FAO TTA New stadium warning!

[Corporal_Jones]

It is a scaling down of plans, but it does not neccesarily follow a scaling down of ambition.

 

 

 

Yes it does, for reasons already explained too many times to remember.

 

[oafc0000]

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.'

 

true story

[leeslover]

Now we hear from Simon Corney that 'This club, as it stands, is dying.'

Isn't that much the same as you are saying? Corney is doing something about it, we are actually talking about very radical change going on in the club, but you are talking as if we are keeping everything just the same to improve our stagnation.

[BP1960]

Personally, I don't care what the stadium looks like, nor where it is as long as it's inside the borough

 

Let's hope though it's a stadium we can be proud of.

 

One thing Corp, would a new 16,000 capacity stadium be ok if it couldn't be extended ?

[Corporal_Jones]

Let's hope though it's a stadium we can be proud of.

 

One thing Corp, would a new 16,000 capacity stadium be ok if it couldn't be extended ?

 

 

 

 

I'd prefer a team we could be proud of. It could look like Belle Vue speedway as long as we were surviving in the top half of the Championship as far as I'm concerned.

 

Regarding your question, it depends on the scale of the club's ambitions, doesn't it? If other clubs in similar towns to Oldham can have much bigger stadiums.... (I await the usual justifications of the innate inferiority of Oldham and its sporting institutions.)

 

I hope people who talk of 'extending' the 12000 capacity aren't fooling themselves into believing that anybody will have in mind an 'extended' capacity of more than 16000.

[Corporal_Jones]

Isn't that much the same as you are saying? Corney is doing something about it, we are actually talking about very radical change going on in the club, but you are talking as if we are keeping everything just the same to improve our stagnation.

 

 

 

 

No I'm not. I'm in favour of a new stadium (despite, as I said, some misgivings about the idea of moving to a fairly Latics-hostile location), just not the drastically reduced capacity and downscaling of ambition that it represents.

[LeylandLatic]

I'd prefer a team we could be proud of. It could look like Belle Vue speedway as long as we were surviving in the top half of the Championship as far as I'm concerned.

 

Regarding your question, it depends on the scale of the club's ambitions, doesn't it? If other clubs in similar towns to Oldham can have much bigger stadiums.... (I await the usual justifications of the innate inferiority of Oldham and its sporting institutions.)

 

I hope people who talk of 'extending' the 12000 capacity aren't fooling themselves into believing that anybody will have in mind an 'extended' capacity of more than 16000.

 

Just answer his question, your answer reminds me somewhat of the famous Jeremy Paxman/Michael Howard interview.

 

Also, what are your views on the team DP has assembled thus far?

 

[singe]

Yes it does, for reasons already explained too many times to remember.

Not if you imagine it as taking one step back to take two forward.

ie, I think the TTA hope to get us on a financial even keel (in self financing terms) as we build a new stadium nad have no real significant debt.

 

I am assuming none with the new stadium as that is what is assumed though no one knows for certain at the moment. what will happen.

 

And as mentioned, not if everyone else is reducing their expenditure too.

[footy68]

Why does it have to be a 'downscaling of ambition'? Could it not be a 'wake up and smell the Coffee'?I don't fancy a repeat of 2003, do you?

[Corporal_Jones]

Not if you imagine it as taking one step back to take two forward.

ie, I think the TTA hope to get us on a financial even keel (in self financing terms) as we build a new stadium nad have no real significant debt.

 

I am assuming none with the new stadium as that is what is assumed though no one knows for certain at the moment. what will happen.

 

And as mentioned, not if everyone else is reducing their expenditure too.

 

 

 

I agree that they're trying to get us on a financially even keel. I don't think they're behind some kind of fiendish plot to do us down.

 

Unfortunately, I feel that the small stadium being proposed represents a revisig of original plans to advance the club in favour of making us a well-run lower division club.

 

There is no stepping back in order to advance in football. What you're saying is just a variation on the notion that you shouldn't be bothered about your club being relegated as it will give all concerned a chance to 'regroup.' Worked well for us, didn't it?

[footy68]

So we should, in your opinion Corp try to outspend Dirty Leeds et al to get out of this division so we can build a bigger ground?

[eddyblue]

Depending on your point of view

 

The redevelopment of BP was always a pipe dream on a scale last seen in the infamous Ken Bates “Europe in the 1970’s” days.

It has been accepted that the glory days are gone forever and League 1 is the natural level of OAFC as it has been since the 1930’s, aside from the Frizzell and Royle years. Therefore a capacity of 12000 is more than enough.

A deal has been struck whereby OMBC takes over BP again with a view to development/sale and meanwhile funds the construction of a modest stadium at Failsworth and agrees to reimburse TTA their losses.

OMBC eventually make a profit on the BP land so the ratepayers are appeased. TTA have kept their promise to leave OAFC in a better state than when they took over.

Secretly they breathe a sigh of relief as they head out of town.

or

The current recession means the BP plans would be on hold indefinitely, but TTA want to drive the new era forward.

A completely new stadium is now the top priority to enable planning for the championship to start sooner rather than later. They have lobbied OMBC who have now agreed to assist with funding the construction of a compact state of the art modern stadium on Council owned land in Failsworth.

TTA have really taken to the cheerful Latics fans and will, of course, ensure that the stadium design allows easy expansion to 16000 (or more)

The development of the surrounding land provides other income streams for OAFC to allow future self - sufficiency.

 

TTA saved Latics from oblivion but nobody can expect them to keep throwing their cash at Latics. I fear they are realising, like Ken Bates eventually did all those years ago, that the people of Oldham are, by and large, not interested in the football team. Even within the small numbers who still support the club, there is significant degree of cynical negativity.

A 12000 seater stadium at Failsworth could be as good as it gets.

 

It is all about keeping the dream alive for me, and has been since 1958 but on the face of it the Corporal is right about lack of ambition. He is also right about success on the field bringing in bigger crowds, but apart from promotion seasons and first season in higher divisions, the league attendance always drops back to 5000 or so - the long run in the old division 2 shows that.

 

I hope the dream is not dead.

 

 

 

 

[bpmarko]

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.)

 

But that just doesn't stack up. The budget you describe presumably is meant to be descriptive of our current position (some would argue it's a negative spin on it).

But this is also the budget given to a club hemorrhaging money.

Since you haven't argued it, I presume you accept that the stadium/commercial side could/should pull us into the black or thereabouts.

Are you arguing that once that happens, and we're not flushing money down the drain, we won't be looking at a push for (sustained) Championship football?

Or even attracting other investment into a club with a sound financial basis and facilities built ready for the future?

 

Do you not think that, if we hadn't been in such financially dire straits when TTA arrived, that they would have ploughed the money into getting us quickly into higher levels?

I like to hope that that is still on the board, and cannot see how this plan curtails it, by being financially sensible.

 

As for your point about big games, yes I too would love to see a stadium capable of hosting every conceivable match, but the sad reality is that even with only

three sides on BP we didn't even sell out against Leeds, and the big FA Cup games are just not frequent enough to justify the expense.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that our best bet is to stop leaking money, and to build something we can afford and to fill to a reasonable level, and improve the squad's chances of promotion. Then,

when we are looking at 8-10k in the Championship (and some would say that 8-10k is optimistic), we should look at maybe adding capacity.

 

So how is "look to the finances and football before a grandiose stadium" lacking in ambition?

 

[Corporal_Jones]

Why does it have to be a 'downscaling of ambition'? Could it not be a 'wake up and smell the Coffee'?I don't fancy a repeat of 2003, do you?

 

 

What is 'a wake up and smell the coffee' except an acceptance of the downscaling of ambition.

 

As the more far-sighted posters can see, until the current proposal came out of the blue, only weeks after we were reassured that the BP redevelopment was still on the cards, nobody was anticipating 'a repeat of 2003.' Where has this come from all of a sudden? Is it the same scare tactics BP80 suspects are being employed and repeated by the terminally naive?

 

[singe]

I agree that they're trying to get us on a financially even keel. I don't think they're behind some kind of fiendish plot to do us down.

 

Unfortunately, I feel that the small stadium being proposed represents a revisig of original plans to advance the club in favour of making us a well-run lower division club.

 

There is no stepping back in order to advance in football. What you're saying is just a variation on the notion that you shouldn't be bothered about your club being relegated as it will give all concerned a chance to 'regroup.' Worked well for us, didn't it?

What would be most interesting is the relative actual building costs (budgets) of both Stadiums.

Not that we are likely to find out and the there are so many variable changes: incuding location, and building costs to make that judgment..

I'd love to know though.

[footy68]

Not really, but last season our biggest attendance was against Leicester. At the time we were going well, but still couldn't fill 3 sides. When did we last sell over 12000? I personally would prefer stability first rather than pretending to have ambition. Why do I have to be a happy clapper or whatever you want to refer to me as? Do we do as Winkleman at Stadium MK and have a half finished ground just in case we go up? Very poor business sense if you ask me.

[beag_teeets]

Yes-an irrelevent question about the type of stadium nobody is suggesting is built.

 

 

That's not an answer, why can't you answer a straight question?

 

If it suits you then, is it a good idea to build a 16000 seater stadium if we are only going to fill that capacity, or get within 5000 of that capacity once a year?

 

Is it even worthwhile building a 12000 seater stadium if we only get within 5000 of the capacity once, maybe twice a year?

 

I ask because this is the current situation, our highest home attendance last season was against Leicester - 8,901 - over 3000 less than the proposed 12000.

 

The extra seats, the extra "ambition" seats have to be paid for and the upkeep of them have to be paid for, they might even add to the costs for policing/ stewarding, I don't know, this isn't my field.

 

I'd rather any money available goes to players on the pitch rather than superfluous seats to fulfil a notion of ambition. Huddersfield built a 3 sided ground and then developed it but last time I checked they were still in this division. Blackpool built a two sided ground, they are now in a division above and possibly starting to add to the ground, so who knows which is the right way to do it?

 

I'd rather our cloth, cloth that is actually OMBC and TTA's not ours, cut in a manner that doesn't bankrupt the club for years to come. We are not a big club, we are a small club that had a good spell and who may have another good spell again. Until then we need to work with what we have, not what we possibly, maybe, might get.

[oafc0000]

I do know one thing as a fact

 

This argument / discussion is going no where! Maybe we should take time out and wait for the next stage.

Edited July 27, 2009 by oafc0000

[Corporal_Jones]

But that just doesn't stack up. The budget you describe presumably is meant to be descriptive of our current position (some would argue it's a negative spin on it).

But this is also the budget given to a club hemorrhaging money.

Since you haven't argued it, I presume you accept that the stadium/commercial side could/should pull us into the black or thereabouts.

Are you arguing that once that happens, and we're not flushing money down the drain, we won't be looking at a push for (sustained) Championship football?

Or even attracting other investment into a club with a sound financial basis and facilities built ready for the future?

 

Do you not think that, if we hadn't been in such financially dire straits when TTA arrived, that they would have ploughed the money into getting us quickly into higher levels?

I like to hope that that is still on the board, and cannot see how this plan curtails it, by being financially sensible.

 

As for your point about big games, yes I too would love to see a stadium capable of hosting every conceivable match, but the sad reality is that even with only

three sides on BP we didn't even sell out against Leeds, and the big FA Cup games are just not frequent enough to justify the expense.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that our best bet is to stop leaking money, and to build something we can afford and to fill to a reasonable level, and improve the squad's chances of promotion. Then,

when we are looking at 8-10k in the Championship (and some would say that 8-10k is optimistic), we should look at maybe adding capacity.

 

So how is "look to the finances and football before a grandiose stadium" lacking in ambition?

 

 

 

 

It wasn't meant to 'stack up.' As I've already said, it was a prediction based on what I believe the proposal of such a small stadium represents.

 

You can hope all you like about plans to advance the club still 'being on the board', but if they were, I suggest that we would still be be talking about building a stadium that would seem to have long-term football at a higher level in mind. Yes, that would involve serious financing, but instead of seeking this out somehow, coming up with the idea of a little stadium only represents making the club viable for competing at the lower end of the football league. Those who think that a little stadium will be built and will materialise into a bigger stadium due to sudden success on the pitch within a faily short time are dreaming. Once we become housed in a neat new little stadium, that is where we'll stay.

 

Don't understand your last sentence. Who's been talking about 'a grandiose stadium?' When did a 16000 seat redeveloped BP become a grandiose idea? Anybody would think people have been demanding the San Siro in Oldham.

[Lookers_Carl]

I'd prefer a team we could be proud of. It could look like Belle Vue speedway as long as we were surviving in the top half of the Championship as far as I'm concerned.

 

Regarding your question, it depends on the scale of the club's ambitions, doesn't it? If other clubs in similar towns to Oldham can have much bigger stadiums.... (I await the usual justifications of the innate inferiority of Oldham and its sporting institutions.)

 

I hope people who talk of 'extending' the 12000 capacity aren't fooling themselves into believing that anybody will have in mind an 'extended' capacity of more than 16000.

 

But regardless of whether you think any future expansion will or wont happen, designing the stadium so that it can be expanded if needed removes future obstacles if we go onto bigger and better things.

 

Envisage the scenario of a change of ownership within the club (as Simon Corney said himself, they wont be doing this forever, so it will happen).

 

If the capacity of this new stadium would be limited to 12k, and we go onto bigger and better things, and a time comes where we need more seats, then we are stuck big time.

 

If the stadium was built with a current capacity of 12k with room for future expansion if needed, we go onto bigger and better things, more seats are needed, and the infastructure of the stadium allows for expansion, then this is not as much of a problem.

 

Would fully agree with every word the corp is saying if the capacity was limited to 12k with no future expansion possible. And am not implying for a minute that this is not a downscale from the original plans, as it clearly is, (not just the issue regarding capacity either, but were the original plans over ambitious?), and I think people are well within their rights to ask questions and voice their concerns instead of just happy clapping every piece of info like a baby seal, as this is arguably the biggest move in the history of Oldham Athletic.

 

I just think designing the stadium with a capacity of 12k but with room for expansion if needed reflects more sensibly on our current needs, whilst allowing room to grow in the future if needed, and does not reflect the downscaling of ambition to the same extent that the corp believes it does.

 

And regarding any potential capacity, I suppose alot would depend on the structure of the stadium and planning permission, but I think 16k probably isnt far off the mark.

 

[Corporal_Jones]

That's not an answer, why can't you answer a straight question?

 

If it suits you then, is it a good idea to build a 16000 seater stadium if we are only going to fill that capacity, or get within 5000 of that capacity once a year?

 

Is it even worthwhile building a 12000 seater stadium if we only get within 5000 of the capacity once, maybe twice a year?

 

I ask because this is the current situation, our highest home attendance last season was against Leicester - 8,901 - over 3000 less than the proposed 12000.

 

The extra seats, the extra "ambition" seats have to be paid for and the upkeep of them have to be paid for, they might even add to the costs for policing/ stewarding, I don't know, this isn't my field.

 

I'd rather any money available goes to players on the pitch rather than superfluous seats to fulfil a notion of ambition. Huddersfield built a 3 sided ground and then developed it but last time I checked they were still in this division. Blackpool built a two sided ground, they are now in a division above and possibly starting to add to the ground, so who knows which is the right way to do it?

 

I'd rather our cloth, cloth that is actually OMBC and TTA's not ours, cut in a manner that doesn't bankrupt the club for years to come. We are not a big club, we are a small club that had a good spell and who may have another good spell again. Until then we need to work with what we have, not what we possibly, maybe, might get.

 

 

 

 

This has been answered at least ten times over the past few days. Nobody except perhaps the top half dozen clubs in the country builds a stadium whose capacity is based on their average attendance at the time the stadium was proposed. Ground capacities have always built far in excess of what most clubs could reasonably expect to attract on a regular basis. Even ManUre until fairly recently only filled their ground on occasion.

 

Blackpool, meanwhile, didn't set out to build a ridiculous two-sided ground. They started it then ran out of money. And rather than emulating those who built stadiums with big ambitions in mind and failed to advance, I've advocated learning from the examples of those who did. And actually, Huddersfield were on the up when they built their current ground. Some clubs did this, advanced and then slipped back but usually continue to reap the benefit of the increased gates that the combination of a new ground and advancement of the club resulted in. I don't know if that's the case with Huddersfield, but it certainly is with the likes of Derby, Leicester, and even Southampton, as we will see. When Bolton were still a yo-yo club, their gates never slipped back to the Burnden Park level when they went down again.

 

Everybody knows we are a small club. Over the past fifteen years we have got smaller and smaller. So much so that, depsite having little serious trouble surviving at the level above for a quarter of a century, it is questionable if we'll ever reach those dizzy heights again. Where our natural local rivals throughout the 1970s, '80s and most of the 1990s were Blackburn, Preston, Burnley, Bolton etc etc they are now Stockport, Rochdale, Bury and Macclesfield. The move into a little 12000-seat stadium (little bigger than Bury's or Rochdale's despite their being amongst the worst supported clubs in the country), only cements this status. Which, as I said, is only what a certain type of Latics fan wants.

 

Also, what are your views on the team DP has assembled thus far?

 

 

 

Pre-season friendlies suggest that it's pretty crap. Judging by some of DPs post-match comments, he would seem to agree.

 

But these are admittedly only pre-season friendlies.

 

Depending on your point of view

 

The redevelopment of BP was always a pipe dream on a scale last seen in the infamous Ken Bates “Europe in the 1970’s” days.

It has been accepted that the glory days are gone forever and League 1 is the natural level of OAFC as it has been since the 1930’s, aside from the Frizzell and Royle years. Therefore a capacity of 12000 is more than enough.

A deal has been struck whereby OMBC takes over BP again with a view to development/sale and meanwhile funds the construction of a modest stadium at Failsworth and agrees to reimburse TTA their losses.

OMBC eventually make a profit on the BP land so the ratepayers are appeased. TTA have kept their promise to leave OAFC in a better state than when they took over.

Secretly they breathe a sigh of relief as they head out of town.

or

The current recession means the BP plans would be on hold indefinitely, but TTA want to drive the new era forward.

 

 

 

 

What's this new era then? Can you have a new era of standing still (in terms of league position)?

 

It's irrelevant that the club has spent most of its history in the third-tier, particularly when you consider that much of its more recent history was considerably better than that.

 

You either want to be better than you are or you don't. What you want determines how you act.

 

TTA promised to advance the club, actually.

[LeylandLatic]

Pre-season friendlies suggest that it's pretty crap. Judging by some of DPs post-match comments, he would seem to agree.

 

But these are admittedly only pre-season friendlies.

 

Fair enough, I would say the team is better than it was last season though (on paper) so we shall see what DP can get out of them, definitely short at the back though.

 

Now, how about answering that question......

 

'Did you threaten to overrule him'

[Corporal_Jones]

But regardless of whether you think any future expansion will or wont happen, designing the stadium so that it can be expanded if needed removes future obstacles if we go onto bigger and better things.

 

Envisage the scenario of a change of ownership within the club (as Simon Corney said himself, they wont be doing this forever, so it will happen).

 

If the capacity of this new stadium would be limited to 12k, and we go onto bigger and better things, and a time comes where we need more seats, then we are stuck big time.

 

If the stadium was built with a current capacity of 12k with room for future expansion if needed, we go onto bigger and better things, more seats are needed, and the infastructure of the stadium allows for expansion, then this is not as much of a problem.

 

Would fully agree with every word the corp is saying if the capacity was limited to 12k with no future expansion possible. And am not implying for a minute that this is not a downscale from the original plans, as it clearly is, (not just the issue regarding capacity either, but were the original plans over ambitious?), and I think people are well within their rights to ask questions and voice their concerns instead of just happy clapping every piece of info like a baby seal, as this is arguably the biggest move in the history of Oldham Athletic.

 

I just think designing the stadium with a capacity of 12k but with room for expansion if needed reflects more sensibly on our current needs, whilst allowing room to grow in the future if needed, and does not reflect the downscaling of ambition to the same extent that the corp believes it does.

 

And regarding any potential capacity, I suppose alot would depend on the structure of the stadium and planning permission, but I think 16k probably isnt far off the mark.

 

 

 

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. There is a reason why the capacity will be similar to that of Bury or Rochdale-two of the worst supported clubs in the country. Or to that of Shrewsbury or Colchester...

 

Now, how about answering that question......

 

'Did you threaten to overrule him'

 

 

 

What are you babbling about?

 

It is all about keeping the dream alive for me, and has been since 1958 but on the face of it the Corporal is right about lack of ambition. He is also right about success on the field bringing in bigger crowds, but apart from promotion seasons and first season in higher divisions, the league attendance always drops back to 5000 or so - the long run in the old division 2 shows that.

 

 

 

Much of the long period in the old Second Division took place at a time when attendances overall were significantly lower than at present, however.

[LeylandLatic]

What are you babbling about?

 

 

I asked if you could answer BP1960's question properly rather than blatently sidestepping it. Not had your afternoon nap today or something, do keep up.

[Lookers_Carl]

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. There is a reason why the capacity will be similar to that of Bury or Rochdale-two of the worst supported clubs in the country. Or to that of Shrewsbury or Colchester...

 

then why design a stadium with view to allow the capacity to increase if needed if it is indeed irrelevant?