singe Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Readig betweent he lines: Bury. FCUM keeps them alive, so unlikely to want them out. Stockport a slim chance but Rochdale at Ferney Field. Share with Rochdale, ORLFC & hornets at Ferney Field or Royton?. Proper agreement rather than tenancy, and ech side a designated home end to call their own colours? Or seperate joined pitch for Rugby ala Sports Park. Maybe something that could open up the adjoining terrace in the event of a big game. We wouldn't need a 15,000 seater for 95% of the games. AS SC says good enough for AC and Inter. Which is a very valid point. That would make financial sene, the only major down side is identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Some interesting stuff in that interview with SC. It would seem we're not really any clearer on the ground front - all options are still open. Would I support a groundshare? Grudgingly, if there was no viable alternative. TTA not being around in ten years time is an interesting one. I can certainly see it in terms of "we'd like to think we've implemented our business plan by then". If and when they do sell up, I wonder how they'll feel about having fulfilled their ambition of owning a football club? Never again, or who's next? I'm glad SC has said what he has about sacking Ronnie. Doing so for the reasons they did was a mistake, and a very expensive lesson in exactly how much the board should listen to fan power. I was no great fan of Ronnie's style, but he deserved another season. He doesn't rank the lows, but I suspect the lowest point of all was sacking Shez. As SC says it had to be done, but having tried so many management options and knowing they had to pick someone, stand by them and give them as much time as they could, it must have felt particularly hard to see nearly 3 years ultimately go to waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 "We won't be doing this for another ten years, there's no question," he said. But he added that they will only sell to the right buyer and believes it is `realistic' for fans to expect that when that time comes the club will be in the Championship playing before crowds of more than 10,000." Do Gigg Lane and Spotland even hold 10,000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Because there are no pig farms there anymore. Never lived there, but I drink over there occasionally. It can be quite pleasant if you can put up with the armchair ManUre 'fanatics.' Had mixed feelings when the last pig farm closed - it was run by family friends. Spent many a summers day down there as a kid. [/offtopic] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Nice to see they admit they got it wrong over Ronnie. He's gone. Get over it. ;) Edited July 6, 2009 by Ketsbaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Not reall much in the article that as not been said before, initially the writer would have you think with the headline OLDHAM Athletic could move out of town and will be sold within the next ten years. Nothing new in the story really, Simons says ... we could share we could build a new ground we could re-develop BP He added: "Would I want to go to somebody else's ground? Of course not, because you start to lose your identity. But we are in an unsustainable environment at the moment. Think a lot of clubs would say the same thing at present, the location we lay (with so many clubs in short driving distance) will always open talk regarding ground sharing... Could go on.... but it chip wrapper now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Do Gigg Lane and Spotland even hold 10,000? Yes, to both. Surely this can only really be Dale, as the others are too far away. Would Dale want to move? Re-sale won't be much on the current site. The ground is easily enough for them, and quite tidy now. I can't think why they'd be interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 If they thought the Royton South NIMBYs were bad, wait till they see my mum in action when they try to build the 90,000 seater OldDale megabowl in Thornham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Yes, to both. Surely this can only really be Dale, as the others are too far away. Would Dale want to move? Re-sale won't be much on the current site. The ground is easily enough for them, and quite tidy now. I can't think why they'd be interested. ... and it's co-owned by Hornets and RMC so they'll have something to say about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 As far back as I can remember Wigan were in the Northern Prem and not the Cheshire league. Given I am (cough) now considered long in tooth that's far enough back for anyone! Prior to them gaining FL status, I can't remember them in anything but the NPL either. My comment was a (very) oblique reference to the Wigan dolts who used to haunt JKL and claim that 'we built up our club from a Cheshire League outfit.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Next to nothing has been said, all speculation, just like on here. All "could's" and "mights" and "possbily this" and "maybe that". However the ground-share is a new one. I think a groundshare would be a good idea. It would obviously have to be a total new-build as neither club would want to move to an existing stadium. It makes financial sense, s'long as both clubs have an even input into the cost of the ground (Where would Rochdale get the cash? - Sale of Spotland?) It would also have to be at least 15000 seats, with room for expansion. If we (or Rochdale for that matter) get promoted to the championship, we should be able to cope with 15000 initially, where-as if we only had 10,000 both clubs would have to stump up cash to expand the ground. At least if it was Rochdale, all the seats would be blue... no differing home colours! Food for thought or a diversion tactic away from the real plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Yes, to both. Surely this can only really be Dale, as the others are too far away. Would Dale want to move? Re-sale won't be much on the current site. The ground is easily enough for them, and quite tidy now. I can't think why they'd be interested. I think OS that Hornets are on very shkay ground financially. And Rochdale are not backed like we are. So really the main interest inf £'s. which also I think is the only real interest for us. In effect, half the cost, but not neccessarily half the profits. Becasue the stadium is not owned by outside-co you get all the revenue match days. That said, I think our stadium is still owned by an outside company. So it willb e intersting if that is still part of the plan, that Latics own at least part of the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Sell two sites. Develop one. Makes a lot of sense, especially if ongoing maintenance costs are shared. I can't see two football teams and two rugby teams playing on the same turf without destroying it though. Edited July 6, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Rochdale are also in the black, pretty much have been for the last few years, well run club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Yes, to both. Good, because I've a feeling that if we do ever share with either Bury or Rochdale it will be at Gigg Lane or Spotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Rochdale are also in the black, pretty much have been for the last few years, well run club. Well run but eternal basement division dwellers and always will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Well run but eternal basement division dwellers and always will be. Must not bite, must not bite, :censored:, I've bitten. So their last two season of reaching the play-offs despite selling their better players doesn't indicate an upward spiral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Must not bite, must not bite, , I've bitten. So their last two season of reaching the play-offs despite selling their better players doesn't indicate an upward spiral? what a whooper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Must not bite, must not bite, :censored:, I've bitten. So their last two season of reaching the play-offs despite selling their better players doesn't indicate an upward spiral? No. You lose the play-offs and you stay in the same division, as we know. Might as well have finished 19th. What's 'fishing' about the comment about Rochdale? It's true. You can run a tight ship but you stand still. Simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 what a whooper Whopper, mate. You mean whopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Firgrove playing fields please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 By raising the "threat" of gound sharing with what enevitably would lead to merger, then the move to Failsworth or outside the Borough would then become more acceptable. Can't help but commence to think that TTA are rejecting investors not for Latics reasons but more for personal reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 By raising the "threat" of gound sharing with what enevitably would lead to merger, then the move to Failsworth or outside the Borough would then become more acceptable. Can't help but commence to think that TTA are rejecting investors not for Latics reasons but more for personal reasons. Perhaps. It's a fairly bizarre interview when you think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (BP1960 @ Jul 6 2009, 10:18 AM) New stadium ground share a possibility too with Rochdale or Bury according to the above Manchester Evening News report. Or Stockport, maybe as along shot?? Latics/Stockport stadium in Ashton ? Tameside has no football league clubs so it might be a possibility, and unlike Oldham their council usually has no problem with new develoment ideas. The 2 clubs even merge and be renamed Latics County. Edited July 6, 2009 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Perhaps. It's a fairly bizarre interview when you think about it. I agree completely, There are undertones to it that make me uncomfortable 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.