Guest sheridans_world Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Firm commitment has been made-or did I imagine that a bit of BP has already been demolished? In any case, you've got to commit to something sometime if anything's going to be done at all. How long is it now since Sports Park 2000 was first mooted? How long since clubs started upgrading their facilities? Every week that passes we fall further and further behind. So what does that matter? Maybe it was to save costs, but the demolition was part of the overall redevelopment plan. So what that plenty of clubs can't afford to upgrade? The ones that tend to thrive have done so, some of them years ago, and benefit from this. Further and further behind who, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I seem to remember that OMBC (Mr Battye) was 100% behind the development and it was Simon Hewitt (?) that jumped up and down and raised Ira Clayton trust issues and then Town Green issues that ruined it for the whole Borough. By now you are right.. .the playing fields would still exist, be of far better quality, Lacrosse pitches etc. and a stadium further away from the houses. Win Win. Not sure how Mr Hewitt can sleep at nights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 So what does that matter? Further and further behind who, then? Most of our Lancashire rivals, for instance. Clubs who were surviving in dilapidated grounds on gates of around half our average fifteen or so years ago, and who are now playing in up-to-date stadiums in the Championship or PL. They are not the only examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) I seem to remember that OMBC (Mr Battye) was 100% behind the development and it was Simon Hewitt (?) that jumped up and down and raised Ira Clayton trust issues and then Town Green issues that ruined it for the whole Borough. By now you are right.. .the playing fields would still exist, be of far better quality, Lacrosse pitches etc. and a stadium further away from the houses. Win Win. Not sure how Mr Hewitt can sleep at nights. All true. OMBC at the time actually really pushed for it, especially Battye and Judge IIRC - I remember seeing the models of the proposed plans in Spindles actually - but Labour lost power to the Lib Dems and they scuppered the whole plan. Planning permisson for the development wasn't going to be clear-cut, however, as there were apparently one or two covenants that may have made it tricky, but not impossible from my understanding - however, Clayton being awarded Town Green status a little while later means now that no development will ever take place on there. Edited July 7, 2009 by Yard Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Most of our Lancashire rivals, for instance. Clubs who were surviving in dilapidated grounds on gates of around half our average fifteen or so years ago, and who are now playing in up-to-date stadiums in the Championship or PL. They are not the only examples. The Chaddy Road end and the Rochdale Road end are adequate enough, while not the biggest stands. Most clubs only changed their grounds to seating to comply with the taylor report. Wigan, Bolton and Preston excepted. Apart from City (who pay rent) and United, Liverpool and Everton (cant compete with them). Burnley havent had any works done for 15 years, Rochdale havent had any done for longer than that and Gigg lane is similar to Rochdale. Accrington Stanley have streched to having a roof on a stand. Stockport have re-done one stand (Rochdale Road stand-esq) and installed seats on terracing otherwise. Macclesfield have had very little work done to the Moss Rose. Clubs at this level are not building brand new stands or stadia, we are planning on doing in the medium-term (next five years), if not the short-term (next two years). How can that be a bad thing? Regardless of whether we stay at the BP site or move somewhere else, we are going to have a redeveloped ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The Chaddy Road end and the Rochdale Road end are adequate enough, while not the biggest stands. Most clubs only changed their grounds to seating to comply with the taylor report. Wigan, Bolton and Preston excepted. Apart from City (who pay rent) and United, Liverpool and Everton (cant compete with them). Burnley havent had any works done for 15 years, Rochdale havent had any done for longer than that and Gigg lane is similar to Rochdale. Accrington Stanley have streched to having a roof on a stand. Stockport have re-done one stand (Rochdale Road stand-esq) and installed seats on terracing otherwise. Macclesfield have had very little work done to the Moss Rose. Clubs at this level are not building brand new stands or stadia, we are planning on doing in the medium-term (next five years), if not the short-term (next two years). How can that be a bad thing? Regardless of whether we stay at the BP site or move somewhere else, we are going to have a redeveloped ground. Apart from Dale's two modernish stands, the one we are usually in and the one to the left, they are clearly younger than 15 years old. :censored:, I'm agreeing with Professor Doom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Blitz knocks it on the head in today's Chronicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The Chaddy Road end and the Rochdale Road end are adequate enough, while not the biggest stands. Most clubs only changed their grounds to seating to comply with the taylor report. Wigan, Bolton and Preston excepted. Apart from City (who pay rent) and United, Liverpool and Everton (cant compete with them). Burnley havent had any works done for 15 years, Rochdale havent had any done for longer than that and Gigg lane is similar to Rochdale. Accrington Stanley have streched to having a roof on a stand. Stockport have re-done one stand (Rochdale Road stand-esq) and installed seats on terracing otherwise. Macclesfield have had very little work done to the Moss Rose. Clubs at this level are not building brand new stands or stadia, we are planning on doing in the medium-term (next five years), if not the short-term (next two years). How can that be a bad thing? Regardless of whether we stay at the BP site or move somewhere else, we are going to have a redeveloped ground. It doesn't matter why other clubs upgraded or changed grounds. What matters is the fact they did it. I want OAFC to be in the category of club that play in modern stadiums with up-to-date facilities. I am not interested in being placed alongside Rochdale, Bury, Stockport or Macclesfield. I am not interested in remaining at this level forever. Neither, it seems from our dwindling (or, at best, static) fanbase are plenty of others. We were promised more, remember. Without the redevelpment of BP or a move, we will become neither self-financing as a club nor viable as a Championship club. Who said we are planning to do anything in 'the medium term,' which you choose to regard as the next five years or the short-term, which you choose to regard as two years? As far as I understand it, the redevelopment of BP is dependent on the housing market and the economy reviving-something you can't place a timescale on. Apart from that, there are no firm plans for any alternative as far as we know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Apart from Dale's two modernish stands, the one we are usually in and the one to the left, they are clearly younger than 15 years old. :censored:, I'm agreeing with Professor Doom! It is the willingness to embrace mediocrity in all things on the part of too many involved with OAFC that will doom the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Blitz knocks it on the head in today's Chronicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...at-talk-of-move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Do people have a ready made list of things that enable them to get out of supporting Latics? That bloke in the chron from the supporters association saying “I have already spoken to fans who say they will stop watching Latics if they move out of town." Is the town really full of people like this? If that Dylan doesn't stop playing that electric guitar then I for one am not going to listen to him anymore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) 'Mr Blitz reassured fans there is no way he will ever sanction a move to Bury, Rochdale or Stockport, although he wouldn’t rule out sharing a new stadium with a neighbour. But, should that happen, he says he would still be looking to find a site for a new stadium within the borough of Oldham.' I had a feeling that once the Lookers came down with no sign of the redevelopment, talk of a temporary ground share wouldn't be far away. Bye-bye to another section of the fanbase then. And again we have talk of another site away from BP. Where has this talk come from all of a sudden, and what's happening regarding the redevelopment of BP? Edited July 7, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Just a thought but....... I think the only stands which really needs knocking down and rebuilding from scratch from the remaining three stands is the current main stand. Im wondering if the club have explored the option of simply refurbishing the other two stands, eg simply a new roof/structural improvement/lick of paint job, as opposed to knocking it down completely? Just an idea like, I await the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Do people have a ready made list of things that enable them to get out of supporting Latics? That bloke in the chron from the supporters association saying “I have already spoken to fans who say they will stop watching Latics if they move out of town." Is the town really full of people like this? If that Dylan doesn't stop playing that electric guitar then I for one am not going to listen to him anymore! I think it typified the thinking of most latics fans, backwards rather than forwards. A permanent groundshare would definately not be my preferred option but I would have no issues sharing on a temporary basis with bury or rochdale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Just a thought but....... I think the only stands which really needs knocking down and rebuilding from scratch from the remaining three stands is the current main stand. Im wondering if the club have explored the option of simply refurbishing the other two stands, eg simply a new roof/structural improvement/lick of paint job, as opposed to knocking it down completely? Just an idea like, I await the Why not? Might as well have an half-arsed stadium redevelopment as well as an half-arsed everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Jeff Vernon, chairman and vice- president of Oldham Athletic Supporters Association, “I have already spoken to fans who say they will stop watching Latics if they move out of town." Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I think it typified the thinking of most latics fans, backwards rather than forwards. A permanent groundshare would definately not be my preferred option but I would have no issues sharing on a temporary basis with bury or rochdale And a grounshare, with no firm plans for an alternative, isn't a step backwards when the plan was supposed to be a stadium redevelopment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Jeff Vernon, chairman and vice- president of Oldham Athletic Supporters Association, “I have already spoken to fans who say they will stop watching Latics if they move out of town." Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out What about the other five hundred or thousand who will join him, either because they can't or don't want to travel to another town, or think it's a step too far and another exampe of the club being on its knees? Is it 'bye' to them and their money as well? Is there any example of a club whose fanbase wasn't damaged by being a rival club's tenant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 What about the other five hundred or thousand who will join him, either because they can't or don't want to travel to another town, or think it's a step too far and another exampe of the club being on its knees? Is it 'bye' to them and their money as well? Is there any example of a club whose fanbase wasn't damaged by being a rival club's tenant? Rival club, such a quaint idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Is there any example of a club whose fanbase wasn't damaged by being a rival club's tenant? How many other clubs play in the borough? None? So how will we be the tenant and not the land lord? But, should that happen, he says he would still be looking to find a site for a new stadium within the borough of Oldham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 And a grounshare, with no firm plans for an alternative, isn't a step backwards when the plan was supposed to be a stadium redevelopment? Sorry I will rephrase that..... I think it typified the thinking of most latics fans, backwards rather than forwards. A permanent groundshare would definately not be my preferred option but I would have no issues sharing on a temporary basis with bury or rochdale providing firm redevelopment plans for our own ground have been agreed with funding in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUNGFOO Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Jeff Vernon, chairman and vice- president of Oldham Athletic Supporters Association, “I have already spoken to fans who say they will stop watching Latics if they move out of town." who is this mug so much dribble writen in that paper get us the feck out of this town with a council that will support us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Jeff Vernon, chairman and vice- president of Oldham Athletic Supporters Association, “I have already spoken to fans who say they will stop watching Latics if they move out of town." This is absolute bollocks. We need new thinking at this club fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 This is absolute bollocks. We need new thinking at this club fast. along with a new generation of fans 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.