Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 We are aiming to compete with Stoke, Burnley, Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan, Leeds, Preston Sheff Utd and Wednesday. We're not, Shezzers. We're really not. (Looks pityingly at the boy for as long as he can stand it, then dashes out of room, eyes filled with tears.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I intend to be at Sinclairs on Saturday....simply to meet, greet and wedgie Zorro for the constant abuse thrown our Sean's way. 'Your' Sean and I share similar dimensions in the trouser department. You'll need Hulk-like strength to wedgie me, young man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 And I pointed out that it appears to be working for some. But not for others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) We can - you asked for examples of clubs, apart from Wigan, who had built grounds bigger than they needed and gone onto be successful. I provided some. I'll let the corp take it up from here.... Surely the point has already been made? Anyway, here it is again: clubs that built little stadiums did so because they had little ambitions and generally stayed where they were, with the odd exception who temporarily moved upwards. Those that built stadiums with capacities that matched their big ambitions generally moved upwards (again with the odd exception, most notably Darlington, whose stadium ambitions were not based on their potential but on their then owners' inflated ego). Some of these came unstuck, but despite that will rise again faster than Latics. Others are consolidaing nicely at a higher level than where they started. Edited July 22, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 But not for others As I've said. The aim should be to emulate the successes.* *Should be, that is. However, it's less demanding to concentrate on the fact that some of them won the cup when King Canute was in power, which makes it impossible for Latics to ever do anything remotely like they are currently doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 'Your' Sean and I share similar dimensions in the trouser department. You'll need Hulk-like strength to wedgie me, young man. Or timing, skill and determination, a la the Big G. You have been warned, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Why do the mods (and certain others who detest debate, despite posing as the voices of privilegedly-informed reason) object to threads going on beyond just a few pages. You'll be shutting the thread down without good reason next! Seems that if you don't like speculation and conjecture you shouldn't set up a messageboard. Nice excuse regarding the ground capacity, by the way. Is the current proposed capacity just a suggestion as well? Why not consider it and then drop it to 7,000. After all, we rarely get above that for a league game anymore (wonder why?). And we're not as big as Bolton or Burnely and too close to COMS and OT. Oh, and Chadderton FC-our natural rivals. It also seems that if one doesn't like people's reaction to their spectulation one should give it a rest, shouldn't one.... ...and why do people like you insist that if you're a member of the forum, and a part of a forums' administration, the same member should forfeit their voice? Discuss away Oh Prophet of Misery, Harbinger of Worst Case Scenarios - speculate to your hearts content old bean - even if you are creating a position that doesn't really exist to argue against... It wasn't an excuse by the way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 We're not, Shezzers. We're really not. (Looks pityingly at the boy for as long as he can stand it, then dashes out of room, eyes filled with tears.) We are Corpersz. We really are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Perhaps I worded it badly. What I meant was that the only clubs that seem to significantly increase the capacities of their existing grounds are those that enjoy the maximum success. For example, the only club that immediately sprigs to mind for me is United with their recent extensions of the Theatre of Debt. I see that Queens Park FC attract huge attendances too.... not... They have enough room... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 As I keep having to say, for the benefit of the hard of thinking, ground capacity has never been about how often you fill your ground, but the ambition you have. Even those clubs that came unstuck showed ambition when they built stadiums with decent capacities. The there are those who did so without, so far, coming unstuck. You know-the ones who were poorer than us fifteen or so years ago but whom we will never be able to match again. The only clubs who build little grounds are those that know they have no real intention of going anywhere. I can see so many contradictions in your posts Corporal, and I am once of your staunchest allies, it looks like you have been on a 72 hour trip with no sleep and have lost where you are. One minute you are saying we are doomed if we do not re invigorate the club and excercise financial probity to stop heammoraging losses, the next we should build a white elephant vanity stadium to show ambition. Chris Moore era alone shows we should never go back to the do anything just to make a statement or excercise loose finanical controls. The TTA have consistently said we should be self financing. I cannot beleive that this is your post. Someone must have hacked into your accont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Surely the point has already been made? Anyway, here it is again: clubs that built little stadiums did so because they had little ambitions and generally stayed where they were, with the odd exception who temporarily moved upwards. Those that built stadiums with capacities that matched their big ambitions generally moved upwards (again with the odd exception, most notably Darlington, whose stadium ambitions were not based on their potential but on their then owners' inflated ego). Some of these came unstuck, but despite that will rise again faster than Latics. Others are consolidaing nicely at a higher level than where they started. Bradford - Were in the prem when built now in league 2 Derby - Were in the prem when they built PP. Now in the champ and have had massive money issues in past few years Leicester - where in the championship when built, still there Hudds - Still in same division Coventry - Still on same division Middlesbrough - started with Riverside in the championship Charlton - dropped two divisions Southampton - Were in the Prem now 2 divisions lower Milwall -were in championship Ipswich - complete rebuild same division Preston - 4 new sides same division Darlington - Same division Norwich - rebuilt in the Prem now league one Not many of the above actually moved upwards as a result. Leicester + Middlesbourgh probably the only two that could say it was as a result of the new ground. Adding another 8000 seats to our current planned capacity is not going to make one bit of difference when we are not filling the stadium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I can see so many contradictions in your posts Corporal, and I am once of your staunchest allies, it looks like you have been on a 72 hour trip with no sleep and have lost where you are. One minute you are saying we are doomed if we do not re invigorate the club and excercise financial probity to stop heammoraging losses, the next we should build a white elephant vanity stadium to show ambition. Chris Moore era alone shows we should never go back to the do anything just to make a statement or excercise loose finanical controls. The TTA have consistently said we should be self financing. I cannot beleive that this is your post. Someone must have hacked into your accont. I've been consistent throughout. It's those who wilfully misunderstand what I've been saying who are seeing contradictions. Nobody's suggesting a 'white elephant vanity stadium.' I've pointed out that certain clubs built stadiums with capacities to match their ambitions, contrasting these to the small effort that Latics seem set to embark upon, but the most I've suggested Latics should do is keep to ambitions for around 15-1600, as in the BP redevelopment and SP 2000 plans. 12000 is too low, in my opinion, and an indicator that the intention is to be a well-run lower division club. And that saddens me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamains Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I got interviewed by granada outside BP. I hope they don't put it on tv as I looked a right tit. I got a bit camera shy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I've been consistent throughout. It's those who wilfully misunderstand what I've been saying who are seeing contradictions. Nobody's suggesting a 'white elephant vanity stadium.' I've pointed out that certain clubs built stadiums with capacities to match their ambitions, contrasting these to the small effort that Latics seem set to embark upon, but the most I've suggested Latics should do is keep to ambitions for around 15-1600, as in the BP redevelopment and SP 2000 plans. 12000 is too low, in my opinion, and an indicator that the intention is to be a well-run lower division club. And that saddens me. It saddens me too, but the fact is not as many fans attend nowadays. It is economic madness, in these straightened times, to build a stadium in the hope more fans attend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Bradford - Were in the prem when built now in league 2 Derby - Were in the prem when they built PP. Now in the champ and have had massive money issues in past few years Leicester - where in the championship when built, still there Hudds - Still in same division Coventry - Still on same division Middlesbrough - started with Riverside in the championship Charlton - dropped two divisions Southampton - Were in the Prem now 2 divisions lower Milwall -were in championship Ipswich - complete rebuild same division Preston - 4 new sides same division Darlington - Same division Norwich - rebuilt in the Prem now league one Not many of the above actually moved upwards as a result. Leicester + Middlesbourgh probably the only two that could say it was as a result of the new ground. Adding another 8000 seats to our current planned capacity is not going to make one bit of difference when we are not filling the stadium I'd bet on all of those clubs, except Darlington, to rise again before I'd bet on Latics, however. Nobody said that clubs never encountered setbacks. I did say, however, that we should seek to learn from those clubs who have not, so far, encountered setbacks. Also, I haven't suggested that all stadiums for clubs with ambition should be a certain size. I wouldn't suggest that we should have a stadium the same size as Derby's, for example, for obvious reasons. But if Bolton can manage 27000 (which they don't often fill), we should at least stick to 16000, as in the BP plan. Edited July 22, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I've been consistent throughout. It's those who wilfully misunderstand what I've been saying who are seeing contradictions No, that's not right at all. Sorry, you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What gives me the imprssion that if they asked you to suck it you'd fall to your knees without question? After all we're only lickle Oldham, here to be dominated by the bigger boys. Go fetch BT! <sigh> Personal insults, always a sign that the debate is being won. As for your other post, I don't need a less stressful hobby, Latics cause me no stress, I gave up worrying about it several years ago. These days I just enjoy it, a few hours out of the house with like-minded fools, bit of fresh air, bit of footy, hopefully a few goals and who knows, a man carrying a box of pies could slip and fall causing merriment for all. I don't think it is me that needs to take it less seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) It saddens me too, but the fact is not as many fans attend nowadays. It is economic madness, in these straightened times, to build a stadium in the hope more fans attend. Why? Most clubs still do it, and they tend to be higher in the football hierarchy. Those clubs that buiold stadiums more in line with their attendances at the time tend to remain at the lower end. For example, if Bolton built the Reebok on the basis of crowds they were getting at the time it was first mooted, they'd have built it much smaller. As it turned out, they built for 27000 and average about 20000, filling it occasionally, on the basis of chasing their ambitions. It's a similar story at many clubs. Edited July 22, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 It saddens me too, but the fact is not as many fans attend nowadays. It is economic madness, in these straightened times, to build a stadium in the hope more fans attend. Speak your yourself ducky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) <sigh> Personal insults, always a sign that the debate is being won. As for your other post, I don't need a less stressful hobby, Latics cause me no stress, I gave up worrying about it several years ago. These days I just enjoy it, a few hours out of the house with like-minded fools, bit of fresh air, bit of footy, hopefully a few goals and who knows, a man carrying a box of pies could slip and fall causing merriment for all. I don't think it is me that needs to take it less seriously. It wasn't personal insult when it was you who was getting snotty in the first place. Post up some more childish smilies, why not? They're hilarious. Trying to claim that it's just a pastime is the hallmark of the fan who has given up. Theyve accepted hat it's all over in terms of achieving something, even if they don't admit it. Clubs that actually get somewhere tend to have far fewer of these. If you didn't take it seriously you wouldn't take issue with what some people write on here. Edited July 22, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 No, that's not right at all. Sorry, you are wrong. Please yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Fifth time of asking Jonesy. What size ground would you regard as showing ambition? I'll make it easier. Is it 1. 15000 - 18000 2. 18001 - 22000 3. 22001 - 27500 4. 27501 and above. Go on. Share your wisdom with us. people are forgetting that really right now our ambition should be a stable, self funding club, lets talk about capacity when we start making profit, when we are not facing major losses and when we start getting the 12000 seats filled! why cant we build for stability now and improve later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 people are forgetting that really right now our ambition should be a stable, self funding club, lets talk about capacity when we start making profit, when we are not facing major losses and when we start getting the 12000 seats filled! why cant we build for stability now and improve later? What does stable mean? Isn't thirteen consecutive seasons in the third division stability? Some of those now arguing for stability on the basis of a new stadium seem to be the same ones who until recently argued that we are stable in a deteriorating BP on weekly subsidies from TTA. Now stability seems to be a small stadium in Failsworth and promotion sometime never. In two years stability may be something else altogther. We are at war with Eurasia... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) After reading what was in the chron today (hopefully it was factual) my concerns over the new plans have greatly decreased... My biggest concern was where was the external income going to come from and thats been answered. The location of the stadium, while ideally I would of prefered Oldham, its not exactly a million miles away in Failsworth and I dont think its going to have a big impact. My only issue with the project at the moment is the 12,000 capacity. Its been claimed that this is fine for the Championship but I do not agree. Imagine a end of season game between Oldham and Preston for a play off spot or some other important game. I could easily see us attracting 15 / 16,000.... Well over 12,000 anyway... Building a 25,000 seater would be stupid. We could never get that, but we could get 15 / 16,000.... I think the capacity is a big issue for most fans. Seriously how much would it cost to put in an extra 3 / 4,000 seats now?? It will cost alot more to expand in the future... and I can see a championship future with more than 12,000 in attendance... 16,000 and I am fully signed up... 12,000 isnt enough I feel... Edited July 22, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 My only issue with the project at the moment is the 12,000 capacity. Its been claimed that this is fine for the Championship but I do not agree. Imagine a end of season game between Oldham and Preston for a play off spot or some other important game. I could easily see us attracting 15 / 16,000.... Well over 12,000 anyway... Building a 25,000 seater would be stupid. We could never get that, but we could get 15 / 16,000.... I think the capacity is a big issue for most fans. Seriously how much would it cost to put in an extra 3 / 4,000 seats now?? It will cost alot more to expand in the future... and I can see a championship future with more than 12,000 in attendance... 16,000 and I am fully signed up... 12,000 isnt enough I feel... I'd be tempted to agree. However, even in the championship we are not likley to hit five figures at home games, except the big local ones. Preston, Barnsley, Sheff Weds, Burnley. Five, maybe six games a season, and they are not likely to max out the capacity. While its nice to think we'll have 16000 seats, is it worth spending £xM more at the stage on the hope of one or two games maxing out in a season? IMO, no. However, if we are constantly getting five figures in the championship, the case for the extra seat could be made... (You never know if we get promoted this season and start filling BP next season, the decision might be made before we move ) 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.