Corporal_Jones 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 nobody else tries to have the last word? What's somebody supposed to do if they are answered with either new or repeated points? Is it only the self-styled optimists (by whom I'm heavily outnumbered) who can legitimately have the last word? I have never said that it doesn't matter what's affordable. Nor did I say anything about making us the envy of Blackburn or Bolton. I said, one time only, that 16000 just about keeps them in sight while 12000 places us alongside the likes of Bury, Rochdale and Macclesfield. Stop making things up. Of course Blackpool's doesn't count as an expanded ground. They're merely finishing off work that was halted. They didn't plan a two or three sided ground and then see how it goes. They ran out of money to complete the job in one go. And stop trying to use a tragedy to bring to an end an entirely unrelated topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Corp, I didn't make anything I provided an example of a club setting a firm base to build from rather than your demands. They were in a similar situation to us. The club's mother corporation (FC Twente '65) was declared bankrupt in the 2002-03 season, almost leading to the end of the club's existence. If they had built in the same way you demand could they have survived? I found a club who have built up in a way I would prefer OAFC to, but you reject my opinion because you see your point as the only valid one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 So nobody else tries to have the last word? What's somebody supposed to do if they are answered with either new or repeated points? Is it only the self-styled optimists (by whom I'm heavily outnumbered) who can legitimately have the last word? I have never said that it doesn't matter what's affordable. Nor did I say anything about making us the envy of Blackburn or Bolton. I said, one time only, that 16000 just about keeps them in sight while 12000 places us alongside the likes of Bury, Rochdale and Macclesfield. Stop making things up. Of course Blackpool's doesn't count as an expanded ground. They're merely finishing off work that was halted. They didn't plan a two or three sided ground and then see how it goes. They ran out of money to complete the job in one go. And stop trying to use a tragedy to bring to an end an entirely unrelated topic. You could say they were over ambitious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 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. No you don't. I look at the bigger picture. You, meanwhile, have the other 99% of threads on here to discuss these matters till the cows come home. Off you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 isnt very intellegent, The irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 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. It was posted by me corp and I would do your research before posting next time, as it is not more than two. And the two occasions are as follows 8/2/2004 vs Grimsby Town, attendance 13007, everyone got let in for free 8/1/2005 vs Man City, FA Cup Round Three, attendance 13171 You can even check if you want, and I guarantee you wont find any other games since our relegation from the premiership when we have had over 13k. 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. And many posters on here have already blown that clean out of the water, despite your best attempts at moving the goalposts, by providing you with many examples of new stadia that have been expanded or have plans for future expansion, and I believe it was stated in another thread that the stadium will be designed to cater for future expansion if needed. So as far as your argument that deciding the intention of building a 12000 seater stadium is in anticipation of never needing to expand it, it really is a non starter. 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. Maybe we can no longer afford 16k? Nobody knows the answer yet. And maybe that will become clearer in time. And as for the idea of sustainable growth being nothing other than something dreamt up by the apologists for eternal mediocrity on here, thats nothing but your negative spin on it, with no substance behind it whatsoever. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to think like that, then fine, put please dont ram it down everyone elses throat. Many of us, including me, have concerns over the project. Just because someone doesnt share yours doesnt make them a happy clapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticNik Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Whatever happened to gandalftheblue? E4e WUNDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Corp, I didn't make anything I provided an example of a club setting a firm base to build from rather than your demands. They were in a similar situation to us. The club's mother corporation (FC Twente '65) was declared bankrupt in the 2002-03 season, almost leading to the end of the club's existence. If they had built in the same way you demand could they have survived? I found a club who have built up in a way I would prefer OAFC to, but you reject my opinion because you see your point as the only valid one. You ought to have noticed that I've demanded nothing. As if you can demand anything on an internet message board. So a Dutch club did something a certain way. What does this have to do with Latics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I wonder if it's relevant that the BP plan had 4,600 seats already built? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You could say they were over ambitious... Didn't they have Chairman trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You ought to have noticed that I've demanded nothing. As if you can demand anything on an internet message board. So a Dutch club did something a certain way. What does this have to do with Latics? Absolutely nothing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Do keep up old chap. What's being asked is why we overnight lost 25% of the proposed seating capacity when the BP redevelopment was dropped. That's 16000, by the way. Nobody's suggested building a 25000 seater. It wasn't overnight, it took two years during which the whole system of Western finance came close to collapse. Do you somehow think Latics are immune to that? Edited July 28, 2009 by Dave_Og Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I wonder if it's relevant that the BP plan had 4,600 seats already built? It isn't relevant. They could easily have taken the RRE end into account and planned for another three smaller stands if the ambition at the time had been limited to only 12000 seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The Dutch club was used as an example the same way you (Corp) have used examples of various English clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshaw Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The irony! Is it not past your bed time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It isn't relevant. They could easily have taken the RRE end into account and planned for another three smaller stands if the ambition at the time had been limited to only 12000 seats. But then the stadium would have been massive at one end, and it would have started sloping in the opposite way to how it used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It was posted by me corp and I would do your research before posting next time, as it is not more than two. And the two occasions are as follows 8/2/2004 vs Grimsby Town, attendance 13007, everyone got let in for free 8/1/2005 vs Man City, FA Cup Round Three, attendance 13171 You can even check if you want, and I guarantee you wont find any other games since our relegation from the premiership when we have had over 13k. And many posters on here have already blown that clean out of the water, despite your best attempts at moving the goalposts, by providing you with many examples of new stadia that have been expanded or have plans for future expansion, and I believe it was stated in another thread that the stadium will be designed to cater for future expansion if needed. So as far as your argument that deciding the intention of building a 12000 seater stadium is in anticipation of never needing to expand it, it really is a non starter. Maybe we can no longer afford 16k? Nobody knows the answer yet. And maybe that will become clearer in time. And as for the idea of sustainable growth being nothing other than something dreamt up by the apologists for eternal mediocrity on here, thats nothing but your negative spin on it, with no substance behind it whatsoever. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to think like that, then fine, put please dont ram it down everyone elses throat. Many of us, including me, have concerns over the project. Just because someone doesnt share yours doesnt make them a happy clapper. And a already noted, the club is prevented by police or laocal authority restrictions from filling the entire 13700 seats. Other than that we've touched 13000 on several other occasions. Both play-off semis, if I remember correctly, as well as the recent Huddersfield cup game. And what was the gate against Chelsea in 2000? And City in 1996? All of these gates were well over 12000. In any case, as said many times already, that isn't the issue. The issue is where the club wants to get to and how often it expects to stage big games in future. A 12000 limit suggests that the answer to those questions is not far and not very often. No 'negative spin' from me, son. As I said, at least I'm basing my view on observable trends. On the other hand, the happys are seeing only what they want to see. Making it up as they go along. This idea of gradual advancement in stages during which a bit is added onto a stadium here and there is laughable. Such advancement is clearly not the intention. A 12000 stadium represents a settling for what we've got. And stop using the term, 'blown out of the water.' For one thing, it's meaningless. For another, it's an irritating Americanism, loved by spotty youths. And for another, even taken on its own terms its clearly nonsense. I've answered every argument of a happy clapper with an equally valid one. As for ramming anything down anybody's throat, I'll ask again-is the overwhelming and largely baseless optimism expressed on this boards also being rammed down people's throats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It wasn't overnight, it took two years during which the whole system of Western finance came close to collapse. Do you somehow think Latics are immune to that? No I don't. But it didn't take two years for the club to decide that we were to lose 25% of the proposed ground capacity. Only a few weeks before the latest announcement we were reassured that the BP redevelopment was still on the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The Dutch club was used as an example the same way you (Corp) have used examples of various English clubs. What examples of English clubs have I used and for what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 But then the stadium would have been massive at one end, and it would have started sloping in the opposite way to how it used to. Oh yeah. That must be why the proposed new ground is to only have 12000 seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 What examples of English clubs have I used and for what? I have absolutely no intentions of entering this topic of conversation with you as a constant twist is put on responses from what I have read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Oh yeah. That must be why the proposed new ground is to only have 12000 seats. You're finally getting it! It would just look all ickey if it was too big on one side, so Mr Blitz was probably willing to shell out for bigger stands all round so that the owners of neighbouring clubs weren't rude about his new ground and say rude things about him until he cried. Nowt to do with anyone sitting in them, it was all about ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 And a already noted, the club is prevented by police or laocal authority restrictions from filling the entire 13700 seats. Other than that we've touched 13000 on several other occasions. Both play-off semis, if I remember correctly, as well as the recent Huddersfield cup game. And what was the gate against Chelsea in 2000? And City in 1996? All of these gates were well over 12000. In any case, as said many times already, that isn't the issue. The issue is where the club wants to get to and how often it expects to stage big games in future. A 12000 limit suggests that the answer to those questions is not far and not very often. No 'negative spin' from me, son. As I said, at least I'm basing my view on observable trends. On the other hand, the happys are seeing only what they want to see. Making it up as they go along. This idea of gradual advancement in stages during which a bit is added onto a stadium here and there is laughable. Such advancement is clearly not the intention. A 12000 stadium represents a settling for what we've got. And stop using the term, 'blown out of the water.' For one thing, it's meaningless. For another, it's an irritating Americanism, loved by spotty youths. And for another, even taken on its own terms its clearly nonsense. I've answered every argument of a happy clapper with an equally valid one. As for ramming anything down anybody's throat, I'll ask again-is the overwhelming and largely baseless optimism expressed on this boards also being rammed down people's throats? As I pointed out yesterday, we have exceeded 13k on two occasions, and had gates between 12-13k on another seven occasion, mainly cup ties or playoffs, in a period of fifteen years. So on what basis do you argue we need 16k seats? And on the three seasons at championship level from 1994-1997 our average crowd was less than 9k, so on what basis do you suggest we need 16k? And can you point out to me when you have said to someone "fair enough i dont agree with you but thats your opinion" without talking down to them??? And whatever way you want to brush it up, several of your arguments have been proved completely wrong via use of cold, hard facts, as I have said in other threads. And what do you define as overwhelming baseless optimism? by the sounds of it its simply anyone who doesnt agree with you. So pull the other one sonny jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I have absolutely no intentions of entering this topic of conversation with you as a constant twist is put on responses from what I have read. Oh, that's a pity. I was looking forward to the added quality you'd bring to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You're finally getting it! It would just look all ickey if it was too big on one side, so Mr Blitz was probably willing to shell out for bigger stands all round so that the owners of neighbouring clubs weren't rude about his new ground and say rude things about him until he cried. Nowt to do with anyone sitting in them, it was all about ego. More likely he still had the kind of ambitions for the club that most on here suddenly seem to regard as unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts