Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 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. Ah-so BP was a little ground with the ground extension built in from the off, so as to save time and effort later? This could explain everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones 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. Only one comment neceassry: this is not Latics, but a club in a different country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic 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. Yeah but that started with 1500 more seats so that makes any comparison irrelevant. Also teams in other countries are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yeah but that started with 1500 more seats so that makes any comparison irrelevant. Also teams in other countries are irrelevant. Of course they're irrelevant, you silly lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Only one comment neceassry: this is not Latics, but a club in a different country. Yeah but that started with 1500 more seats so that makes any comparison irrelevant. Also teams in other countries are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Gosh-that settles the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) 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... Lets have it right corp in the above post you asked for a list of clubs who have built onto their existing stadium (already completed) to try to add substance to your argument that clubs dont build new stadiums and increase the capacity later down the line, as you quoted I've already pointed out that the potential for expansion is irrelevant when the intention of building a small stadium in the first place is in anticipation of never needing to do it. You asked above for examples of clubs apart from man u who have built onto their existing, already completed stadiums. Plenty of examples were given. You then moved the goalposts to newly built stadiums, and were given a list of clubs whom have - Built their new stadiums to allow for future expansion - Have firm plans in place for the expansion of their new built stadiums to accomodate new found success - Have actually expanded at some point down the line, their newly built stadiums as and when they needed to in order to further accomodate new found success Hence your argument that designing the stadium to accomodate future expansion is irrelevant is pretty much blown out of the water here, as myself and other posters shown with evidence that clubs can and do expand newly buillt stadiums I also illustrated in a previous thread that since we have been relegated from the top tier of english football in 1994, in all competitions, we have exceeded a gate of 13k on just two occasions (one of which everyone got in for free), and had a gate between 12-13k on a further 7 occasions, of which only two were league matches, both against Man City. Hence even if we played at the second tier of english football, it is likely that 12k will accomodate our needs even in the championship, and if the stadium is designed to accomodate expansion, we can expand when needed. A bald man doesnt buy shampoo in anticipation that he may one day have hair, he waits untill he has hair then buys it, or is this him simply lacking ambition that he may one day have hair again. You call it lack of ambition if you want, whilst the rest of us call it sustainable growth, catering for what we need now, with room to grow in the future. As OAFC0000 stated previously here, the key issue is not capacity, but the facilities that come with the stadium that will create revenue 24/7 and make the club sustainable. Edited July 28, 2009 by Lookers_Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 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. No need for the blown-out-of-proportion nature of your reply. You said "Each to their own" and yet you somehow appear on EVERY page of this 13 page thread, and EVERY page of the 20+ one since the announcement was made. I'd say that was ramming it down someones throat, specifically because you've just repeated yourself on nearly every page. Pessimism isn't always unwelcome. It's just your brand of pressimism is a unfounded, and purely subjective, therefore unwelcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Ah-so BP was a little ground with the ground extension built in from the off, so as to save time and effort later? This could explain everything. Nope. BP already has some 4,600 seat in place which could have been utilised. However, it is also a far more expensive proposition which would have had to had far more non-football related infrastructure around it to have broken even. Not to mention the need to sell land for 693 flats smack bang next to a football ground, to a developer in the middle of a recession. Edited July 28, 2009 by danoafc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Gosh-that settles the argument. What argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 So my case study didn't meet your approval Corp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Gratuitous cheap cider drinking while lounging across a war memorial, say? you're really funny. my favourite new comedian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 ignored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 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. I have to agree with that. Sometimes there's a lack of balance on these forums, which often leads to a witch-hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I can appreciate your argument Corp it does have validity in the respect you can't see the Latics showing any ambition with these plans, however there's always hope (even if slight) a super rich individual or conglomeration may buy the club in which case a stadium expansion can be easily be put into place. It appears from clubs statements a 12,000 stadium with room to expand is the best that can be achieved as this moment in time, although personally as the Championship is only one league higher I wonder if a 14,000 expandable stadium could be built within the budget. This would easly cater for larger crowds and away support if Latics were to challenge for the Premiership (Burnley did it so why not Latics ?) I haven't see any definite designs or costings yet though and await these with interest. Edited July 28, 2009 by BP1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I have to agree with that. Sometimes there's a lack of balance on these forums, which often leads to a witch-hunt. I am all in favour of balance, and indeed Corps counter arguments at times Its his contraryness to try and have the last word. Like we are dying as a club, so a sustainable new stadium is proposed. He says is lacks ambition. He then states that it does not matter what is afordable (which is when I lost the respect as it was the most ridiculous statement int his econmic climate), we must make a statement of intent. Like building a 16,000 seater is going to makes us the envy of Blackburn, Bolton and whoever our rvials were for a brief period in our overall history that Corp associates with. He then challenges people to come up with stadiums that have been expanded. When that was done, the goalposts moved to new stadiums that have been expanded. When a reasonable number (that suprised me), the goalposts were moved again as the clus mentioned were not on the up. And Blackpools did not count becasue they had been 3 sides for so long. As I said on another post, sometimes there are more important things in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshaw Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I am all in favour of balance, and indeed Corps counter arguments at times Its his contraryness to try and have the last word. Like we are dying as a club, so a sustainable new stadium is proposed. He says is lacks ambition. He then states that it does not matter what is afordable (which is when I lost the respect as it was the most ridiculous statement int his econmic climate), we must make a statement of intent. Like building a 16,000 seater is going to makes us the envy of Blackburn, Bolton and whoever our rvials were for a brief period in our overall history that Corp associates with. He then challenges people to come up with stadiums that have been expanded. When that was done, the goalposts moved to new stadiums that have been expanded. When a reasonable number (that suprised me), the goalposts were moved again as the clus mentioned were not on the up. And Blackpools did not count becasue they had been 3 sides for so long. As I said on another post, sometimes there are more important things in life. It is me , or does CJ only post on debates,(so he can spread his doom & gloom). I dont seem to recall him posting about any signings,departures,matches etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I dont seem to recall him posting about any signings,departures,matches etc. He rarely does, which is his prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I am all in favour of balance, and indeed Corps counter arguments at times Its his contraryness to try and have the last word. Like we are dying as a club, so a sustainable new stadium is proposed. He says is lacks ambition. He then states that it does not matter what is afordable (which is when I lost the respect as it was the most ridiculous statement int his econmic climate), we must make a statement of intent. Like building a 16,000 seater is going to makes us the envy of Blackburn, Bolton and whoever our rvials were for a brief period in our overall history that Corp associates with. He then challenges people to come up with stadiums that have been expanded. When that was done, the goalposts moved to new stadiums that have been expanded. When a reasonable number (that suprised me), the goalposts were moved again as the clus mentioned were not on the up. And Blackpools did not count becasue they had been 3 sides for so long. As I said on another post, sometimes there are more important things in life. So in a nutshell, several of his arguments were completely blown out of the water, including his 'designing with potential to expand in the future is completely irrelevant as clubs with new stadiums dont expand them', despite his best attempts to move the goalposts. What he calls lack of ambition, we call sustainable growth, catering for our needs now whilst providing the foundation for future growth if needed. If the capacity of the development was limited to 12k, I would agree with corp word for word, but as I understand from a previous post from Harry_dowds_Green_Shirt the stadium will be designed with future expansion in mind. My key concern is regarding the facilities that will generate the income needed to make the club self sufficient, although as the plans are very early days at the moment, I would imagine these concerns will be answered in good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshaw Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 He rarely does, which is his prerogative. would make him more balanced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 would make him more balanced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who says he needs to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshaw Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Who says he needs to be? A debate is supposed to be about both sides.Moving goal posts when challenged, isnt very intellegent, more a lack of understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I am all in favour of balance, and indeed Corps counter arguments at times Its his contraryness to try and have the last word. Like we are dying as a club, so a sustainable new stadium is proposed. He says is lacks ambition. He then states that it does not matter what is afordable (which is when I lost the respect as it was the most ridiculous statement int his econmic climate), we must make a statement of intent. Like building a 16,000 seater is going to makes us the envy of Blackburn, Bolton and whoever our rvials were for a brief period in our overall history that Corp associates with. He then challenges people to come up with stadiums that have been expanded. When that was done, the goalposts moved to new stadiums that have been expanded. When a reasonable number (that suprised me), the goalposts were moved again as the clus mentioned were not on the up. And Blackpools did not count becasue they had been 3 sides for so long. As I said on another post, sometimes there are more important things in life. Spot on there mate. The thread I think you're referring to serves up a huge piece of perspective. It's heartbreaking to hear what people have gone through or are going through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Lets have it right corp in the above post you asked for a list of clubs who have built onto their existing stadium (already completed) to try to add substance to your argument that clubs dont build new stadiums and increase the capacity later down the line. You asked above for examples of clubs apart from man u who have built onto their existing, already completed stadiums. Plenty of examples were given. You then moved the goalposts to newly built stadiums, and were given a list of clubs whom have - Built their new stadiums to allow for future expansion - Have firm plans in place for the expansion of their new built stadiums to accomodate new found success - Have actually expanded at some point down the line, their newly built stadiums as and when they needed to in order to further accomodate new found success Hence your argument that designing the stadium to accomodate future expansion is irrelevant is pretty much blown out of the water here, as myself and other posters shown with evidence that clubs can and do expand newly buillt stadiums I also illustrated in a previous thread that since we have been relegated from the top tier of english football in 1994, in all competitions, we have exceeded a gate of 13k on just two occasions (one of which everyone got in for free), and had a gate between 12-13k on a further 7 occasions, of which only two were league matches, both against Man City. Hence even if we played at the second tier of english football, it is likely that 12k will accomodate our needs even in the championship, and if the stadium is designed to accomodate expansion, we can expand when needed. A bald man doesnt buy shampoo in anticipation that he may one day have hair, he waits untill he has hair then buys it, or is this him simply lacking ambition that he may one day have hair again. You call it lack of ambition if you want, whilst the rest of us call it sustainable growth, catering for what we need now, with room to grow in the future. As OAFC0000 stated previously here, the key issue is not capacity, but the facilities that come with the stadium that will create revenue 24/7 and make the club sustainable. The number of occasions since 1994 that we have exceeded 13000 was posted up by somebody yesterday. It is more than two. And it's neither here nor there. It's about ambition. A 12000 capacity stadium reflects ambition for nothing other than stability at this level. If there was any serious intention to re-establish the club at a higher level, a bigger stadium would be plannned from the off. The idea of sustainable growth is nothing other than something dreamt up by the apologists for eternal mediocrity on here. Nobody else has mentioned it yet. The plan might well still contain scope for financial self-sufficiency, although others have questioned if there will be the same scope for this that there was in the BP plan. But, as said, it will be geared towards self-sufficiency at the lower level of league football, as reflected in the small ground capacity. And nobody has addressed the question of why the the size of the ground capacity we were thought to require was reduced overnight from 16000 to 12000. The question of which clubs have extended their newly built stadiums arose out of genuine curiosity. I then went on to explain while most of the examples given have no relevance to the situation of OAFC. As if what one club is an indication of what another might do anyway. No need for the blown-out-of-proportion nature of your reply. You said "Each to their own" and yet you somehow appear on EVERY page of this 13 page thread, and EVERY page of the 20+ one since the announcement was made. I'd say that was ramming it down someones throat, specifically because you've just repeated yourself on nearly every page. Pessimism isn't always unwelcome. It's just your brand of pressimism is a unfounded, and purely subjective, therefore unwelcome. As I keep having to point out, the main reason I repeat myself is that I have to keep answering those who insist on repeating the same points themselves. The only difference is that there's several of them and only one of me. If my pessimism is unfounded, what's behind the optimism of the happy clappers? As I say above, at least my view is based on some kind of observable trend. To me, the optimism is based only on wishful thinking. So my case study didn't meet your approval Corp? What case study did you make? It was just a link about some foreign club and nothing at all to do with Latics and our situation. you're really funny. my favourite new comedian. Subways? Scrawny dogs on string leads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I can appreciate your argument Corp it does have validity in the respect you can't see the Latics showing any ambition with these plans, however there's always hope (even if slight) a super rich individual or conglomeration may buy the club in which case a stadium expansion can be easily be put into place. It appears from clubs statements a 12,000 stadium with room to expand is the best that can be achieved as this moment in time, although personally as the Championship is only one league higher I wonder if a 14,000 expandable stadium could be built within the budget. This would easly cater for larger crowds and away support if Latics were to challenge for the Premiership (Burnley did it so why not Latics ?) I haven't see any definite designs or costings yet though and await these with interest. Why would some super rich individual or consortium be interested in a little lower division club that recently built itself a small ground with survival at the lower end of the Football League in mind? In any case, after Chris Moore a lot of Latics fans are scared of rich owners of football clubs. They are waiting for Wigan, Reading and Hull to implode, even though they manage to get owners who see the job through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts