The big stadium capacity question.

[jimsleftfoot]

If we get into the championship, it is likely we will get about 7000 - 8000 home fans and 4000 odd away fans. Which is funnily enough around 11,000 - 12000. The stadium will be full for most games, we will probably be self sustaining and in a good position. What's so bad about that.

 

Yes, pride may take a knock but based on risk, I cannot see many reasons why we should build a 16,000 ground. I'd much rather they spent any extra money on making the stadium into a decent landmark with good facilities and heated seats

Edited July 29, 2009 by jimsleftfoot

[BlueJazzer]

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.

 

Well i know i kinda exagerated that point a little......

But still whats 5 more rows per stand between friends!

 

[thelaticsfan]

If we get into the championship, it is likely we will get about 7000 - 8000 home fans and 4000 odd away fans. Which is funnily enough around 11,000 - 12000. The stadium will be full for most games, we will probably be self sustaining and in a good position. What's so bad about that.

 

Yes, pride may take a knock but based on risk, I cannot see many reasons why we should build a 16,000 ground. I'd much rather they spent any extra money on making the stadium into a decent landmark with good facilities and heated seats

 

We wish

[creepy]

YES and NO

 

typical Oldham still

[GlossopLatic]

I voted 12000 and 12000 to expand but it really depends on how much extra it costs to put the extra 4000 seats in from the start. If TTA turn round and say we are going to throw out the idea of 12000 and go with 16000 I can't say I will be disappointed mind.

[bpmarko]

A good side question might be;

 

Given the choice between a

 

A - A 16,000 seat stadium complete shiny and beautifully presented but not expandable (in the way that the Reebok is not expandable)

 

or

 

B - A similarly equipped 12,000 seat stadium, maybe looking a bit more boxy but fairly easily expandable to 20,000 seats.

 

what would you go for?

 

 

[thelaticsfan]

A good side question might be;

 

Given the choice between a

 

A - A 16,000 seat stadium complete shiny and beautifully presented but not expandable (in the way that the Reebok is not expandable)

 

or

 

B - A similarly equipped 12,000 seat stadium, maybe looking a bit more boxy but fairly easily expandable to 20,000 seats.

 

what would you go for?

 

B all the way

[Rick]

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

 

Nothing to do with Councillor Stephen Bashforth then?

[singe]

I Voted Yes, Yes...

 

The questions aren't worded great though...

Let me know how you think it should be worded, I am happy to change if need be.

It' obviously a very important subject, and I'd hope the poll could accurately reflect the views of everyone.

[bpmarko]

Let me know how you think it should be worded, I am happy to change if need be.

It' obviously a very important subject, and I'd hope the poll could accurately reflect the views of everyone.

 

Any chance/you think it worth it adding my side question?

[thelaticsfan]

Nothing to do with Councillor Stephen Bashforth then?

 

could be rick, but I think they probably had a choice

Edited July 29, 2009 by thelaticsfan

[singe]

Any chance/you think it worth it adding my side question?

I think it a good question and has got me thinking.

But at the moment I think it is covered by my question.

I think your question will become very pertinent once the plans are revealed.

 

The questions stem form Corp comments about 16k being big enough, and some fans saying the majority agree, and a message to the TTA that if you make it flexible expandable the vast majority willl support.

 

My other poll susggest 90% are happy to move toFailsworth, so it all links in.

 

See how it goes.

[oafc0000]

A good side question might be;

 

Given the choice between a

 

A - A 16,000 seat stadium complete shiny and beautifully presented but not expandable (in the way that the Reebok is not expandable)

 

or

 

B - A similarly equipped 12,000 seat stadium, maybe looking a bit more boxy but fairly easily expandable to 20,000 seats.

 

what would you go for?

 

 

B

[bpmarko]

I think it a good question and has got me thinking.

But at the moment I think it is covered by my question.

I think your question will become very pertinent once the plans are revealed.

 

The questions stem form Corp comments about 16k being big enough, and some fans saying the majority agree, and a message to the TTA that if you make it flexible expandable the vast majority willl support.

 

My other poll susggest 90% are happy to move toFailsworth, so it all links in.

 

See how it goes.

 

Fair do and thanks for the consideration.

 

If anyone wants to answer it, it's still there on the board!

[oafc0000]

Let me know how you think it should be worded, I am happy to change if need be.

It' obviously a very important subject, and I'd hope the poll could accurately reflect the views of everyone.

 

Question 1 should be a simple yes or no...

 

I think it is a downscaling of ambition. But by answer yes to question two its not what I would consider "minimum".

Edited July 29, 2009 by oafc0000

[Corporal_Jones]

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

 

 

 

 

Local shops do not expand into corporate giants anymore. The corporate giants have, for a long time, been putting the local shops out of business.

 

It seems that the future of Oldham Athleic is to be, at best, a corner shop, with neat, shiny, manageable premises, but very little of note on sale and hence few customers.

[singe]

Question 1 should be a simple yes or no...

 

I think it is a downscaling of ambition. But by answer yes to question two its not what I would consider "minimum".

I put a brief description to ensure no one accidentally mis read the question and hit yes when they meant no.

I have added the bit about 16,000 incorportating the fact we should not downscale.

 

Not sure I follow you for question 2, though.

 

[footy68]

.....like a moth to a shining light.

[singe]

Local shops do not expand into corporate giants anymore. The corporate giants have, for a long time, been putting the local shops out of business.

 

It seems that the future of Oldham Athleic is to be, at best, a corner shop, with neat, shiny, manageable premises, but very little of note on sale and hence few customers.

You could argue that the little of note on sale (ie on the pitch) is what got us into this mess.

 

It is an interesting conundrum, do we concentrate on getting out of this league by investing in the ptich and build later, or do we get the infrastructure right to aim to be break even then look at the stadium.

Whole new thread I suppose.

[Corporal_Jones]

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.

 

 

 

 

It's downscaling from the BP redevelopment plan, not the pre-Looker's demolition BP. Thereofre it's a loss of 4000 seats or 25% of capacity.

 

It means that the club never expects to regularly play against big clubs again.

[thelaticsfan]

It's downscaling from the BP redevelopment plan, not the pre-Looker's demolition BP. Thereofre it's a loss of 4000 seats or 25% of capacity.

 

It means that the club never expects to regularly play against big clubs again.

 

it was downscaling on the original plan because of costs, and the change in the economic climate,

 

and it means the club doesnt expect to play big clubs in the very near future, but the fact it can be expanded shows me they do think they will one day

 

by the way good mornin corp!

[Corporal_Jones]

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

 

 

 

There are lots of small grounds with better facilities than those of BP. Most of them belong to clubs below us and historically smaller than us.

 

[footy68]

But Corp, it was only a plan. A plan which quite probably would have resulted in no expansion being possible.

[LeylandLatic]

It's downscaling from the BP redevelopment plan, not the pre-Looker's demolition BP. Thereofre it's a loss of 4000 seats or 25% of capacity.

 

It means that the club never expects to regularly play against big clubs again.

 

 

and so it begins........

 

 

[leeslover]

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.

Not to forget how many at BP were either up the back of the Chaddy where you see more roof than pitch, behind pillars, or open to the elements and therefore not used by all but the terminally broke, hard or stupid for 10 out of 12 months, and all of a sudden a well designed 12,000 seater is as much practically use as some current grounds that are a fair bit bigger.