Unreliable funding increases OSSL losses

first_imgNewly published financial statements from Oxford Student Services Ltd (OSSL), the commercial arm of OUSU, show that gross profit fell by almost £40,000 between 2005 and 2006.OUSU sabbatical officers have warned that guaranteed funding from the University is the only way to avoid the Student Union’s current financial crisis. Overall turnover is down by around £100,000 and operating profit has fallen by £7,000.Ed Mayne, OUSU Vice-President (Finance) and OSSL Chairman, said that finances were volatile and prone to fluctuating. “Although the turnover for the 2004/5 financial year was high, the income proved to be unsustainable and many changes were made in the 2005/6 academic year. Due to the way OSSL currently operates, income and turnover will always fluctuate,” he said.OSSL plans to introduce a second business manager next year in a bid to increase revenue. “I am confident that the income we will receive in this financial year will be higher than in the previous financial year. OUSU’s publication provision will not change from its current format,” he added.In 2005, OUSU predicted that it would make a profit of £50,000 but in fact incurred a deficit of £42,702. As a result, OUSU was forced to radically reform its operations for creating revenue to remain financially viable. An estimated deficit of £60,000 the following year was proved wrong when the Student Union lost only £32,904 in 2006. The University has previously stressed that it will not provide further financial assistance until OUSU stops making losses, but the University’s Joint Committee has since reconsidered its position.OUSU President Alan Strickland said that the lack of a substantial block grant comparable to those received by student unions at other universities means that OUSU will remain financially weak due to inadequate funding and few permanent staff. “The volatility of OUSU’s commercial income makes it an unreliable source of funding for welfare, representation and other core services,” he said. “Thankfully, the University’s Joint Committee, which oversees OUSU, has accepted this. We are in advanced negotiations with them to gain stable core funding. OUSU has to guarantee provision of its core services without guaranteed funding. This is a serious problem which I hope we can remedy.”He added that OUSU expected greater OSSL profits in 2007, saying, “The overhaul of OUSU’s financial management which we’ve led this year and the hard work of our Business Manager mean that profits are stronger than last year. I’m confident that our subsidiary will be able to donate a healthier profit to OUSU at the end of the year.”Louisa Brownleelast_img read more

Budweiser Shootout Friday at U.S. 36

first_imgThe Sprint Series of Nebraska pays $700 to win and $250 to start. IMCA RaceSaver Sprints have heat race bonuses as well as $75 goes to each heat race winner, $50 to second and $25 to third.  Pit gates open at 4 p.m. The grandstand opens at 6 p.m., with hot laps at 7:30 p.m. and racing at 8 p.m. Tickets for the event are $20 for general admission, $18 for senior and military and chil­dren 12 and younger are free. Pit passes are $35.  OSBORN, Mo. – This Friday, June 5, is the Budweiser Shootout at U.S. 36 Raceway. The Sprint Series of Nebraska headlines the event. IMCA Sunoco Stock Cars are also racing. center_img U.S. 36 Raceway reminds teams and fans social distancing guidelines are still in effect. Those guidelines can be viewed at http://www.us36racewaydirttrack.com/news/?i=82363.last_img read more

Patel bowls Bears into one-day final

first_imgSPINNER Jeetan Patel took five wickets to help Warwickshire beat Somerset by eight runs at Edgbaston and set up a Royal London Cup One-Day Cup final against Surrey.Ian Bell struck an unbeaten 94 to boost hopes of an England return and help Warwickshire post 284-4.Somerset’s reply was blighted by Patel (5-42), whose five lbws included the key wicket of Peter Trego (58).James Hildreth (44) and Ryan Davies (46) rallied but the Bears held firm to book their place at Lord’s.Warwickshire will now face the Brown Caps, who beat Yorkshire in Sunday’s semi-final, on Saturday, September 17.The Bears’ victory over Somerset was built on the foundations set by openers Jonathan Trott and Sam Hain, who shared 90 before the former was caught and bowled by Roelof van der Merwe for 44.Hain (86) then put on a further 88 with Bell, whose flurry of late attacking strokes, including two straight sixes off van der Merwe, took the hosts to a competitive total.Somerset lost regular wickets throughout their chase, with eight batsmen reaching double figures but just one – Trego – going on to make a half-century.Only the heroics of number 10 batsman Tim Groenewald prevented the home side’s victory from being more emphatic, clubbing an unbeaten 30 off 20 deliveries to take the match to the final over.But a series of well-directed yorkers from Oliver Hannon-Dalby (2-41) ensured Warwickshire would reach the final of the competition they last won in 2010, leaving Somerset on 276-9. (BBC Sport)last_img read more

DraftKings Picks Week 13: NFL DFS lineup advice for daily fantasy football cash games

first_imgFor this Week 13 DraftKings cash game lineup I will jam CMC because KISS  — keep it simple, stupid (especially when playing cash contests in NFL DFS). Great advice! Hurts my feelings every time.We were on Sam Darnold and Jarvis Landry early last week but moved off to get Matt Ryan and now I feel like a sheep. And I’m sad. Time to grit my way through despondence and back to the cash line in Week 13. MORE WEEK 13:Waiver pickups | FAAB budget | Snap counts | Stock watch | Fantasy playoff SOSUPDATED DST Packers @ Giants ($3,400). PFF has charged Daniel Jones for the third-most turnover-worthy plays and we could get another ugly outing in the pouring rain akin to when the Cardinals visited last month.INITIAL DST Cardinals vs. Rams ($2,300). Close to basement price for a defense hosting Jared Goff, who PFF ranked as a top-three quarterback in turnover-worthy plays heading into this past weekend. WEEK 13 NON-PPR RANKINGS:Quarterback | Running back | Wide receiver | Tight end | D/ST | KickerDraftKings Week 13 Picks: NFL DFS cash lineupUPDATED QB Lamar Jackson, Ravens vs. 49ers ($7,000). His explosion against the Rams is not priced in since it came on Monday night after the $7K was set. Jackson’s averaging 30 DK and needs only 25 points to hit 3.5X.INITIAL QB Aaron Rodgers, Packers @ Giants ($6,500). When a defense reignites Trubisky, you fade that defense. We saw it with the Lions and now with the Giants – these are perfect rebound defenses. Only the Bengals allow more yards per pass than Big Blue.RB Christian McCaffrey, Panthers vs. Washington ($10,500). I got away with fading CMC two weeks ago and then burned last week, resisting to just find a way to pair the 30-plus DK points with Derrick Henry. Not this week: I’m returning to my September-October roots of auto-lock McCaffrey.WEEK 13 DFS LINEUPS:FD Cash | FD GPP | DK GPP | Y! Cash | Y! GPPRB Jonathan Williams, Colts vs. Titans ($5,300). Williams saw 29 touches in mostly neutral game script last Thursday, obviously a commanding role in this backfield share post-Mack. He’s priced up $2,300 but it honestly should be closer to double that.UPDATED WR Christian Kirk, Cardinals vs. Rams ($5,700). Kirk ranked ninth among receivers in targets during the four weeks heading into the Cardinals’ bye. His 26% target market share over the span nearly laps runner-up Larry Fitzgerald at 15%, distancing Kirk as the alpha for Kyler Murray.INITIAL WR Davante Adams, Packers @ Giants ($7,000). Again, the Giants rank near the very bottom in various metrics defending the pass, while Rodgers and Adams get depressed prices after the ugly Sunday night at San Francisco. Adams has seen a league-high target share since Week 10.UPDATED WR Robert Woods, Rams @ Cardinals ($5,500). Woods averages 10 targets over the past two weeks and could pay off with the Rams in a get-right spot against a Cardinals defense allowing more passing yards than anyone.INITIAL WR Sterling Shepard, Giants vs. Packers ($4,900). Golden Tate entered the concussion protocol, and Darius Slayton surprisingly goes $400 more than Shepard, who has seen nine targets in each of his past four healthy games.UPDATED WR Auden Tate, Bengals vs. Jets ($3,800). Tate has averaged the 10 targets over Andy Dalton’s past three starts so this feels like a free square with the Red Rifle back.INITIAL WR Chris Conley, Jaguars vs. Buccaneers ($4,500). Atlanta stumbled against the maligned Bucs defense last week, though that’s in some part due to Julio Jones getting injured and the offense already missing Devonta Freeman and Mohamed Sanu. Conley’s seen at least seven targets in five-straight games and faces a still-No. 32 Bucs unit in DK points allowed to receivers.WEEK 13 PPR RANKINGS: Running back | Wide receiver | Tight endTE Jack Doyle, Colts vs. Titans ($3,300). Colts tight ends rank sixth in fantasy points scored, as NFL.com’s Graham Barfield notes. So this price does not at all account for the absence of Eric Ebron.MORE WEEK 13 DFS: Stacks | Values | Lineup BuilderUPDATED FLEX Miles Sanders, Eagles ($5,400). Jordan Howard was ruled out for the Eagles and Chase Edmonds is back in the mix in Arizona’s backfield. I’ll take the greater certainty in Sanders locking down the lion’s share compared to Kenyan Drake at similiar price point.INITIAL FLEX Kenyan Drake, Cardinals vs. Rams ($5,600). Drake ranked fourth among running backs in receptions over the two weeks heading into the Cardinals’ Week 12 bye. That’s all while securing double-digit carries in each contest, indicating a cemented role in an offense that targets RB heavily.last_img read more

Sunday feature: Can the building on Washington and Lincoln be saved?

first_imgby James Jordan, Sumner Newscow — Wellington city building inspector Richard Jack is hopeful the building on the corner of Washington and Lincoln in Wellington can be saved. It is more than 100 years old, and has held up well, but recently serious problems developed. So much so that it could fall down, city officials say.Either the owners, or the city, will very soon get a company to come from Wichita to do some stabilization work that should keep it from falling down.Jack said the top popped out and it started collapsing, and it happened quickly. The owners notified the city, and the tenant, and roped the building off.“This and that happened all of a sudden for whatever reason,” he said. Jack said he was not saying earthquakes caused the damage, but it could have been a factor.The owners had done some good work on the building, including putting in a new roof, but Jack said things can happen to cause an old building to deteriorate rapidly, which is what happened in this case.At the city council meeting last Tuesday city officials said they want to save the building if at all possible. It has many of the original fixtures, and for the most part the building itself is sound. It is just that the southeast corner has started to have problems and is in danger of collapsing.At the meeting Jack said the building would not likely fall that day, but it could within a month if drastic actions are not taken immediately. The street is still blocked off as a safety precaution.Construction on the building was started in 1903 and was finished in 1910. There are several buildings of that age, or older, in the downtown area. There is also concern about them as time goes on.Jack said the city keeps an eye on them, and looks to see if there is damage that could be structural in nature.“Other than being 100 years old, and with deferred maintenance they seem sound,” he said.Some do have cracks here and there though, and Jack said people putting off maintenance to buildings is a concern because they will only get worse.On the building in question, Jack said an engineer found a picture from 2015 that showed some cracks. Now there is bowing of the supports in that area, and that is what has caused the building to be dangerous.He said buildings can develop structural damage almost overnight if maintenance is not done on them.While it may or may not have been made worse by the earthquakes Wellington has had over the last years, heavy rains and strong winds could also be contributing factors.“You start getting a door that won’t close anymore, or a couple of cracks. It does not take much after that, Jack said. It causes a little more damage, you get some rain and all of a sudden it is bad. The forces of nature can cause problems at any time,” he said.The building itself is rather large, with three floors. At the meeting last Tuesday, Jack said the building could fall in such a way that would damage other buildings, or it could just crumble on itself. It would be very expensive to tear the building down and the city would be left with another vacant lot.Doing the stabilization work that Jack has in mind will cost $2,000 or so, and that is a temporary fix. More stabilization will have to be done, but if it is stabilized, it can then be used again most likely.Jack said it was a real dilemma because the inside of the building is very nice.Early next week he will get the stabilization work, if the owners do not do so before that. The street will still be closed off at least partially for a time, until the city figures out what to do about the overall building beyond emergency stabilization.At present there is a real danger. He said it is possible the building could fall down with a strong storm, or another small earthquake.The stabilization involves putting steel beams into the ground that will have plates attached. The plates will hold the walls in place for awhile.Follow us on Facebook.Follow us on Twitter. Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (8) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +17 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 209 weeks ago Why is the city going to pay for the neglect of a property not owned by the city? Report Reply 1 reply · active 208 weeks ago +6 Vote up Vote down Concerned citizen · 209 weeks ago I don’t have first hand knowledge in this case but cities normally act to protect the public in cases like this and then bill the owner and assess the bill against the property as a lion. Sounds like they are trying to merely stabilize the building to try to prevent personal injury and further damage to surrounding property. Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down Citizen · 209 weeks ago JustMe is asking a valid question. When your home starts to age due to neglect over the years, the city doesn’t pay to place beams in it. That is up to the owner. Report Reply 1 reply · active 209 weeks ago +5 Vote up Vote down Common Sense · 209 weeks ago Valid the question it may be, but with a little thought you can also figure it out, this is a time sensitive, possible other property and city property (community roads and streets) issue. Stop continuously thinking dollars, if the building falls while someone is walking near or driving near, it could hurt people. Your home involves you and your family not the middle of down town with hundreds of vehicles driving past it every day or people right under it. I believe this is what government is supposed to do in this instance, protect citizens if possible. If it means they spend 2000 dollars then by all means please spend the 2000 instead of someone getting hit by a falling building and suing the city and the owner, then we pay millions, which would you rather have? Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down james · 209 weeks ago Good comments. It is a public safety issue. Stabilization isn’t going to cost that much, and the property owners will be billed. It’s even possible the owners will pay it. Dont know yet. Historic old buildings are worth saving for the common good. Report Reply 3 replies · active 209 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down CueballSumnernewscow 94p · 209 weeks ago I’m with James. These buildings are historic which in its time were some of the greatest architectural wonders. Tearing them down should be an absolute last resort. People seem to forget that the Glasgow building was in much worse shape a few years back before a gentleman by the name Karl Broderick poured money into it. Restoration is also something that becomes impossible once a building is torn down. Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 209 weeks ago An individual poured personal money into it? Good for him! That’s how is should be. The house that was torn down over by Lincoln school (4th and G?) would fall into the same criteria (a historic structure that was also a public safety issue) as this building. But alas, the city didn’t pay to have it fixed. The 2k the city plans on spending is a drop in the bucket that it will take to fix the Asian issues of this building that have been known about for years by the owner. Stop spending my money on someone’s personal property! Report Reply 0 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 209 weeks ago Please excuse the autocorrect typo in my above post. I don’t believe the building has an Asian issue. It has an aging issue. lol. I Report Reply Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img read more