The big stadium capacity question.

[singe]

These 'expansion plans'. What do they entail?

 

(I know it's hypothetical, but humour me.)

Who knows.

It is for the poll, to see if there were concrete design plans that showed it has been designed to be expandable then fans would be happy about it.

It is a comment that frequently came up in the discussion.

[footy68]

People do grasp the economics of it, but are unwilling to settle for the fob off of a little lower division stadium and a future as a little lower division club. It's up to those who own the club to find the means to keep the club competitive.

 

As far how large or small the majority for this or that is, all you need to remember is that being in a majority doesn't necessarily (or even usually) make you correct about something.

 

A 12000 seater stadium doesn't mean you are forever destined for lower league football. Personally I think it makes sense not to overstretch at what appears a critical time.

Edited July 30, 2009 by footy68

[Corporal_Jones]

These 'expansion plans'. What do they entail?

 

(I know it's hypothetical, but humour me.)

 

 

 

I'm not sure than 'expansion plans' have been mentioned by anybody except some of those who post on here.

 

They're irrelevant anyway, as they won't be needed for a permanently lower division club. Think about it-the club is talking of building a ground that's smaller than we've managed to more or less fill (or at least fill with more than 12000 people) on several occasions even in the dark times of the past fifteen years.

[singe]

People do grasp the economics of it, but are unwilling to settle for the fob off of a little lower division stadium and a future as a little lower division club. It's up to those who own the club to find the means to keep the club competitive.

 

As far how large or small the majority for this or that is, all you need to remember is that being in a majority doesn't necessarily (or even usually) make you correct about something.

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there, that is a load of bollocks.

 

Other than that, of course I accept that being in the majority is not equal making me right. I enver said it did.

And it actually was not me that used the term silent majority, which is what I was referring to

[Corporal_Jones]

A 12000 seater stadium doesn't mean you are forever destined for lower league football. Personally I think it makes sense not to overstretch at what appears a critical time.

 

 

 

It doesn't mean that necessarily, no. But, as I keep having to remind people, nearly all clubs with stadiums as small as the one being proposed are concentrated at the bottom end of the Football League. This should tell you something.

 

It's clear that the club, with this proposal is determined not to 'overstretch.' That's because what they have in mind is a well-run lower division club, as the model for the future.

[Corporal_Jones]

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there, that is a load of bollocks.

 

Other than that, of course I accept that being in the majority is not equal making me right. I enver said it did.

And it actually was not me that used the term silent majority, which is what I was referring to

 

 

 

As if there are not generalisations being made by those who favour a small, lower division stadium.

 

 

 

[singe]

As if there are not generalisations being made by those who favour a small, lower division stadium.

Not on the scale of: if you are in the majority opinion, you re usually incorrect, no.

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

I said as much the day this was revealed - Harry Dowd laughed at me and that was pretty much that.

To me it clearly doesn't stack up but then we're going to have to wait for the plans before really trying to suss it out.

 

At the end of the day I think it will prove that the BP land will have paid for a decade's losses, however we will be in a much better situation than when TTA arrived (albeit not a very exciting one). Disapointing but fair enough....?

 

Could Micah Richards leave City any time soon? £1.5M for a couple of thousand seats wouldn't go amiss.

 

Stitch, that it not correct. At the time, you replied to a post of mine that said

 

"To take the proposed new stadium from a 12,000 seat arena to a 20,000 seat arena, will cost around an extra £8 million. Where will that £8 million pounds come from?"

 

Your reply was

 

"The surplus left over from the sale of the BP site....?"

 

 

To which I replied

 

" laught16.gif laught16.gif laught16.gif

 

What surplus Stitch? There won't be enough to fund the full £20 million.

 

Try working the figures out, not forgetting how much the owners have put in since 2003."

 

So yes I was laughing, but it was in relation to the fact that you were proposing that the finance for for additional capacity would come from a surplus after having sold BP.

 

My view on all this has been clear from day 1. I believe that we need to show some patience and see what ultimate proposal is before coming to any final conclusions. For clarity here is what I posted.

 

 

"Whilst I can understand some of peoples concerns I don't quite see the reason for negativity at this stage.

 

This is the 1st public announcement of the proposed project.

 

Comments in the statement such as: -

"Subject to Cabinet approval, Oldham Athletic will next commission architects to work up more comprehensive plans"

"Talks are also still ongoing with the Pennine Acute Trust"

"The recent confirmation that Metrolink is coming to the borough also makes this proposition highly attractive"

"There will obviously be plenty of talking to be done with local residents and affected groups - some of which is already underway"

Simon Corney added: "Much work remains to be done on the detail of these plans"

"We feel very upbeat and positive having made more progress in the past six weeks or so than we previously did in as many years"

"This new vision gives us an opportunity to provide a facility that will create new revenue streams to make the club financially viable and self-sustaining, whilst also giving supporters a superior matchday experience."

 

I have highlighted certain parts of the extracts above for those who may not have read or interpreted the joint statement correctly. Much is still to come out over the coming months in the detail, but it is quite clear form the statement that the plans will include for other income streams to be generated from the new stadium, (as were proposed for a re-developed bp) to enable us to become self sufficient. IT IS IMPORTANT THEREFORE THAT WE SHOW A LITTLE MORE PATIENCE, AND WAIT TO SEE THE FULL DETAILS AS THEY EMERGE ONCE THE PLANS HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP, before going off half cocked on a message baord.

 

Clearly there is much still to be done. The plans for the stadium need to be drawn up to start with and I understand that they will include for allowing for an expansion to 20,000 if required at some point in the future, unlike the redeveloped BP plans which would have been exceptionally hard to expand to 20K after the surrounding land was re-developed.

 

1 point worth noting on the capacity is this. New stadiums construction costs are generally costed on £'s per seat and vary from around £1000 to £1500 depending on facilities to be included. So to build the stadium at an extra 8,000 seats at the cheap end of the scale, would add £8 million to the costs. The extra income from filling those 8,000 seats per match (averaged net of vat and allowing for pensioners/concessions etc) = £104,000 per match, meaning that it would take a minimum of 72 sold out matches at 20,000 attendances just to pay off the cost and that doesn't include for any interest costs in the meantime. In effect that would be the 1st 4 years in the premiership having to all be sold out just to pay the cost of the extra 8,000 seats that we don't need at this moment in time. If we do ever reach the premiership again (Don't all be negative - who would have thought when JR was appointed in 1982 that we would get promoted) then the £8 million cost will pale into insignificance compared to the extra £40 million we will then recieve from extra TV money. As long as we have planning permission in place for the expansion, then properly planned construction works can carry on during the season without affecting capacity.

 

Now is the time to get behind a scheme which (apart form the 6 months before BP finally recieved planning in December 2007) for the 1st time looks like something that is deliverable, and critically, the Council appear to be fully onside with.

 

KEEP THE FAITH WITH THIS ONE.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Harry

Edited July 30, 2009 by Harry Dowds Green Shirt

[Zorrro]

Who knows.

It is for the poll, to see if there were concrete design plans that showed it has been designed to be expandable then fans would be happy about it.

It is a comment that frequently came up in the discussion.

 

I ask because it could swing votes. If it was 'If the stadium was built for 12,000 but clearly included expansion plans to at least 16,000 by 2013, would you be happy.' then, personally, I'd probably have gone for that option, and I suspect others would too.

[Corporal_Jones]

Not on the scale of: if you are in the majority opinion, you re usually incorrect, no.

 

 

 

Okay. I'll change it to this: (or even usually?)

 

My view on all this has been clear from day 1. I believe that we need to show some patience and see what ultimate proposal is before coming to any final conclusions.

 

 

 

What most people have been debating is not the pros and cons of the latest stadium proposal as a whole, but the proposed ground capacity. The club has already issued a statement saying that it's to be 12000.

 

I have highlighted certain parts of the extracts above for those who may not have read or interpreted the joint statement correctly. Much is still to come out over the coming months in the detail, but it is quite clear form the statement that the plans will include for other income streams to be generated from the new stadium, (as were proposed for a re-developed bp) to enable us to become self sufficient. IT IS IMPORTANT THEREFORE THAT WE SHOW A LITTLE MORE PATIENCE, AND WAIT TO SEE THE FULL DETAILS AS THEY EMERGE ONCE THE PLANS HAVE BEEN DRAWN UP, before going off half cocked on a message baord.

 

 

 

Why do you so often take the approach that discussion should be curtailed on a message board set up for...discussion?

 

It might be all speculation, but that is utterly irrelevant under the circumstances. If the club doesn't want certain things discussed then it shouldn't issue statements. I suspect that the club isn't that bothered about what gets discussed on here though-just you and certain others.

 

Clearly there is much still to be done. The plans for the stadium need to be drawn up to start with and I understand that they will include for allowing for an expansion to 20,000 if required at some point in the future, unlike the redeveloped BP plans which would have been exceptionally hard to expand to 20K after the surrounding land was re-developed.

 

 

 

Understand from whom?

 

What is meant by 'at some point in the future?'

 

1 point worth noting on the capacity is this. New stadiums construction costs are generally costed on £'s per seat and vary from around £1000 to £1500 depending on facilities to be included. So to build the stadium at an extra 8,000 seats at the cheap end of the scale, would add £8 million to the costs. The extra income from filling those 8,000 seats per match (averaged net of vat and allowing for pensioners/concessions etc) = £104,000 per match, meaning that it would take a minimum of 72 sold out matches at 20,000 attendances just to pay off the cost and that doesn't include for any interest costs in the meantime. In effect that would be the 1st 4 years in the premiership having to all be sold out just to pay the cost of the extra 8,000 seats that we don't need at this moment in time. If we do ever reach the premiership again (Don't all be negative - who would have thought when JR was appointed in 1982 that we would get promoted) then the £8 million cost will pale into insignificance compared to the extra £40 million we will then recieve from extra TV money. As long as we have planning permission in place for the expansion, then properly planned construction works can carry on during the season without affecting capacity.

 

Now is the time to get behind a scheme which (apart form the 6 months before BP finally recieved planning in December 2007) for the 1st time looks like something that is deliverable, and critically, the Council appear to be fully onside with.

 

KEEP THE FAITH WITH THIS ONE.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Harry

 

 

First of all, as far as I'm aware, nobody is suggesting that a 20000 seater stadium is built from the off.

 

Secondly, how many clubs build stadiums on the basis of how many matches would pay for the costs of the number of seats, as opposed to gathering the investment that would represent a gamble on furture success? I'd suggest that those clubs who don't wish to speculate in order to accumulate are those who are concentrated at the bottom end of the Football League. (Awaits the latest wheeling out of the Chris Moore bogeyman. Get down, all you enthusiasts for better things, damn you!)

 

All the stadium plans, from SP 2000 onwards have been 'deliverable.' Between them, club, nimbys and council have managed to wreck every one of them. Then again, Oldham and its sporting institutions never quite seem able to manage to accomplish what other towns and theirs seem able to achieve.

 

(Don't all be negative - who would have thought when JR was appointed in 1982 that we would get promoted)

 

 

 

When Joe Royle was appointed, the club was already established in a higher division, and the gap between the divisions wasn't the gulf it is now.

 

Clubs that intend to have a go at bridging that gulf rarely seem to build stadiums that only have accomodation of lower division crowds in mind.

[Matt]

It doesn't mean that necessarily, no. But, as I keep having to remind people, nearly all clubs with stadiums as small as the one being proposed are concentrated at the bottom end of the Football League. This should tell you something.

 

It's clear that the club, with this proposal is determined not to 'overstretch.' That's because what they have in mind is a well-run lower division club, as the model for the future.

I agree with all of that Jonesy to be honest. And there's nothing we can do about it - that's the way it is, ain't no point bitching on about it any longer in my opinion...

[Corporal_Jones]

I agree with all of that Jonesy to be honest. And there's nothing we can do about it - that's the way it is, ain't no point bitching on about it any longer in my opinion...

 

 

 

As long as people are happy to 'bitch' about it, what's the problem?

[Matt]

All the stadium plans, from SP 2000 onwards have been 'deliverable.' Between them, club, nimbys and council have managed to wreck every one of them. Then again, Oldham and its sporting institutions never quite seem able to manage to accomplish what other towns and theirs seem able to achieve.

*nods again*

[Matt]

As long as people are happy to 'bitch' about it, what's the problem?

Calm down mate.

[Steve_R]

All hypothetical this and probably a pipe dream but here goes:

 

Say the new ground plans haven’t been announced yet but will be unveiled in twelve months time. This season Penney gets us playing some great football and we have a really good challenge for promotion (that lasts the course this season).

 

At the business end of the season we’re right in the thick of it with a chance of automatic promotion, and the last few games attract crowds of, say 7,000-7,500 Latics fans. We just miss out on an automatic place, but end up winning the play offs with 25,000 fans cheering us on at Wembley.

 

Season tickets sales for the next season are double the normal, Burnley are back down, Leeds have gone up with us and we’ve games against Preston, Newcastle, Sheff Utd & Wednesday etc to look forward to and Latics finally look to be on the up.

 

Then the new plans are released. Would everybody still be happy at a 12,000 capacity?

 

[Corporal_Jones]

Calm down mate.

 

 

 

What was 'uncalm' about the question?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

All hypothetical this and probably a pipe dream but here goes:

 

Say the new ground plans haven't been announced yet but will be unveiled in twelve months time. This season Penney gets us playing some great football and we have a really good challenge for promotion (that lasts the course this season).

 

At the business end of the season we're right in the thick of it with a chance of automatic promotion, and the last few games attract crowds of, say 7,000-7,500 Latics fans. We just miss out on an automatic place, but end up winning the play offs with 25,000 fans cheering us on at Wembley.

 

Season tickets sales for the next season are double the normal, Burnley are back down, Leeds have gone up with us and we've games against Preston, Newcastle, Sheff Utd & Wednesday etc to look forward to and Latics finally look to be on the up.

 

Then the new plans are released. Would everybody still be happy at a 12,000 capacity?

 

It's a bit of a long-winded possible scenario, which is also unlikely to evolve in its entirity.

 

Even with a promotion, there's nothing to suggest we'll double the ST holders. In the hypothetical scenario that we do what you've said I still think 12,000 capacity will be enough for a couple of sustained years in the Championship. In fact, given the ground at that point won't be erected and only the foundations put in place there may even be scope to adjust the capacity, depending on the type of ground we are building (i.e. take off a roof and add a tier).

[singe]

It's a bit of a long-winded possible scenario, which is also unlikely to evolve in its entirity.

 

Even with a promotion, there's nothing to suggest we'll double the ST holders. In the hypothetical scenario that we do what you've said I still think 12,000 capacity will be enough for a couple of sustained years in the Championship. In fact, given the ground at that point won't be erected and only the foundations put in place there may even be scope to adjust the capacity, depending on the type of ground we are building (i.e. take off a roof and add a tier).

I agree.

That is my pooint also.

I think 12,000 is more than adequate for a reasonable time frame in the Championship.

Depsite it being unfortautne,, that is the truth and the economics of it.

I have been trying to find the attendances from 1976-1991

I am sure that 12,00 would hav been fine a lot of that time

[oafc0000]

I may be doing TTA a massive injustice here, but feck it - these things need to be discussed - ..does anyone else worry that the reason TTA have decided upon a 12k stadium is because it will inevitably mean them having to put in less capital and hence get a bigger a return on their investment...and does anyone else fear they will be looking to realise this return pretty quickly after the stadium is ready ?

 

I fear this as well....

 

But no one wants to talk about such stuff...

Edited July 30, 2009 by oafc0000

[singe]

First of all, as far as I'm aware, nobody is suggesting that a 20000 seater stadium is built from the off.

 

Secondly, how many clubs build stadiums on the basis of how many matches would pay for the costs of the number of seats, as opposed to gathering the investment that would represent a gamble on furture success? I'd suggest that those clubs who don't wish to speculate in order to accumulate are those who are concentrated at the bottom end of the Football League. (Awaits the latest wheeling out of the Chris Moore bogeyman. Get down, all you enthusiasts for better things, damn you!)

 

All the stadium plans, from SP 2000 onwards have been 'deliverable.' Between them, club, nimbys and council have managed to wreck every one of them. Then again, Oldham and its sporting institutions never quite seem able to manage to accomplish what other towns and theirs seem able to achieve.

I don't completely agree with the first paragraph, mainly on the grounds of the current climate, but I think you are absolutely spot on in your second paragraph. I think that is a common frustration amongst all Latics fans

Edited July 30, 2009 by singe

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

I don't completely agree with the first paragraph, mainly on the grounds of the current climate, but I think you are absolutely spot on in your second paragraph. I think that is a common frustration amongst all Latics fans

 

Butt out Corp.

 

I replied to Stitch on a specific point he made about me that was incorrect.

 

It was not directed at you or anyone else for that matter.

 

Anyway, on that point I think I will retire from this board.

 

Cheerio

 

And to all Tics out there, KEEP THE FAITH.

 

Cheers and Goodbye,

 

 

 

Harry

[footy68]

I fear this as well....

 

But no one wants to talk about such stuff...

 

I'll talk about it. If TTA want to do that who can stop them? If they are feathering their nest ready to fly away, so what. They will be simply doing what they stated in the first place, a club which is self sustaining (possibly) and able to have a secure future (hopefully). Where would we be without their guidance....nowhere.

[oafc0000]

I'll talk about it. If TTA want to do that who can stop them?

 

 

The council for a start... Action groups... Negative publicity...

 

Dont be such a mug...

Edited July 30, 2009 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

They will be simply doing what they stated in the first place, a club which is self sustaining (possibly) and able to have a secure future (hopefully). Where would we be without their guidance....nowhere.

 

TTA bought the club... You so certain no one else where waiting in the wings ? I am not as certain as you are.

 

As for self sustaining, lets wait for the plans...

[footy68]

TTA bought the club... You so certain no one else where waiting in the wings ? I am not as certain as you are.

 

As for self sustaining, lets wait for the plans...

 

Read it again. I've put hopefully or did you miss that in your rush to call me a mug? Also if the Criminals sorry, Council stand to get any money into their coffers do you think they'll do anything?

 

Oh and negative publicity will kill them in their New York offices.

Edited July 30, 2009 by footy68