ChaddyEndRegular

Having lived in Oldham for all of my 43 years, I can't think of any sites that could be available for a new stadium. Failsworth may be the only option left.

Who's he?

Not sure. I just remember that theyve had decent crowds ever since they were in the same league as us. Hopefully our crowds will start getting bigger if we start winning.

United's average in the 1986-87 season when they finished runners-up to Liverpool was 35,000 in a stadium capacity of 53,000. Pathetic support.

I think you need to check your stats. City finished 16th in the Premier League in 2004 and averaged an incredible 47,000 in a 47,000 capacity stadium. City have averaged between 45 and 47,000 since they moved to the Etihad, in 2003. Nothing to do with their recent rise. City have got the best fans in the world when it comes to loyalty. City were getting crowds of 33,000 when they were in this league for a single season in the 1998/99 season. As for United - prior to 1993, crowds at Old Trafford were usually less than 30,000. In the 1986/87 season, United's crowds for some matches were less than 20,000. I certainly remember them getting 17,000 for some matches.

Yet another defeat - Crawley 2-0 Latics. 3,692.

That's crap and you know it. Check-out 'OldhamFanatic1's comments and you'll see that he's been banned for nothing. He complains about the catering department and then gets banned. Joke forum.

It's the truth. Obviously you're part of the big clique on here. Any newcomer isn't allowed an opinion without being called a 'troll'.

Well said. I was suspended from this forum last week because the people that run the page didn't like my critisism of the team/manager etc. This guy slags the catering department off and gets banned from the page. Ridiculous! Theres a huge clique within this forum. Tossers.

We averaged 12,000 during our time in the Premier League. That was 20 years ago though. Since then we've lost a generation of potential fans who have either become City or United fans or not bothered with football at all.

The pies are BP are awful. Wouldn't touch them ever. Almost as bad as the team.

Obviously time will tell but as someone above as pointed out - if we're losing while we're playing well, what's going to happen when we start playing badly. And that will happen. There'll be a period this season where we lose 5 or 6 in a row. It's bound to happen because we've got a young naive manager, a young naive coaching staff and a young naive team

No, no punchline. Just the truthful and hard facts in the cold light of day. We keep losing football matches yet deluded fools on here think that we've got some sort of messiah running the team. Well i've got news for them - we've not. We've got a no-mark manager who talks the talk but can't walk the walk. He'll be gone by January.

What's this manager done to deserve popularity? He's signed a load of wasters, is tatically inept, talks about himself constantly and feeds the fans bull:censored: constantly.

By 5pm on Saturday it'll be 6 defeats in 8 games. The manager is out of his depth. Not good enough.

Ian contributes nothing to the club apart from indulging in the half-time buffet, in the boardroom, on matchdays. During the week he works for Ryder and Dutton. The only thing that Barry has done over the past 6 months is to try and dismantle Tony's brilliant youth policy. Time for Owen and Hill to go.

Me a joke? What, for reporting bad news and pointing-out simple problems that are manifesting the club? Giveover.

Yet another defeat.

I know that a lot of people inside the club including the players, don't like Barry and Ian. That's because they bring no value whatsoever to the club. Ex-Manager Paul Dickov and all his coaching staff hate Barry with a passion.

Ok, i'll make it a little bit easier for you, son....................PLEASE DISCUSS.

No comment.

Ian Hill and Barry Owen bring very little to the club. Barry pops into the club occasionally but doesn't do much. We need a vibrant board of directors not a bunch of prawn sandwich munchers.They both should stand down and be replaced by people who can bring more to the table. The clubs going nowhere fast with directors like these two.

A small club like latics needs the directors to be working directors who have a valuable impact. We're not Man United. We can't afford freeloaders who only turn-up on matchdays for a cheese butty and a chocolate muffin in the boardrooom.

Didn't realise that this topic had already been covered. I just feel that if you're a director of any company then you should be a 'working' director.