a moan

[daznathe]

also re crowds, would we break even on 6800 home fans?

[Inspiral_Carpet]

i remember it well, but clearly you dont as before gregans injury i did acknowledge that his performances had improved and wondered aloud whether he was benefitting from someone with pace alongside him (ruuuuuuuuubes), he also stopped trying to turn the attacker on his 18 yard line which was the biggest annoyance i had. i imagine he might not be far from fitness and that may have played a part in trotters leaving so heres hoping and i am always prepared to acknowledge a mistake.

with regards to crossley i know hes a decent shot stopper but i bet if you said to him whats the golden rule of keeping and he'll say something about not being beaten on his near post like he was by beckett and has been quite a few times. i hate martin oneill but i agree with his sweeper/ keeper aproach (catching or punching everything at least 8 yards from gol) and crossley doesnt do this so im probably going to be of the same opinion on him always.

my hissy fit was at the time a half joke but with hindsight i can see it must have had some breeding, where did that post go anyway i cant find it?

i suppose im just annoyed that i expected us to spend £300k+ on killer and a striker and keep trotters and all 3 didnt happen, but reading this thread (and ignoring your blinkers jibe!) makes me see that all isnt so bad afterall and, hey, isnt that what this place is for?

 

Fair enough - I must have missed your praise of Gregan.

 

As for the thread, it wouldn't have been deleted. It may have been merged though (not by me I hasten to add!). Anyway, I've skipped breakfast myself this morning mainly as I couldn't be arsed. Won't do me any harm though!

 

Keep The Faith!

[Corporal_Jones]

When has it been proved that they come? The pinch me years? That was over 15 years ago at a time when any Club could compete because there wasn't so much TV money swilling around.

 

I'm missing the point? I'm pretty certain that we have been trying incredibly hard to get out of this division over the last 2 or 3 years and nearly achieved it last Season. The fact you continually fail to see that we are speculating on that by losing significant money week in and week out suggests to me that you are the one who is missing the point.

 

 

 

No-the point is that, through failure, we were losing money anyway, even before the TTA had ever been heard of. (Forget the insanity of the Chris Moore period.) Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, didn't the club have to sell the ground round about 1999?

 

Whatever has changed in the game since the early 1990s, the fact remains that statistics show that the home crowd did increase when we looked like promotion candidates. Including for some of last season.

 

Your argument seems to be (and it arises from the holier-than-thou attitude towards the Oldham public of many hardcore Latics fans) that the casual fan will never turn up no matter what, so why bother? So you bang on about the weekly losses being the reason why the club can't make progress, seemingly blind to the fact that unless it does, the losses will not get any smaller. Of course, one way to cut them is through relegation, where we bring in Fourth Divison players on Fourth Division money...but then, still less fans will turn up and on turns the wheel...

[Corporal_Jones]

also re crowds, would we break even on 6800 home fans?

 

 

 

No-but they would bring in more money than 4000.

 

And if we actually managed to get out of the division, who knows-we might get even more coming!

 

Football's funny like that.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Already answered most of this in my previous post, including the unarguable fact that crowds were steadily rising in the seasons where the club looked serious about promotion. It might not be much, but 6800 is certainly better than 4200. Are are you saying that published crowds statistics are fabricated?

 

FFS man! No they weren't as Prozac has said. Show us the facts and I may change my mind. Until then, this is all just numbers in your head made up to suit your argument.

 

And guess what-iincreasing the home crowd by a few thousand goes at least some way to cutting those losses you keep rattling on about. Magic!

 

I agree. My point though is that the facts prove that they don't come and so the losses don't get reduced.

 

I don't see the logic of the argument that weekly losses means that we have to accept a situation where, due to serving up football that not enough people want to come and watch...we continue to make weekly losses! Give that man a cigar.

 

Because my argument isn't that we should accept the situation - although in reality, we have little choice. What I am saying (and I have been consistent with this and even put it to you as a Simple question!) is that by funding these losses, the owners are demonstrating that they are prepared to gamble to get a better quality of team on the pitch.

 

If you can't see the difference, then I'll leave you to your own little World of make believe.

[daznathe]

dont get carried away i didnt praise him!

[Corporal_Jones]

FFS man! No they weren't as Prozac has said. Show us the facts and I may change my mind. Until then, this is all just numbers in your head made up to suit your argument.

I agree. My point though is that the facts prove that they don't come and so the losses don't get reduced.

Because my argument isn't that we should accept the situation - although in reality, we have little choice. What I am saying (and I have been consistent with this and even put it to you as a Simple question!) is that by funding these losses, the owners are demonstrating that they are prepared to gamble to get a better quality of team on the pitch.

 

If you can't see the difference, then I'll leave you to your own little World of make believe.

 

 

 

The only world of make believe is the one you seem to inhabit, whereby success is defined by falling crowds watching a team stuck all season in the bottom third of the table.

 

It is a well-known fact, however, that men fight for their illusions harder than they fight for their lives.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

No-the point is that, through failure, we were losing money anyway, even before the TTA had ever been heard of. (Forget the insanity of the Chris Moore period.) Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, didn't the club have to sell the ground round about 1999?

 

And your point is? Get out of the past man and start talking about the here and now under a different regime.

 

Whatever has changed in the game since the early 1990s, the fact remains that statistics show that the home crowd did increase when we looked like promotion candidates. Including for some of last season.

 

Let's see some fact then because we have a regular fan base of 4500-6000 and rarely do we deviate from that. Even 6000 is insufficient to fund the current losses. I think we need an average of around 8000.

 

Your argument seems to be (and it arises from the holier-than-thou attitude towards the Oldham public of many hardcore Latics fans) that the casual fan will never turn up no matter what, so why bother? So you bang on about the weekly losses being the reason why the club can't make progress, seemingly blind to the fact that unless it does, the losses will not get any smaller. Of course, one way to cut them is through relegation, where we bring in Fourth Divison players on Fourth Division money...but then, still less fans will turn up and on turns the wheel...

 

I guess that you are getting desperate if you are trying to change my arguments by some massive jumps in conclusion just so that they fit your "woe is me" predictions. As has been said numerous times, the ambition is seen as promotion and relegation is neither likely, nor a target.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

The only world of make believe is the one you seem to inhabit, whereby success is defined by falling crowds watching a team stuck all season in the bottom third of the table.

 

It is a well-known fact, however, that men fight for their illusions harder than they fight for their lives.

 

Quite a laughable response!

 

I used to think you had a bit about you Corp but you've proved me wrong. I'll leave you to your regular snipes now. Clearly serious debate is beyond you.

[Corporal_Jones]

And your point is? Get out of the past man and start talking about the here and now under a different regime.

Let's see some fact then because we have a regular fan base of 4500-6000 and rarely do we deviate from that. Even 6000 is insufficient to fund the current losses. I think we need an average of around 8000.

I guess that you are getting desperate if you are trying to change my arguments by some massive jumps in conclusion just so that they fit your "woe is me" predictions. As has been said numerous times, the ambition is seen as promotion and relegation is neither likely, nor a target.

 

 

 

I thought you said you were leaving me to it?

 

The connection between past and present is that both periods prove that unless you gain the success that brings in the crowds, you lose money. We were losing money then and are losing money now because the football is not good enough, nor successful enough, to attract the Oldham public. Hardly takes Stephen Hawkin to work that one out.

 

You seem also to be unaware that 6000 and rising (we actually averaged hundreds more than that in some recent seasons) is more of a step on the road towards the magical 8000 figure than is 4000 and falling.

 

I have no 'woe is me' predictions to offer- only the plain facts of the matter. The happy clappers' aversion to which causes them to see 'moaners' and naysayers at every turn.

[Corporal_Jones]

Quite a laughable response!

 

I used to think you had a bit about you Corp but you've proved me wrong. I'll leave you to your regular snipes now. Clearly serious debate is beyond you.

 

 

 

Tell you what-why don't we meet, same place, same time next year, where we can have the same debate all over again? We won't even need to put any effort in-all we'll need is to take these very same posts out of the archive.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Tell you what-why don't we meet, same place, same time next year, where we can have the same debate all over again? We won't even need to put any effort in-all we'll need is to take these very same posts out of the archive.

 

More than happy to do that Corp. Maybe we could do it over a beer instead?

 

I must congratulate you on your will-power as it took you at least half-an-hour this morning before you finally cracked and called me a "happy clapper" just because my views don't agree with yours.

 

Subject now closed for me and I hope you have some better arguments next time backed up by facts and not spurious claims.

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

The happy clappers' aversion

 

I wondered when you were going to say that.

 

MNTRA

[murrayzmint]

We sold the ground - we bought it back = progress.

 

We nearly went out of existence - we are still in existence = progress.

 

We nearly got relegated - we didn't get relegated = progress.

 

We will have a manager for more than two seasons = progress.

 

We have got 4/5 players in the squad that have come through the ranks = progress.

[wozz_oafc]

We have got 500k for a player that has played 21 games = progress. In my eyes anyway, not denying he was a great prospect but Hazell is a ready made replacement and IMO better at the moment there is no guarantees that Trotters was going to continue to develop at the same pace and if he does and PNE sell him we will have some of the future fee too!!

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

We sold the ground - we bought it back = progress.

 

We nearly went out of existence - we are still in existence = progress.

 

We nearly got relegated - we didn't get relegated = progress.

 

We will have a manager for more than two seasons = progress.

 

We have got 4/5 players in the squad that have come through the ranks = progress.

 

 

Can you tell what it is yet?

[leeslover]

A final example is young Serrant, who got his big move on the cheap, then suffered a pro-career ending injury and is now turning out for Farsley.

Sadly, he's now working for Colin...

[Corporal_Jones]

We sold the ground - we bought it back = progress.

 

We nearly went out of existence - we are still in existence = progress.

 

We nearly got relegated - we didn't get relegated = progress.

 

We will have a manager for more than two seasons = progress.

 

We have got 4/5 players in the squad that have come through the ranks = progress.

 

 

Unfortunately, none of it has been accompanied by progress on the pitch, which is the only thing will bring in the missing fans.

 

Who was it who said that it's a results game?

[Corporal_Jones]

We have got 500k for a player that has played 21 games = progress. In my eyes anyway, not denying he was a great prospect but Hazell is a ready made replacement and IMO better at the moment there is no guarantees that Trotters was going to continue to develop at the same pace and if he does and PNE sell him we will have some of the future fee too!!

 

 

 

The Trotman deal was simple good fortune, that's all.

 

And even there it depends how you look at it. Will at least some of the money go on players of equal quality, for instance? Is it a good idea to constantly disrupt your playing squad? Why can't the club tie players to contracts more successfully?

[Corporal_Jones]

We sold the ground - we bought it back = progress.

 

We nearly went out of existence - we are still in existence = progress.

 

We nearly got relegated - we didn't get relegated = progress.

 

We will have a manager for more than two seasons = progress.

 

We have got 4/5 players in the squad that have come through the ranks = progress.

 

 

 

Apart from the last point (perhaps), these are the strangest definitions of progress I have ever heard.

Edited February 1, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[leeslover]

The Trotman deal was simple good fortune, that's all.

 

And even there it depends how you look at it. Will at least some of the money go on players of equal quality, for instance? Is it a good idea to constantly disrupt your playing squad? Why can't the club tie players to contracts more successfully?

The Trotman deal was not good fortune. The club invests in an excellent youth coaching system which has paid dividends on several occasions both in terms of producing quality first team players and in generating income. And why can't we tie players to contract more successfully? Ask a journeyman Belgian player who knew a good lawyer.

[jimsleftfoot]

All in all im glad we didn't get Moore or idiotface u21 international as both of them showed that there blood will never be blue. (I don't get the Moore transfer at all).

 

Two good signings bringing a bit of balance. Is Shez learning, maybe, I hope so. All I wanted was a little balance from the team giving us a bit of a PLAN B.

 

Well done Shez. Though hopefully we can INVEST a little, not a lot, just a little, of the Trotman cash to acumulate.

[danoafc]

No-but they would bring in more money than 4000.

 

And if we actually managed to get out of the division, who knows-we might get even more coming!

 

Football's funny like that.

 

Didn't TTA say that to break even (on the current losses) we'd need something like 7800/8000 fans per home game at BP?

 

So on that rationale, if we spend another 2 or 300k on a striker and include their wages, we'd need min 8000 plus fans per week at BP?

 

Sorry Corporal but if you think that's gonna happen then you are miles out. When have we EVER attracted those kinds of crowds? Apart from the pinch me seasons when it was comparatively far cheaper to get into games AND most clubs could compete on a reasonably level footing.

 

The game is totally different now.

 

The only way we are likely to progress is to commence with the rebuilding work, bring in some of the peripheral money making enterprises such as the corporate cponsorship/banquesting/conferenceing etc. Improve the matchday environment and experience.

 

Then perhaps we can start to invest some real money on the playing squad. Even then, I'd guess that 7-8000 is about the best we could hope for in the first instance.

[Corporal_Jones]

Didn't TTA say that to break even (on the current losses) we'd need something like 7800/8000 fans per home game at BP?

 

So on that rationale, if we spend another 2 or 300k on a striker and include their wages, we'd need min 8000 plus fans per week at BP?

 

Sorry Corporal but if you think that's gonna happen then you are miles out. When have we EVER attracted those kinds of crowds? Apart from the pinch me seasons when it was comparatively far cheaper to get into games AND most clubs could compete on a reasonably level footing.

 

The game is totally different now.

 

The only way we are likely to progress is to commence with the rebuilding work, bring in some of the peripheral money making enterprises such as the corporate cponsorship/banquesting/conferenceing etc. Improve the matchday environment and experience.

 

Then perhaps we can start to invest some real money on the playing squad. Even then, I'd guess that 7-8000 is about the best we could hope for in the first instance.

 

 

 

As I keep having to point out, it's a vicious circle. Without spending on a quality squad-and keeping it together-we will be going nowhere. Which means that the interest of the Oldham public, and hence the home crowd, remains low, meaning that the financial losses continue and we can't afford enough quality players.... As the self-help industry likes to point out, if you carry on doing the same thing, you get the same result.

 

The stadium redevelopment actually holds out the only hope for the club, because as Ian Hill said at the Port Vale game, there is no future in what we have now. Other clubs, some smaller than us can achieve things on our kind of budget (some on less), but the will to succeed seems absent as things stand at BP Let's hope it all comes off and that the promise to invest new revenue in the playing side is kept. (Although I'm not sure that we've ever heard that promise stated openly; it could be that it's merely an assumption on our part.)

 

Hey ho: one step forward and another back.

[Stevie_J]

As I keep having to point out, it's a vicious circle. Without spending on a quality squad-and keeping it together-we will be going nowhere. Which means that the interest of the Oldham public, and hence the home crowd, remains low, meaning that the financial losses continue and we can't afford enough quality players.... As the self-help industry likes to point out, if you carry on doing the same thing, you get the same result.

 

The stadium redevelopment actually holds out the only hope for the club, because as Ian Hill said at the Port Vale game, there is no future in what we have now. Other clubs, some smaller than us can achieve things on our kind of budget (some on less), but the will to succeed seems absent as things stand at BP Let's hope it all comes off and that the promise to invest new revenue in the playing side is kept. (Although I'm not sure that we've ever heard that promise stated openly; it could be that it's merely an assumption on our part.)

 

Hey ho: one step forward and another back.

Your argument has no basis. There's an absence of ambition at Boundary Park? The stadium redevelopment blows this right out of the water.

 

TTA are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they're losing £15k a week, but you propose that they should speculate to accumulate - spending more to get results and draw in the crowds. But what happens if the results don't come and, in turn, neither do the spectators? And, to compete with other clubs, we'd be having to dish out contracts with players, much like the Ch**s M**re era, albeit not necessarily on the same scale.

 

It leaves me at a loss that a Latics fan, having seen what we all did only a few years back, would be criticising TTA for their approach to such things. Where would you suggest they draw the line on weekly losses, in order to get the fans flocking?

 

Don't get me wrong, it was a disappointment that Livermore (a good signing I should add) was the only signing yesterday but I've no doubt TTA were just as disappointed that things transpired as they did.

 

TTA are going about things the right way, in my book, measured ambition is the only way for a club like Latics - we've seen the fallout of the alternative when things almost inevitably go wrong. They won't get everything right of course, but then, who does?