leeslover Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It has been asked a couple of times but its easily lost behind the blinkered hero worshipping... Well, nobody complained about 16,000 being too many because having a nice new ground built seemed like good news. I'm not complaining about the suggested new ground because that seems like good news as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGermanLatic Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Imagine people not missing cold weather. Shock of the century! I find it amusing how someone who nails the colours of another team next to his home town which is thousands of miles away is upset about moving the club a couple of miles south. At least Eintracht Frankfurt STAY in Frankfurt. They fairly asked fans about the move from the Waldstadion to the Commerzbank-Arena. I go to watch Frankfurt as much as I can afford it and Oldham too so please don´t bring my personal life into this. Next year i´m moving to Frankfurt for good yet I will still, with every chance I get, come back and watch Oldham play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It has been asked a couple of times but its easily lost behind the blinkered hero worshipping... What if the original 16,000 capacity was a mistake? Too big, a white elephant if you will? Would it not be better to realsie that and made changes, rather than stick to the idea of a grand statement of intent than reality iof a significanty changed economic landscape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLegend Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 So it´s ok to throw away BP is it? Do you really think things will be the same. This is OBVIOUSLY not been taken into full consideration. Once BP´s gone I think fans will see then. Yeah youre right, TTA have not thought this through in the last 2 years or so. Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 At least Eintracht Frankfurt STAY in Frankfurt. They fairly asked fans about the move from the Waldstadion to the Commerzbank-Arena. I go to watch Frankfurt as much as I can afford it and Oldham too so please don´t bring my personal life into this. Next year i´m moving to Frankfurt for good yet I will still, with every chance I get, come back and watch Oldham play. Personal life into this ? I am talking about which football clubs you support not your kids.... This place is kind of the point mate. Its a football discussion site. So when you do move your going to have a shorter trip to the ground. You should be happy The location of the ground is a load of hot air over nothing. Much more important things to talk about in my opinion. Like how much it is going to cost, how much will we make day to day, how should it be designed etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 What if the original 16,000 capacity was a mistake? Too big, a white elephant if you will? Would it not be better to realsie that and made changes, rather than stick to the idea of a grand statement of intent than reality iof a significanty changed economic landscape? Yes...of course... But this is not the case is it... You can throw about what ifs but I have heard no suggestion that from the TTA that this was the case with the original Oldham Arena proposed not more than a year or two ago ? After being at the club for a number of years ? Straws firmly clutched is how I read this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGermanLatic Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well we´ll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Yes...of course... But this is not the case is it... You can throw about what ifs but I have heard no suggestion that from the TTA that this was the case with the original Oldham Arena proposed not more than a year or two ago ? After being at the club for a number of years ? Straws firmly clutched is how I read this post. Was it not a case that once Boundary Park was redeveloped, then that was it. Done and dusted. So any potential rise in crowds had to be accounted for at the time of redevelopment. The new stadium may have the ability to extend, and therefore it isn't necessary to throw away piles of money in making 4,000 empty seats, when it can be done later when and if we ever have the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well, nobody complained about 16,000 being too many because having a nice new ground built seemed like good news. I'm not complaining about the suggested new ground because that seems like good news as well. There were a few voices at the time saying 16000 was too small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 There were a few voices at the time saying 16000 was too small. I recall that now you mention it. Wanting 25,000 or whatever on the hope that we could have England youth games and concerts there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Was it not a case that once Boundary Park was redeveloped, then that was it. Done and dusted. So any potential rise in crowds had to be accounted for at the time of redevelopment. The new stadium may have the ability to extend, and therefore it isn't necessary to throw away piles of money in making 4,000 empty seats, when it can be done later when and if we ever have the money. and it may not... One would hope it has... Your answer "may" be the answer... But what CP is getting at, is all the clapping seals around here who keep stating that 16k would be too big, where was they 12 months ago ? Specially as some of these people state quite aggressive what bollox he spouts. Seems to have been a dramatic change in attitude. Edited July 27, 2009 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 and it may not... One would hope it has... Your answer "may" be the answer... But what CP is getting at, is all the clapping seals around here who keep stating that 16k would be too big, where was they 12 months ago ? Specially as some of these people state quite aggressive what bollox he spouts. Seems to have been a dramatic change in attitude. 16,000 would have been big enough - nothing to worry about. Neither is there with 12,000. Why would anyone have been arsed to complain about the ground being, "too big?" It doesn't mean that we can't be quite happy with what's been proposed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) 16,000 would have been big enough - nothing to worry about. Neither is there with 12,000. Why would anyone have been arsed to complain about the ground being, "too big?" It doesn't mean that we can't be quite happy with what's been proposed now. Wasted money ? Seems to be a counter argument being used at the moment to increasing... It swings both ways... I think CPs argument is that we are "settling" for something nowhere near as good as it could / should be... Some truth in it... Edited July 27, 2009 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Yes...of course... But this is not the case is it... You can throw about what ifs but I have heard no suggestion that from the TTA that this was the case with the original Oldham Arena proposed not more than a year or two ago ? After being at the club for a number of years ? Straws firmly clutched is how I read this post. Why is it not the case? Are you saying the economic landscape has not changed in the last couple of years? I am genuiny puzzled by your response, and am not being funny. Edited July 27, 2009 by singe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Wasted money ? Seems to be a counter argument being used at the moment to increasing... It swings both ways... I think CPs argument is that we are "settling" for something nowhere near as good as it could / should be... Some truth in it... Maybe it would have been wasted money. All we saw when the BP plans came out was that we were getting a shiny new stadium. If the new plans get to happen because the new size makes it workable, then I'm still happy. I'll not cry over the hypothetical size the was one some mocked up plan, it really doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 If Darlington and Rotherham hadn't had points deducted Shrewsbury would have finished ninth in Div 4 last season. Whoopy do, is that what we're aiming for. They actually finished seventh in their last season at Gay Meadow and lost in the play off final, so it's not quite as rosy as you're painting it Seriously-it is quite clearly what is being settled for, if not actively aimed at. If this board's anything to go by, that includes a majority of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Why is it not the case? Are you saying the economic landscape has not changed in the last couple of years? I am genuiny puzzled by your response, and am not being funny. ignore that bit... your right I dont know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Maybe it would have been wasted money. All we saw when the BP plans came out was that we were getting a shiny new stadium. If the new plans get to happen because the new size makes it workable, then I'm still happy. I'll not cry over the hypothetical size the was one some mocked up plan, it really doesn't matter. Not hypothetical, was a cast iron statement saying it would 16k. I understand if your not personally bothered. A lot of people are and have stated 16k is way to much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Oddly enough, all but one of the many people I have spoken to regarding the move are suspicious or wary about the reasons/motives. There certainly appears to be a lot more on here who are looking forward to the move, or is it just that people are embarrassed to say they smell a rat? Maybe the answers are staring me in the face, but I still don't quite understand why the lookers and main stands cannot be replaced for significantly less than £20m, and the remaining land sold for a tidy sum also. OMBC could then spend their proposed input on improving Clayton to include the facilities mentioned. If the move is absolutely necessary then so be it, but I'd prefer the TTA to explain their figures, as I'm not sure we should be happy about losing £60m of land to sit in a £20m meccano set. And suddenly lose 4000 seats. (it doesn't matter, the people will say-we'll never fill 'em anyway. And these are the same people who deny that they've given up on the idea of the club advancing up the league.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Regardless of where the stadium is and what it will look like, the underlying concern is a doubt about the future viability of the Club, as we all know gate money is insufficient and likely to continue to be so at the proposed site. TTA intended the redevelopment of BP to raise non-football income all year round to ensure the Club's viability. Is this still their intention at the proposed site in the Failsworth part of Oldham? We need to know to allay our fears. Gate money will always be insufficient as long as there is only lower division football on offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Wasted money ? Seems to be a counter argument being used at the moment to increasing... It swings both ways... I think CPs argument is that we are "settling" for something nowhere near as good as it could / should be... Some truth in it... This seems to miss really the central point of this debate, which is this not really about what we need in a stadium, butr what we can AFFORD. As far as I could see, the old BP development would not have been easily uipgradeable, mainly as all the land round about would have been sold off to fund it. So, as just mentioned by someone, you can argue that 16k wasn't enough. If the new stadium is not planned with an eye to expansion, then I would be as up in arms as anyone, I just wish TTA had explicitly said so, but I think the architects may be the ones to bury that particular one. The stated claim of TTA has always been to make us be able to stand on our own feet as a club, which the current plan seems to deliver on, and to establish us as a Championships side. Now, I think it can be argued either way that 12k is enough for us in the championship, maybe it is, maybe it isn''t, but it is definitely true that we aren't going to be hitting those limits for at LEAST two or three years (personally I think it is but would LOVE to be proved wrong), and I for one would prefer to earn the money to expand before spending it. The thing is, like I say a major point of this plan is that is puts us hopefully in the black. That means that if and when we are earning loads more dosh from the football side, we have scope to expand as many sides have done before us, and we haven't already mortgaged our futures building seats that won't be sat on, except possibly once every few seasons. Don't get me wrong I would just love a 25k seat stadium, and if we can find someone willing to pay for it I will cheer that on. But at the end of the day, if you don't like the 12K plan, what are you suggesting instead? And before you say, the BP plan, the Credit Crunch has clearly kaiboshed that one. The plan was ambitious, in a good way, but there is clearly not the funding around anymore for such a large development. And all the while, you have to remember, we are hemorrhaging money. Even if TTA are complee crooks or making a fortune out of this or whatever conspiracy anyone can think of, it seems to me it is the only hope we have at the moment. If any of this makes me a clapping seal, then well "ork ork clap clap", or whatever sound they make! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Out of all the questions you repeat this is the one that really puzzles me and one that no one can offer a decent answer too. Why weren't people moaning when we was planning on building 16,000 seater ghost town first time around and claiming it was a waste of money? Because the prompt card marked 'Applaud' was held up when the BP redevelopment was announced, and it's been pulled out of the cupboard and dusted off again now that BP redevelopment has been abandoned in favour of a significantly smaller project for a potentially much smaller club. And all without a pause for breath. 'We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Going back a few posts, there seems to be an idea that the owners have made a choice whether to stay at BP or move. Put in the simplest terms possible, they have not made such a choice. That choice does not exist. Staying at Boundary Park is simply no longer an option. There are very few people, I think the owners included, who would have made the choice to move if remaining at BP was still viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) That's a fair point. I can't believe nobody mentioned it before. It is the crucial point which should never be forgotten. Personally, I don't care what the stadium looks like, nor where it is as long as it's inside the borough (despite some misgivings about Failsworth-an area mostly unsympathetic to Latics) and we retain the name Oldham Athletic. But the reduced capacity represents a downscaling of the club and its ambitions. Edited July 27, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticNik Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Every cloud has a silver lining. Moving away from BP, at least it looks like we'll lose some moaning ferkers in the process! Shame Boundary Park Juniors FC are no more, would be a perfect team for half the people on this thread. Good riddance to the rats. Can't come soon enough. E4e YOCAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts