The big stadium capacity question.

[singe]

Corporal Jones has argued strongly that building a 12,000 capacity stadium is a downscaling of ambition and we should make a statement of intent to our rvials and build a 16,000 capacity at least.

Is he right, or do you believe that the current economic climate and the amount of funds the TTA are willing to invest means that a 12,000 seater is right.

 

Some posters are arguing that there is a silent majority that agree we are wrong to downscale our plans. I want to see if they are right.

 

Some that have argued downscaling is OK as long as we build an expandable stadium, so that is the 2nd option in case you sit in either camp.

 

Slightly modified, as my question did not come out right. Only 1 vote before I amended it though.

Edited July 29, 2009 by singe

[thelaticsfan]

Good poll singe, would ne interesting to see what everyone thinks,

 

as i said earlier, i believe people are still living the belief that we are bigger than we actually are,

IMO our ambition should be to make ourselves profitable, you dont get local shops expanding straight into corporate giants, you need a gradual build,

 

any plans to redevelop is a risk, we need to take this risk if we want to survive, but, we cant take too big of a risk or if things go wrong we could end up with a huge problem on our hands

 

which is why I believe the 12000 seater is a good idea, it is an improvement to what we have now, and it is not massive,

 

if things go wrong with a 12000 seater we will face major problems but we would have a good chance of bailing ourselves out,

if things go wrong with a 16000 seater the problems will be a lot more severe, and it would be very touch and go if we survived from it or not

 

of course this is my personal opinion and im open to hear other peoples perspectives which could well change my viewpoint

[BlueJazzer]

if things go wrong with a 12000 seater we will face major problems but we would have a good chance of bailing ourselves out,

if things go wrong with a 16000 seater the problems will be a lot more severe, and it would be very touch and go if we survived from it or not

 

I cant see how that would be? Its 4000 more seats. Across 4 stands its a couple of rows in each. If you were saying 12000 as opposed to 24000 i'd see your point.

[singe]

I cant see how that would be? Its 4000 more seats. Across 4 stands its a couple of rows in each. If you were saying 12000 as opposed to 24000 i'd see your point.

I do see where you are coming from, but it is certainly more than a couple of rows each.

It's the equivalent of a whole stand.

[Stitch_KTF]

Are we set to be the first club ever to move to a new smaller stadium? The officially cited comparable examples of Colchester and Shrewsbury both moved into bigger grounds, good for them.

 

Whether we are or not, if that doesn't represent a downscaling of ambition then I don't know what does. We aren't a big club, but we aren't minnows either.

 

16,000 for me, largely because I suspect we/TTA can afford it, rendering the otherwise strong argument of "Let's invest in the playing squad and spend money increasing capacity after we have earned it" obsolete.

[OldhamSheridan]

Are we set to be the first club ever to move to a new smaller stadium? The officially cited comparable examples of Colchester and Shrewsbury both moved into bigger grounds, good for them.

 

Whether we are or not, if that doesn't represent a downscaling of ambition then I don't know what does. We aren't a big club, but we aren't minnows either.

 

16,000 for me, largely because I suspect we/TTA can afford it, rendering the otherwise strong argument of "Let's invest in the playing squad and spend money increasing capacity after we have earned it" obsolete.

 

It's a bigger stadium since we mullered one of the stands.

[Stitch_KTF]

It's a bigger stadium since we mullered one of the stands.

 

I think you understand the relevance of that.

[footy68]

The downscaling talked about is around 1000. We would never be able (with the Lookers still up) be able to fill our stated capacity due to Policing/H&S advice, you know, segregation. Yes we would be downscaling but by a negligible amount.

Edited July 29, 2009 by footy68

[ste1987]

I think at present, 12,000 is MORE than adequate for our needs, but in the future if we succeeded, I'd like to see there was potential for this to increase.

[Rick]

I have already had fans of other clubs poking fun at Latics for their lack of ambition and desire to move from a site of prime real-estate to the suburbs of Manchester.

 

16000 for me - and I still don't understand why a move to FAILsworth would be beneficial above redeveloping the Boundary Park Site (not necessarily the existing ground, but the site itself)

 

[Ian Marshalls Hairdresser]

The downscaling talked about is around 1000. We would never be able (with the Lookers still up) be able to fill our stated capacity due to Policing/H&S advice, you know, segregation. Yes we would be downscaling but by a negligible amount.

 

When was the last time any of us saw B.P .......? Im guessing when we had a big cup game? (Spurs) or Grimsby cus it was FREE!!!!

Even against Leeds last season there was lots and lots of spare seats!

12,000 is enough for now!

[oafckev]

I personally think that 12,000 is OK but I would much prefer a 14-15000 seater stadium to start with and then have distant plans to upgrade is necessary. If I had to choose I'd go for the 16,000 up front as it guarenteed there for the future and we could accomodate fans for not only big games for us but for games such as England U21's.

 

Not everyone is going to be happy at the end of this but if we iron out some creases now it may make the journey a little smoother.

[Zorrro]

I voted 'Yes' then 'No'. It's a bit of a kick in the teeth, really.

[thelaticsfan]

I have already had fans of other clubs poking fun at Latics for their lack of ambition and desire to move from a site of prime real-estate to the suburbs of Manchester.

 

16000 for me - and I still don't understand why a move to FAILsworth would be beneficial above redeveloping the Boundary Park Site (not necessarily the existing ground, but the site itself)

 

I think the problem with BP is it takes a lot more work there to get the place ready to be developed which i think part of that 80 mil was going towards,

and i think were moving to failsworth because they may be the best of the options possible (there have been a few sites suggested but maybe they were too pricey or werent available)

 

I also dont think its downscaling ambition just because it has less seats, I think its more of an improved ground, with more features to the stadium,

 

I think we have to recognise that stadiums arent just rated on capacity but also features and facilities available to the fans,

 

and for whoever it was who said 4000 is just adding some rows, its a bit more than that, you will have to build bigger sides, aswell as extra facilities for another 4000 people, added on top the maintenance costs, it all adds up

[Guest]

We keep being told that the manager has a competitive budget; therefore we should only be one good season away from playing teams who can bring 4500-6000 fans here. With the increase of home fans that a promotion would bring I think that there maybe 5-10 games where we can't meet the demands of the public. 12000 is a little bit short sighted for me unless the board are not so serious about getting us promoted....

[davebuckley06]

i dont think the capacity is a reflection of our ambition i think its a reflection on the stay away fans. if you want 16000 why not 60000? we wouldn't fill that either. the capacity reflects the mindset of the people of oldham. most people dont want to go watch latics they would rather sit at home in united/city shirts watch soccer saturday an just keep an eye out for how latics do. ye we will probably get a few more fans in when we get the new ground but not a massive amount extra. an then if we go up we still wouldn't get 16000 in the only time we would get 16000 for a league game would be if were going for promotion to the prem or the play offs in the championship an even then do you think 16000 would turn up when we have a small game like plymouth.

 

i am happy with the 12000 capacity because even that is ambitious. get the club self sufficient and looking after its self and then if the need ever arises then upgrade the stadium to a higher capacity

[oafc0000]

I Voted Yes, Yes...

 

The questions aren't worded great though...

Edited July 29, 2009 by oafc0000

[Lookers_Carl]

I think the problem with BP is it takes a lot more work there to get the place ready to be developed which i think part of that 80 mil was going towards,

and i think were moving to failsworth because they may be the best of the options possible (there have been a few sites suggested but maybe they were too pricey or werent available)

 

I also dont think its downscaling ambition just because it has less seats, I think its more of an improved ground, with more features to the stadium,

 

I think we have to recognise that stadiums arent just rated on capacity but also features and facilities available to the fans,

 

and for whoever it was who said 4000 is just adding some rows, its a bit more than that, you will have to build bigger sides, aswell as extra facilities for another 4000 people, added on top the maintenance costs, it all adds up

 

And in this case, the features of it that will bring in revenue 24/7 and make the club self sufficient

[thelaticsfan]

May i also add i think we are still in the early stages and missing a lot of vital info on the new stadium,

 

at the moment were all building our opinions on what we think is happening or what we expect to happen.

 

I think opinions are always going to be mixed until we here more facts, see more designs and begin development of the new ground

[oafc0000]

May i also add i think we are still in the early stages and missing a lot of vital info on the new stadium,

 

at the moment were all building our opinions on what we think is happening or what we expect to happen.

 

I think opinions are always going to be mixed until we here more facts, see more designs and begin development of the new ground

 

I have been telling you that from the begging while you kept claiming this grantees are future and TTA should be carried upon our shoulders

[thelaticsfan]

I have been telling you that from the begging while you kept claiming this grantees are future and TTA should be carried upon our shoulders

haha i dont remember the last part,

 

im just thinking maybe we need a bit more info but spot on oafc0000 you have been saying that

[oafc0000]

haha i dont remember the last part,

 

im just thinking maybe we need a bit more info but spot on oafc0000 you have been saying that

 

You have to add an extra 10%, it keeps things interesting

[tangerinedreams]

I wouldn't say a 12000 seater stadium was downscaling our ambitions more facing reality, so I have voted no + yes.

[BP1960]

How about in between; a 14,000 expandable stadium ?

[thelaticsfan]

You have to add an extra 10%, it keeps things interesting

 

aye it does, I think now we really need to see things such as:

 

Designs - look of stadium, inside and out.

 

Facilities and features - what will they add for the fans eg. better toilets? better bar areas? (poss indoor bars like citys ground)

 

Dates (depending on council backing) - when will we see development, when will external facilities be ready

 

assurances - what security do we have incase everything goes bad? is there a plan B?

 

I think once this info is in, the fans can make more of an informed decision and more solidarity between fans,

 

we might get excited (not holding my breath)

 

hell, the corp might even approve (again goes without saying)