Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Is there a third group who's basing their argument on f*** all? There might be. But I'm not in it, as you should be able to see from my reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshaw Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It makes you no more a true fan if you start the season with wishful thinking than if you start it with a sense of foreboding or resignation. There are probably some Fulham or West Ham fans, for example, who tell themselves that their club has a chance of sneaking into the Champions' League. They are no better fans than those who fear they might be relegated instead. you are missing the whole point-as usual.By the way,pleased to see the stats regarding stadium expansions.so we are not DOOMED after all. As I said, Let DP lead by example, he is obviously building for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Blackpool don't count, as they have played for years in an unfinished ground. No, Wolves' ground isn't a new ground. Nor do plans to extend grounds at some unspecified point in the future count for anything. So that leaves 7 teams still Nothampton that are currently going through the process Middlesbourough already have As have Sunderland As have Wycombe As are MK Dons As have Walsall As did Bournmouth when they added that shi**y fourth stand (still an expansion) All new grounds...... With plans in place for: Leicester Derby Scunthorpe Reading Donny as somebodymentioned in previos post Colchester as somebody mentioned in previos post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 you are missing the whole point-as usual.By the way,pleased to see the stats regarding stadium expansions.so we are not DOOMED after all. As I said, Let DP lead by example, he is obviously building for the future. The experience of each and every one of those clubs is different. Just because one club does something, it has no bearing on what happens at another. None of those clubs said to be extending their grounds have been on a downward trajectory for fifteen years. None of them built grounds below their potential-quite the opposite. We, on the other hand, are said to be planning a ground whose capcity is less than a ground we still occasionally filled to near enough capacity until the Looker's was demolished. That's a funny kind of ambition in my book. I never said we're doomed, least of all DOOMED. What does this mean anyway? What is this point you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 There might be. But I'm not in it, as you should be able to see from my reasoning. Is that the reasoning where you shoot down counter arguments using a list of criteria that perfectly suits your purpose by changing as and when required? Cool story bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 So that leaves 7 teams still Nothampton that are currently going through the process Middlesbourough already have As have Sunderland As have Wycombe As are MK Dons As have Walsall As did Bournmouth when they added that shi**y fourth stand (still an expansion) All new grounds...... With plans in place for: Leicester Derby Scunthorpe Reading Donny as somebodymentioned in previos post Colchester as somebody mentioned in previos post 'Plans in place', as already mentioned, count for nothing at all. And as also mentioned already, the experiences of each and every one of those clubs is different. None of them have any bearing on what happens at Latics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Blackpool don't count, as they have played for years in an unfinished ground. No, Wolves' ground isn't a new ground. Nor do plans to extend grounds at some unspecified point in the future count for anything. Why? Because it puts elements of your argument flat on its backside? You go on about how irrelevant potential expansion is and how it will never get done. You asked for examples about when newly built stadiums have been expanded, you were given a list of the following - clubs that have expanded newly built stadia (walsall, middlesboro, sunderland) - clubs that have plans to expand newly build stadia (leicester, derby, reading, hull) - clubs whom have built newly built stadia to cater for their needs today but accomodating capacity increase in the future (colchester, shrewsbury, mk dons) Point proven really Im starting to get the impression that even if the club had announced plans for a 16k capacity stadium, you would be moaning it wasnt 20k, and if the club had announced plans for a 20k stadium, you would be moaning about it not being 25k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 As did Bournmouth when they added that shi**y fourth stand (still an expansion) No, that's not a new ground. It's the same except they moved the pitch round and built 3 new stands. So, basically Corp, what you were saying is that no team builds a ground and then actually expands it when success arrives. Except about 7 of them. And we're different because we had success before all of them, and have left it until now (nothing to do with not having the local council on the same side as us) before actually going for a Division 3 capacity ground. Which won't ever be expanded because no club does that. Except those 7. Well why didn't you just fricking say that!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Is that the reasoning where you shoot down counter arguments using a list of criteria that perfectly suits your purpose by changing as and when required? Cool story bro. In what way has my argument not been consistent? It's others who seem to be chopping and changing to suit their purposes. It's called clutching at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) In what way has my argument not been consistent? By stating that clubs building new grounds never actually go and do what they propose; which is to expand the capacity when they become more successful. Although some have, but we'll gloss over those won't we? Edited July 28, 2009 by Frankly Mr Shankly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 No, that's not a new ground. It's the same except they moved the pitch round and built 3 new stands. So, basically Corp, what you were saying is that no team builds a ground and then actually expands it when success arrives. Except about 7 of them. And we're different because we had success before all of them, and have left it until now (nothing to do with not having the local council on the same side as us) before actually going for a Division 3 capacity ground. Which won't ever be expanded because no club does that. Except those 7. Well why didn't you just fricking say that!?! I didn't say that no club builds and then extends. I said that I couldn't think of any and asked for examples. Building a ground smaller than BP in its smallest incarnation (pre-Looker's demolition) doesn't look like ambition in my book. A ground half, or less than half the size of those of our Lancashire neighbours who are above us, and more in line with those of Bury, Rochdale and Stockport. It looks like resignation to lower league football. But, hey, you go ahead and regard it as ambition if you want. As I said, each to their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 By stating that clubs building new grounds never actually go and do what they propose; which is to expand the capacity when they become more successful. Although some have, but we'll gloss over those won't we? I haven't glossed over them. I've said that what happens at one club doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what happens at another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I haven't glossed over them. I've said that what happens at one club doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what happens at another. You seem perfectly happy to use other clubs as bench marks when it suits your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshaw Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The experience of each and every one of those clubs is different. Just because one club does something, it has no bearing on what happens at another. None of those clubs said to be extending their grounds have been on a downward trajectory for fifteen years. None of them built grounds below their potential-quite the opposite. We, on the other hand, are said to be planning a ground whose capcity is less than a ground we still occasionally filled to near enough capacity until the Looker's was demolished. That's a funny kind of ambition in my book. I never said we're doomed, least of all DOOMED. What does this mean anyway? What is this point you refer to? You continue to miss the whole point, and I am convinced you only come on here to wind people up with your negativity. Fair enough if you have a point to make, thats what this site is all about, but you lead the thread down the same boring road everytime. Change the record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Why? Because it puts elements of your argument flat on its backside? You go on about how irrelevant potential expansion is and how it will never get done. You asked for examples about when newly built stadiums have been expanded, you were given a list of the following - clubs that have expanded newly built stadia (walsall, middlesboro, sunderland) - clubs that have plans to expand newly build stadia (leicester, derby, reading, hull) - clubs whom have built newly built stadia to cater for their needs today but accomodating capacity increase in the future (colchester, shrewsbury, mk dons) Point proven really Im starting to get the impression that even if the club had announced plans for a 16k capacity stadium, you would be moaning it wasnt 20k, and if the club had announced plans for a 20k stadium, you would be moaning about it not being 25k. The only proven point is the one I made when I said that nearly all those clubs had already built grounds that reflected some kind of ambition. None of them had, as far as I know, lopped 25% off the proposed capacity in a previous plan overnight. Which brings us back to the crucial point for all those who claim that a little lower division capacity ground doesn't represent a downscaling of ambition. Your last sentence is, by the way, what you call a spurious comment. It would only be relevant if I'd actually said anything like that instead of what I've been saying all along. Edited July 28, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIKI1234 Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 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... So thats still seven teams off the top of my head (could be more) that have expanded upon a new ground. *Note to halfwit, this is fact* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I didn't say that no club builds and then extends. I said that I couldn't think of any and asked for examples. Building a ground smaller than BP in its smallest incarnation (pre-Looker's demolition) doesn't look like ambition in my book. A ground half, or less than half the size of those of our Lancashire neighbours who are above us, and more in line with those of Bury, Rochdale and Stockport. It looks like resignation to lower league football. But, hey, you go ahead and regard it as ambition if you want. As I said, each to their own If it's each to their own, why do you keep coming back for more and more on here? Why not leave each to their own thoughts, instead of trying to ram your subjective point down anyone's throat who'll bother to read it? I assume should a fans forum be announced, then you'll be certainly be along projecting said lack of ambition question to the board will you? I'll keep an eye out for you. Edited July 28, 2009 by Frankly Mr Shankly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I didn't say that no club builds and then extends. I said that I couldn't think of any and asked for examples. Building a ground smaller than BP in its smallest incarnation (pre-Looker's demolition) doesn't look like ambition in my book. A ground half, or less than half the size of those of our Lancashire neighbours who are above us, and more in line with those of Bury, Rochdale and Stockport. It looks like resignation to lower league football. But, hey, you go ahead and regard it as ambition if you want. As I said, each to their own A ground that will hopefully see the club more of less self-sufficient from non-gate revenue, meaning effectively a debt free club with a stadium with low ongoing costs, which can be extended easily if the need arises. Lets also add that we may in the meantime get promoted via the team that DP is building, attracting crowds of perhaps double what the average is now (they'd still all fit in there). That sounds like a pretty good proposition for whoever wants to take over the reigns from TTA when they decide they want out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You continue to miss the whole point, and I am convinced you only come on here to wind people up with your negativity. Fair enough if you have a point to make, thats what this site is all about, but you lead the thread down the same boring road everytime. Change the record I've felt negative about what's going on at Latics for quite a while. It's kind of connected to the false dawns and what have you. The dawning realisation that the club isn't going to recover any lost ground. The feeling that we've blown all our recent chances of doing this and that they might have been the last ones. The observation of the melting away of even some of the hardcore support base and the increasing sense of cynicism in the town. The way that OAFC is increasingly irrelevant in the football world, even locally. The way we are slipping towards parity with Stockport, Bury, Rochdale and Macclefield. This tends to come through when I post on here. If people want to get wound up about that, it's up to them. Maybe they should get out more. If they want compulsory happiness and optimism maybe they should emigrate to North Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 A ground that will hopefully see the club more of less self-sufficient from non-gate revenue, meaning effectively a debt free club with a stadium with low ongoing costs, which can be extended easily if the need arises. Lets also add that we may in the meantime get promoted via the team that DP is building, attracting crowds of perhaps double what the average is now (they'd still all fit in there). That sounds like a pretty good proposition for whoever wants to take over the reigns from TTA when they decide they want out. Yes, yes, fine. But all we actually have at the moment is one statement from the club about a proposed 12000 seater stadium. And no explanation as to why we needed 16000 seats only a short time ago and 25% less now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) The only proven point is the one I made when I said that nearly all those clubs had already built grounds that reflected some kind of ambition. None of them had, as far as I know, lopped 25% off the proposed capacity in a previous plan overnight. Which brings us back to the crucial point for all those who claim that a little lower division capacity ground doesn't represent a downscaling of ambition. Your last sentence is, by the way, what you call a spurious comment. It would only be relevant if I'd actually said anything like that instead of what I've been saying all along. BP HAD to have c16,000 seat cos it would have been virtually impossible (or damned expensive at the least) to have expanded capacity beyond that. That means if we stayed at BP the likelyhood is that we'd have never seen more than 16,000. The proposed new plan (if it's to similar to Colchester as has been stated by the club) may well have the ability to easily extend to 20,000. This with the benefit of being abe to put in place all the other measures which will hopefully improve our non football revenue. I'd say that this could be viewd as a more ambitious plan that the BP development. The truth is that until the plans are unveiled, none of us really know what is on the cards/or is possible. Edited July 28, 2009 by danoafc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yes, yes, fine. But all we actually have at the moment is one statement from the club about a proposed 12000 seater stadium. So lets not all jump to conclusions and think that this excludes us from ever competing in the top end of the Championship or beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 If it's each to their own, why do you keep coming back for more and more on here? Why not leave each to their own thoughts, instead of trying to ram your subjective point down anyone's throat who'll bother to read it? I assume should a fans forum be announced, then you'll be certainly be along projecting said lack of ambition question to the board will you? I'll keep an eye out for you. Are you trying to ram your viewpoint down anybody's throat, or does that only apply to one side of the argument? Funny how happy clappery is legitimate, and welcome on one thread after another, but pessimism somehow taboo and unwelcome even on one or two threads. Keep your eye out for Santa too. And Jesus Christ. Some people say he might be along soon. Others talk about ground extensions to pojected stadiums that were, not long ago, probably planned to be big enough not to need one. As I said, each to their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 So lets not all jump to conclusions and think that this excludes us from ever competing in the top end of the Championship or beyond. You don't have to think anything of the kind. I happen to think it does exclude that possibility. When the plan was for a bigger stadium it probably wasn't excluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Grolsch_Veste Here you go Corp, not the same country but this began life as a 13500 seater in 1998. After a few successful years the club is becoming stronger and has almost doubled it's capacity. Tear it apart......go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts