FAO TTA New stadium warning!

[martjs]

It's funny you say that, because it never ceases to amaze me how on here it can appear that the majority of posters can be 'for' something, whereas you talk to Latics fans in 'real life' and you find the majority seem to have the opposite opinion....The move to Failsworth being one subject.

 

It happens all the time in the "real" (i.e. not cyber) world as well... I can't remember the phrase but it's something about shouting the loudest... I (and others) have commented a few times about the lack of real debate on these forums: some posters only have to see the words "Corporal Jones" and they see the 'red mist'. By the way, I'm not here to defend The Corp, as he is sometimes called, because i) I don't agree with everything he posts and ii) he doesn't need me to defend him. Maybe he provokes it, I don't know - it depends on your point of view. But he must enjoy it as he keeps coming back for more and with the revenue he's generating for the club maybe he should change his name to Cash Cow!

 

(See, even I'm talking about Him now!)

Edited July 28, 2009 by martjs

[Corporal_Jones]

It happens all the time in the "real" (i.e. not cyber) world as well... I can't remember the phrase but it's something about shouting the loudest... I (and others) have commented a few times about the lack of real debate on these forums: some posters only have to see the words "Corporal Jones" and they see the 'red mist'. By the way, I'm not here to defend The Corp, as he is sometimes called, because i) I don't agree with everything he posts and ii) he doesn't need me to defend him. Maybe he provokes it, I don't know - it depends on your point of view. But he must enjoy it as he keeps coming back for more and with the revenue he's generating for the club maybe he should change his name to Cash Cow!

 

(See, even I'm talking about Him now!)

 

 

 

 

I don't particularly enjoy it, but it's a burden I am prepared to shoulder.

 

It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

 

'Cometh the hour, cometh the man...'

 

Etc etc.

[LeylandLatic]

The Wise One has spoken again. This means that the debate is at an end. Funny how he always turns up wherever I am even though he claims to have me on ignore.

 

I've already answered all the points about other clubs' grounds and pointed out the reason for asking for examples (as I said, it wasn't a trick question.) Few of them have any relevance to Latics's situation, and the bit about Wembley and OT is a red herring. Anything to blur the issue and justify why Latics always have to be third rate.

 

Similarly, the stuff about financing is also spurious, used by those who like to hint that they're in the know about the club's internal situation. In reality I suspect they're told sweet FA. All we need to know is that all of a sudden an extra 4000 seats is beyond the wildest dreams of a club like Latics according to the Happy Clappers and Sycophants Glee Club.

 

Can't resist replying to smilies? No-just puzzled as to why you wish to make yourself look about thirteen. What do you do in facre-to-face conversation? Do you turn cartwheels or play with yourself or something?

 

Why does it bother you how long a thread goes on, by the way?

 

You are into insults, though, aren't you. It's just that, like MarkOasis, you do it in a sneaky, roundabout way.

 

This is getting embarrassing.

 

[Corporal_Jones]

This is getting embarrassing.

 

 

Don't be embarassed.

 

Finished your homework? There's always the playstation.

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

The one who posts up dozens of childish smilies, sometimes in the space of one post, in an attempt to belittle another poster complains about him...trying to beliitle other posters. And this from the man who tries to rally his little band of sycophants against lone posters too.

 

All your points have been answered many times over in the course of several threads. Why are some happy clappers so long winded? It doesn't take much explaining to tell us that they are describing an imaginary future for the club. On the other hand, I describe what's clearly happening based on observation of trends that are plain for all to see, of which the downscaling of the stadium plan is only the latest.

 

No you haven't answered the questions at all.

 

I asked several questions in post number 373, that you have not, as far as I can see, answered elsewhere. For clarity, they were: -

 

1) "Why is the debate at an end just because I have posted? "

 

2) "Ok on that last point which clubs have any relevance to Latics's situation? and why?"

 

3) "Why is "the stuff" about finacing spurious? how many NEW seats were being provided in the proposed re-development of BP? It wasn't by any chance around the 12,000 mark was it?"

 

4) "Why is the bit about Wembley and OT a red herring?"

 

5) "Another question. You say "used by those who like to hint that they're in the know about the club's internal situation." Who on this thread has claimed or hinted that they're in the know about the club's internal situation?"

 

6) "Take your thought on this topic that the stadium should in your opinion be a 16,000 capacity as a minimum as that figure would show ambition. Yet there appears to be nothing to back up why it should be. Why does the figure of 16,000 represents ambition, as opposed to say 15,000 or even 12,000. Why have you chosen that figure? How would you propose that the club finance the extra capacity? Do you think that providing the extra finance for the extra 4,000 seats would either impact on the budget for the manager to improve the team or worse still put us into debt?"

 

I'm genuinely intrigued by your stance Corp. I appreciate your opinion, like others, I can see why you have that pov. But I just would like to get to the bottom of why you hold that opinion.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Harry

 

 

[LeylandLatic]

Don't be embarassed.

 

Finished your homework? There's always the playstation.

 

 

School's out for summer, grandad and PS1 was soooooo 1994. Is that all they have at the care home?

 

You always sound so bitter when you talk to Harry.

[Corporal_Jones]

No you haven't answered the questions at all.

 

I asked several questions in post number 373, that you have not, as far as I can see, answered elsewhere. For clarity, they were: -

 

1) "Why is the debate at an end just because I have posted? "

 

2) "Ok on that last point which clubs have any relevance to Latics's situation? and why?"

 

3) "Why is "the stuff" about finacing spurious? how many NEW seats were being provided in the proposed re-development of BP? It wasn't by any chance around the 12,000 mark was it?"

 

4) "Why is the bit about Wembley and OT a red herring?"

 

5) "Another question. You say "used by those who like to hint that they're in the know about the club's internal situation." Who on this thread has claimed or hinted that they're in the know about the club's internal situation?"

 

6) "Take your thought on this topic that the stadium should in your opinion be a 16,000 capacity as a minimum as that figure would show ambition. Yet there appears to be nothing to back up why it should be. Why does the figure of 16,000 represents ambition, as opposed to say 15,000 or even 12,000. Why have you chosen that figure? How would you propose that the club finance the extra capacity? Do you think that providing the extra finance for the extra 4,000 seats would either impact on the budget for the manager to improve the team or worse still put us into debt?"

 

I'm genuinely intrigued by your stance Corp. I appreciate your opinion, like others, I can see why you have that pov. But I just would like to get to the bottom of why you hold that opinion.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Harry

 

 

 

1, It was merely a comment on your usual dramatic entrance and assumed air of superior knowledge of club affairs, not mention the customary long-windedness and idiosyncratic, smilie-ridden posting style. You always remind me a bit of Michael Jackson coming on stage.

 

2, None, in my opinion. Every club's situation is different.

 

3, A dramatic reduction in capacity is a dramatic reduction in capacity whichever way you look at it. A stadium as small as the one being proposed puts us in a different category of club. For reference see most clubs with grounds of around that size and where they are in the pecking order.

 

4, Blurs the issue by bringing in irrelevant points.

 

5, You, for one. Others occasionally back you up with their, 'and Harry should know' type comments. Usually they do this to try to bring to an end debate on topics they, for some reason, feel uncomfortable with. Personally, I don't care if you are in the know or not, but it is, as far as I can see, the attitude you approach everything with, with the aim of closing debate down. Ditto with your customary complaints as to the length of threads.

 

6, The figure of 15000 seats or any other is also irrelevant when we talking about two specific sets of figures: those in the BP plan and those in the new proposal. I, like everybody else (except, perhaps, those in the know...), have no idea how the current project is going to be financed full stop, extra seats or not. For one thing, now that the situation has changed the financing is clearly going to be different, so the point about the RRE already existing in the BP plan is also spurious. All I know is that there are few clubs with grounds as small as the one being proposed who are not permanent residents of the lower divisions. As for playing budgets, I predict that the well-run lower division club OAFC is now planning to be will only ever need a modest budget for players.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

School's out for summer, grandad and PS1 was soooooo 1994. Is that all they have at the care home?

 

You always sound so bitter when you talk to Harry.

 

 

 

I would hope that I sound bitter when I talk to most people.

[LeylandLatic]

1, It was merely a comment on your usual dramatic entrance and assumed air of superior knowledge of club affairs, not mention the customary long-windedness and idiosyncratic, smilie-ridden posting style. You always remind me a bit of Michael Jackson coming on stage.

 

2, None, in my opinion. Every club's situation is different.

 

3, A dramatic reduction in capacity is a dramatic reduction in capacity whichever way you look at it. A stadium as small as the one being proposed puts us in a different category of club. For reference see most clubs with grounds of around that size and where they are in the pecking order.

 

4, Blurs the issue by bringing in irrelevant points.

 

5, You, for one. Others occasionally back you up with their, 'and Harry should know' type comments. Usually they do this to try to bring to an end debate on topics they, for some reason, feel uncomfortable with. Personally, I don't care if you are in the know or not, but it is, as far as I can see, the attitude you approach everything with, with the aim of closing debate down. Ditto with your customary complaints as to the length of threads.

 

6, The figure of 15000 seats or any other is also irrelevant when we talking about two specific sets of figures: those in the BP plan and those in the new proposal. I, like everybody else (except, perhaps, those in the know...), have no idea how the current project is going to be financed full stop, extra seats or not. For one thing, now that the situation has changed the financing is clearly going to be different, so the point about the RRE already existing in the BP plan is also spurious. All I know is that there are few clubs with grounds as small as the one being proposed who are not permanent residents of the lower divisions. As for playing budgets, I predict that the well-run lower division club OAFC is now planning to be will only ever need a modest budget for players.

 

tl;dr

 

As for point 2. Why is it you repeatedly compare us to our 'Lancashire rivals' when you believe this to be the case. Is it because in the case of this particular topic it hasn't suited your best interests? (that's a rhetorical question by the way).

[LeylandLatic]

I would hope that I sound bitter when I talk to most people.

 

How odd.

[Corporal_Jones]

How odd.

 

 

 

Why? What's wrong with bitter?

[Corporal_Jones]

tl;dr

 

As for point 2. Why is it you repeatedly compare us to our 'Lancashire rivals' when you believe this to be the case. Is it because in the case of this particular topic it hasn't suited your best interests? (that's a rhetorical question by the way).

 

 

 

No-it's because in this case we're talking specifics (stadiums). When I've mentioned our Lancashire rivals before I've been talking generally.

[LeylandLatic]

No-it's because in this case we're talking specifics (stadiums). When I've mentioned our Lancashire rivals before I've been talking generally.

 

So when we're talking about stadiums our rivals aren't important? Yet, you tried to compare our stadium plans to the stadiums of our 'Lancashire rivals' in this topic. There is no consistency in your arguments whatsoever CJ, I respect that you have a different opinion, but I can't respect the way you make your point when you move the goal posts time and again as and when it suits you.

[Corporal_Jones]

So when we're talking about stadiums our rivals aren't important? Yet, you tried to compare our stadium plans to the stadiums of our 'Lancashire rivals' in this topic. There is no consistency in your arguments whatsoever CJ, I respect that you have a different opinion, but I can't respect the way you make your point when you move the goal posts time and again as and when it suits you.

 

 

 

 

Nobody who offered examples of stadiums which have been newly built and then extended mentioned our Lancashire rivals. This is because the Lancashire rivals I refer to built stadiums that were of a size to match their ambitions from the off or else redeveloped their existing grounds.

 

Try to keep up. And stop staring into space. (It's a pity teachers can't still chuck the board duster at your head.)

[LeylandLatic]

Nobody who offered examples of stadiums which have been newly built and then extended mentioned our Lancashire rivals. This is because the Lancashire rivals I refer to built stadiums that were of a size to match their ambitions from the off or else redeveloped their existing grounds.

 

Try to keep up. And stop staring into space. (It's a pity teachers can't still chuck the board duster at your head.)

 

So now they are relevant again now they suit your argument. I see what you did there, but Lookers Carl (I think it was) covered the issue with the attendance stats he produced. That's probably irrelevant though isn't it? (again, rhetorical)

 

I did keep up, the goalposts moved at least twice. Short term memory going?

 

I'm off anyway, i'm gonna have to tell some other Russians, cya!

Edited July 29, 2009 by LeylandLatic

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

1, It was merely a comment on your usual dramatic entrance and assumed air of superior knowledge of club affairs, not mention the customary long-windedness and idiosyncratic, smilie-ridden posting style. You always remind me a bit of Michael Jackson coming on stage.

 

2, None, in my opinion. Every club's situation is different.

 

3, A dramatic reduction in capacity is a dramatic reduction in capacity whichever way you look at it. A stadium as small as the one being proposed puts us in a different category of club. For reference see most clubs with grounds of around that size and where they are in the pecking order.

 

4, Blurs the issue by bringing in irrelevant points.

 

5, You, for one. Others occasionally back you up with their, 'and Harry should know' type comments. Usually they do this to try to bring to an end debate on topics they, for some reason, feel uncomfortable with. Personally, I don't care if you are in the know or not, but it is, as far as I can see, the attitude you approach everything with, with the aim of closing debate down. Ditto with your customary complaints as to the length of threads.

 

6, The figure of 15000 seats or any other is also irrelevant when we talking about two specific sets of figures: those in the BP plan and those in the new proposal. I, like everybody else (except, perhaps, those in the know...), have no idea how the current project is going to be financed full stop, extra seats or not. For one thing, now that the situation has changed the financing is clearly going to be different, so the point about the RRE already existing in the BP plan is also spurious. All I know is that there are few clubs with grounds as small as the one being proposed who are not permanent residents of the lower divisions. As for playing budgets, I predict that the well-run lower division club OAFC is now planning to be will only ever need a modest budget for players.

 

At last an actual reply to questions.

 

I might not agree with what you say, but at least you have now answered rather than just handing off.

 

For the record, I do not try to bring an end to debate. I welcome it. The more the club is talked about the better imo.

 

As for "assumed air of superior knowledge" I don't think so. People ask for opinions, I like you provide 1.

 

Your right about every club being different. But in other posts you draw comparisons.

 

You are right about a reduction in capacity as well. But I was drawing the camparison between the number of "new" seats being provided at a re-developed BP and the Lancaster Club proposal. In terms of current capacity BP provides the figure that you suggest, but with little future scope for expansion to 20,000, whereas the Lancaster Club provides the same number of new seats and allows a better opportunity to expand to 20,000 in the future if the need arises. But that is only my opinion. On that basis, which proposal shows more ambition? oh and the point about the RRE is not then spurious.

 

You say look at the size of the ground and where that puts us in the pecking order. Quite honestly Corp, when has that ever been different. When has BP ever been that big that it has put us in a different league. The highest attendance I have had the pleasure of seeing at BP was in 1974 when we beat ManYoo in frotnt of 26,000. If we played Manyoo today and had a stadium that held that number, would we get it?

 

You say "blurs the issue by bringing in irrelevant points" but it was you who asked the question and actually raised Old Trafford in the first place. When I have brought that back to your attention and asked if Younited lacked ambition at the time they re-developed OT, (in comparative terms) you then claim it is an irrelevant point. If it's relevant for your point, they it is for others.

 

I disagree with your point on the playing budget. My reason is that a larger initial stadium will obviously cost more. If it cant be financed out of existing budgets it means more borrowing which then has to be repaid, which then comes off the playing budget.

 

I guess it's a balancing act and TTA are the ones charged with doing the balancing.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

 

 

Harry

[Corporal_Jones]

Your right about every club being different. But in other posts you draw comparisons.

 

You are right about a reduction in capacity as well. But I was drawing the camparison between the number of "new" seats being provided at a re-developed BP and the Lancaster Club proposal. In terms of current capacity BP provides the figure that you suggest, but with little future scope for expansion to 20,000, whereas the Lancaster Club provides the same number of new seats and allows a better opportunity to expand to 20,000 in the future if the need arises. But that is only my opinion. On that basis, which proposal shows more ambition? oh and the point about the RRE is not then spurious.

 

You say look at the size of the ground and where that puts us in the pecking order. Quite honestly Corp, when has that ever been different. When has BP ever been that big that it has put us in a different league. The highest attendance I have had the pleasure of seeing at BP was in 1974 when we beat ManYoo in frotnt of 26,000. If we played Manyoo today and had a stadium that held that number, would we get it?

 

You say "blurs the issue by bringing in irrelevant points" but it was you who asked the question and actually raised Old Trafford in the first place. When I have brought that back to your attention and asked if Younited lacked ambition at the time they re-developed OT, (in comparative terms) you then claim it is an irrelevant point. If it's relevant for your point, they it is for others.

 

I disagree with your point on the playing budget. My reason is that a larger initial stadium will obviously cost more. If it cant be financed out of existing budgets it means more borrowing which then has to be repaid, which then comes off the playing budget.

 

I guess it's a balancing act and TTA are the ones charged with doing the balancing.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

 

 

Harry

 

 

 

 

I do draw comparisons with certain clubs in other posts, but as I've said to LL just above, we were talking specifically about stadiums, not generally.

 

I think the notions about the scope for expansion to 20000 at Broadway are simply an attempt to put a positive spin on the fact that we're building a small ground for a permanently lower division club, instead of what the aim of the BP plan was supposed to be (ultimately to advance up the league.) How do we know that these plans for expansion are even going to be in the new proposal? I've heard nothing about them except from people on here. To my mind, attempting to claim that a 12000 ground shows more ambition than a 16000 ground smacks only of desperation.

 

BP has had, like nearly all old grounds, an increasingly shrinking capacity over the years, as we all know. But we have never been so close to the bottom of the Football League scale in terms of capacity before. I suspect that this proposal will put us somewhere in the bottom third of all league clubs?

 

ManUre redeveloped OT on the back of unprecedented success that was years in the making. They didn't go away and build a small ground and then expand it.

 

As for playing budgets, we can only wait and see.

 

For what it's worth, I feel a hint of sadness at having to disagree so strongly with you and those who think like you. But it also saddens me to think that it seems we are, at best, going to end up playing in a stadium less than half the size of that of the likes of Bolton.

[Corporal_Jones]

So now they are relevant again now they suit your argument. I see what you did there, but Lookers Carl (I think it was) covered the issue with the attendance stats he produced. That's probably irrelevant though isn't it? (again, rhetorical)

 

I did keep up, the goalposts moved at least twice. Short term memory going?

 

I'm off anyway, i'm gonna have to tell some other Russians, cya!

 

 

 

He covered nothing with the attendance stats. He was answered more than once with points that proved their irrelevance to the proposed stadium capacity.

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

I do draw comparisons with certain clubs in other posts, but as I've said to LL just above, we were talking specifically about stadiums, not generally.

 

I think the notions about the scope for expansion to 20000 at Broadway are simply an attempt to put a positive spin on the fact that we're building a small ground for a permanently lower division club, instead of what the aim of the BP plan was supposed to be (ultimately to advance up the league.) How do we know that these plans for expansion are even going to be in the new proposal? I've heard nothing about them except from people on here. To my mind, attempting to claim that a 12000 ground shows more ambition than a 16000 ground smacks only of desperation.

 

BP has had, like nearly all old grounds, an increasingly shrinking capacity over the years, as we all know. But we have never been so close to the bottom of the Football League scale in terms of capacity before. I suspect that this proposal will put us somewhere in the bottom third of all league clubs?

 

ManUre redeveloped OT on the back of unprecedented success that was years in the making. They didn't go away and build a small ground and then expand it.

 

As for playing budgets, we can only wait and see.

 

For what it's worth, I feel a hint of sadness at having to disagree so strongly with you and those who think like you. But it also saddens me to think that it seems we are, at best, going to end up playing in a stadium less than half the size of that of the likes of Bolton.

 

 

Your entitled to your opinion CJ, however I have seen nothing in your posts to back up your view. Whilst concerns that have been expressed by various posters are for the most part understandable and may turn out to be justified, most are clearly prepared to wait until they see the full proposals before venting any further frustrations etc. oafc0000 is a good example of this.

 

I will gladly wait for the proposals to come out from the club and then we will know the answers, until then most of this debate is hot air, particularly from your good self Corp.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Harry

[Matt]

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

There clearly is a pro-move camp and an opposition, Jonesy isn't making this the Corp.Jones show - there isn't one. If you ask him questions he's gonna answer, that's communication. If a member of this community feels strongly about a comment and feels the need to reply to offer an alternative view and discuss that to it's end, then they can do - that's up to them.

 

 

[fanakapan]

I have to agree... Will remember it fondly for those moment but time to move on...

 

 

 

I was there for the Liverpool game...42000..........nostalgia aint what it used to be.

[thelaticsfan]

truth is we arent as big as what we used to be, and right now our ambitions i think should be to make ourselves a profit, then move on from their,

if we take on too big of a project it could backfire a lot worse in our faces,

 

we have to take a risk, but not too big of 1, gotta get the right balance IMO

[footy68]

truth is we arent as big as what we used to be, and right now our ambitions i think should be to make ourselves a profit, then move on from their,

if we take on too big of a project it could backfire a lot worse in our faces,

 

we have to take a risk, but not too big of 1, gotta get the right balance IMO

 

And that folks is that!

 

Amen

[singe]

QUOTE (martjs @ Jul 28 2009, 23:26 PM)

+1

 

"The silent * majority"

 

* well mostly silent

 

 

It's funny you say that, because it never ceases to amaze me how on here it can appear that the majority of posters can be 'for' something, whereas you talk to Latics fans in 'real life' and you find the majority seem to have the opposite opinion....The move to Failsworth being one subject.

You're entitled to your opinion.

you're entitled to not say/write anytihng

You're entiteld to argue with Corp

 

but I doubt it is the majority that think building a 16,000 capacity in the current econmic climate.

16,000 is aspitational, no doubt, but not needed economically when it would be filled on so few occaisions.

Or just to keep up with the Jones', as Corp argued. Making a statemtent to our rivals is not a reason to stretch ourselves financially. And Corp has not come up with a reason that justifies that, yet.

[Matt]

truth is we arent as big as what we used to be, and right now our ambitions i think should be to make ourselves a profit, then move on from their,

if we take on too big of a project it could backfire a lot worse in our faces,

 

we have to take a risk, but not too big of 1, gotta get the right balance IMO

...and with that we'll draw a line under it.