oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I am thinking we all arent going to agree 9 pages of the same argument going around in circles Why don't we all just agree to disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The FACT is that we wont have any say in the matter whatsoever despite the FACT that the powers that be will tell us we have !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That letter in the Chron tonight from Chris Henthorn had a distinctly familiar tone.................. Is that you corp? If it is then it looks like the Chron are going to have to double the amount of paper they order Cheers, Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 One of your fave statements is 'stick to the facts'. No it isn't. Post up some examples of where I've said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That letter in the Chron tonight from Chris Henthorn had a distinctly familiar tone.................. Is that you corp? If it is then it looks like the Chron are going to have to double the amount of paper they order Cheers, Harry No it isn't. I never, ever write to the Chron or any other newspaper. I would own up if it was me. Perhaps the writer in question posts on here. Maybe he'll say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 no,you're right... nothing. you're loving the attention again aren't you... Attention? Nobody is forced to reply to anybody. What I would love is for you to say something coherent for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The FACT is that we wont have any say in the matter whatsoever despite the FACT that the powers that be will tell us we have !!!!!!! Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 My my, accusations of hysteria followed by blatant sarcasm, you are slipping Corporal!! lol But anyway, here's a less than hysterical response for you. Firstly similar towns to Oldham who blah de blah. Who did you have in mind, who whilst being in a large town, are hemmed in by at least two large Premiership clubs (the two Mans), and three lower league clubs (Rochdale, Bury and Stockport) in very close proximity with other Premiership clubs, at least two of which have taken further success and fans away with the help of sugar daddies (Blackburn and Wigan). Bearing in mind also that Oldham does not have the old past traditional heritage and support of the likes of Burnley and Preston to call upon. In fact our record attendance is less than 48k, at a time when Bolton and Blackburn were known to pull in over 60k. So why are our Lancashire rivals doing better now? Pity you didn't mention who you mean but I'll try a few off the top of my head, hope I don't skip who you did have in mind. And bearing in mind that, yes, divide are growing, are more and more the poorer are getting left behind whilst the rich prosper, football is generally a business of cycles. Most clubs have had good times and bad times. And just because we've had good times doesn't mean that it follows that we should be able to keep that going forever. But we should try! And also I think a fair few Lancs clubs fall into the category of 'sleeping giants' as mentioned above. Certainly you can include Preston, who have slowly rebuilt their base, prudently and now have a pretty cracking ground albeit in a dodgy area. Although they haven't succeeded yet as they'd like I'd take them as a good example of how to build a club I think. Not sure how big Preston's population is especially as you could reach out into the countryside a little bit before hitting rivals. Bolton have certainly passed us by now, and probably quite similar to us in terms of being plagued by Man U, though they were flying high at much the same time as us. Not sure though if they would suit your arguments' purposes as it is difficult to define exactly what got them so well established in the top flight. It would be easy to pinpoint Sam Allardyce as the key catalyst there. But certainly they were helped by the building of the Reebok stadium, which ironically was slated at the time by being out of town, and the financing for which was too reliant on selling the name to Reebok, but which even more ironically is now slated for not being expandable. Blackburn, can be summed by Sir Jack Walker Wigan, ditto JJB guy Man City have had their troubles in between. What mainly got them out was getting 27k for League One games enabling them to climb free. Not to mention some incredibly lucky last moment play off goals. I don't think you had Man U in mind Blackpool. A bit far out but so far holding their own in the division above, have clearly not done it through investment in the ground. Burnley, also have not YET invested that much in their ground. They have got promotion to the Premiership via canny wheeling and dealing over transfers, but time will tell if their success stays, and you never know, they might joing the Southampton, Morwich, Leeds etc etc free falling past us. As for clubs you've just mentioned now; Hull Sugar Daddy!! Reading Sugar Daddy!! In fact, they are potentially perfect examples when you see them implode as the sugar is taken away. You just cannot realistically use those two as comparisons to Oldham when their support is artificially 'bought' by their wealthy owners. Your distinction between ambition and 'where you expect to spend most of your time' is just pure semantics. Stop wriggling Corporal and accept that, you cannot, in all honesty, simply take one look at a preliminary stadium plan and make the sweeping statements you have done. I don't claim to know what the future holds and we could be doomed very soon, but you certainly seem to have even less idea of TTA ambitions, and your opinion seems to be based on the flimsiest of reason. Fine, you think they are not ambitious enough for you, though more likely they are just unfortunately not rich enough. But to state 12k means they do not have ambition is just plain ridiculous. And finally the closing sarcasm, well, the less said about that, the better! Oh dear! Long-winded in your excuses as to why Latics always but always have to settle for being third-rate, aren't you? For a start, we may be 'hemmed in' by the Manchester clubs, although I never noticed that they were positioned on either side of us. But there is no reason why they should be more attractive to the people of Oldham than to the people of Burnley, Blackburn or Bolton, say. The difference is in the way those clubs relate to the town, and the efforts they put into being successful. And you can't be seriously suggesting that the people of Oldham are attracted by Rochdale, Stockport and Bury. The point about 'heritage is irrelevant. The likes of Bolton and Blackbiurn probably pulled in over 60,000 on as many occasions as we puled in over 40,000. The point is that from the early seventies onwards they were in the same boat as us. In fact, as recently as the early nineties, they were in a state that was a damn sight worse, in Bolton's case two divisions below us. You can't use the fact that they won something a few times in the early part of the last century as an excuse as to why Latics have to settle for permanent mediocrity. Not only did I not have United in mind as a serious rivals, but I didn't have City in mind either. I've always said that not too long ago our natural rivals locally were the Lancashire clubs that have recently sailed past us-clubs from similar towns to Oldham, with similar populations. I've named the ones I mean too many times to mention. Not all of them have had 'sugar daddies,' and nor have clubs elsewhere who have managed to surpass us. It comes to something when a supporter of a club on its last legs for more than a decade now looks at the likes of Hull and Reading as having precarious futures. I don't see why pointing out the fact that most stadiums with a capacity of around 12000 are concentrated at the bottom end of the Football League amounts to 'wriggling.' We'll see where our future lies as events unfold. Those getting in the excuses al=ready know, deep down, where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 This post has literally just said my feelings for the new scheme. I disagree with all my heart and support for Oldham. If Boundary Park goes, I go. EDIT: However, we´ll see how things go... Guy, THere is a survey (by me, funnily enough!) thread. aT th emoment 350 have voted. 34 people agree with you or will simply have to go to less games. 90% are in favour or not bothered by the move. It's not scientific, but 90% out of a poll of 350 stnds up to quite a lot of scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 But given Darlington's history and potential they were being wildly over-ambitious. Or more accurately, their Chairman at the time was. I don't see that Latics' (not a big club but bigger than Darlington) modest ambition to have a stadium that holds 16000 was in any way comparable. After all, it's hardly like we'd be the only club in the country who play in front of empty seats most games. As I keep having to point out, ground capacities reflect where you want to one day be. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion you might as well say that we should build a 7000 capacity stadium, as we rarely top that for league games. Then the logical conclusion also is that 12,000 is enough at this moment!!!! If we're in the championship or cramming them in to the rafters and are almost full week after week then the capacity, I'm sure, will be increased fairly quickly,....................If we're not, then it won't matter will it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I'm sure, will be increased fairly quickly I want a bigger stadium but I at LEAST expect the stadium to be expandable at low cost. This will be possible if provision is taken in the initial design for this. A lot of people saying "i am sure about x" and I "the tta will do such and such". Fact is none of you have a bloody clue about what the plan is in regards to expandability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Is that anything like bouncebackability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 What I would love is for you to say something coherent for a change. i ask you the same question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellysheroes Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 has anyone seen pics of chesterfields new ground on youtube col and shrews springs to mind dont build one like this please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Then the logical conclusion also is that 12,000 is enough at this moment!!!! If we're in the championship or cramming them in to the rafters and are almost full week after week then the capacity, I'm sure, will be increased fairly quickly,....................If we're not, then it won't matter will it? Once built it will never be increased for reasons already explained at least a dozen times.* Even if we try to imagine that the 12000 capacity doesn't mean that the club has resigned itself to permanent lower division football, can anybody think of a club that has built onto their existing stadium (already completed stadium, I mean)? Off the top of my head, I can only think of ManUre. *Note to halfwits: this is opinion. We will see what happens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) i ask you the same question. Haven't you got some pogoing to be getting on with? Edited July 28, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Haven't you got some pogoing to be getting on with? ho ho ho..i see what you tried to do there..have you just got up,cause thats very poor coming from you. have you? whats up corp...someone starts playing your game and you try to be funny? give up..its just poor. leave the last word to you(as you'll insist)..i'm not playing your petty infantile games anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 ho ho ho..i see what you tried to do there..have you just got up,cause thats very poor coming from you. have you? whats up corp...someone starts playing your game and you try to be funny? give up..its just poor. leave the last word to you(as you'll insist)..i'm not playing your petty infantile games anymore. Glue sniffing then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 yawn..turning a thread into a comedy is something you do without trying is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I am thinking we all arent going to agree 9 pages of the same argument going around in circles Why don't we all just agree to disagree... You new here or summat? That's how every discussion with CJ goes because he never offers any possible solution or move at all despite people offering numerous reasoned arguments. Then they offer possible solutions and he in effect replies, "that won't work" and it so it goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) has anyone seen pics of chesterfields new ground on youtube col and shrews springs to mind dont build one like this please Just taken a look... Says: Facilities: Separate Building (but being built at the same time as the stadium, to serve the stadium): Tesco Extra Superstore, Hotel, Texaco Petrol Station, KFC. West Stand: Conference rooms, Banqueting rooms. East Stand: Gym, Multi-Purpose Sports and Community Room, Sports Injury Clinic, Meeting Rooms, A Wave Pool for Rehabilitation, A Heritage Room, Classroom, A Soft Play Area. Seems like they are getting more than us.... What facilities will be built on are ground is the most important of all the issues and is getting little of no coverage on these boards. Edited July 28, 2009 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You new here or summat? That's how every discussion with CJ goes because he never offers any possible solution or move at all despite people offering numerous reasoned arguments. Then they offer possible solutions and he in effect replies, "that won't work" and it so it goes on. I dont think you have been reading the boards... CJ wants a 16k + build... People keep asking what he wants... He wants bigger than 16K... You get 30 people asking him the same questions over and over again instead of reading the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I dont think you have been reading the boards... CJ wants a 16k + build... People keep asking what he wants... He wants bigger than 16K... You get 30 people asking him the same questions over and over again instead of reading the thread. I've read the thread. I guess we should give the mule what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I dont think you have been reading the boards... CJ wants a 16k + build... People keep asking what he wants... He wants bigger than 16K... You get 30 people asking him the same questions over and over again instead of reading the thread. With Latics at heart I assume he would still attend matches at a 12,000 seater stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 With Latics at heart I assume he would still attend matches at a 12,000 seater stadium. I dont think he has suggested he would not. Unlike some people who arent going to come just because its "not in Oldham" who are getting less grief... Its that sort and not the CJs of the world I cant understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts