The forum Monday 10/08/09

[laticsrblue]

Thanks for that SW.

 

One point, and it's a very minor and completely hypothetical concern...but when there's talk of room for expansion, I would hope that if when () that time comes, the room for expansion is upwards (i.e. building extra tiers etc) rather than just filling in the corners. The fact that it's a four-sided ground is important I feel and it would be a shame if that's what would be sacrificed for any on-pitch success in the future.

 

Seems like the councillors and OAFC officials handled everything well, well done.

 

Not sure why you prefer the 4 sided look, but common sense tells me that filling in corners is the most cost effective way of increasing capacity of a 4 sided 12k stadium by 3-4K, especially if the existing separate stands are all the same height and have the same angle of roof. ie the lego look.

Further expansion after that would be upwards and outwards.

 

THanks for the good report of the meeting.

[Corporal_Jones]

corp may i ask you a question ?

 

did you used to post on the old oldham athletic board as number twenty ?

 

cos your starting to sound just like him with your 12.000 lower division club mantra

 

weve got your point now move on come on YOU suggest somwhere viable with in the borough for the club to build a stadium and facilitys that wont end up costing us more than we can raise .

and remaining at B.P is not an option

 

 

 

 

No. If you think I sound like Number Twenty you are not paying attention. In fact, I was one of those who used to argue against him from time to time. Wasn't he primarily a rugby fan? I have no real interest in rugby.

 

I can't suggest something more viable. Then again, it isn't my role as an ordinary fan to do so. And I'm not against the development in itself, just the permanently smalltime existence that's being prepared for the club. The club is lying down with the Rochdales, Stockports and Burys of this world. The Shrewsburys and the Colchesters.

 

 

[garcon]

Excellent write-up S_W, much appreciated.

 

As said, seems like it went reasonably well.

 

Corp, yes TTA have thus far failed to take us forward (if you must put it like that), but surely even you can see that isn't for want of trying.

 

One thing they have been able to do is give us a degree of short term stability, by way of directly funding the balance sheet shortfall from their own pockets. Now I'm not sure whether your basic requirement of an owner is to be able to indefinitely throw cash at the club from bottomless pockets, but TTA never claimed they would do that and always stated their intent from day one - to make OAFC self sufficient.

 

The main thing to have changed since 2004 is, through no fault of theirs or ours but through cruel financial reality, it seems that level of self suffiency is going to be lower than we (and TTA) would have liked.

 

But I for one would rather have that, with a 12,000 cap on spectators, than risk the club going out of business altogether chasing rainbows with millions of pounds of someone else's money.

[boundaryblue80]

Q's: Will the ground be owned by Oldham Athletic Football Club (2004) Limited?

 

A's: SC - YES

 

Q's: You mentioned about the budget for the playing side being cut if we were not to move, why?

 

A's: SC - We cannot keep losing money. When we played Leicester last season, we drew with them twice but three of their players were on more than our entire playing squad. It can only be sustained for a certain amount of time. Leeds' playing budget last season was 8.9M ours was 1.7M (plus loanee's). You can only sustain huge over-spending for a maximum of two years. OAFC will be run in a prudent manner and has always been run in that way. The reason for failures and administration is that clubs over-extend themselves.

Didn't think they told us anything that new today...just merely allowed Failsworth Dynamos to air some grievances. The rest of the stuff was pretty much what we knew already. Anything more difficult got lost...like the two examples above. It's a shame the person asking that question didn't follow up with "So will Brassbank not be involved with OAFC in anyway?" however the way it was answered with a blunt Yes and moved onto the next question kinda gave the idea it was a very unwanted question.

 

Interestingly, Ian Hill choose to say that Darlington's problems came from having a 26k stadium thats empty. As though our 12k would be filled out. Or that a near empty 12k stadium would be much better off. Neither is true. Oxford's plight was ignored. Instead focusing on the budgets of the two former Premiership clubs that have come down. And previously focusing on your already established Bolton (pre-stadium) and millions loaded Wigans. We're neither of them...it all comes from off-field revenue which I hoped we'd get a bit more insight on tonight...but didn't. Other than what we knew.

 

I hope this isn't classed as consultation anyway. I welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk and find it sad that so few Latics fans turned up. I await further information from TTA before I'm convinced this is right for us...even though we'll be (to use the Dynamos phrase) railroaded into moving regardless.

 

As the person I went with to the forum said to me tonight...we simply sound like we're looking to move from BP to Failsworth with the same commerical problems, the same attendances and the same playing budget...all of which really is lacking ambtion and merely a side step and not a push forward. And with such revenue streams (business offices, conferencing suites) on the doorstep in the form of Manchester, Eastlands and now, as it transpired tonight, potentially FC United...people need to realise that this seriously isn't a guaranteed secured future for OAFC as everyone keeps pointing out...but a tricky gamble which has very high risks for our future and thus still does not address why such facilities, albeit scaled down, couldn't be looked at right where we are.

 

As Simon said tonight..."I can give no assurances"...indeed...more plans please before I'm anywhere near convinced this move is vital for our survival.

Edited August 11, 2009 by boundaryblue80

[Corporal_Jones]

Corp, yes TTA have thus far failed to take us forward (if you must put it like that), but surely even you can see that isn't for want of trying.

 

One thing they have been able to do is give us a degree of short term stability, by way of directly funding the balance sheet shortfall from their own pockets. Now I'm not sure whether your basic requirement of an owner is to be able to indefinitely throw cash at the club from bottomless pockets, but TTA never claimed they would do that and always stated their intent from day one - to make OAFC self sufficient.

 

The main thing to have changed since 2004 is, through no fault of theirs or ours but through cruel financial reality, it seems that level of self suffiency is going to be lower than we (and TTA) would have liked.

 

But I for one would rather have that, with a 12,000 cap on spectators, than risk the club going out of business altogether chasing rainbows with millions of pounds of someone else's money.

 

 

 

 

Maybe they have tried. However, all club owners fund shortfalls, in one way or another, from their personal money.

 

I don't see this stability. SC himself has recently claimed that 'the club is dying.' That doesn't sound like a stable club. Nor does it sound all that stable when we get statements claiming that the club is still looking to redevelop BP, is looking at building a stadium jointly with another club, and possibly looking at a ground share before that, and is looking to build in Failsworth-all within the space of a few weeks of each other and with hardly a pause for breath. And nothing is guaranteed regarding this project yet.

 

Meanwhile, the football side of things has been a shambles as well, on the whole, with either poor or knee-jerk managerial appointments, no continuity on the pitch, and harebrained gimmicks like the return of the messiah at the end of last season.

 

It increasingly looks like letting Ferney Fields fall through might have been our downfall. We could have been in that shiny new stadium, building that self sufficiency, without Championship football look like 'chasing rainbows.' (It's a sad pass we've come to when second division football looks like an unattainable dream.)

 

Having said all that, you might get your stability yet. I don't think there'll be much interest in a club that defines success as staying out of the fourth division, though. Perhaps that's why 3000 crowds appear to be anticipated.

 

As the person I went with to the forum said to me tonight...we simply sound like we're looking to move from BP to Failsworth with the same commerical problems, the same attendances and the same playing budget...all of which really is lacking ambtion and merely a side step and not a push forward. And with such revenue streams (business offices, conferencing suites) on the doorstep in the form of Manchester, Eastlands and now, as it transpired tonight, potentially FC United...people need to realise that this seriously isn't a guaranteed secured future for OAFC as everyone keeps pointing out...but a tricky gamble which has very high risks for our future and thus still does not address why such facilities, albeit scaled down, couldn't be looked at right where we are.

 

 

 

Astute observations there.

[garcon]

I said short term stability, because I don't see any club that is in the position of being constantly subsidised by its owner as being stable - how can a club be stable if its finances rely on the whims of one individual? (Or even three?). What you appear to want is that instability to remain, by virtue of an owner (TTA or not) being "ambitious" by throwing millions at the club. What I want is a more viable, sustainable existence, whereby the club can survive on its own terms... if future direct investment enables a push towards higher things then that's just dandy, but the plain truth is TTA are not willing to operate that way (even if they could - something we still don't really know).

 

I agree Ferney Fields falling through was a blow, but my recollection is that was far from TTA's fault.

 

I wasn't suggesting that looking towards Championship football was "chasing rainbows" - I still see that as viable. Staying there long term might be more difficult, but a bit of yo-yoing after 13 seasons in the same division wouldn't go amiss...

 

 

[wozz_oafc]

Didn't think they told us anything that new today...just merely allowed Failsworth Dynamos to air some grievances. The rest of the stuff was pretty much what we knew already. Anything more difficult got lost...like the two examples above. It's a shame the person asking that question didn't follow up with "So will Brassbank not be involved with OAFC in anyway?" however the way it was answered with a blunt Yes and moved onto the next question kinda gave the idea it was a very unwanted question.

 

Interestingly, Ian Hill choose to say that Darlington's problems came from having a 26k stadium thats empty. As though our 12k would be filled out. Or that a near empty 12k stadium would be much better off. Neither is true. Oxford's plight was ignored. Instead focusing on the budgets of the two former Premiership clubs that have come down. And previously focusing on your already established Bolton (pre-stadium) and millions loaded Wigans. We're neither of them...it all comes from off-field revenue which I hoped we'd get a bit more insight on tonight...but didn't. Other than what we knew.

 

I hope this isn't classed as consultation anyway. I welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk and find it sad that so few Latics fans turned up. I await further information from TTA before I'm convinced this is right for us...even though we'll be (to use the Dynamos phrase) railroaded into moving regardless.

 

As the person I went with to the forum said to me tonight...we simply sound like we're looking to move from BP to Failsworth with the same commerical problems, the same attendances and the same playing budget...all of which really is lacking ambtion and merely a side step and not a push forward. And with such revenue streams (business offices, conferencing suites) on the doorstep in the form of Manchester, Eastlands and now, as it transpired tonight, potentially FC United...people need to realise that this seriously isn't a guaranteed secured future for OAFC as everyone keeps pointing out...but a tricky gamble which has very high risks for our future and thus still does not address why such facilities, albeit scaled down, couldn't be looked at right where we are.

 

As Simon said tonight..."I can give no assurances"...indeed...more plans please before I'm anywhere near convinced this move is vital for our survival.

 

I agree that the move may not secure the clubs future, but what is clear is that staying put will mean the club wont have a future, unless we get a sugar daddy investing. I most of the die hards know deep down that if things stay the same the club is on a slow downward spiral. Of course this move if it goes ahead might not work out, but then at least we have tried! It really doesnt sound like there is anywhere else to move to either.

 

I get the impression that TTA thought that if they came in and backed the team that the Oldham public would respond. This sadly hasnt happened. Maybe if they had a bit more cash so to bring in a few "marquee" signings (seems to be the buzzword this summer) like Chris Moore attendances would have increased a bit more, but they havent.

 

To be honest I am still far from convinced this is going to happen and if it doesnt I think TTA will sadly be on their way.

[laticsrblue]

......... What I want is a more viable, sustainable existence, whereby the club can survive on its own terms........

 

We all want the club to have a sustainable 365 day a yr income, including TTA who have stated it several times in previous interviews.

So far the Failsworth plan does not appear to provide facilities to generate anything like enough income to run a football club

 

Sheridans_World has reported the answere to the question

 

Q's: Where will the money come from to build the new stadium considering we are not moving out of BP until it's built. *Comments about the change in capacity and change in value of the redevelopment.* What happened to the club earning money 364 days a year?

 

A's: IH - we will develop part of BP to bring some capital in, we are also working with some partners. Other facilities will be bringing money into the club, clubs cannot survive on 26 games a season any more.

 

I may be way off here but maybe the 365 a day income is going to be coming from the old BP site.

Maybe Latics don't need to sell the whole BP site to housing developers or whoever in order to finance the new stadium. They could be planning to keep part of the land for a Hotel, Offices or another commercial venture that will bring in the 365 day revenue.

 

I can understand why they would be keeping this close to their chest, knowing the hornets nest of nimbys around BP.

[Alec1954]

It seems to me that the owners have sowed the seed of "we have to move" to the rest of the board and they have all stood in line and agreed regardless of what their personal thoughts are.

 

I just wonder if the Makin/Notts County etc. etc. owners did sniff around us and walked away because we have owners that want to play the game their way and not sell. Can't blame TTA but I do just wonder. Knocking down the Lookers was a huge mistake.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Alec1954

[nzlatic]

Having said all that, you might get your stability yet. I don't think there'll be much interest in a club that defines success as staying out of the fourth division, though. Perhaps that's why 3000 crowds appear to be anticipated.

 

You're being deliberately selective here to try and back up your incessant argument. The question and subsequent answer that led to the mention of 3000 crowds was:

Q's: What if the new stadium does not happen, would TTA leave the club in administration?

 

A's: SC - We would not leave the club in administration, we would work the budgets down so that the club can be self-sufficient with the level of income it is attracting. If that means working on an attendance of 3000, the club may get relegated but we cannot afford to continue subsidising the club to the tune of £40k per month.

 

So they aren't "anticipating" crowds of 3000, they are talking about a scaling down of budgets if a move to a facility with potential for bringing in non-match day income doesn't happen.

Do you prefer the sort of owner that will walk through the crowd slapping everyone on the back boasting "premier league in 5 years fellas!" rather than ones that make apparantly more realistic plans? Building oversized stadia and talking a good game doesn't make it happen automatically. You seem intelligent enough to realise this which makes me think your constant posting of the same opinion is more mischief making that actually suggesting anything worthwhile.

[Latics and England]

Didn't think they told us anything that new today...just merely allowed Failsworth Dynamos to air some grievances. The rest of the stuff was pretty much what we knew already. Anything more difficult got lost...like the two examples above. It's a shame the person asking that question didn't follow up with "So will Brassbank not be involved with OAFC in anyway?" however the way it was answered with a blunt Yes and moved onto the next question kinda gave the idea it was a very unwanted question.

 

I don't think there was anything to come back on Ross. The question specifically asked if OA04 Ltd would own 100% of the new ground and the answer given was a 'Yes'. I was very surprised but will take Simon's word for it.

[singe]

Surely the aim of an ambitious club that reaches the PL would be to get the biggest attendances possible, not look at what happened last time, in a different era.

 

Wigan don't even get 18000 now (do they even average 15000?), but their stadium holds considerably more than that.

 

However, we have our answer regarding the vaunted possibilities of extending capacity: 'we would increase capacity if we got there.' So that's never then.

That's not very ambitious of you Corp. Quite negative if you don't mind me observing. A bit hypocritical of you. cosidering you constantly accuse the TTA of the same. Perhaps you are projecting your feelings onto other's rather than listening to what is actually being said?

 

Wigan don't even get 18000 now (do they even average 15000?), but their stadium holds considerably more than that.

I'd say that is a good thing to build a plan on, and they don't have any local competition.

 

I do fully understand your frustrations about the seeming settling for mediocrity, even if I don't agree that the TTA actions show this.

But what I still don't get, with all the info you now have (including an epxenditure of almost £27m) you still argue for building a stadium that stretches the current resources.

I even think that your postings have helped ensure that the architects plans include expansion is at the forefront of people minds, though I credit the TTA will have already had that in mind. That is surely some success.

 

I think it is time for you to move onto the next issue.

 

Leonard Nimoy: Well, my work is done here.

Barney: What do you mean your work is done? You didn't do anything!

Leonard Nimoy: [bemusedly raising an eyebrow] Didn't I? [he teleports into nothingness, as on Star Trek]

Edited August 11, 2009 by singe

[Lags]

Just out of interest, what size in Acre's is the land off coal pit lane opposite Limeside. If ever land needed developing that does. Do we need a 30 acre site without having to play ball with a FD of this world? As IH says some developments on the current BP site will generate income streams for the football club (I have read that bit right haven't I?)

[beag_teeets]

Leonard Nimoy: Well, my work is done here.

Barney: What do you mean your work is done? You didn't do anything!

Leonard Nimoy: [bemusedly raising an eyebrow] Didn't I? [he teleports into nothingness, as on Star Trek]

 

 

Quality Star Wars reference!

[singe]

Quality Star Wars reference!

And I am not even a trekkie, I just thought it was very apt!

 

[Lags]

Help me out here folks. When asked will TTA make money out of this, the reply was yes. Yet when you do the simple math when Simon expanded their total outlay is 25.5 million and income in from BP 12.8 million. Sure you'll have a 14 million ground left over but would a new owner in the future have to pay over 14 million for a league one club?

[Jac]

I agree with Ross, that wasn't a consultation. It was a Q&A session. The club now need to go through full consultation with all stakeholders. They need to design the whole development around what each party needs. Rather than just spouting "we will have this many 3G pitches and ..." This is the only way to get people on board.

 

More gestures need to be made towards the locals. We need to learn from our mistakes from BP and the NIMBYs. This will happen again if the club don't take them serious.

 

There is a very tight deadline and a very ambitious target. The club can't afford not to cover all bases.

[Lags]

I agree with Ross, that wasn't a consultation. It was a Q&A session. The club now need to go through full consultation with all stakeholders. They need to design the whole development around what each party needs. Rather than just spouting "we will have this many 3G pitches and ..." This is the only way to get people on board.

 

More gestures need to be made towards the locals. We need to learn from our mistakes from BP and the NIMBYs. This will happen again if the club don't take them serious.

 

There is a very tight deadline and a very ambitious target. The club can't afford not to cover all bases.

 

In truth every single development that's ever been or will be gets discord in certain sections. This happens and will here. So lets get it right for those that it will affect in the beginning, the middle and the end, ie the fans that will attend the stadium the first year, the fifth year and ten year and on. Not to mention the club who's home it will be in fifty years time. It will be the fans footfall through the turnstyles that will dictate it's success or failure. Nothing more.

[wakefield-oldham]

Didn't think they told us anything that new today...just merely allowed Failsworth Dynamos to air some grievances. The rest of the stuff was pretty much what we knew already. Anything more difficult got lost...like the two examples above. It's a shame the person asking that question didn't follow up with "So will Brassbank not be involved with OAFC in anyway?" however the way it was answered with a blunt Yes and moved onto the next question kinda gave the idea it was a very unwanted question.

 

Interestingly, Ian Hill choose to say that Darlington's problems came from having a 26k stadium thats empty. As though our 12k would be filled out. Or that a near empty 12k stadium would be much better off. Neither is true. Oxford's plight was ignored. Instead focusing on the budgets of the two former Premiership clubs that have come down. And previously focusing on your already established Bolton (pre-stadium) and millions loaded Wigans. We're neither of them...it all comes from off-field revenue which I hoped we'd get a bit more insight on tonight...but didn't. Other than what we knew.

 

I hope this isn't classed as consultation anyway. I welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk and find it sad that so few Latics fans turned up. I await further information from TTA before I'm convinced this is right for us...even though we'll be (to use the Dynamos phrase) railroaded into moving regardless.

 

As the person I went with to the forum said to me tonight...we simply sound like we're looking to move from BP to Failsworth with the same commerical problems, the same attendances and the same playing budget...all of which really is lacking ambtion and merely a side step and not a push forward. And with such revenue streams (business offices, conferencing suites) on the doorstep in the form of Manchester, Eastlands and now, as it transpired tonight, potentially FC United...people need to realise that this seriously isn't a guaranteed secured future for OAFC as everyone keeps pointing out...but a tricky gamble which has very high risks for our future and thus still does not address why such facilities, albeit scaled down, couldn't be looked at right where we are.

 

As Simon said tonight..."I can give no assurances"...indeed...more plans please before I'm anywhere near convinced this move is vital for our survival.

latics fans didnt turn up because its too far away....lol

[Jac]

In truth every single development that's ever been or will be gets discord in certain sections. This happens and will here. So lets get it right for those that it will affect in the beginning, the middle and the end, ie the fans that will attend the stadium the first year, the fifth year and ten year and on. Not to mention the club who's home it will be in fifty years time. It will be the fans footfall through the turnstyles that will dictate it's success or failure. Nothing more.

 

The fans aren't the most important stakeholder to consider here unless they are a local resident. This development will fail if the locals aren't on board. As well as the community groups that are likely to use the facilities. Football fans will be there for home games. Local people and community groups will be there throughout the week and through the close season.

 

Yes tha fans need consulting too, but we are way down the pecking order.

[Lags]

The fans aren't the most important stakeholder to consider here unless they are a local resident. This development will fail if the locals aren't on board. As well as the community groups that are likely to use the facilities. Football fans will be there for home games. Local people and community groups will be there throughout the week and through the close season.

 

Yes tha fans need consulting too, but we are way down the pecking order.

 

Jac you are not naive enough to believe if the powers that be want a certain development to go through, it will. Lip service will be paid via the planning applications and local meetings held, but no matter what opposition is fielded, it will be built. Now giving (apparently) the council is truely on board and behind this development lets get it right for those who will ultimately see it succeed, the fans.

[Tindall]

Yes tha fans need consulting too, but we are way down the pecking order.

 

 

Just a shame only around 50-75 oldham fans turned up last night

[Lags]

Just a shame only around 50-75 oldham fans turned up last night

 

Because 1000's turned up at the council chambers and march when they believed they would make a difference to what was wanted. Subsequent plans now show what will be will be. NO MATTER WHAT. But as a Tic I will be there where the club puts me.

[jsslatic]

Just a shame only around 50-75 oldham fans turned up last night

 

Really? Said it beforehand...people not turning up to essentially an 'air your grievances' night is a good thing in my book. Trust me, if it was an unpopular move then the place would have been rammed. I'd say absence isn't a sign of opposition but support.

 

Everyone knew what was said would be reported back anyway. There was no need for most to travel and pay to just to listen to the residents and Dynamos complain, and to listen to SC et al reaffirm everything we already knew.

[Jac]

Jac you are not naive enough to believe if the powers that be want a certain development to go through, it will. Lip service will be paid via the planning applications and local meetings held, but no matter what opposition is fielded, it will be built. Now giving (apparently) the council is truely on board and behind this development lets get it right for those who will ultimately see it succeed, the fans.

 

No, I'm not naive, I work in this area. There are still plenty of hurdles to get through before this development gets passed. And believe me, there could be some opposition to stop it going ahead. Therefore things need to be done right to make sure this does not happen.

 

I have worked on a scheme where the council was the developer, and even then they could face objections from within the council. This is a private development so will be scrutinised just as much if not more.