bpmarko

And Failsworth is four hundred miles from BP if you go via London! Taking the M61 is an awfully long way around.

Also an 'all the goals' round up coming in at over ten minutes. If you tot up each clubs' individual highlights, it comes to over twenty two minutes worth, much better than Virgin! And it seems to be decent quality; looked good full screen on a big monitor/

Yes, especially when people misspell his name too!

I see now people's insistence on the 16k stadium; it's to hold all the Reserve (sorry, Development) team!!!

On a side note, I was amused me to read of Shrewsbury's imaginative new Park and Walk Scheme for their ground. I had thought that was called a Car Park!

Morning? Really? You're not a student are you? lol

Fair do and thanks for the consideration. If anyone wants to answer it, it's still there on the board!

Any chance/you think it worth it adding my side question?

A good side question might be; Given the choice between a A - A 16,000 seat stadium complete shiny and beautifully presented but not expandable (in the way that the Reebok is not expandable) or B - A similarly equipped 12,000 seat stadium, maybe looking a bit more boxy but fairly easily expandable to 20,000 seats. what would you go for?

Yes, true. Unfortunately I only then saw the 'who's ever expanded a completed ground' question and, once I had picked myself off the floor and stopped chortling, I was seriously tempted to take the bait once more. But, no, I will be strong, I will be strong, I will be strong ......... lol

Did he play after the Halifax game?

I think for complete accuracy, DP should have said "... we were never going to sign him ..."

Cool, slip in an insult to make it appear we share your dismal views. Fortunately, no settling going on here, despite how much you attmept to torture people's words to make it appear so! No, if you read a bit more carefully you will see I am saying we are hemmed in by all the mentioned clubs. But thanks for the attempted pedantry anyway. And sorry, that is utter rubbish, Blackburn and Burnley are distinctly Lancashire and tend to be outright Manc haters, whereas ourselves are in Greater MANCHESTER, hence we have to compete with the Manchester clubs for fans. As I said previously (how many times do I need to repeat mysefl? lol) Bolton are lesser the case in that respect. Sorry, but not at all irrelevant. The clubs mentioned have, as explained less constrained fanbases, and subject to relative cycles (remember I mentioned that before!) of success, have consistently pulled in bigger crowds than we have. Sad but true. Though it doesn't stop you from using the fact that we manged to scrape our way into the Premiership for three seasons solely on the back of Joe Royle's brilliance as an excuse to .... blah blah boring boring blah blah! See above for explanation of how City and United vie with us (for support). Just a pity you've suddenly forgotten the names of any of these Lancashire clubs to quote, or did I comprehensively (sorry, long-windedly) explain those away? Again, nice try, but how does a club which is not about to mortgage its future by trying to spend huge amounts of money it does not presently have, and is securing its future financial stability with a viable and expandable stadium qualify as being on its legs now? I'll give you that Oldham has been on its last legs, very true, but some of us can actually look forward with hope and optimism, unlike you. And yes, I very much fear for the likes of Hull and Reading, and Wigan too, should their sugar-daddies have to pull out, because they will have serious problems just like we did when Chris Moore left. No, it was the attempted correllation between that and some fictional acceptance of a dismal future that was not acceptable. Yes we shall see what the future holds, and as for your last bit, that is classic, I take it you mean deep down where the voices in your head reside?? Anyway, nice and hugely amusing though this exchange has been, you're starting to bore me, so I think I'll be leaving off this topic till the Architects come up with something, or we have any other similarly important breaking news to digest. Cheers, B

My my, accusations of hysteria followed by blatant sarcasm, you are slipping Corporal!! lol But anyway, here's a less than hysterical response for you. Firstly similar towns to Oldham who blah de blah. Who did you have in mind, who whilst being in a large town, are hemmed in by at least two large Premiership clubs (the two Mans), and three lower league clubs (Rochdale, Bury and Stockport) in very close proximity with other Premiership clubs, at least two of which have taken further success and fans away with the help of sugar daddies (Blackburn and Wigan). Bearing in mind also that Oldham does not have the old past traditional heritage and support of the likes of Burnley and Preston to call upon. In fact our record attendance is less than 48k, at a time when Bolton and Blackburn were known to pull in over 60k. So why are our Lancashire rivals doing better now? Pity you didn't mention who you mean but I'll try a few off the top of my head, hope I don't skip who you did have in mind. And bearing in mind that, yes, divide are growing, are more and more the poorer are getting left behind whilst the rich prosper, football is generally a business of cycles. Most clubs have had good times and bad times. And just because we've had good times doesn't mean that it follows that we should be able to keep that going forever. But we should try! And also I think a fair few Lancs clubs fall into the category of 'sleeping giants' as mentioned above. Certainly you can include Preston, who have slowly rebuilt their base, prudently and now have a pretty cracking ground albeit in a dodgy area. Although they haven't succeeded yet as they'd like I'd take them as a good example of how to build a club I think. Not sure how big Preston's population is especially as you could reach out into the countryside a little bit before hitting rivals. Bolton have certainly passed us by now, and probably quite similar to us in terms of being plagued by Man U, though they were flying high at much the same time as us. Not sure though if they would suit your arguments' purposes as it is difficult to define exactly what got them so well established in the top flight. It would be easy to pinpoint Sam Allardyce as the key catalyst there. But certainly they were helped by the building of the Reebok stadium, which ironically was slated at the time by being out of town, and the financing for which was too reliant on selling the name to Reebok, but which even more ironically is now slated for not being expandable. Blackburn, can be summed by Sir Jack Walker Wigan, ditto JJB guy Man City have had their troubles in between. What mainly got them out was getting 27k for League One games enabling them to climb free. Not to mention some incredibly lucky last moment play off goals. I don't think you had Man U in mind Blackpool. A bit far out but so far holding their own in the division above, have clearly not done it through investment in the ground. Burnley, also have not YET invested that much in their ground. They have got promotion to the Premiership via canny wheeling and dealing over transfers, but time will tell if their success stays, and you never know, they might joing the Southampton, Morwich, Leeds etc etc free falling past us. As for clubs you've just mentioned now; Hull Sugar Daddy!! Reading Sugar Daddy!! In fact, they are potentially perfect examples when you see them implode as the sugar is taken away. You just cannot realistically use those two as comparisons to Oldham when their support is artificially 'bought' by their wealthy owners. Your distinction between ambition and 'where you expect to spend most of your time' is just pure semantics. Stop wriggling Corporal and accept that, you cannot, in all honesty, simply take one look at a preliminary stadium plan and make the sweeping statements you have done. I don't claim to know what the future holds and we could be doomed very soon, but you certainly seem to have even less idea of TTA ambitions, and your opinion seems to be based on the flimsiest of reason. Fine, you think they are not ambitious enough for you, though more likely they are just unfortunately not rich enough. But to state 12k means they do not have ambition is just plain ridiculous. And finally the closing sarcasm, well, the less said about that, the better! Oh dear!

Cracking one, this! So your serious advice is that we should ignore what virtually the only self sufficent clubs in the country (ie the top half dozen) do in favour of following the rest of the basically loss-making rest of the league do. Great idea! Did you see Man Utd building massive stands when they were in the doldrums? Did Arsenal build the Emirates before they knew they could financially support the development? In fact, by your reckoning Liverpool (a success in most eyes) have no ambition to match Man U since their ground expansion will be what 60k tops. If they had any ambition at all it would be at least 80,000 to match their rivals. And it's delayed by the economic climate. What small time thinking don't you agree? The problem is that your base premise that Stadium Size = Ambition is fundamentally flawed. That link just isn't there. Fine, you think that the owners might lack a show of ambition in their latest plans, but that is your opinion only, and does not pay for an alternative. Do you have ambition for Oldham Athletic? Well then pay for a bigger staduium yourself! Just because you can't afford to doesn't mean you don't have ambitions. I certainly do, and I'm not about to pay for it! And its no good saying that its up to TTA to find the cash; they are no more indebted to the club than you or I are, who put in our season ticket money, or gate money or whatever. They've paid more in so they have more say currently, it's a simple formula. It's all well and good to say that further investment should be found somehow, but where from? Are you providing it? And as for other clubs passing us by, what a tired old argument that one is. It's amusing how your example clubs rotate over time to match the angle you want. Unfortunately I can't be bothered tracking down examples to chuckle at together in one place. cos there would be a fair few contradictions. But the base fact is that no club has achieved success simply by building a ground that is far in excess of size over what they need (hence grandiose 'more complicated or elaborate than necessary; overblown'). The general rule is that a sugar daddy has come in and bought success, however shortlived (Wigan, Blackburn). Alternatively a more traditional 'bigger' club has slowly built back its success trying stable means (Preston, Burnley). But the main point is, you may or may not be right about whether 12k is the right or wrong move for us but; a. How do we pay for an alternative? b. Spending (ground size, empty seats etc) does NOT equal ambition!

But that just doesn't stack up. The budget you describe presumably is meant to be descriptive of our current position (some would argue it's a negative spin on it). But this is also the budget given to a club hemorrhaging money. Since you haven't argued it, I presume you accept that the stadium/commercial side could/should pull us into the black or thereabouts. Are you arguing that once that happens, and we're not flushing money down the drain, we won't be looking at a push for (sustained) Championship football? Or even attracting other investment into a club with a sound financial basis and facilities built ready for the future? Do you not think that, if we hadn't been in such financially dire straits when TTA arrived, that they would have ploughed the money into getting us quickly into higher levels? I like to hope that that is still on the board, and cannot see how this plan curtails it, by being financially sensible. As for your point about big games, yes I too would love to see a stadium capable of hosting every conceivable match, but the sad reality is that even with only three sides on BP we didn't even sell out against Leeds, and the big FA Cup games are just not frequent enough to justify the expense. At the end of the day, it seems to me that our best bet is to stop leaking money, and to build something we can afford and to fill to a reasonable level, and improve the squad's chances of promotion. Then, when we are looking at 8-10k in the Championship (and some would say that 8-10k is optimistic), we should look at maybe adding capacity. So how is "look to the finances and football before a grandiose stadium" lacking in ambition?

Unfortunately, yes. At the moment we can afford exactly how much TTA are prepared to dole out to us.

The stated ambition by TTA has always been self sufficiency, and establishment in the Championship. How exactly does this plan scale that back? Have you seen a cut in the playing budget arising from this plan?

This seems to miss really the central point of this debate, which is this not really about what we need in a stadium, butr what we can AFFORD. As far as I could see, the old BP development would not have been easily uipgradeable, mainly as all the land round about would have been sold off to fund it. So, as just mentioned by someone, you can argue that 16k wasn't enough. If the new stadium is not planned with an eye to expansion, then I would be as up in arms as anyone, I just wish TTA had explicitly said so, but I think the architects may be the ones to bury that particular one. The stated claim of TTA has always been to make us be able to stand on our own feet as a club, which the current plan seems to deliver on, and to establish us as a Championships side. Now, I think it can be argued either way that 12k is enough for us in the championship, maybe it is, maybe it isn''t, but it is definitely true that we aren't going to be hitting those limits for at LEAST two or three years (personally I think it is but would LOVE to be proved wrong), and I for one would prefer to earn the money to expand before spending it. The thing is, like I say a major point of this plan is that is puts us hopefully in the black. That means that if and when we are earning loads more dosh from the football side, we have scope to expand as many sides have done before us, and we haven't already mortgaged our futures building seats that won't be sat on, except possibly once every few seasons. Don't get me wrong I would just love a 25k seat stadium, and if we can find someone willing to pay for it I will cheer that on. But at the end of the day, if you don't like the 12K plan, what are you suggesting instead? And before you say, the BP plan, the Credit Crunch has clearly kaiboshed that one. The plan was ambitious, in a good way, but there is clearly not the funding around anymore for such a large development. And all the while, you have to remember, we are hemorrhaging money. Even if TTA are complee crooks or making a fortune out of this or whatever conspiracy anyone can think of, it seems to me it is the only hope we have at the moment. If any of this makes me a clapping seal, then well "ork ork clap clap", or whatever sound they make!

I can think of one for him!!

So you are saying that, if we were spending more money on a larger stadium, this would prove the ambition to be greater, and also so would the playing budget be greater. So exactly how does that logic work? We spend more money on a stadium, therefore there is more money available to spend on players? Who exactly is stumping up this cash? Unless you are looking to follow the path the many clubs who sold their clubs into penury in the search of a 'big stadium' And as for the 'local' clubs you seem to love quoting as having passed us by, firstly how many of them have two of the richest teams in the country sat in their own virtual back garden? Half of Oldham's population wants to be noted as living in Manchester, whereas Blackburn, Preston, Bolton possibly to a lesser extent, and Wigan have intense rivalry to Manchester. Also, as for stadia, Deepdale took 12years to redevelop, the Reebok stadium's main quoted disadvantage is its small size and lack of expnasion possibilities. Burnley's ground wass a dump last time I looked, and funniliy enough they have just been promoted to the Premiership by concentrating on financial stability and a good manager and maximising on player deals. You seem to disparage the idea of fanancial stability as a long term goal, but the truth is, it is more than likely going to be our saviour, as more clubs get into difficulties, and disappear altogether. As for what the aim is, I can only express whay MY aims are, though they do appear to tally with TTA, and yes a major and absolutely essential aim is for us to be financially viable as a club. In fact this should be taken on board by all, yourself included, along with the fact that there is no glory on the field once the club has gone bust. So yes, the aim of financial security SHOULD be set in stone, but it does not mean that I, TTA or anyone else have given up on the dream of future success on the field, only that more important is the need for a club to exist to achieve that aim. As for why the reduction in capacity from BP, I have answered that in a previous reply, and yes it HAS cogently explained why we don't necessarily have to have a full capacity right now. Although it is clear that all the numbers currently are estimates sinced the architects have not even been comissioned yet, plainly the 12k stems from a basic four stands of 3k each, presumably built to standard 'lego' specs. And the argument about dropping to 7k is too specious to even bother with.And your little trick of dismissing anything anyonne else say as being unprovable conjecture whilst doing exactly the same yourself, is really unbecoming.

And there you answer your own point, dispelling your own argument. Yes, virtually all teams run at far less than capacity, and as we know the vast majority of clubs are in, or near to financial meltdown. Instead of saying, everyone does so we should, why not look learn from people's failures and look at the successes, Man U, Arsenal etc, they run at capacity or virtually so, why shouldn't we? Man U could fill their ground three times over whenever they play their big games. But do they build a stadium three times the current size? No, they don't! And why? Because it's either physically impractical, or financially unjustifiable. Do you claim they lack ambition though?

And what exactly has been supposedly done to reduce our chances of being promoted? Has the playing budget been reduced compared to that we would have had if we were building a massive stadium? Have we employed a manager on the cheap? Have we failed to strengthen the squad by not spending the minus £4-6M we would have had if we were buying shiny new seats? Have we sold players for nothing like their true value, whereas if we bought a 16k stadium we would have held on for more money? How in any way whatsoever will the current plan curtail our ambition. 'Showing Ambition' is just tawdry cliche, and you know it!

Don't count on it with out a couple of promotions; that was a long time ago, and things change! Is it any coincidence the Sky's monthly including Sports comes to about the same as two home tickets a month?

I certainly would not argue against the point that the norm is to lose shedloads of cash; which is really why we shouldn't be trying to spend the club into ruin. Am unreliably informed that Barry Fry is set to make a mint from his Peterborough revolution.