Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 So you are saying that, if we were spending more money on a larger stadium, this would prove the ambition to be greater, and also so would the playing budget be greater. So exactly how does that logic work? We spend more money on a stadium, therefore there is more money available to spend on players? Who exactly is stumping up this cash? Unless you are looking to follow the path the many clubs who sold their clubs into penury in the search of a 'big stadium' And as for the 'local' clubs you seem to love quoting as having passed us by, firstly how many of them have two of the richest teams in the country sat in their own virtual back garden? Half of Oldham's population wants to be noted as living in Manchester, whereas Blackburn, Preston, Bolton possibly to a lesser extent, and Wigan have intense rivalry to Manchester. Also, as for stadia, Deepdale took 12years to redevelop, the Reebok stadium's main quoted disadvantage is its small size and lack of expnasion possibilities. Burnley's ground wass a dump last time I looked, and funniliy enough they have just been promoted to the Premiership by concentrating on financial stability and a good manager and maximising on player deals. You seem to disparage the idea of fanancial stability as a long term goal, but the truth is, it is more than likely going to be our saviour, as more clubs get into difficulties, and disappear altogether. As for what the aim is, I can only express whay MY aims are, though they do appear to tally with TTA, and yes a major and absolutely essential aim is for us to be financially viable as a club. In fact this should be taken on board by all, yourself included, along with the fact that there is no glory on the field once the club has gone bust. So yes, the aim of financial security SHOULD be set in stone, but it does not mean that I, TTA or anyone else have given up on the dream of future success on the field, only that more important is the need for a club to exist to achieve that aim. As for why the reduction in capacity from BP, I have answered that in a previous reply, and yes it HAS cogently explained why we don't necessarily have to have a full capacity right now. Although it is clear that all the numbers currently are estimates sinced the architects have not even been comissioned yet, plainly the 12k stems from a basic four stands of 3k each, presumably built to standard 'lego' specs. And the argument about dropping to 7k is too specious to even bother with.And your little trick of dismissing anything anyonne else say as being unprovable conjecture whilst doing exactly the same yourself, is really unbecoming. I don't know how it would work (all this trying to work out a club's budget on an internet forum is, quite frankly laughable. As if any of us actually know what gets discussed by club directors regarding budgets or anything else.) Perhaps we could seek additional investment so as to be able to emulate, as far as is possible, Bolton, instead of emulating Colchester or Rochdale. As I've said too many times to remember (perhaps those who accuse me of repeating myself ought to consider the number of times they cause me to do this by failing to comprehend a point or wilfully misrepresenting it), I am not advocating copying those clubs that were 'sold into penury in the search of a big stadium,' but looking towards the examples of clubs who managed to build stadiums reflecting big ambitions who haven't 'sold themselves into penury.' Nor have I advocated anything other than sticking to the 16000 capacity that was in the BP redevelopment plan. It's a sad day when Latics fans resign themselves to the idea that we will never again attract a gate above 12000. Incidentally, while there are clubs who built new stadiums and then got relegated or experienced financial difficulties, how many of these got 'sold into penury' purely because of the stadiums they built? As far as I can see, Southampton and Derby, for example, often filled their stadiums even when struggling. The points you make about Manchester are not facts but opinion. There is no evidence that half of Oldham's population want to be Mancunian-it is a perception for which there may be good reason to hold-but it isn't a fact. As for the other towns-the rivalry with Manchester varies from one to the other. It isn't uniform, and has no bearing on the crowds their clubs attract. When those towns' clubs do well they attract big crowds. When they're in the doldrums their attendances shrank to pretty much the level ours are currently at. Success on the pitch is the key. So what if Deepdale took twelve years to redevelop? What were we doing during that time? Turf Moor may be a dump, but BP, as seems to be almost universally acknowledged, is abigger dump and deteriorating faster. We also have have had the long period of financial prudence you claim for Burnley. unlike them, we're stuck in the same division we almost relegated them from in 1998. What's your point? I haven't 'discouraged finacial stability as a long-term goal' even once. I have noted that the BP redevelopment plan was based on bringing about that stability. I have merely pointed out that the plan was for a 16000 capacity ground. I don't see why that makes the club less financially stable. Why is everything always presented on the basis of Latics having to accept the inferior option or else go bust? It's mere emotional blackmail. Other clubs are not run on this basis. You and others may have tried to explain why we supposedly only need a small ground now, but it's all conjecture and assumption. I have admiited that I'm speculating whereas yourself and others like to pretend your presenting us with facts. We'll see who turns out to be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 We have to downscale our plans. There is a Credit Crunching Recession. The plans have to change becasue the economic lanscape has complety. Even when our most recent plans were drawn up, money was freely avaialbe as debt. Now it is very difficult to come by. So it is a downscaling then? Took a long time to get to the point didn't it? I told you this on page one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 because i believe crowds will go up if we go up, to around 10000 on average. chelsea, bolton, city, hudderflid all less than 13000. so i reiterate that 4000 extra seats for 800 odd people is silly. i wont say it again. Don't say it again. Please. You clearly can't follow an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Neatly side stepping the point of how infrequently we play City. I've already answered this point. Stop trying to make me repeat myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I don't know how it would work (all this trying to work out a club's budget on an internet forum is, quite frankly laughable. As if any of us actually know what gets discussed by club directors regarding budgets or anything else.) Perhaps we could seek additional investment so as to be able to emulate, as far as is possible, Bolton, instead of emulating Colchester or Rochdale. As I've said too many times to remember (perhaps those who accuse me of repeating myself ought to consider the number of times they cause me to do this by failing to comprehend a point or wilfully misrepresenting it), I am not advocating copying those clubs that were 'sold into penury in the search of a big stadium,' but looking towards the examples of clubs who managed to build stadiums reflecting big ambitions who haven't 'sold themselves into penury.' Nor have I advocated anything other than sticking to the 16000 capacity that was in the BP redevelopment plan. It's a sad day when Latics fans resign themselves to the idea that we will never again attract a gate above 12000. Incidentally, while there are clubs who built new stadiums and then got relegated or experienced financial difficulties, how many of these got 'sold into penury' purely because of the stadiums they built? As far as I can see, Southampton and Derby, for example, often filled their stadiums even when struggling. The points you make about Manchester are not facts but opinion. There is no evidence that half of Oldham's population want to be Mancunian-it is a perception for which there may be good reason to hold-but it isn't a fact. As for the other towns-the rivalry with Manchester varies from one to the other. It isn't uniform, and has no bearing on the crowds their clubs attract. When those towns' clubs do well they attract big crowds. When they're in the doldrums their attendances shrank to pretty much the level ours are currently at. Success on the pitch is the key. So what if Deepdale took twelve years to redevelop? What were we doing during that time? Turf Moor may be a dump, but BP, as seems to be almost universally acknowledged, is abigger dump and deteriorating faster. We also have have had the long period of financial prudence you claim for Burnley. unlike them, we're stuck in the same division we almost relegated them from in 1998. What's your point? I haven't 'discouraged finacial stability as a long-term goal' even once. I have noted that the BP redevelopment plan was based on bringing about that stability. I have merely pointed out that the plan was for a 16000 capacity ground. I don't see why that makes the club less financially stable. Why is everything always presented on the basis of Latics having to accept the inferior option or else go bust? It's mere emotional blackmail. Other clubs are not run on this basis. You and others may have tried to explain why we supposedly only need a small ground now, but it's all conjecture and assumption. I have admiited that I'm speculating whereas yourself and others like to pretend your presenting us with facts. We'll see who turns out to be correct. The last time we averaged over 16K (the stadium size you suggest) was 1955, half a century ago. Since then we have averaged over 13K three times, all in the premiership era. Other than that we have not even come close to averaging an attendence that is above the 12K capacity that is being suggested. 3 times in 55 years!! I think 12K is sufficiant for the time being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The last time we averaged over 16K (the stadium size you suggest) was 1955, half a century ago. Since then we have averaged over 13K three times, all in the premiership era. Other than that we have not even come close to averaging an attendence that is above the 12K capacity that is being suggested. 3 times in 55 years!! I think 12K is sufficiant for the time being. Irrelevant. No matter how long since we last did it, it in no way follows that we shouldn't aim to average over 13000 again. In any case, I haven't been arguing that the 16000 capacity should be maintained because I think we going to average that many in the forseeable future. It's a matter of ambition, as I keep having to repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I've already answered this point. Stop trying to make me repeat myself. Now that is something you don't need my help in!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Irrelevant. No matter how long since we last did it, it in no way follows that we shouldn't aim to average over 13000 again. In any case, I haven't been arguing that the 16000 capacity should be maintained because I think we going to average that many in the forseeable future. It's a matter of ambition, as I keep having to repeat. Just had a look at the historical attendences of the clubs that you say we should emulate that have built much bigger stadiums and seen success Ie Hull, Stoke, Derby, Bolton. They all averaged way over 20K in many seasons in the last 55 years, something we have never done. The supporter base was already there for these clubs..... I am sure they would have looked at this when deciding what sort of stadium size to build. Whilst if we do the same we cannot find a year EVER since 1940 that we averaged over 17K. Edited July 23, 2009 by NIKI1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Now that is something you don't need my help in!!! +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 The last time we averaged over 16K (the stadium size you suggest) was 1955, half a century ago. Since then we have averaged over 13K three times, all in the premiership era. Other than that we have not even come close to averaging an attendence that is above the 12K capacity that is being suggested. 3 times in 55 years!! I think 12K is sufficiant for the time being. Of course it is. But you're offering some form of rationale that's backed up your argument. This will be deemed irrelevent by some quarters of the membership, and cast aside. Am I right? I know there's a post but the user is on my ignore list... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Damn, I can read the posts in the quotes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Am I right? I know there's a post but the user is on my ignore list... ...... you know it's about time I did this!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Just had a look at the historical attendences of the clubs that you say we should emulate that have built much bigger stadiums and seen ucess Ie Hull, Stoke, Derby, Bolton. They all averaged way over 20K in many seasons in the last 55 years, something we have never done. The supporter base was already there for these clubs..... I am sure they would have looked at this when deciding what sort of stadium size to build. Whilst if we do the same we cannot find a year EVER since 1940 that we averages over 17K. Again-irrelevant. For a start, I didn't lump all those clubs together; they are not all the same in terms of history, location and type of town. All I've done is note that when we were flying high we were getting more than twice the average gate of clubs like Bolton. Historically, they might have a bigger fanbase, but they were not exactly enthusing that fanbase in the late eighties/early nineties. In contrast, we were attracting new fans. What's crucial is that they found a way of reactivating that fanbase whereas we threw in the towel and managed to lose most of our new/revived fanbase. I think you'll find meanwhile, that Latics averaged over 15000 after WW2 on several occasions, including, if I remember correctly, more than 17000 during the promotion season of '51-52 and the following season. However, I doubt if anybody has been looking at any of this when deciding what kind of stadium to build. Nor does it explain why 16000 was deemed feasible last year but 25% must be lopped off this year. The idea is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Damn, I can read the posts in the quotes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Of course it is. But you're offering some form of rationale that's backed up your argument. This will be deemed irrelevent by some quarters of the membership, and cast aside. Am I right? I know there's a post but the user is on my ignore list... It doesn't matter who's on your ignore list when you're cheering on the downsizing of your club, you mugs. As I said, only at Oldham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It doesn't matter who's on your ignore list when you're cheering on the downsizing of your club, you mugs. As I said, only at Oldham. Again Irrelevant, Cock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Again Irrelevant, Cock Wow-I bet that took some thinking up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) I think its a mistake to base future attendances on the past, things have changes... Prem / Champ is far more marketable product We will hopefully be in better facilities which will attract more Different location / possible wider catchment All could have big impact on attendances Edited July 23, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Again Irrelevant, Cock child Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) +1 You would have more reason to smirk if I hadn't said only a short time ago that a major reason for me repeating myself is the inability of others to comprehend a post, or else their tendency to wilfully misinterpret an argument. I wish I could be like Mark here, though. He never repeats himself. Edited July 23, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 You would have more reason to smirk if I hadn't said only a short time ago that a major reason for me repeating myself is the inability of others to comprehend a post, or else their tendency to wilfully misinterpret an argument. I wish I could be like Mark here, though. He never repeats himself. ...true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fittonhillbilly Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Rotherham hope to build a 15000 all seater to share with the Rugby Onion team, we can't have them out-doing us, f**king Rotherham for f*cks sake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think its a mistake to base future attendances on the past, things have changes... Prem / Champ is far more marketable product We will hopefully be in better facilities which will attract more Different location / possible wider catchment All could have big impact on attendances I think it's not so much a mistake for one to look at recent history to obtain an idea of what to expect, after all those are records and what else would we use. I understand that things have changed, without looking at attendances for Division 2 (in old money) I would say that maybe not as much as we'd like to believe in the second tier, marketing definitely - I assume generally support less so. Although yes, I agree - the Premiership is the flagship of world club football and that's what people want to see, however Latics has to be in it for us to see it - and in our case to fill the stadium that's been provided for it. And the biggest stadium in the world could be built for Latics, but we'd still only get somewhere in the region of 5-7000 people watching for the next god-knows-when - that's the way it is. If we're lucky enough to get real money behind us (let's see how Notts Co. get on, I don't know how much they've got to play with but I bet half of it is in Svens' arse pocket by now) to buy a squad that will propel us to the dizzy heights of the Premiership once again, then we can talk about the extra 4000 seats or whatever's needed to hold the masses "flocking" to NuBoundary to witness it. Until then we'll have the same crowds we've experienced for the last 13, 14, 15 years to watch the same football we've been viewing for roughly the same amount of time. A Latics fans' lot is not a happy one at the best of times, but when we get a new stadium that fulfils our requirements for the foreseeable future - and one that's not a million miles away from the capacity of a 4 sided BP before the Lookers was wrecked - we should be cheering the development on. And it's not about thinking about what we should be, it's about knowing right now what we are, and realising that to get where we want to be will take time. To some this will sound like Latics are conceding that their ambitions are limited, well maybe they are limited – but they certainly haven’t disappeared… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) I think it's not so much a mistake for one to look at recent history to obtain an idea of what to expect, after all those are records and what else would we use. I understand that things have changed, without looking at attendances for Division 2 (in old money) I would say that maybe not as much as we'd like to believe in the second tier, marketing definitely - I assume generally support less so. Although yes, I agree - the Premiership is the flagship of world club football and that's what people want to see, however Latics has to be in it for us to see it - and in our case to fill the stadium that's been provided for it. And the biggest stadium in the world could be built for Latics, but we'd still only get somewhere in the region of 5-7000 people watching for the next god-knows-when - that's the way it is. If we're lucky enough to get real money behind us (let's see how Notts Co. get on, I don't know how much they've got to play with but I bet half of it is in Svens' arse pocket by now) to buy a squad that will propel us to the dizzy heights of the Premiership once again, then we can talk about the extra 4000 seats or whatever's needed to hold the masses "flocking" to NuBoundary to witness it. Until then we'll have the same crowds we've experienced for the last 13, 14, 15 years to watch the same football we've been viewing for roughly the same amount of time. A Latics fans' lot is not a happy one at the best of times, but when we get a new stadium that fulfils our requirements for the foreseeable future - and one that's not a million miles away from the capacity of a 4 sided BP before the Lookers was wrecked - we should be cheering the development on. And it's not about thinking about what we should be, it's about knowing right now what we are, and realising that to get where we want to be will take time. To some this will sound like Latics are conceding that their ambitions are limited, well maybe they are limited – but they certainly haven’t disappeared… Can't understand why you've tagged that last bit on the end. How can you say that Latics' ambitions haven't disappeared when you more or less articulate what I for one am guessing the thinking behind a stadium with only a 12000 capacity is? As somebody notes above, even Rotherham are talking about a 15000 capacity stadium. You describe the vicious circle that Latics have been caught in for some time. We were always led to believe that a new stadium was a way of breaking that vicious circle. The BP plan, and its predecessors, might have been. So far this new plan doesn't seem to be, as the proposed 12000 capacity would seem to concede. It suggests that we are all of a sudden placing ourselves alongside the Chesterfields, the Colchesters, the Scunthorpes, the Walsalls and the Shrewsbury's-all the clubs who are building little stadiums, and all historically smaller clubs than Latics. Edited July 23, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Rotherham hope to build a 15000 all seater to share with the Rugby Onion team, we can't have them out-doing us, f**king Rotherham for f*cks sake! Rotherham? We can't hope to compete with the likes of Rotherham. Some people really do need to get real. 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.