? I know Tim was working on that which is my only concern. Yes all the other departments and companies are in place but if there's no investment then we're stuffed.

If im nodding and winking would you comfirm it

 

[The Mighty Aldo]

Has it been confirmed that we have secured all the required funding for the stadium? I know Tim was working on that which is my only concern. Yes all the other departments and companies are in place but if there's no investment then we're stuffed.

I know at the last fans forum that Tim Williams and Ferguson said that funding was well under way and several parties were interested and the hotel had been sorted.
Not sure we need to worry about the financing of the stadium especially after 24 th September if the judge throws out the JR.
When that happens we become a more viable club. Could be new investors or new owners but the whole of our existence is determined by the new stadium going ahead

 

[Scotchegg]

Projects of this size often result in phased investment, from multiple sources. Its not necessary to publicly announce each and every stage of this investment, but I would think it highly unlikely that we would commission the likes of McLaren Group without being able to demonstrate that the finances were in place.

Of all the silence from the club, this is one area that I don't think we have to stress about. Lets wait for the 24th September and see where things are then.

 

[West Oxon U’s]

The club’s Day of Destiny.

Let’s hope it’s a good one.

 

[Jim Chimcheroux]

I've questioned the same point on here a few times as this was also my understanding. Nice to have it cleared up.

So it pretty much comes down to Thohir et al either not having the money or not wanting to put it in, right?

Well not quite.
It’s more about EQUITY in my view.

ET seems happy to advance money in the form of loans through a separate company.
Those loans (OUFC debt) are then recovered by him, when the club is sold. (Assuming the sale price is enough to cover all preferential creditors)
Shares (EQUITY) however not preferential and rank bottom of any payout when club is sold (as one day it will be - unless it goes out of existence, unlikely but possible, all depends on new stadium)
So, ……..if balance sheet is under water when club is sold, there is no equity (share) value. In that scenario ET gets nothing for his equity!
And THAT (IMO) is why we are where we are.
Admittedly I have not read the EFL rules, but from the little bit that Billyox sent through on this thread earlier, the EFL Rule states cash must be put in as owner/shareholder EQUITY and NOT in the form of LOANS! Now loans are precisely ET’s preferred method of funding. (ie he is not getting his money back through shares unless club is sold with a healthy balance sheet, whereas with loans he ranks higher than other creditors, and is an far far superior position)

ET has baulked at this, (injecting equity rather than loaning the cash) I would too to be fair, as it is extremely risky, especially as he has no asset!
When the ground gets the go ahead however, this completely shifts.
He then has an asset (albeit) undeveloped at first, but nevertheless an asset. He then has a completely different risk perspective.

This, IMO, is why it was said at the start of the embargo, it was a “Funding Issue” not a “Cashflow issue”
What that statement says to me is:
“I’ve got the cash, but I ain’t putting it in as equity”

Now the new EFL rule stops him from putting it in as a loan, hey presto the movement of cash abruptly ceases!

I asked Billy, our revered and brilliant stadium expert, a few days ago (on a different thread) if he thought we would still be under embargo, if it were not for FoSB, he said yes we would as the stadium and the football club operations are completely separate, which they clearly are.

Where I disagree with Billy however, is because operations and stadium are intrinsically linked through ET funding, you cannot divorce the two!
He is clearly not willing to stump up a turnover deficit (X2 due to EFL rule) when there is a risk he never gets it back. (Who would?)
Once the stadium JR falls away however, (assuming it does) everything changes from a balance sheet, asset and equity performance perspective and ET’s Investor appetite is replenished!

Now obviously this is conjecture on my part but, THAT in my view is what he is waiting for!
It certainly fits and the accountant in me would do the same.

 

[Scotchegg]

Well not quite.
It’s more about EQUITY in my view.

ET seems happy to advance money in the form of loans through a separate company.
Those loans (OUFC debt) are then recovered by him, when the club is sold. (Assuming the sale price is enough to cover all preferential creditors)
Shares (EQUITY) however not preferential and rank bottom of any payout when club is sold (as one day it will be - unless it goes out of existence, unlikely but possible, all depends on new stadium)
So, ……..if balance sheet is under water when club is sold, there is no equity (share) value. In that scenario ET gets nothing for his equity!
And THAT (IMO) is why we are where we are.
Admittedly I have not read the EFL rules, but from the little bit that Billyox sent through on this thread earlier, the EFL Rule states cash must be put in as owner/shareholder EQUITY and NOT in the form of LOANS! Now loans are precisely ET’s preferred method of funding. (ie he is not getting his money back through shares unless club is sold with a healthy balance sheet, whereas with loans he ranks higher than other creditors, and is an far far superior position)

ET has baulked at this, (injecting equity rather than loaning the cash) I would too to be fair, as it is extremely risky, especially as he has no asset!
When the ground gets the go ahead however, this completely shifts.
He then has an asset (albeit) undeveloped at first, but nevertheless an asset. He then has a completely different risk perspective.

This, IMO, is why it was said at the start of the embargo, it was a “Funding Issue” not a “Cashflow issue”
What that statement says to me is:
“I’ve got the cash, but I ain’t putting it in as equity”

Now the new EFL rule stops him from putting it in as a loan, hey presto the movement of cash abruptly ceases!

I asked Billy, our revered and brilliant stadium expert, a few days ago (on a different thread) if he thought we would still be under embargo, if it were not for FoSB, he said yes we would as the stadium and the football club operations are completely separate, which they clearly are.

Where I disagree with Billy however, is because operations and stadium are intrinsically linked through ET funding, you cannot divorce the two!
He is clearly not willing to stump up a turnover deficit (X2 due to EFL rule) when there is a risk he never gets it back. (Who would?)
Once the stadium JR falls away however, (assuming it does) everything changes from a balance sheet, asset and equity performance perspective and ET’s Investor appetite is replenished!

Now obviously this is conjecture on my part but, THAT in my view is what he is waiting for!
It certainly fits and the accountant in me would do the same.

100% this.

 

[Manorlounger]

Well not quite.
It’s more about EQUITY in my view.

ET seems happy to advance money in the form of loans through a separate company.
Those loans (OUFC debt) are then recovered by him, when the club is sold. (Assuming the sale price is enough to cover all preferential creditors)
Shares (EQUITY) however not preferential and rank bottom of any payout when club is sold (as one day it will be - unless it goes out of existence, unlikely but possible, all depends on new stadium)
So, ……..if balance sheet is under water when club is sold, there is no equity (share) value. In that scenario ET gets nothing for his equity!
And THAT (IMO) is why we are where we are.
Admittedly I have not read the EFL rules, but from the little bit that Billyox sent through on this thread earlier, the EFL Rule states cash must be put in as owner/shareholder EQUITY and NOT in the form of LOANS! Now loans are precisely ET’s preferred method of funding. (ie he is not getting his money back through shares unless club is sold with a healthy balance sheet, whereas with loans he ranks higher than other creditors, and is an far far superior position)

ET has baulked at this, (injecting equity rather than loaning the cash) I would too to be fair, as it is extremely risky, especially as he has no asset!
When the ground gets the go ahead however, this completely shifts.
He then has an asset (albeit) undeveloped at first, but nevertheless an asset. He then has a completely different risk perspective.

This, IMO, is why it was said at the start of the embargo, it was a “Funding Issue” not a “Cashflow issue”
What that statement says to me is:
“I’ve got the cash, but I ain’t putting it in as equity”

Now the new EFL rule stops him from putting it in as a loan, hey presto the movement of cash abruptly ceases!

I asked Billy, our revered and brilliant stadium expert, a few days ago (on a different thread) if he thought we would still be under embargo, if it were not for FoSB, he said yes we would as the stadium and the football club operations are completely separate, which they clearly are.

Where I disagree with Billy however, is because operations and stadium are intrinsically linked through ET funding, you cannot divorce the two!
He is clearly not willing to stump up a turnover deficit (X2 due to EFL rule) when there is a risk he never gets it back. (Who would?)
Once the stadium JR falls away however, (assuming it does) everything changes from a balance sheet, asset and equity performance perspective and ET’s Investor appetite is replenished!

Now obviously this is conjecture on my part but, THAT in my view is what he is waiting for!
It certainly fits and the accountant in me would do the same.

I've just spent 15 minutes composing a reply and you've beaten me to it and said far more!
Just to add one paragraph:
It makes more sense for him (Thohir) to meet current expenditure (as he is doing) and get the current finances sorted so as to limit the waste and overspending that has been the trend in recent times. It does appear that some at the club in executive levels, were of the opinion that all they had to do was put a figure on paper and it would be paid. Thohir might not be the best football mind around but, he is not daft enough to not realise that the club was not being run efficiently and, again, not with a moderate chance of success.

 

[Jim Chimcheroux]

I've just spent 15 minutes composing a reply and you've beaten me to it and said far more!
Just to add one paragraph:
It makes more sense for him (Thohir) to meet current expenditure (as he is doing) and get the current finances sorted so as to limit the waste and overspending that has been the trend in recent times. It does appear that some at the club in executive levels, were of the opinion that all they had to do was put a figure on paper and it would be paid. Thohir might not be the best football mind around but, he is not daft enough to not realise that the club was not being run efficiently and, again, not with a moderate chance of success.

Absolutely! That as well.
There are certainly positives from a financial management perspective.
I hated witnessing the money being wasted at our club. Easy to do when it’s not your cash, so happy to see that now appears to be being addressed.
There’s always a positive somewhere!

 

[Billyox]

Not necessarily. They’ll appoint a Main/Principal Contractor and it’ll be their job to project manage/oversee the delivery of the project and the various tiers of subcontractors that will be on the job. I’d imagine it would possibly go to someone like Sir Robert McAlpine or Mace and then you’ll end up with the Tier 1s and do on. But she’ll be dealing with the main company overseeing the project.

We already know who the main contractor is and its none of them

 

[Slade Yellow]

Absolutely! That as well.
There are certainly positives from a financial management perspective.
I hated witnessing the money being wasted at our club. Easy to do when it’s not your cash, so happy to see that now appears to be being addressed.
There’s always a positive somewhere!

Scandalous waste more like and the culprits are at last being addressed, should think that recruitment is also in line, pay top dollar for players and then let them go for peanuts when they usually turn out to be either unfit or uninterested.

 

[carefreeoufc]

We already know who the main contractor is and its none of them

Who is it? I didn’t realise we’d appointed one.

 

[Billyox]

Who is it? I didn’t realise we’d appointed one.

Looks very likely to be mclaren construction

 

[Basham Wonderland]

I don't think Aimee needs to have personally “led construction” at Fulham. That's not really what her Oxford role requires
. Ridge/project management, the architects, engineers and ultimately the main contractor are the people coordinating the technical construction process.

Somebody at the club will need to be the point man for major decisions though - a contractor isn't going to do everything.

It's like in a multi-million pound private equity deal - the private equity house will do most of the grunt work but there is definitely someone at client end who is also running around like a lunatic 24/7. Normally that's the CEO.

 

[Billyox]

Yes Aimee McKenzie that is what she was appointed for

Somebody at the club will need to be the point man for major decisions though - a contractor isn't going to do everything.

It's like in a multi-million pound private equity deal - the private equity house will do most of the grunt work but there is definitely someone at client end who is also running around like a lunatic 24/7. Normally that's the CEO.