a moan

[Corporal_Jones]

In theory the idea is great - spend more money on the team, team will be succesfull, more fans will come. Football fans through the ages have cried out for more investment and it says a lot about Latics fans (and what they have been through) that this is not generally the cry.

 

I don't believe that enough extra people will come to justify the additional income. Let's face it, to get players a class above what we have got will cost serious money. Put simply, the increase in expenditure would be higher than the increase in income, even if the club were succesful on the field. I think it's called inelasticity of demand in economic terms. I think the attendance statistics back this up. Corporal Jones hasn't suggested spending the amounts of money that we spent under Chris Moore. Those sums were proven to be unsustainable. Even with the excessive overspend of that era the attendances still did not meet the current break even figure. If we spend more the break even figure goes up, so we could spend money and average 8,000 crowds, but the break-even would have increased to perhaps 9-10,000.

 

As has been stated on Harry Dowds Green Shirt's excellent posts the new stadium will bring in additional income equivalent to a large rise in attendance, at which point we may be in a position to gamble a little more and 'speculate to accumulate' on the football side. It could be argued that some of this expected additional income could be gambled now in order to get the team into the Championship in time for the new ground. I would argue against this. After all, we still have only outline planning permission - a lot could yet change when we get down to the detailed application. I would be surprised if the costs of the project didn't rise. At present I trust the judgment of TTA and if they feel that £15,000 per week investment of their own money is the correct amount to gamble, who am I to argue?

 

I do agree with the need for a settled side, without the squad being ripped apart every couple of years. Hopefully so do TTA and will continue to give Shez their backing for a significant number of years, so he can be given the chance to do just that, a luxury no Latics manager since Royle has been allowed.

 

 

 

These are all fair points. I am glad that, at last, somebody has acknowledged that I have never suggested Chris Moore-level expenditure (no promoted side in recent years has spent anything like that heavily.) The only thing that worries me is that, in constantly putting off the idea of promotion to a undefined point in the future, we are creating a situaton where we talk ourselves out of it altogether. The worst case scenario-a far from unimaginable one-is, as already explained, relegation to the basement and a re-adjustment of 'the plan' to define success as simply getting back to where we have been for the past ten years, or, worse still, falling attendances and rising debt in the fourth-tier leading to the abandonment of 'the plan' altogether.

[garcon]

F*ck me, you're not STILL at it are you?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

(ie how do we know how many of the 700 wll be paying junior and pensioner prices etc? Answer-we can't.) That's why I estimated £10-15,000. That's 'estimated' you understand?

 

Erm, you can actually. Take the figures that we currently get then break down into percentages what category they fall into (i.e. XX% adults, XX% children etc.) and then attribute those percentages into the 700.

 

You can get quite good at estimating you see when you have the facts and figures to hand.

 

But hey, you go and patronise away corporal.

[lookers87]

Why are the stadium redevelopment and a serious attempt at promotion now constantly treated as opposites when, as already explained, they actually complement each other, and when, as also outlined, giving up on promotion, to all intents and purposes, will inevitably result in a deprioritisation of promotion when (if) 'the plan' comes to fruition?

 

This constant association of the idea of promotion with the Chris Moore fiasco is (deliberately?) misleading too. As constantly pointed out, most promoted clubs do not go into financial meltdown.

 

 

I've never once suggested they are linked. I have (if you look) outlined that the sensible approach is to try to attain promotion within the current budget (which the club feel is 15k losses - fair enough that is their choice) whilst doing the more important thing which is developing the stadium. That and only that will ensure we can generate a sustainable income in the future rather than boom and bust cycles, and hopefully will attract more people who enjoy the better facilities - increasing the playing budget, bringing better players in and hopefully more supporters. Simple really, but I'd rather go about things the way the TTA at the moment than taking too much of a chance on those unstable assets - players. Esp when we are in a world dominated by agents.

 

The links were merely to back up the 50k figures.

 

This really is getting too tiresome.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

How can you 'get your facts right' about an hypothetical figure? How can maths lessons help with a figure that nobody can possibly know the breakdown of (ie how do we know how many of the 700 wll be paying junior and pensioner prices etc? Answer-we can't.) That's why I estimated £10-15,000. That's 'estimated' you understand?

 

 

Well something that is not hypothetical is the number of home games per Season in the League. That's a constant 23 whereas there are 52 weeks in the Year. Or do you think we only incur losses in the week when we have home matches?

 

Maybe Harry Dowd has a better understanding of how the ticket sales break down than yourself. Unless of course you work in the Ticket Office at OAFC.

 

Facts versus piss and wind. 12 pages of it.

[Corporal_Jones]

F*ck me, you're not STILL at it are you?

 

 

 

Tell you what-I'll stop answering points put to me by others if it pleases you.

[Corporal_Jones]

Erm, you can actually. Take the figures that we currently get then break down into percentages what category they fall into (i.e. XX% adults, XX% children etc.) and then attribute those percentages into the 700.

 

You can get quite good at estimating you see when you have the facts and figures to hand.

 

But hey, you go and patronise away corporal.

 

 

 

However you calculate it, extra fans mean extra revenue. And we already know the only thing that brings in extra fans, even if only slowly, don't we?

[Corporal_Jones]

Well something that is not hypothetical is the number of home games per Season in the League. That's a constant 23 whereas there are 52 weeks in the Year. Or do you think we only incur losses in the week when we have home matches?

 

Maybe Harry Dowd has a better understanding of how the ticket sales break down than yourself. Unless of course you work in the Ticket Office at OAFC.

 

Facts versus piss and wind. 12 pages of it.

 

 

 

 

Again, the only point that needs to be made is that however often it comes, additional fans mean additional revenue.

 

I fail to see how you can be so dismissive of getting on for an extra thousand fans one minute and then wringing your hands about the weekly losses the next.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

I've never once suggested they are linked. I have (if you look) outlined that the sensible approach is to try to attain promotion within the current budget (which the club feel is 15k losses - fair enough that is their choice) whilst doing the more important thing which is developing the stadium. That and only that will ensure we can generate a sustainable income in the future rather than boom and bust cycles, and hopefully will attract more people who enjoy the better facilities - increasing the playing budget, bringing better players in and hopefully more supporters. Simple really, but I'd rather go about things the way the TTA at the moment than taking too much of a chance on those unstable assets - players. Esp when we are in a world dominated by agents.

 

The links were merely to back up the 50k figures.

 

This really is getting too tiresome.

 

 

 

Although you make sensible points, the most tiresome thing is the constant linking of any talk of promotion being an impossibility under the current budget (as it would appear, with the breaking up of the playing squad on an annual basis and the inability of the club to keep hold of the better players), with the madness of the Chris Moore era.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Again, the only point that needs to be made is that however often it comes, additional fans mean additional revenue.

 

I fail to see how you can be so dismissive of getting on for an extra thousand fans one minute and then wringing your hands about the weekly losses the next.

 

 

There you go again, twisting words. I'd love to see those extra fans and more. 10 times more would be nice.

 

The fact is - and let's face it, you keep missing it time after time - that despite having great teams, despite getting in the play-offs; despite previous regimes throwing money about to get the best there is, we are only talking about an extra 700 fans. Even when we were playing crap under Ronnie or flirting with relegation under Talbot, we got bigger crowds than last Season. In other words, your single-tracked argument is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

All the facts show your arguments are just piss and wind but of course you'd prefer to concern yourself about what I am prepared to accept or what I get concerned about as a weekly loss.

 

The thing is, my view on what is acceptable on or off the pitch matters not one jot. It isn't going to make us play better nor get us promoted. It isn't going to get us relegated nor a lifetime of mid-table mediocrity either which is what you seem to imply.

 

Your point is great on paper but history and fact prove it to be unrealistic. This has been proven to you time after time. Open your eyes and read the last 12 pages.

[Corporal_Jones]

There you go again, twisting words. I'd love to see those extra fans and more. 10 times more would be nice.

 

The fact is - and let's face it, you keep missing it time after time - that despite having great teams, despite getting in the play-offs; despite previous regimes throwing money about to get the best there is, we are only talking about an extra 700 fans. Even when we were playing crap under Ronnie or flirting with relegation under Talbot, we got bigger crowds than last Season. In other words, your single-tracked argument is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

All the facts show your arguments are just piss and wind but of course you'd prefer to concern yourself about what I am prepared to accept or what I get concerned about as a weekly loss.

 

The thing is, my view on what is acceptable on or off the pitch matters not one jot. It isn't going to make us play better nor get us promoted. It isn't going to get us relegated nor a lifetime of mid-table mediocrity either which is what you seem to imply.

 

Your point is great on paper but history and fact prove it to be unrealistic. This has been proven to you time after time. Open your eyes and read the last 12 pages.

 

 

 

There you go once more: on the one hand you'd love to see extra fans turning up, but on the other you are dismissive of the numbers that do turn up when there is something to attract them (the only circumstances under which they will ever turn up, as is again being proved as we speak). No account is ever taken of the disillusion and cynicism that set in after two quick relegations and a near-third; no sense of reality regarding the length of time it takes to rebuild a fan base in such circumstances; and a complete refusal to engage with the point, made time and again, that you can't pretend towards a steely realism by spelling out what a weekly loss of £15000 means for promotion ambitions when, in the next breath, you are dismissing the very thing that can make a dent in those losses.

 

An extra 700 fans every home game might only mean £4500 when broken down into weekly amounts-but that's the wages of a quality player or two at this level.

 

Nothing at all has been proved about 'my point,' as, as I also keep having to explain, I have made no concrete proposals but only highlighted the pitfalls of putting everything off until the realisation of a plan that, as yet, exists only on paper.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

There you go once more: on the one hand you'd love to see extra fans turning up, but on the other you are dismissive of the numbers that do turn up when there is something to attract them (the only circumstances under which they will ever turn up, as is again being proved as we speak). No account is ever taken of the disillusion and cynicism that set in after two quick relegations and a near-third; no sense of reality regarding the length of time it takes to rebuild a fan base in such circumstances; and a complete refusal to engage with the point, made time and again, that you can't pretend towards a steely realism by spelling out what a weekly loss of £15000 means for promotion ambitions when, in the next breath, you are dismissing the very thing that can make a dent in those losses.

 

An extra 700 fans every home game might only mean £4500 when broken down into weekly amounts-but that's the wages of a quality player or two at this level.

 

Nothing at all has been proved about 'my point,' as, as I also keep having to explain, I have made no concrete proposals but only highlighted the pitfalls of putting everything off until the realisation of a plan that, as yet, exists only on paper.

 

 

I give up. You have bored me into submission due to your lack of ability to actually read any posts directed at you.

 

[Corporal_Jones]

I give up. You have bored me into submission due to your lack of ability to actually read any posts directed at you.

 

 

 

 

I have read every word you've written and answered every point, highlighting every contradiction in your arguments, and refuted every false allegation along the way. Not only that-I have had to do this several times over, which does seem to make accusations that I'm the one not reading what's put to me sound hollow.

 

You seem to be able to see only the argument you want to see.

[garcon]

Tell you what-I'll stop answering points put to me by others if it pleases you.

 

Signs you're dealing with a troll, #3: The troll is incapable of suppressing the need to answer every single post in a thread individually with a new post of his own (usually containing the same tired rhetoric of 12 pages earlier), irrespective of whether that post posed a direct question or had a new point to be countered.

 

Yes it would please me greatly if you stopped. It would make me a very happy man. (Being an optimist, I'm quite easily pleased).

[Corporal_Jones]

Signs you're dealing with a troll, #3: The troll is incapable of suppressing the need to answer every single post in a thread individually with a new post of his own (usually containing the same tired rhetoric of 12 pages earlier), irrespective of whether that post posed a direct question or had a new point to be countered.

 

Yes it would please me greatly if you stopped. It would make me a very happy man. (Being an optimist, I'm quite easily pleased).

 

 

 

None of which applies to me. Although I do realise that a small clique amongst you are incapable of regarding the consistent expression of a viewpoint even slightly at odds with your own as legitimate debate.

[garcon]

#4: A troll never ever admits to being a troll.

[boundaryblue80]

No account is ever taken of the disillusion and cynicism that set in after two quick relegations and a near-third;

 

Or excuses for the gloryseekers to off and go and support the Red Scum who ironically were winning everything at the time....the time we'd stopped being good/half decent.

[Corporal_Jones]

Or excuses for the gloryseekers to off and go and support the Red Scum who ironically were winning everything at the time....the time we'd stopped being good/half decent.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. I used to think like you until I realised that people are free to support whoever they wish in whatever manner they want to, and that there is nothing in this age of media saturation coverage of football that you can do about that. If a large proportion of a town''s population chooses to support another club(s), it is up to the local club to do something to attract them. This club has singularly failed to do any such thing over the past dozen or so years.

 

In any case, I'd say that most of the active Latics support from the glory years who deserted the club actually went over (or back) to City. Strange as it may seem, in some ways, in that they were in a decline almost as crippling as ours.

[Matt]

I win!

 

*mumble mumble mumble*

Sorry? What was that?

 

*The Last One To Post thread is over there!*

Ahh, okay - as you were...

[jorvik_latic]

I win!

 

*mumble mumble mumble*

Sorry? What was that?

 

*The Last One To Post thread is over there!*

Ahh, okay - as you were...

 

 

 

 

 

I win!

[Ackey]

I WIN!

[Guest sheridans_world]

Both Wrong...

 

 

I Win

[daznathe]

now i know my first ever thread on here was a whinge about greegs and crossley and how with them we will finish tenth but after greegs got injured and things picked up (maybe a coincidence, maybe not) i allowed optimism to slowly flood back through me and we hit january with my hopes high, the team lurking with intent and the prospect of spending a few hundred grand on 2-3 players to kick us on and up. now we end january with no money spent and two players in the proverbial boundary park shop window and to make matters worse weve sold of the brightest prospect at the club. yes maybe we got what the prospect was worth but at what expense? if its promotion then its false economy. the team now is 20% weaker at the back than december and the other positions we will have to see. i have spent this season begging, semi stealing and borrowing to get to matches even skipping meals here and there to get to save a few quid to put on tickets and get to the game and ive backed shez to the hilt but is it worth it? im not going tomorrow due to other circumstances but ill be at gillingham home and i wont moan at the match but im sacrificing a lot for this club and so are many others, we better start seeing some reward.

 

 

see what i mean jim?!!! lol

well, whats changed..

for a start we were eighth not tenth and i havent changed my views on six yard line gols, BUT millwall shown me we can cope now by simply joe royling it.

still got two players in the proverbial window BUT a much better real squad so thats better too

im probably a little skinter than then BUT i realised that eight meals a day was not essential!!

 

so did we see some rewards? definate yes. almost certainly nothing to do with what i said, but i dont complain anymore with regards the playing squad. three cheers for tta (even if they are gona sell hughes for a fiver and swap him with ormerod )

 

still doesnt change the fact that daniel sturridge wont play for england before january, all ticket games wont keep away fans out of home ends and hughes/ davies is our most potent attack combination!!

 

oh and clearly I win

[jimsleftfoot]

see what i mean jim?!!! lol

well, whats changed..

for a start we were eighth not tenth and i havent changed my views on six yard line gols, BUT millwall shown me we can cope now by simply joe royling it.

still got two players in the proverbial window BUT a much better real squad so thats better too

im probably a little skinter than then BUT i realised that eight meals a day was not essential!!

 

so did we see some rewards? definate yes. almost certainly nothing to do with what i said, but i dont complain anymore with regards the playing squad. three cheers for tta (even if they are gona sell hughes for a fiver and swap him with ormerod )

 

still doesnt change the fact that daniel sturridge wont play for england before january, all ticket games wont keep away fans out of home ends and hughes/ davies is our most potent attack combination!!

 

oh and clearly I win

 

Ha ha. Well at least it cannot be said thay you don't know how to laugh at yourself (I wouldn't want to dig up some of the stuff that I've said over the years on here and JKLatics).

 

Things are better but we didn't get promoted. I still stand by the fact that a well executed loan striker signing (a bit like Freedman at Leeds) could have got us into the playoffs, but obtaining someone like that is a lot easier said than done and it may just have eaten into this years budget if it failed.

[longtimeblue]

see what i mean jim?!!! lol

well, whats changed..

for a start we were eighth not tenth and i havent changed my views on six yard line gols, BUT millwall shown me we can cope now by simply joe royling it.

still got two players in the proverbial window BUT a much better real squad so thats better too

im probably a little skinter than then BUT i realised that eight meals a day was not essential!!

 

so did we see some rewards? definate yes. almost certainly nothing to do with what i said, but i dont complain anymore with regards the playing squad. three cheers for tta (even if they are gona sell hughes for a fiver and swap him with ormerod )

 

still doesnt change the fact that daniel sturridge wont play for england before january, all ticket games wont keep away fans out of home ends and hughes/ davies is our most potent attack combination!!

 

oh and clearly I win

 

you are sacrificing razor blades in order to get to games now?