singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Gate money will always be insufficient as long as there is only lower division football on offer. The simple truth is gate money is never sufficient. Full stop. Prem or Unibond Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) 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' I am not a lemming , Applauding when asked, and saying move to the new stadium at all costs. For a start, I strongly believe and have said so, it must not be until the new stadium is ready. The TTA will be wrong if that is what they propose, adn it is a very dangerous move. But the overall plan seems a good one, and certainly is the best option we have in front of us. Edited July 27, 2009 by singe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones 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? That is a fair argument. It is, however, the argument of somebody who has no regrets about the downscaling of the club and its ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 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. The stated ambition by TTA has always been self sufficiency, and establishment in the Championship. How exactly does this plan scale that back? Have you seen a cut in the playing budget arising from this plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 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. This 'ability' of the proposed new stadium to extend (a kind of self-enlarging stadium? Will it automatically generate new tiers on stands once a certain league position is attained?) is irrelevant when you consider that, by and large, only eternally lower division clubs build stadiums so small. The club will point out the potential for expansion, but it won't be needed for football in the bottom half of the third division or below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 This 'ability' of the proposed new stadium to extend (a kind of self-enlarging stadium? Will it automatically generate new tiers on stands once a certain league position is attained?) is irrelevant when you consider that, by and large, only eternally lower division clubs build stadiums so small. The club will point out the potential for expansion, but it won't be needed for football in the bottom half of the third division or below If they build it to a capacity of 25,000 and never fill it, never get beyond 15,000 is that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones 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. So much boll-cks do I spout that I accurately predicted that the ongoing economic crisis would cause the abandonment of the BP redevelopment plan, and that it would be replaced by a proposal for a tinpot ground for a tinpot club. The loudest voices on here slated me for both predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 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. Nobody's saying you can't be happy with it. But it's being happy with, at best, a club going nowhere. It's what some people have wanted for years, if you can judge by some of what they write on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 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. Do you know what we can "afford"... I dont... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) 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. It doesn't matter if we never again average 12000, when you consider that any club with worthwhile ambitions should be aiming to occasionally attract 18-20000, like we did in the long period up there prior to the PL. Where will we play those big Boxing Day (cough) promotion clashes against a newly relegated Bolton or Blackburn, both of whom were capable of taking 10000 and upwards to local away games back in the day and may be in future? Will we ask the FL for special permission to play at COMS? Edited July 27, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I am not a lemming , Applauding when asked, and saying move to the new stadium at all costs. For a start, I strongly believe and have said so, it must not be until the new stadium is ready. The TTA will be wrong if that is what they propose, adn it is a very dangerous move. But the overall plan seems a good one, and certainly is the best option we have in front of us. All irrelevant when you fail to take into consideration what the move to a small stadium represents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That is a fair argument. It is, however, the argument of somebody who has no regrets about the downscaling of the club and its ambitions. I think that's the crook of it... Some people wont admit it is a scaling down of ambition when it so obviously is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 So much boll-cks do I spout that I accurately predicted that the ongoing economic crisis would cause the abandonment of the BP redevelopment plan, and that it would be replaced by a proposal for a tinpot ground for a tinpot club. The loudest voices on here slated me for both predictions. C'mon, you make it sound like you were the only one. I am going to have a look at my posts, I can certainly recall raising fears for this almost ass soon as the plans were approved. But is does not neccesarilty follow it is a bad thing. For one your argument does not take into account other simillarly ambitious/located/former status clubs plans thwarted, other clubs that have to reign in spending, other club periloulsy near bankrupcy, other clubs having backers pull out. It's all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The stated ambition by TTA has always been self sufficiency, and establishment in the Championship. How exactly does this plan scale that back? Have you seen a cut in the playing budget arising from this plan? No but (and remember that this is another prediction) it will see a club whose playing budget is designed with survival at this level in mind. Maybe the occasional stab at the play-offs, as plucky outsiders, if things seem to be going better than expected financially. If the intention was a club that gets out of this division as soon as possible and aims to make a go of things in the Championship, we would not be looking at a stadium where you never expect to have to accomodate any big games again. (Truly big games, I mean, not 8500 against Bury or Stockport in a League One or Two play-off decider.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Do you know what we can "afford"... I dont... Unfortunately, yes. At the moment we can afford exactly how much TTA are prepared to dole out to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I think that's the crook of it... Some people wont admit it is a scaling down of ambition when it so obviously is... It is a scaling down of plans, but it does not neccesarily follow a scaling down of ambition. In fact that would remain the same- establisheing us as a higher end Championship club as stated by the TTA when they arrive. The discussion is whether the new plans could achive that sucess and whether it is right to do in the current econmic climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) If they build it to a capacity of 25,000 and never fill it, never get beyond 15,000 is that a good thing? 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. Edited July 27, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I asked a separate question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Do you know what we can "afford"... I dont... What we can;t afford is for the TTA to write monthly losses for ever. Or rely on them to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The simple truth is gate money is never sufficient. Full stop. Prem or Unibond Prem. Yes-but I was addrssing a poster who seemed to set great store by an anticipated increased gate revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 C'mon, you make it sound like you were the only one. I am going to have a look at my posts, I can certainly recall raising fears for this almost ass soon as the plans were approved. But is does not neccesarilty follow it is a bad thing. For one your argument does not take into account other simillarly ambitious/located/former status clubs plans thwarted, other clubs that have to reign in spending, other club periloulsy near bankrupcy, other clubs having backers pull out. It's all relative. It doesn't matter if I was the only one. What matters is that some of the loudest voices on here persistently slated me on both counts. As already said, it isn't a bad thing if mere survival in the third division is the summit of your ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Unfortunately, yes. At the moment we can afford exactly how much TTA are prepared to dole out to us. Are we? Since when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I asked a separate question. Yes-an irrelevent question about the type of stadium nobody is suggesting is built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Yes-but I was addrssing a poster who seemed to set great store by an anticipated increased gate revenue. Only a few weeks ago, when I pointed this out, it was another thing that I was slated for (don't get the impression that being slated bothers me, by the way). 'We are a financially stable club,' crowed the usual voices (can't recall if yours was among them.) 'We are better off than most other clubs at this level,' they would continue. Now we hear from Simon Corney that 'This club, as it stands, is dying.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Unfortunately, yes. At the moment we can afford exactly how much TTA are prepared to dole out to us. Sorry if I dont just accept your all knowing without a little proof... Dont take it personally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts