oafc0000 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Obviously this is pretty key......so should the ground be even smaller with £x saved and dedicated to the playing budget? Well using his logic 12k is massive for this league... maybe it should be say 8k ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fittonhillbilly Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 did someone mention free blowjobs? or was i dreaming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Let's say that we make it into the Championship (and I sincerely hope we do!). Football League rules guarantee 10% of stadium capacity to away fans. That means that we'd have 10,800 seats to play with if needed which, is more than enough in my opinion. What about all those lovely away fans we'll be turning away? Well for a start, on the majority of matchdays we can always allocate them some of the 10,800 home seats that undoubtedly won't be filled. Even if the sold out signs go up once in a while, is the lost revenue really going to compare to the extra capital required to add 4,000 / 8,000 extra seats? Say we were to lose out on 4,000 extra fans in a quarter of our home games, it would probably take 5 years of this happening before we made the initial capital outlay back. Provided there is flexibility to increase, I don't see the point of building a 16,000 / 20,000 capacity stadium that's going to be half empty for the majority of games. Now, if the plans we're to be scaled down below 12,000... Sorry for bumping my own post but the topic seems to have moved into a relevant area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) After 24 pages of reading I may as well dip my toe in as well. First of all, it amuses me how people dismiss the opinions of those who question spending extra millions on seats that will rarely get used because they are apparantly making the figures up to suit their arguments or using "fag packet maths". These same people then go on to say with utter certainty that 12,000 seats would not be enough should we make the Championship. Based on what exactly? Feck all, that's what. After cup runs, a league title and 2 seasons in the top flight were rarely sold out at home in the premier league. So all of a sudden we need a minimum of 16,000 if we go into the champ? Rubbish. Taking last years average attendances in the champ only Doncaster, Blackpool and Plymouth were under 12000 and finished 14th, 16th and 21st. Plymouth being the lowest have been in that division for a while now. So you can survive on those crowds. Then there's the Corp who's answer to the suggestion that it makes sense to build within our means but allow for a close season upgrade if required is something along the lines of "it won't happen". Brilliant. This then gets repeated to every person who mentions upgrading in the future (probably about 30 unnecessary posts). I'm not saying the upgrade argument shouldn't be contradicted, but just with something a little more substantiated than "it won't happen". I've been of the opinion for some time now that football is going to disappear up it's own ar5e eventually to some extent with the amount of money flying around that could all disappear overnight if the arabs find something else to play with. It might even come down to a scaled down restructure of the leagues or something like that. If this does happen then I would much rather have a club that has a modern, appropriately-sized ground and is financially self sufficient rather than one struggling to meet interest payments on loans used to buy a quarter-full-fancypants stadium. One might suggest we all have huge wangs and are shooting for the stars, but the other will probably have a better chance as continuing as a professional footballl club. Edited July 23, 2009 by nzlatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 After 24 pages of reading I may as well dip my toe in as well. First of all, it amuses me how people dismiss the opinions of those who question spending extra millions on seats that will rarely get used because they are apparantly making the figures up to suit their arguments or using "fag packet maths". These same people then go on to say with utter certainty that 12,000 seats would not be enough should we make the Championship. Based on what exactly? Feck all, that's what. After cup runs, a league title and 2 seasons in the top flight were rarely sold out at home in the premier league. So all of a sudden we need a minimum of 16,000 if we go into the champ? Rubbish. Taking last years average attendances in the champ only Doncaster, Blackpool and Plymouth were under 12000 and finished 14th, 16th and 21st. Plymouth being the lowest have been in that division for a while now. So you can survive on those crowds. Then there's the Corp who's answer to the suggestion that it makes sense to build within our means but allow for a close season upgrade if required is something along the lines of "it won't happen". Brilliant. This then gets repeated to every person who mentions upgrading in the future (probably about 30 unnecessary posts). I'm not saying the upgrade argument shouldn't be contradicted, but just with something a little more substantiated than "it won't happen". I've been of the opinion for some time now that football is going to disappear up it's own ar5e eventually to some extent with the amount of money flying around that could all disappear overnight if the arabs find something else to play with. It might even come down to a scaled down restructure of the leagues or something like that. If this does happen then I would much rather have a club that has a modern, appropriately-sized ground and is financially self sufficient rather than one struggling to meet interest payments on loans used to buy a quarter-full-fancypants stadium. One might suggest we all have huge wangs and are shooting for the stars, but the other will probably have a better chance as continuing as a professional footballl club. I'm sorry, I'd like to state I do have a huge wang, but am also in the camp that see this as a totally realistic way for us to continue as a football club! Brilliant post... summed up everything I have wanted to say over the last 10 pages, but couldnt be arse saying... I do appreciate agent 4 zeros points, but also understand that this is early enough in the planning to make your point, and then appreciate the plans are not final, and i'm sure everything could change before the first sticklebrick gets plonked on lancaster park... I'm still going to say that anyone who thinks 12k isnt realistic for us in the champ... well, hasnt really met our fans before.... as has been said before, we are going to need a bigger fan base than what we had in the premiership to make this ground unrealistic... is that going to happen... really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 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 ) The crucial point is the reduction of capacity, which for the BP redevelopment was 16000, has been reduced down by a full quarter. Why, less than two years ago (or atually up until the Broadway project was announced) was it considered that we require a 16000 capacity stadium and now, all of a sudden, we don't? It can only be due to reduced ambitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I am thinking we will have four or five games a season where we could get well over 12,000, not just one or two... Thats about 20% of our home games... Its well worth the extra investment I think... Also think about this. IF we get to the premership and we decide to increase the ground, whats that going to drop the ground down to while we develope ? 16,000 makes more sense. And I dont not think it will cost all the much extra for what is only an extra 1,000 per stand. I am getting the feeling that there is a 50-50 split on this. Hopefully 3TA are prepared to listen on this one. And even if, looking at how things now stand, we don't think we'd get half a dozen or so games where we'd attract more than 12000 in the Championship, it should nonetheless be the aim. Building a small, 12000 capacity stadium means that we don't think we'll ever get those sort of crowds again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Your clearly arguing for the sake of arguing now Corporal. Whilst you have clearly given examples of teams that have built bigger grounds and succeeded you fail to accept that more teams have failed whilst trying doing it. Also with Reading how many hundred of millions is Madjeski worth? I don't understand why your trying to use the fact that it will be a 12000 seater stadium (which hasn't actually been desiged yet, so could very well change by the time it goes to planning permission) to say we lack ambition? Players dont sign for teams that have bigger stadiums that they can't fill just look at 2 of our recent signings in Furman and Holdsworth who have turned Bradford down for us, and i take it that when you say ambition you mean by playing at a higher level? If your not happy with 12000 then fair enough, I too wish we could get something similar to the KC stadium or the liberty but its not gonna happen at this time it costs to much money and would place the club under a huge debt. (look at Arsenal now they have moved into the Emirates, their transfer funds have dropped dramatically since moving into it despite it earning them 3 times as much on a single matchday than Highbury did, all because of the cost of building it.) If you read several of my posts again, you'll see that I didn't fail to accept that point at all. But what kind of argument is it to say that, just because, say, Derby or Southampton built 30,000-plus capacity stadiums and then got relegated, it follows that OAFC must have a ground whose capacity screams third or fourth division football? It doesn't follow at all. We are fooling ourselves if we think that 12000 capacity stadium will be extended at some point in the future. The reason the plans have been reduced by a quarter is because the aim of playing at a higher level, on a consistent basis (or possibly at all), has been quietly dropped. When the idea was to have 16000, the aim of promotion and progress up the leagues was probably serious. Now it's merely being paid lip-service to, because, I guess (note this-all this IS speculation, not that it could be anything else), the owners have realised that we've fallen too far behind the league above to ever seriously trouble the clubs in it again. Very sad times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The crucial point is the reduction of capacity, which for the BP redevelopment was 16000, has been reduced down by a full quarter. Why, less than two years ago (or atually up until the Broadway project was announced) was it considered that we require a 16000 capacity stadium and now, all of a sudden, we don't? It can only be due to reduced ambitions. Exactly... What's changed in such a short space of time to suggest that we only need a 12k stadium ? and why weren't people like SW kicking off about the 16k plan at that time as well ? Surely going off their logic it was a shocking waste of money Very confusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Could the difficulty in increasing the attendance at a later date at BP be the reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Could the difficulty in increasing the attendance at a later date at BP be the reason? Doubtful... 16k would never be big enough for the prem... Even Wigan get more the 16k.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 What gates were we getting in the fight for promotion a couple of years back? 6 or 7k? If that. Do you honestly think that would have doubled if we got promoted? High unemployment added to the higher prices for a higher level...I think we may scrape 5k season ticket holders in the Championship. Plus a few floating fans and an average away support of 2,500? 12,000 is more than enough and anyone who says otherwise is living in a bubble. We're a poorly supported club and if we manage to get crowds of 10k week in week out before the next millenium then what an awesome achievement! The only way we'll ever get average crowds of more than 12k is if we ever get back to the Prem. E4e MASIF Of course we're a badly supported club. That's because we've been consistently crap for almost two decades and a are widely viewed as the club that blew it's big chance to move up a level in terms of its stature in the game. Surely, then, the aim should be to make the club...not crap and advance it? Sadly, most fans now seem to have settled for what we've got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Sorry Corp but I think you are wrong to suggest the acceptance. Most are realistic and having experienced CM's attempted fast track to success would prefer a stable and sound base to be built on first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The crucial point is the reduction of capacity, which for the BP redevelopment was 16000, has been reduced down by a full quarter. Why, less than two years ago (or atually up until the Broadway project was announced) was it considered that we require a 16000 capacity stadium and now, all of a sudden, we don't? It can only be due to reduced ambitions. Put yourself in TTA shoes......putting £££££'s into a club on a weekly basis in which they have no loyalty to, I would compare them to lifeboat operators so before having a pop at TTA and their lack of ambition give them credit where credit is due because if it weren't for them the club would be up s*** creek without a paddle!! On monitoring attendance over the last 2 years a 12000 seater is plenty however......an option to expand would be a nice gesture from TTA. Not only would they be remembered for rescuing a sinking ship but leaving us with the option to expand.......anyway lets see how it looks when the plans are drawn up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Just a bit of info. My dad is an architect and the company he works for were designing the football ground for the dynamos (i think its them). Obviously we have jumped in with the intention to build our ground there instead. This means not only that football ground has to be moved but the architect company loses quite a bit of money. They are looking at trying to do the plans for our stadium instead. Apparently they are quite simple to do but the council may want to use their own architects. Maybe i will get a bit more info on it. Depends how much i am ok so say.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Doubtful... 16k would never be big enough for the prem... Even Wigan get more the 16k.... Exactly! Thats the problem though... it was stated at the time that it would have been virtually impossible to extend the BP plans due to the newly built infrastructure around it... it would have been 16k. Full stop. No more. Closed shop. Whereas now we have a ground that can be extended to 20k if needed.... Surely then this stadium shows more ambition that the proposed BP design? Loss of 4k seats... or the potential in the plans to gain 4k seats from the old BP design? Its all in the way you look at it... For me therefore... this ground potentially shows MORE ambition than the old BP designs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Then there's the Corp who's answer to the suggestion that it makes sense to build within our means but allow for a close season upgrade if required is something along the lines of "it won't happen". Brilliant. This then gets repeated to every person who mentions upgrading in the future (probably about 30 unnecessary posts). I'm not saying the upgrade argument shouldn't be contradicted, but just with something a little more substantiated than "it won't happen". I've been of the opinion for some time now that football is going to disappear up it's own ar5e eventually to some extent with the amount of money flying around that could all disappear overnight if the arabs find something else to play with. It might even come down to a scaled down restructure of the leagues or something like that. If this does happen then I would much rather have a club that has a modern, appropriately-sized ground and is financially self sufficient rather than one struggling to meet interest payments on loans used to buy a quarter-full-fancypants stadium. One might suggest we all have huge wangs and are shooting for the stars, but the other will probably have a better chance as continuing as a professional footballl club. Perhaps yours is another unnecessary post. After all, you're only regurgitating previous happy clappery. As I say, it's only speculation (as if it could be anything else), but I'm basing everything on past experience, in which the club's ambitions have been consistently scaled down (despite false dawns) over recent years. The latest example of this is the overnight reduction of our planned capacity by a full 25%. The reason, to my mind, that there will be no ground extension is because it won't be needed, because the aim is, at best, to be a well-run lower division club. Most lower division division clubs don't need capacities of over 12000 because they rarely attract over 12000 (Christ, with a 12000 capacity we're even ruling out the prospect of a big FA Cup payday. Didn't we get around 13000 for the fiasco against the mighty Huddersfield not long ago? What if we were to get United? Would we have to let them play us at OT in order to cash in, or would we lock thousands out?) Football might well implode, although the Arabs won't run away, as they're too sophisticated in their approach to do a Mike Ashely. They are diversifying their investments and preparing for the gradual disappearance of the oil-based economy. What we are more likely to see is the cutting off of the super-rich clubs from the rest. But consider this: imagine if football was then restructured on a more rational basis that made it more affordable for the average supporter, enabling us to think seriously about competing with those clubs that have left us behind again. Would a 12000 capacity ground be enough to compete with other smalltown Lancashire clubs (for exmple) able to accomodate more than twice that number? Anyway-we shall see what happens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Could the difficulty in increasing the attendance at a later date at BP be the reason? Edit: misunderstood the above post. Edited July 23, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nice to see oafc0000 back to his entertaining old self. You do get awfully carried away with things at times, matey. A few points I've picked up along the way (at the risk of sounding like I'm "in the know" or something... ) Cost of building stadiums. Along time ago I was lucky enough to have a chat with Simon Corney, oddly enough on the way back from Hull. They were in the very early stages of development plans then, but it was interesting to hear about the cost of stadiums. There is a capacity threshhold, around the 15k mark, where every extra 1,000 seats starts to add an awful lot more to the construction cost, because the overall structure has to be proportionately stronger. For example, Hull's KC stadium was thought to have cost at least an extra £10M to give a capacity of 25k rather than 20k. In terms of why 12,000 now instead of the 16,000 of the proposed BP redevelopment, I don't believe it has anything whatsoever to do with ambition, and everything to do with financial common sense. For a start, remember the Boundary Park development was phased. More importantly, the overall BP development included significant investment in all kinds of additional income streams (the hotel for one) that in the early stages would help fund the ground development. And finally, the plans were made in an entirely different economic environment. The new proposal, by its nature and by economic necessity does not have the level of peripheral investment that could help finance a larger stadium, so a decision has had to be made as to what size can reasonably support us in the short to medium term without suffering a significant loss in gate receipt income. At the same time, as Alan Hardy has implied, the new stadium needs to be of such a design that if and when we are in the financial position - and have the attendance demand - to increase the stadium capacity, we can do so at reasonable cost. I too hope that if this proposal comes to fruition and we're sitting in a brand new stadium in August 2011, then that will be in the Championship. But I'm also pretty sure that with the exception of a very few games per season, a capacity of 12,000 will be ample. Look at it this way - if we find that we need to expand that capacity within, say, 5 years of moving in, then we must have got ourselves into a pretty damn good position, and as such would hopefully be able to finance an expansion pretty quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Exactly! Thats the problem though... it was stated at the time that it would have been virtually impossible to extend the BP plans due to the newly built infrastructure around it... it would have been 16k. Full stop. No more. Closed shop. Whereas now we have a ground that can be extended to 20k if needed.... Surely then this stadium shows more ambition that the proposed BP design? Loss of 4k seats... or the potential in the plans to gain 4k seats from the old BP design? Its all in the way you look at it... For me therefore... this ground potentially shows MORE ambition than the old BP designs... I have NEVER heard anyone say that the original Oldham Arena would only allow for a 16 k stadium... Edited July 23, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Sorry Corp but I think you are wrong to suggest the acceptance. Most are realistic and having experienced CM's attempted fast track to success would prefer a stable and sound base to be built on first. The choice isn't Chris Moore or nothing. The alternative , we were told when TTA arrived was to make the club financially independent and advance up the league as far as possible. Upto now, for reasons both within and beyond the club's control, we've, at best, stood still. The directors now actually admit that the club, as it is, is dying. While this new stadium project might be aimed at provided some sort of financial independence for the club, the proposed 12000 capacity (scaled down by 25% overnight) screams self-sufficiency in the lower divisions to my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Nice to see oafc0000 back to his entertaining old self. You do get awfully carried away with things at times, matey. Any more carried away than the "blinkered arse licking" presented by some Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_ragg1984 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The reason, to my mind, that there will be no ground extension is because it won't be needed, because the aim is, at best, to be a well-run lower division club. Most lower division division clubs don't need capacities of over 12000 because they rarely attract over 12000 (Christ, with a 12000 capacity we're even ruling out the prospect of a big FA Cup payday. Didn't we get around 13000 for the fiasco against the mighty Huddersfield not long ago? What if we were to get United? Would we have to let them play us at OT in order to cash in, or would we lock thousands out?) Your not allowed to do that anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Your not allowed to do that anymore. So the answer is we would lock out thousands... I would "accept" 12k if the stadium was done in such a way that it would be very easy to add extra capacity without spending huge sums of extra money. MK Dons type stadium as discussed in another thread would be great. 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.