Thohir

Ricky Otto said:
The conversation should not be about what Myles intent is, whether he’s a prize c$&t (probably [emoji23]), how it impacts on the morale of our owners, or whether he can answer subjective follow up questions.

It should be:
1. Is the data correct?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, what are the potential risk implications to the future of our club?
3. How should oxvox, the council, and wider stakeholder audience such as fan base react, respond or manage these potential risks?
Click to expand...

That’s hard when he won’t tell anyone what the bloody data is to get to point 1
 
Ricky Otto said:
More than enough data has been provided.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what Myles was suggesting re the DC United ground model. Myles mentioned it and I was genuinely interested (like most on here I would imagine)
If the data has been provided it would be good to know where!!
I know that Dave did some investigation in that so it would be great to understand what has been found out and then have a debate?
 
Ricky Otto said:
The conversation should not be about what Myles intent is, whether he’s a prize c$&t (probably ?), how it impacts on the morale of our owners, or whether he can answer subjective follow up questions.

It should be:
1. Is the data correct?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, what are the potential risk implications to the future of our club?
3. How should oxvox, the council, and wider stakeholder audience such as fan base react, respond or manage these potential risks?
Click to expand...

I've tried to keep personalities out of this, and was genuinely interested in what Myles had uncovered about the DC United model. Like @Dave T , my impression was that this was an example of a fantastic stadium, designed with the community in mind, where there is enough revenue to keep investors happy whilst allowing DC to play for next to nothing and keep all matchday takings. This is pretty much as good as we could ever hope for, unless we get gifted a stadium by a lottery winner!

So on this matter alone, it's disappointing that more information wasn't provided, even if that meant proving me wrong.

As regard the property development at Reading, there could be legitimate questions about intent but I think we're a long way from ideas about mergers etc. My initial feelings are that we are dealing with businessmen who will continue to be involved in other business deals and that this has little barring on Oxford United, but who knows?

I guess without knowing if 1 is correct (and data is still very limited) then 2 and 3 are harder to judge. This would be a lot easier with more data, but only others can judge what, if anything, they can add to this thread.
 
Still Nothing Ricky ? Ok I’ll go again then .

DC United we’re bottom of the league for revenue income before they moved stadiums due to not being able to control certain inventory at a ground they neither owned nor operated (sound familiar at all)?
They now pay $1 a year rent and have move up to 9th in the mls for revenue income

The council also committed $150m towards the Build cost by buying the land, and doing all the local infrastructure.

And they are just about to start stage b. Development of land around it, the better they do the cheaper their rent becomes for the rest of the tenancy. Meaning the owners and investors make some money, but the football club, with a secure lease pay $1 a year for 35 years or longer and in return get all stadium revenue streams. Sounds terrible

 
Dave T said:
Still Nothing Ricky ? Ok I’ll go again then .

DC United we’re bottom of the league for revenue income before they moved stadiums due to not being able to control certain inventory at a ground they neither owned nor operated (sound familiar at all)?
They now pay $1 a year rent and have move up to 9th in the mls for revenue income

The council also committed $150m towards the Build cost by buying the land, and doing all the local infrastructure.

And they are just about to start stage b. Development of land around it, the better they do the cheaper their rent becomes for the rest of the tenancy. Meaning the owners and investors make some money, but the football club, with a secure lease pay $1 a year for 35 years or longer and in return get all stadium revenue streams. Sounds terrible

Click to expand...

That quite interesting @Dave T but can’t quite see our pathetic OCC committing any finance to help the club.
 
bazzer9461 said:
That quite interesting @Dave T but can’t quite see our pathetic OCC committing any finance to help the club.
Click to expand...
No probably not baz, more to demonstrate a point that that local councils don’t generally invest that much money, so that asset stripping con men can get a good property deal.
 
Dave T said:
No probably not baz, more to demonstrate a point that that local councils don’t generally invest that much money, so that asset stripping con men can get a good property deal.
Click to expand...
Always been the way, unless you’re a big club, I wonder how much Haringey council helped the spuds
 
Dave T said:
Fk did basically drop it, do u not remember Ian and Simon having to rebuild it from basically nothing (Charlie has also claimed he helped in this). And the grants and subsidies were not enough to stop darryl cutting it to heavily reduce costs.


Have a read on why Crewe say it’s vital they didn’t cut their academy

www.crewechronicle.co.uk

Crewe Alex academy must stay at Category 2 - David Artell

Head of academy operations explains why big annual investment is crucial to club
www.crewechronicle.co.uk
Click to expand...
I remember it very well, I was part of the group that convinced FK to at least keep the bare bones in place, by outlining how he could the various grants that were available to fund the youth setup while also benefitting other areas at the same time...

He did cut it back, but using the grant money argument we were able to persuade him not to let it go completely (like say wycombe). Having it just ticking over at a minimum may not have produced many players into our own senior squad at the time, but made it much easier for the Lenagans to revive it when they arrived, as there were staff and youngsters already in place, rather than having to start from scratch. COD for instance, and Sam Long were both already in the system when Simon L took it on, so we were able to benefit from their development and many others afterwards....
 
Councils also are probably more aware of what happened in Northampton than Washington in terms of backing local stadiums
 
mooro said:
Councils also are probably more aware of what happened in Northampton than Washington in terms of backing local stadiums
Click to expand...

Northampton was a loan though, is that what they did in Washington? If the Council took part ownership of the development then it would be different. But I agree that would take some negotiation!
 
Dave T said:
Still Nothing Ricky ? Ok I’ll go again then .

DC United we’re bottom of the league for revenue income before they moved stadiums due to not being able to control certain inventory at a ground they neither owned nor operated (sound familiar at all)?
They now pay $1 a year rent and have move up to 9th in the mls for revenue income

The council also committed $150m towards the Build cost by buying the land, and doing all the local infrastructure.

And they are just about to start stage b. Development of land around it, the better they do the cheaper their rent becomes for the rest of the tenancy. Meaning the owners and investors make some money, but the football club, with a secure lease pay $1 a year for 35 years or longer and in return get all stadium revenue streams. Sounds terrible

Click to expand...


I know me and @Dave T are founder members of the Positive Bus, but it's really difficult to read into the background of the DC Stadium and not see this being the perfect model for our future home.

I appreciate that bad news sells, and there have been far too many financial balls ups in the last 12 months, but some of the negativity is strange. In the same way that Junior mentions problems with pay and we have pages of comments saying how this proves that Tiger is potless, we have one throw away comment from Myles and again pages of despair.

I get plenty of stick for only ever seeing the positives, but convince me otherwise! A quick google by Dave provides a fairly comprehensive picture of a development that is benefiting everyone. I await similar information to counter this.
 
Having just joined the positive bus I totally agree....I have a conspiracy theory though .... maybe its all just the most intricate and crazy money laundering scheme ever seen..... tiger moriarty and the thompson twin directors :unsure::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Scotchegg said:
I know me and @Dave T are founder members of the Positive Bus, but it's really difficult to read into the background of the DC Stadium and not see this being the perfect model for our future home.

I get plenty of stick for only ever seeing the positives, but convince me otherwise! A quick google by Dave provides a fairly comprehensive picture of a development that is benefiting everyone. I await similar information to counter this.
Click to expand...

The problem with applying the DC Stadium model to us is that it required the local government to spend $150m, and also offer the club tens of millions in tax breaks.

This is actually not an uncommon arrangement in the US - cities often commit vast sums of money to build sporting infrastructure; partly this is because of the franchise model here, and the danger that a team will up and leave if the city doesn't do this (as my beloved Chargers did a couple of years ago); partly it's because there's a belief that the social and financial benefits of having a big stadium with a successful sports team (job creation, consumer spending, local regeneration etc. etc.) are sufficient to justify that outlay. There's plenty of studies that have been conducted that show that the cities in question never come close to recouping the money they spend.....but I guess elected officials are more scared of the public reaction if the team leaves, than if it wastes their taxes.

In Britain, the only two examples I know of where a similar model has been followed are Hull & Swansea.

It has a terrific positive impact on the club in question no doubt, but does anyone think it's likely to happen with OCC? I don't. And frankly, if I take my OUFC hat off, it is dubious to justify it from a city or countywide financial standpoint.
 
tonyw said:
The problem with applying the DC Stadium model to us is that it required the local government to spend $150m, and also offer the club tens of millions in tax breaks.

This is actually not an uncommon arrangement in the US - cities often commit vast sums of money to build sporting infrastructure; partly this is because of the franchise model here, and the danger that a team will up and leave if the city doesn't do this (as my beloved Chargers did a couple of years ago); partly it's because there's a belief that the social and financial benefits of having a big stadium with a successful sports team (job creation, consumer spending, local regeneration etc. etc.) are sufficient to justify that outlay. There's plenty of studies that have been conducted that show that the cities in question never come close to recouping the money they spend.....but I guess elected officials are more scared of the public reaction if the team leaves, than if it wastes their taxes.

In Britain, the only two examples I know of where a similar model has been followed are Hull & Swansea.

It has a terrific positive impact on the club in question no doubt, but does anyone think it's likely to happen with OCC? I don't. And frankly, if I take my OUFC hat off, it is dubious to justify it from a city or countywide financial standpoint.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested occ should or would invest.
 
tonyw said:
The problem with applying the DC Stadium model to us is that it required the local government to spend $150m, and also offer the club tens of millions in tax breaks.

This is actually not an uncommon arrangement in the US - cities often commit vast sums of money to build sporting infrastructure; partly this is because of the franchise model here, and the danger that a team will up and leave if the city doesn't do this (as my beloved Chargers did a couple of years ago); partly it's because there's a belief that the social and financial benefits of having a big stadium with a successful sports team (job creation, consumer spending, local regeneration etc. etc.) are sufficient to justify that outlay. There's plenty of studies that have been conducted that show that the cities in question never come close to recouping the money they spend.....but I guess elected officials are more scared of the public reaction if the team leaves, than if it wastes their taxes.

In Britain, the only two examples I know of where a similar model has been followed are Hull & Swansea.

It has a terrific positive impact on the club in question no doubt, but does anyone think it's likely to happen with OCC? I don't. And frankly, if I take my OUFC hat off, it is dubious to justify it from a city or countywide financial standpoint.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure anybody is seriously suggesting that.
The model where the Council contribute for shared ownership of a Community is one that Oxvox appeared to be making progress on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom