Uncle Val

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Yup-good post and like you say the truth was closer to home. Like I've said before (yes I know its tedious) but the FSA is full of people with agendas and not necessarily doing the right things,which is important because its not helping turn the tide of a national game sailing down the Suwannee river.

These fans-some of whom have excellent intellect and can provide an informed response-seem to get bogged down in their own self importance and ideology, where all it might need is a 'back to basics' approach thats wholly inclusive.
They're never ever going to be able to adopt a firm and vocal protest against televised football, whilst they're pocketing the loot they receive from the PL fans fund.

All power corrupts, even at the lowest of levels....

 

[Wizaard]

There’s possibly a third option, insomuch as Football is a nice way for some people to present a whitewashed image of themselves. It seems to be quite a popular thing.

I wonder if Oyston also enjoyed the ‘doors’ that it opened for him.



There you go again, completely misquoting / spinning what I have said.

I mentioned that people used to chant about “Oyston shagged your wife”… I’ve also discussed the financial input from the Oystons. I’m well aware many fans were anti-Oyston long before the PL thing, because I was one of them…Don’t mistake my honesty for support (it’s very different)


I don’t see how you can support one investor taking a return and not support another.

So would you agree that OO could have also reasonably expected a return for his investment?

I said at the time I had no issue with a reasonable return. Where they went wrong was taking the lot and not reinvesting anything. My season ticket money was more investment than they were making and that's why I started boycotting.

 

[SEASIDE2020]

Yup-good post and like you say the truth was closer to home. Like I've said before (yes I know its tedious) but the FSA is full of people with agendas and not necessarily doing the right things,which is important because its not helping turn the tide of a national game sailing down the Suwannee river.

These fans-some of whom have excellent intellect and can provide an informed response-seem to get bogged down in their own self importance and ideology, where all it might need is a 'back to basics' approach thats wholly inclusive.
They're never ever going to be able to adopt a firm and vocal protest against televised football, whilst they're pocketing the loot they receive from the PL fans fund.

Yes Names, you will have forgotten more about the politics of football supporters groups than I will ever know and be far more aware of the potential issues/problems than others.

Not that you don't do but I think it is important to stress that the majority of those involved in the groups are capable and well meaning, my reservation would be that it's possible for individuals to decide what they like and what they don't like in football and then tell everybody exactly what's right and what's wrong in the game.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I said at the time I had no issue with a reasonable return. Where they went wrong was taking the lot and not reinvesting anything. My season ticket money was more investment than they were making and that's why I started boycotting.

In fairness, they didn't take anything near the lot, they did spend a pretty sizeable chunk of the money trying to get back into the Premier League and barring a pretty unlucky result vs West Ham we'd have done it. Of course we had a damned good side for a time after that too.

The amount they ended up taking out was a sizeable chunk (£30-40M???) and then they did start to run down the level of investment. And of course, the way that they went about the whole episode wasn't at all honest, with the whole "it's there if we need it bullshit"

I wonder if VB and OO had said we're going to take £20M out each, whether we might have felt that was fair or not?

 

[SEASIDE2020]

I said at the time I had no issue with a reasonable return. Where they went wrong was taking the lot and not reinvesting anything. My season ticket money was more investment than they were making and that's why I started boycotting.

Wiz

I shouldn't get involved but surely your season ticket money was a greater net investment than Uncle Val's ?

 

[voyeur]

There’s possibly a third option, insomuch as Football is a nice way for some people to present a whitewashed image of themselves. It seems to be quite a popular thing.

I wonder if Oyston also enjoyed the ‘doors’ that it opened for him.

I don’t see how you can support one investor taking a return and not support another.

So would you agree that OO could have also reasonably expected a return for his investment?

It can definitely be a whitewashing presentation thing and could well have attracted Belokon. I agree.

Like Wiz says, though, Owen and Val behaved differently. VB didn't seek a return until after he was pushed out by Owen and after Owen had removed as much as he could. And got his reward from a court judgement. He also was unable to continue at the club. It's not about black and white, darkness and light, as you say. But our experience in terms of how they behaved as guardians of BFC was very different. If Owen hadn't fleeced the club Belokon wouldn't have been put in the position he was and the court case wouldn't have been necessary. And you said yourself...

"... in all likelihood I think he would have continued to reinvest the PL money into the Club, had Oyston not done what he did."

 

[Wizaard]

In fairness, they didn't take anything near the lot, they did spend a pretty sizeable chunk of the money trying to get back into the Premier League and barring a pretty unlucky result vs West Ham we'd have done it. Of course we had a damned good side for a time after that too.

The amount they ended up taking out was a sizeable chunk (£30-40M???) and then they did start to run down the level of investment. And of course, the way that they went about the whole episode wasn't at all honest, with the whole "it's there if we need it bullshit"

I wonder if VB and OO had said we're going to take £20M out each, whether we might have felt that was fair or not?

I remember going to a few of those BSA forums with @Jaffa_The_Hut and others where Karl was saying it's there for a rainy day. At the time we were telling him we were in a monsoon but the die was cast. You're right that we might have had one go at going back up, but after that the focus was on retrenchment. You could tell by the frustration Ollie was showing and it came as no surprise when he left. After that, it was steadily downhill in terms of the quality in the side and also the spirit that had got us there, making the team better than the sum of the parts.

 

[Wizaard]

Wiz

I shouldn't get involved but surely your season ticket money was a greater net investment than Uncle Val's ?

Not at that point, but longer term, yes. At the time of his investment, it tipped the balance to enable a return to the Championship. The move to the next level wasn't down to finances.

 

[nameless]

.....it's possible for individuals to decide what they like and what they don't like in football and then tell everybody exactly what's right and what's wrong in the game.

Exactly and that's why I'm particularly irate at the Newcastle situation as it goes against everything thats been campaigned for.
Similarly some involved with BST now said that KO ran the club correctly with a parsimonious approach that didnt put the club in danger, as Blackburn fans said when the Venkys took over but whom their BR Trust vehemently opposed

Fast forward a few years and the situation at both clubs had changed and these people have flipped and somersaulted with their opinions and as you say the approach to their own supporters.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

It can definitely be a whitewashing presentation thing and could well have attracted Belokon. I agree.

Like Wiz says, though, Owen and Val behaved differently. VB didn't seek a return until after he was pushed out by Owen and after Owen had removed as much as he could. And got his reward from a court judgement. He also was unable to continue at the club. It's not about black and white, darkness and light, as you say. But our experience in terms of how they behaved as guardians of BFC was very different. If Owen hadn't fleeced the club Belokon wouldn't have been put in the position he was and the court case wouldn't have been necessary.

I probably agree with most of that. I’m not sure he was ever that serious about taking over and I do think there was something convenient about working particularly with Owen (as he expressed a desire to bury the hatchet at one point).

I’d also say that a parting gesture to the fans (As little as £1M to the Trust to spend on community projects for example) would not have been unreasonable IMHO.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I remember going to a few of those BSA forums with @Jaffa_The_Hut and others where Karl was saying it's there for a rainy day. At the time we were telling him we were in a monsoon but the die was cast. You're right that we might have had one go at going back up, but after that the focus was on retrenchment. You could tell by the frustration Ollie was showing and it came as no surprise when he left. After that, it was steadily downhill in terms of the quality in the side and also the spirit that had got us there, making the team better than the sum of the parts.

I’m not sure…. There’s been a couple of different ‘stories’ relating to the reasons for Ollie’s departure. The ‘Casino’ story being the main one..

We also started that following season as well as any we’ve played. If you remember, Colin Wanker had tipped us for an automatic spot.

In the end, I think Ollie’s motivational capabilities have a limited shelf-life, our defensive frailties we’re starting to become a source of frustration and the level of investment was being progressively cut back (although arguably that was a sensible policy in isolation). Of course the ‘sensible policy’ was coupled with the removal of large chunks of cash into Oyston businesses / pockets, which didn’t sit well.

I think NC is streets ahead of Ollie’s ‘Kevin Keeganesque’ style of football and is far more tactically astute. Though it was a great ‘ride’ while it lasted.

 

[AngelBFC]

Not enough revenue to plug the losses, which were over £10M when he went into prison and his Mrs (Vicky) took over. Since then they build two new stands, stood a further 10 years of losses, before selling some shares to VB and reinvesting them too. Don't forget, we'd also spent fortunes (relatively) building a very good side in the mid 90's... By the way, none of that makes them any less the scum that they are in my view, but you can't just imagine it away and pretend that they hadn't invested and VB came along and saved the day with his wallet, because it's a misleading narrative.. Just like it's a misleading narrative to suggest that the PL success was all down to Belokon.

Like him or loathe him, it would not be unreasonable (at all) to suggest that Karl Oyston was somewhat of a trailblazer for much of the reform that we now see BST throwing their efforts into. An advocate of sensible spending polices, an isolated adversary of Rip Off Agents and over-paid prima-dona players. Of course, he was also a narcissistic tosspot, who had a trump-like inability to deal with criticism on any level and behaved like an immature petulant school kid in many other respects, but there can be no question whatsoever (unless we are not being fair minded) that he too, along with his unconventional methods, played a pivotal role in the journey to the Prem. Of course, when we got there, he crumbled with stage fright, was completely outside of his comfort zone and I'd argue he was the single biggest factor in us failing to stay there, because he above everyone else just failed to adapt.

Like everyone else, I'm glad to get rid of the Oystons.... I can't stand them... In my view they are the vilest of people and have no place at a great Football Club like ours. Some of the things that they have done or have been alleged to have done during their time at the club are contemptible in my view, but none of that changes the reality from a financial perspective. Though it really doesn't matter anymore, they have gone and we are well rid. In many ways their demise was as fortunate as our promotion to the Premier League with a whole series of fortunate event's aligning as well as their own greed and stupidity combining to bring about their downfall in the most delightful circumstances.

As I've said on this thread, I'm no fan of Belokon (or at least I don't hold him up like some do), but nonetheless, his challenge to Oyston through the courts served to be a significant factor in ridding us of Oyston. Even then though, OO could have accepted a small settlement or paid up when ordered and VB would have been off and we'd have been stuck with Oyston, but instead Owen dug his heels in and it went our way....The Club was unceremoniously ripped from his vice-like grip and the buzz returned...

We now have a fantastic new owner who from what I can see has the Club and Community at heart, one of the brightest young Managers in the Country and a side who are beginning to give the Class of 2010 a run for their money. The history won't change and personally I'd rather reflect on it with a sense of honesty and acceptance, than to twist it to be something it wasn't (like an ex lover, you have to accept there were some good bits as well as bad), but it's all about where we go from here now and frankly, I think we are well shut of the Oystons and VB and that we are in a far better place than we would or could have been with any other outcome than we got...

I'll leave it there...

I suspect the money VB paid for the shares was conditional on it being reinvested and Oyston didn’t have a choice

 

[Wizaard]

I’m not sure…. There’s been a couple of different ‘stories’ relating to the reasons for Ollie’s departure. The ‘Casino’ story being the main one..

We also started that following season as well as any we’ve played. If you remember, Colin Wanker had tipped us for an automatic spot.

In the end, I think Ollie’s motivational capabilities have a limited shelf-life, our defensive frailties we’re starting to become a source of frustration and the level of investment was being progressively cut back (although arguably that was a sensible policy in isolation). Of course the ‘sensible policy’ was coupled with the removal of large chunks of cash into Oyston businesses / pockets, which didn’t sit well.

I think NC is streets ahead of Ollie’s ‘Kevin Keeganesque’ style of football and is far more tactically astute. Though it was a great ‘ride’ while it lasted.

I agree with your last para. We had a team who totally bought into the methods and that gave us the greatest ride indeed, but that could only last while the team dynamic was that way. It did indeed have a limited shelf life.

It was the obvious things in the accounts like House of Roma getting more money than the playing side that was a turning point for many. As bad as the sueing of fans was, I was more upset about the lack of ambition being shown that turned me against them.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I suspect the money VB paid for the shares was conditional on it being reinvested and Oyston didn’t have a choice

I'm not sure that really makes much difference... Oyston sought out the investment, persuaded VB to get involved and sold shares that belonged to him in order to raise the money....he didn't have to sell his shares at all.

If Oyston had sold his house to VB and used that money to fund Blackpool FC, then people would recognise that was Oyston's investment, yet because he sold his shares, people somehow discount the fact that it was Oyston's investment. I appreciate that perhaps many fans won't grasp how it works and therefore will have simply believed that it was all VB, which is why I think people who do understand, have a responsibility to at least be honest.

 

[voyeur]

I probably agree with most of that. I’m not sure he was ever that serious about taking over and I do think there was something convenient about working particularly with Owen (as he expressed a desire to bury the hatchet at one point).

I’d also say that a parting gesture to the fans (As little as £1M to the Trust to spend on community projects for example) would not have been unreasonable IMHO.

I agree. I thought he would do that. But he did wrestle the club out if Oyston hands and facilitated a pretty smooth change over to a very suitable owner, and that was good enough for me.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

If I'd put money into a struggling League One side that got into the Premier League soon after I'd expect a return too.

It was more like £11m excluding the player fund - can't recall all the figures without going back to the judgment but the SS investment was north of £5m

 

[voyeur]

It was more like £11m excluding the player fund - can't recall all the figures without going back to the judgment but the SS investment was north of £5m

So what was Belokons total spend on the club and on the court case? And how much was he finally paid out from the award? I doubt anybody has much idea about either figure tbh.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

So what was Belokons total spend on the club and on the court case? And how much was he finally paid out from the award? I doubt anybody has much idea about either figure tbh.

His legal costs are not relevant, because they get paid by the other side, so you can net them off and take them out of the equation.

Roughly speaking he will have more than doubled his financial investment.

Input included

1. Purchase of initial 20% for £2.2M

2. Investment in Lieu of further 30% share for approx £3.3M

3. Charlie Adam Fund etc.. say £1M+

4. South Stand - £5-7M

Total around £11.5 - £13.5M

Output

1.£31.2M award (paid in full)

2. Additional interest ????

3. 30% share of profit on player sales (Charlie Adam etc)

As I said, he’s comfortably doubled his investment with interest.

 

[foggy]

So what was Belokons total spend on the club and on the court case? And how much was he finally paid out from the award? I doubt anybody has much idea about either figure tbh.

He paid 4.5m for his shares, 4.75m for the south stand and then over 1m for the player fund to buy Charlie, Eardley and pay for Bouazza's wages. Overall, with a bit of rounding, he put in £11m. Since VB joined, Owen put in £1m, which was for the south stand.

VB got I'd say close to 40m from the court cases with interest and costs, also including a small sum from the first case regarding the south stand. He nearly quadrupled his money.

The real question is, how much of those profits were just for him, and how much went to Maxim Bakiyev?

 

[voyeur]

I appreciate both responses but I think that all anyone can do is estimate based on what we do know. And there's lots we don't know.

40m? That seems high! I gave up following the pursuit of Oyston money cos it was dragging out for ever and it was less than half the award when I gave up. Owen was being his usual self, hiding his assets and hiding himself in Spain and being a complete **. The prospect for getting the 27m award plus legal costs looked very poor. And I'd be amazed if it was achieved, or even close. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

 

[foggy]

I appreciate both responses but I think that all anyone can do is estimate based on what we do know. And there's lots we don't know.

40m? That seems high! I gave up following the pursuit of Oyston money cos it was dragging out for ever and it was less than half the award when I gave up. Owen was being his usual self, hiding his assets and hiding himself in Spain and being a complete **. The prospect for getting the 27m award plus legal costs looked very poor. And I'd be amazed if it was achieved, or even close. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

I heard from both Oyston side and Belekon side it was paid in full, there may have been deal cut on the intetest, I can't quite remember now.

 

[voyeur]

I heard from both Oyston side and Belekon side it was paid in full, there may have been deal cut on the intetest, I can't quite remember now.

Excellent. That sounds good then. And I'm delighted, I always wanted the Oystons to pay up, I really doubted they would. And assumed Val would at some point write-off the rest. Thanks. 40m though? Must include legal costs.

 

[foggy]

Excellent. That sounds good then. And I'm delighted, I always wanted the Oystons to pay up, I really doubted they would. And assumed Val would at some point write-off the rest. Thanks. 40m though? Must include legal costs.

Yeah, it was 31m but there's also interest remember, and interest for 31m that wasn't fully paid for nearly 3 years adds up. Plus Clifford Chance court costs are expensive. He got a small 7-figure sum from the south stand case in MCR, and approx 1.6m from Charlie sale. So it does get you to around 40m.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I appreciate both responses but I think that all anyone can do is estimate based on what we do know. And there's lots we don't know.

40m? That seems high! I gave up following the pursuit of Oyston money cos it was dragging out for ever and it was less than half the award when I gave up. Owen was being his usual self, hiding his assets and hiding himself in Spain and being a complete **. The prospect for getting the 27m award plus legal costs looked very poor. And I'd be amazed if it was achieved, or even close. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

How accurate do you need it to be?

The prospect for Owen was simple… Pay what he owed or continue being relieved of his assets. So I’m not sure why you would be ‘amazed’…. I’ve no doubt being relieved of the club was a moment of clarity As TAM has already said, the debt was paid.

This is one of the reasons I get so frustrated Vot, because it’s almost as if you won’t accept the truth, because it somehow disrupts the myth.

He got paid, he more than doubled his money… (although the £40M is likely to have been an estimate of award plus costs plus interest) easier to just net off legal costs as I said…

The bulk of the figures are publicly available in any case .

 

[foggy]

The first 11m tranche Owen paid Valeri was from a money lender in Manchester. None of the banks trusted him. He got the loan with what I was told was 'stuuuuuupidly high interest".

 

[voyeur]

How accurate do you need it to be?

The prospect for Owen was simple… Pay what he owed or continue being relieved of his assets. So I’m not sure why you would be ‘amazed’…. I’ve no doubt being relieved of the club was a moment of clarity As TAM has already said, the debt was paid.

This is one of the reasons I get so frustrated Vot, because it’s almost as if you won’t accept the truth, because it somehow disrupts the myth.

He got paid, he more than doubled his money… (although the £40M is likely to have been an estimate of award plus costs plus interest) easier to just net off legal costs as I said…

The bulk of the figures are publicly available in any case .

If course I'll accept the truth. I just did, above. No problem. And I'm delighted that Val apparently got his money. I hoped that he would help out sued individuals and that he might stay involved in the club. I was disappointed he didn't. But I still see his involvement as entirely positive. He arrived, said Premier League in 5 years, invested, we got there in 4 years, we made £150 m or whatever, he made a profit that amounts to about £20m? Or 10 to 15% of that. They were great years I never expected to see. We'd been in the bottom two divisions for 30 years.

 

[SeasideKurt]

If course I'll accept the truth. I just did, above. No problem. And I'm delighted that Val apparently got his money. I hoped that he would help out sued individuals and that he might stay involved in the club. I was disappointed he didn't. But I still see his involvement as entirely positive. He arrived, said Premier League in 5 years, invested, we got there in 4 years, we made £150 m or whatever, he made a profit that amounts to about £20m? Or 10 to 15% of that. They were great years I never expected to see. We'd been in the bottom two divisions for 30 years.

Pretty much this, the whole Oyston stuff being their investment is absolute bollocks and not really true.

Content with what happened with him getting his money, ownership of the club or further investment in the club was off the cards due to the Fit and Proper stuff.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

If course I'll accept the truth. I just did, above. No problem. And I'm delighted that Val apparently got his money. I hoped that he would help out sued individuals and that he might stay involved in the club. I was disappointed he didn't. But I still see his involvement as entirely positive. He arrived, said Premier League in 5 years, invested, we got there in 4 years, we made £150 m or whatever, he made a profit that amounts to about £20m? Or 10 to 15% of that. They were great years I never expected to see. We'd been in the bottom two divisions for 30 years.

Yep, I thought so too…

Maybe he needed the money

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Pretty much this, the whole Oyston stuff being their investment is absolute bollocks and not really true.

Content with what happened with him getting his money, ownership of the club or further investment in the club was off the cards due to the Fit and Proper stuff.

So you don’t acknowledge that Oystons put money into the Club in the 35 years they owned it?

Does that mean we can expect to read a work of tangerine tinted fiction?

 

[voyeur]

Pretty much this, the whole Oyston stuff being their investment is absolute bollocks and not really true.

Content with what happened with him getting his money, ownership of the club or further investment in the club was off the cards due to the Fit and Proper stuff.

Absolutely, the fit and proper person stuff prevented his further involvement, and Sadler said he wanted to have a fresh start too. I wouldn't be surprised if Karl used his EFL connections to achieve the FPP decision too. As if his dad was fit and proper. Or many other football club owners and investors. How does Val get barred and all these others not?

 

[SeasideKurt]

So you don’t acknowledge that Oystons put money into the Club in the 35 years they owned it?

Does that mean we can expect to read a work of tangerine tinted fiction?

Quote me where I have said they haven't put any money into the club and we can discuss, otherwise, don't reply.

I said your analogy around how selling shares was investing in our sceneario, it's not and wasn't. It's just absolute bollocks.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Quote me where I have said they haven't put any money into the club and we can discuss, otherwise, don't reply.

I said your analogy around how selling shares was investing in our sceneario, it's not and wasn't. It's just absolute bollocks.

I’m sorry mate, but you’re completely wrong… if I sold half of my business to you and then reinvested that money back into the business that would be my investment.. it’s basics

 

[AngelBFC]

I’m sorry mate, but you’re completely wrong… if I sold half of my business to you and then reinvested that money back into the business that would be my investment.. it’s basics

In normal circs possibly .

But

There is no way the club was worth 10 mil at the time Val bought in and got his 20 per cent for 2.2 million .

Was surely a case of Val if you invest 2.2 mil I’ll give you 20 per cent

With Vals 20 per cent it may have been worth closer to 10 mil not without

 

[Insider]

I'm not sure that really makes much difference... Oyston sought out the investment, persuaded VB to get involved and sold shares that belonged to him in order to raise the money....he didn't have to sell his shares at all.

If Oyston had sold his house to VB and used that money to fund Blackpool FC, then people would recognise that was Oyston's investment, yet because he sold his shares, people somehow discount the fact that it was Oyston's investment. I appreciate that perhaps many fans won't grasp how it works and therefore will have simply believed that it was all VB, which is why I think people who do understand, have a responsibility to at least be honest.

Just for the record the shares that Valeri acquired in Blackpool Football Club Ltd were 7,500 newly allotted £1 shares which increased the share capital of the company from 30,000 to 37,500.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Just for the record the shares that Valeri acquired in Blackpool Football Club Ltd were 7,500 newly allotted £1 shares which increased the share capital of the company from 30,000 to 37,500.

No need to reply...

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

In normal circs possibly .

But

There is no way the club was worth 10 mil at the time Val bought in and got his 20 per cent for 2.2 million .

Was surely a case of Val if you invest 2.2 mil I’ll give you 20 per cent

With Vals 20 per cent it may have been worth closer to 10 mil not without

That's a fair point... (I'm not sure what the Club would have been worth) Of course, in the end VB was also stiffed out of the second tranche of his shares in any case... (whether Oyston had intended that at the time, who knows)... It's fair to say though that £2.2M doesn't go particularly far in a Club that was consistently losing around £1M a year at the time.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Just for the record the shares that Valeri acquired in Blackpool Football Club Ltd were 7,500 newly allotted £1 shares which increased the share capital of the company from 30,000 to 37,500.

Thanks for clarifying.

So it wasn’t a case of OO being paid and then reinvesting the money into the club. It was invested directly into the club.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Thanks for clarifying.

So it wasn’t a case of OO being paid and then reinvesting the money into the club. It was invested directly into the club.

Surely you'd always invest directly into the Club in those circumstances... ?

 

[Archibald Knox]

I thought that VB waived his bonus share of the Adam sale to LFC and put it back into the player fund?

 

[foggy]

I thought that VB waived his bonus share of the Adam sale to LFC and put it back into the player fund?

He was due 70% of the profits but flipped it so he only took 30% and left the rest in Blackpool, presumably with the hope it would be reinvested.

 

[SEASIDE2020]

Exactly and that's why I'm particularly irate at the Newcastle situation as it goes against everything thats been campaigned for.
Similarly some involved with BST now said that KO ran the club correctly with a parsimonious approach that didnt put the club in danger, as Blackburn fans said when the Venkys took over but whom their BR Trust vehemently opposed

Fast forward a few years and the situation at both clubs had changed and these people have flipped and somersaulted with their opinions and as you say the approach to their own supporters.

Names

Re Newcastle, to be honest with you I wouldn't know exactly what has been campaigned for but surely you are not suggesting that the FSA have been campaigning against foreign investment in clubs from states with questionable human rights issues/problems ?

Please don't get me wrong, I am not overly bothered about Newcastle and/or who funds them and I am not about to start pretending otherwise but if you are suggesting that the FSA have been campaigning against investment from states with human rights issues - I appreciate I might be assuming incorrectly and apologies if that's the case - then what did that bald Kevin chap have to say about the Saudis ?

What did the Newcastle Gay Supporters Association - if there is such a thing ? - have to say about things, is everything/everybody OK because they have got rid of Ashley ?

It's the inconsistency and hypocrisy that gets me, many are happy to oppose things and adopt soundbites to appear to be nice but when push comes to shove, they are willing to change their minds very quickly and happy to sweep things under the carpet when it suits.

Moving on, not a big issue but I am not sure what you meant when you said on your last line about what I said about their approach to their own supporters ?

I'm assuming that you are talking about supporters groups and/or trusts but I don't know what it was that I said about their approach to their own supporters ?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

He was due 70% of the profits but flipped it so he only took 30% and left the rest in Blackpool, presumably with the hope it would be reinvested.

It was reinvested...

 

[SeasideKurt]

He was due 70% of the profits but flipped it so he only took 30% and left the rest in Blackpool, presumably with the hope it would be reinvested.

But I thought he was here to just rip money out of Blackpool FC?

Some of the garbage being spewed on this thread is unbelievable. Without VB, I genuinely doubt we'd be in the football league anymore. See Stockport, Macclesfield, Notts County etc etc.

 

[Insider]

That's a fair point... (I'm not sure what the Club would have been worth) Of course, in the end VB was also stiffed out of the second tranche of his shares in any case... (whether Oyston had intended that at the time, who knows)... It's fair to say though that £2.2M doesn't go particularly far in a Club that was consistently losing around £1M a year at the time.

Don't forget Valeri invested in Blackpool Football Club which had hardly any assests, although at 31.05.2007 it did have £1.7m in the bank, presumably from Vateri's share aquistion.
The Balance Sheet value was £19k.

 

[foggy]

It was reinvested...

We don't really know that. Owen took money out of Blackpool FC and into Segesta/Zabaxe and then some of that money disappeared. Whether that was season ticket money, Premier League money, or Charlie money, is impossible for us to know.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Don't forget Valeri invested in Blackpool Football Club which had hardly any assests, although at 31.05.2007 it did have £1.7m in the bank, presumably from Vateri's share aquistion.
The Balance Sheet value was £19k.

Yes mate, I realise that and of course, based on what SS ended up paying for the whole shabang, then I suppose it is even possible that Oyston made a net gain. Though I suspect the Club is likely worth significantly more cash now....

It's not easy valuing a football club as we've discussed on here in the past, because the value doesn't tend to relate so neatly to the profitability or the assets of the club. Factors like the size of the fanbase and league position come into the equation, with the golden share (or whatever it's called) having value in and of itself.

Of course none of that changes the fact that it was a shared investment.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

We don't really know that. Owen took money out of Blackpool FC and into Segesta/Zabaxe and then some of that money disappeared. Whether that was season ticket money, Premier League money, or Charlie money, is impossible for us to know.

I was about to follow that up with...... In House of Roma

 

[rockontommy]

Names

Re Newcastle, to be honest with you I wouldn't know exactly what has been campaigned for but surely you are not suggesting that the FSA have been campaigning against foreign investment in clubs from states with questionable human rights issues/problems ?

Please don't get me wrong, I am not overly bothered about Newcastle and/or who funds them and I am not about to start pretending otherwise but if you are suggesting that the FSA have been campaigning against investment from states with human rights issues - I appreciate I might be assuming incorrectly and apologies if that's the case - then what did that bald Kevin chap have to say about the Saudis ?

What did the Newcastle Gay Supporters Association - if there is such a thing ? - have to say about things, is everything/everybody OK because they have got rid of Ashley ?

It's the inconsistency and hypocrisy that gets me, many are happy to oppose things and adopt soundbites to appear to be nice but when push comes to shove, they are willing to change their minds very quickly and happy to sweep things under the carpet when it suits.

Moving on, not a big issue but I am not sure what you meant when you said on your last line about what I said about their approach to their own supporters ?

I'm assuming that you are talking about supporters groups and/or trusts but I don't know what it was that I said about their approach to their own supporters ?

Spot on. I find the moralising about unscrupulous owners completely hollow most of the time. Been guilty of it myself in the past so I guess it is human nature. You either take a consistent approach to it or don't bother at all. Plenty of double standards on here, not just this thread.

 

[voyeur]

Spot on. I find the moralising about unscrupulous owners completely hollow most of the time. Been guilty of it myself in the past so I guess it is human nature. You either take a consistent approach to it or don't bother at all. Plenty of double standards on here, not just this thread.

I do have a very consistent approach to it. Whereas the Bifster is defending the Oystons one minute, and then making sure we know he hates them the next!

And doing something like the reverse with Val.

 

[TangerineBayern]

One of my 6 comments that they tried to sue me for was for calling him a dirty old rapist…… still think I was right with that one

Well he got sent down for it