Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Oh, god. You're right! So that means that for two seasons before Ronnie's fanfare, when we were struggling near the relegation places all season they were HIGHER than the two seasons we had when we were flirting around with promotion? Which kind of fades the colours well and truly nailed to your mast then Corp. No-it means that during the crisis season of 2003-4, hundreds of people whose hopes had been rekindled by the Chris Moore years chose to stick around, probably through their loyalty having been revived by the adversity that followed such hope. When it subsequently became clear that we were staying put in this division many drifted away again, only to return when we came good for a time last season. Edited February 5, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Put in those stark terms, it all looks like a choice between Fred and Rosemary West. I'm not sure how else to dress it up Corporal, really, I'm not. We may speculate to accumulate, get promoted and sweep all before us on our march back to the top half of the Championship and flirtations with the play-offs. But, you and I know that should we not be playing well and getting the results that Mr and Mrs Fairweather (who don't currently come cos we aren't showing ambition) will soon get pissed off with watching us lose more often than not and knock it on the head. The ridiculous thing is, that I agree with your sentiments that there is a VERY real and grave danger that stagnation becomes an unstoppable downward spiral. I agree that we need to try and retain our better players but we should not be held to ransom over this. Perhaps we as a club need to be more inventive about the contracts we offer (we had a discussion some time ago on another thread about this) by perhaps building in clauses to trigger extension options etc. It would seem on the reported clauses built into Ricketts contract that TTA may be learning quickly about this. However, we are in the hands of TTA who -thus far- have been willing to foot the £15k per week losses. How much longer would they continue to do that should we increase those losses and reap no benefit. I think that if one thing HAS become clear from this whole protracted debate, is that the next 2-5 years - one way or another - are critical to the future direction of OAFC. I have to say also that I tend to agree with BB80 on his point about squad building though. I think that the money is there for Sheridan, I just think he has chosen not to utilise it yet. It would seem to me to be reasonable enough to conclude that Shez had brought in Jarrett and Livermore on loan deals with a view to perhaps making them perm in the summer. He's already admitted that he'd tried to sign Jarrett previously. For all we know TTA could have told JS that he can have £x now to bolster the squad, or as it's looking unlikely that we're gonna get promoted this year that he can have that money in an increase summer budget, or war chest as BB80 said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 85!!! No way. what was that for? It's still going on mate : >HERE< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Doesn't 700 fans equate to roughly £10-15,000 each home game? You know-something close to those weekly losses you keep reminding us rules out any chance of us getting a squad capable of winning promotion?. No. The 7800-8000 break even point will cover the weekly losses and as you have seen, we haven't got within a thousand of that figure. And yet again you ignore the fact that a sustained push would, as at any club, see more still added to that figure. As demonstrated when we get in the play-offs, or a major cup tie. The interest is there when the club does something to warrant it. When it doesn't, the die-hards are on their own. Just like we filled the home allocation of 8000 in the 2 home POSF games and the Huddersfield Cup Match eh? I just wish the holier-than-thous like you and Shankly would admit that you have a grudge against the Oldham public. What are you on about? I haven't said that at all and neither has FMS. As for the "holier-than-thou" comment, well once again it is laughable and an indication that you are flapping and desperate. Have you been shamed into calling us "Happy Clappers" so had to resort to something else? It's beginning to make sense now. You actually see yourself as the self-appointed spokesperson for the missing 200 thousand don't you? There you go, making things up when you get rumbled. At least you are consistent in one thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I just wish the holier-than-thous like you and Shankly would admit that you have a grudge against the Oldham public. Hahaha! Where do you get that from? On that note, I'll leave you to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Hundreds! Hundreds I tell ya! Break out the champagne and let's celebrate! Only another 1500 to go and we may break even. An extra 700-800 in the space of one season does actually suggest that we would likely achieve that extra 1500 as well if progress could be sustained over several successive seasons. As play-off games and big cup-ties, not to mention the level of support we have enjoyed in the past, prove, there are people out there who are prepared to support the club when some interest is created. The expectation of thousands of new/lost supporters in the space of a single season does seem strange when coming from people who continually stress the need for patience and gradualism. And is, furthermore, unreasonable when you consider the disappointments and false dawns of the last near decade-and-a-half. Edited February 5, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Hahaha! Where do you get that from? On that note, I'll leave you to it. Whn crowd figures are discussed it drips from every word you type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) No. The 7800-8000 break even point will cover the weekly losses and as you have seen, we haven't got within a thousand of that figure. Just like we filled the home allocation of 8000 in the 2 home POSF games and the Huddersfield Cup Match eh? What are you on about? I haven't said that at all and neither has FMS. As for the "holier-than-thou" comment, well once again it is laughable and an indication that you are flapping and desperate. Have you been shamed into calling us "Happy Clappers" so had to resort to something else? Your bitterness towards the Oldham public is palpable in these words, Mr Carpet. Edited February 5, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 ....you've been making stuff up for the last 24hrs, that's to my knowledge. The quote above is the last straw... There you go, making things up when you get rumbled. At least you are consistent in one thing. Hahaha! Where do you get that from? On that note, I'll leave you to it. Can't believe it took you two an extra 3 hours to get there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's beginning to make sense now. You actually see yourself as the self-appointed spokesperson for the missing 200 thousand don't you? For all our disagreements, and for all that can understand the cynicism of the Oldham public (at one time, before I realised that they are, from their distance, able to see the club as it really is, I was fairly bitter towards them too), I am far closer to you and my other adversaries in this thread than to any lapsed or armchair Latics fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 .and what about the "lost pie years..."?? i mean,all them ashworth pies sitting there because not mant were bought..100's of em..hundreds! all that revenue...lost! wonder what happened to ashworths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiral_Carpet Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 An extra 700-800 in the space of one season does actually suggest that we would likely achieve that extra 1500 as well if progress could be sustained over several successive seasons. As play-off games and big cup-ties, not to mention the level of support we have enjoyed in the past, prove, there are people out there who are prepared to support the club when some interest is created. The expectation of thousands of new/lost supporters in the space of a single season does seem strange when coming from people who continually stress the need for patience and gradualism. And is, furthermore, unreasonable when you consider the disappointments and false dawns of the last near decade-and-a-half. Look at the facts Corp. They just don't add up as far as your argument is concerned. Great on paper but not proven by fact. You are making yourself look more and more foolish IMO. And as for the "it drips from every word you type" comment! Well words fail me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Whn crowd figures are discussed it drips from every word you type. So, I point out that success in a particular season did not affect the crowd (in fact they were higher in relegation threatened seasons) and you interpret that to mean I, and also IC are/is bitter against the Oldham public? Carry on corp... carry on. Drips from every word indeed. You put Keats to shame with that one, you really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 IC, CJ... Will you just get a room at last and leave us all out of it!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Look at the facts Corp. They just don't add up as far as your argument is concerned. Great on paper but not proven by fact. You are making yourself look more and more foolish IMO. And as for the "it drips from every word you type" comment, then maybe your problem is a bit deeper? Did you once have a job as a psychiatrist in the Soviet Union? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) I think the good Corporal is like oafc0000 in the programme thread. Got to have the last word and then saying "You haven't replied because you can't"! (Waits in trench for oafc0000 to come storming back over the top) Edited February 5, 2008 by LaticsPete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 For all our disagreements, and for all that can understand the cynicism of the Oldham public (at one time, before I realised that they are, from their distance, able to see the club as it really is, I was fairly bitter towards them too), I am far closer to you and my other adversaries in this thread than to any lapsed or armchair Latics fan. The post has just become funny now....to read the absurdity of what you'll write next.... Of course they've realised....as they look through the bottom of a pint glass, while spilling it over their red tops as they jump and cheer in their armchair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Can't believe it took you two an extra 3 hours to get there Oi. You happy clapper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 No. The 7800-8000 break even point will cover the weekly losses and as you have seen, we haven't got within a thousand of that figure. Exactly. An extra 700 per home game would provide about £10k per game (going v roughly on £15 per person with concessions etc.) £230k per year providing less than £4.5k per week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookers87 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Exactly. An extra 700 per home game would provide about £10k per game (going v roughly on £15 per person with concessions etc.) £230k per year providing less than £4.5k per week. Which would make a very small dent in the £50k per month that we were losing back in 2002-03 rather than the £15k deficit that is happening now...I'd rather take the new stadium option/improved income into the club. Mind you I never was a massive gambler, build strong foundations and they will come. ps. that is with ambitions of trying to get out of this league * Edit - Apologies I did actually mean £50k per week which was not least in part to building the team required to bring the highest average crowd levels in the last decade (I_C's list). Reminder of the losses Edited February 5, 2008 by lookers87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Doesn't 700 fans equate to roughly £10-15,000 each home game? You know-something close to those weekly losses you keep reminding us rules out any chance of us getting a squad capable of winning promotion?. I've got to come back on that one corporal. You really either need to get your facts right or take maths lessons. 700 fans at £12 per fan (thats having taken off the vat and averaging out for adults, oap's and juniors) = £8,400 per game which in turn = £193,200 per 23 game season which finally = £3,715 per week. So no 700 fans doesn't equate to roughly £10 - £15,000 each home game or as you say "something close to those weekly losses." And yes you actually did say that so please don't deny it (Unless of course the £10 that you state is actually ten pounds and not ten thouseand pounds. ) Come to think of it the way your maths work, your figures are actually a hell of a lot closer to £10 than the actual weekly losses you are trying to equate the extra 700 fans to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_ok Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) 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. Edited February 5, 2008 by oafc_ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Exactly. An extra 700 per home game would provide about £10k per game (going v roughly on £15 per person with concessions etc.) £230k per year providing less than £4.5k per week. Which the club wouldn't otherwise have. And which could, as previously noted, be built upon given a sustained push for promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Which would make a very small dent in the £50k per month that we were losing back in 2002-03 rather than the £15k deficit that is happening now...I'd rather take the new stadium option/improved income into the club. Mind you I never was a massive gambler, build strong foundations and they will come. ps. that is with ambitions of trying to get out of this league * Edit - Apologies I did actually mean £50k per week which was not least in part to building the team required to bring the highest average crowd levels in the last decade (I_C's list). Reminder of the losses 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) I've got to come back on that one corporal. You really either need to get your facts right or take maths lessons. 700 fans at £12 per fan (thats having taken off the vat and averaging out for adults, oap's and juniors) = £8,400 per game which in turn = £193,200 per 23 game season which finally = £3,715 per week. So no 700 fans doesn't equate to roughly £10 - £15,000 each home game or as you say "something close to those weekly losses." And yes you actually did say that so please don't deny it (Unless of course the £10 that you state is actually ten pounds and not ten thouseand pounds. ) Come to think of it the way your maths work, your figures are actually a hell of a lot closer to £10 than the actual weekly losses you are trying to equate the extra 700 fans to. 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? And again the point is missed that, given continued progress, the extra 700 would gradually turn into a considerably larger number, as the lost fans who still turn out for big games, and so on, begin to take notice. The reason why we've never topped a 7,000 average in recent years, despite coming close, is that progress is never sustained, which means that people get fed up, rightly perceiving the club as one which, in football terms, is going nowhere. Edited February 5, 2008 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.