daznathe Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 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. good post. i didnt attend, was there an open questions part of the evening? if so you should have asked, if not, as you say, much more consultation is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Burnden Park to Reebok stadium is 10.3 miles if you go there on the M61. Not that far off 12 miles i suppose. And Failsworth is four hundred miles from BP if you go via London! Taking the M61 is an awfully long way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 my point is that its becoming a little nearer than some would like to believe, in fact asap in the eyes of some. all this "latics is dying" crap is quite different to the "we are one of the best run clubs in this division" spout we were hearing this time last year. emotional blackmail. the personnel advantages far outweigh the latics advantages. they have been banging the drum about the club being self sufficient for 3 years,then when asked questions last night,they hardly scratch the surface as to how this can be done. they are businessmen,and they want their return in their investment asap-sod the consistences,sod the general feeling,sod the fans,its not what they want anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I already have suggested the two sites via e-mail. No reply, but I understand they're busy so I'll carry on waiting. Ill be happy waiting on you waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Could not make the event so I am very grateful to SW for writing up what was talked about. Sounds like a lot of honest upfront talking from SC and AH on a number of issue. There comments about not leaving the club in administration and practically just running down the operation should not really be a shock to anyone, unless you know of a Arab who can bank roll us for the next twenty years. I have more respect from SC to admit that the TTA will be making money out of this venture. Some fans live on a cloud and think they are a here to do us a favour. They arent, they are here to make money. It is still very unclear on a lot of issues what the plans are but I suppose we actually need the plans. My biggest concern is how does the stadium / development become a 24/7 business and where does the money go. Clubs pockets or the TTA pockets. What sort of split. SC said the club would own the "ground" but what about the rest of the land and the money made from it. Whats going to be in the "ground" which the club can make money from. I am happy to hear they are considering building a stadium with some uniqueness. All in all I think its a good start. Edited August 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 if you would have been there last night you would have known, SC even offered anyone to have a look at the clubs accounts, why dont you take that up? TTA did not offer an opportunity for the average joe to see the accounts. They said that if someone was willing to submit a serious offer to buy the club then they would let them see the accounts and Simon Corney gave the impression that said "new owner" would run a mile after seeing the accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Whitehall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 TTA did not offer an opportunity for the average joe to see the accounts. They said that if someone was willing to submit a serious offer to buy the club then they would let them see the accounts and Simon Corney gave the impression that said "new owner" would run a mile after seeing the accounts. I thought he said that if anybody believed they were going to "take the money and run", they could come into the club and look at the accounts? Could be wrong, like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I already have suggested the two sites via e-mail. No reply, but I understand they're busy so I'll carry on waiting. Are either of these sites 30 acres though? As AH said last night: "If anyone knows a 30 acre site that closer to oldham than this one, please let us know" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 TTA did not offer an opportunity for the average joe to see the accounts. They said that if someone was willing to submit a serious offer to buy the club then they would let them see the accounts and Simon Corney gave the impression that said "new owner" would run a mile after seeing the accounts. but we were "one of the best run clubs in this division " a year ago... what went wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 my point is that its becoming a little nearer than some would like to believe, in fact asap in the eyes of some. all this "latics is dying" crap is quite different to the "we are one of the best run clubs in this division" spout we were hearing this time last year. emotional blackmail. the personnel advantages far outweigh the latics advantages. they have been banging the drum about the club being self sufficient for 3 years,then when asked questions last night,they hardly scratch the surface as to how this can be done. they are businessmen,and they want their return in their investment asap-sod the consistences,sod the general feeling,sod the fans,its not what they want anymore. Sometimes I think what you are saying... Other times I think they are just trying to do the best of a bad situation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 but we were "one of the best run clubs in this division " a year ago... what went wrong? Being one of the best run probably means the rest are in even worse positions... Look at County.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Going back to the topic of the forum? Did anyone else think that the Dynamos were continually shifting the goalposts At first it was "Your not giving us anything new, your just upgrading what we have" Wrong: They have three grass pitches at the mo, which will be two grass pitches, two 3g pitches, and 10 5 a side pitches once the project is complete" Then the goalposts were moved to "ok were getting more but its not enough considering how many of the pitches the council have sold off" Seems to me like their getting a bit greedy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 but we were "one of the best run clubs in this division " a year ago... what went wrong? We are but SC said last night that he still writes a cheque for £40k a month to fund the running of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Seems to me like their getting a bit greedy? Lets be fair to them... They are a small armature organisation who has seen the big boys roll across town and jump on there own development, adding a ton of issues... I think pissed off / worried is more to the point than greedy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonLatics Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't really no how big 30acres is, but what about clayton playing fields, surely you could squeeze a ground on there with extra pitches joined on??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And it was a good opportunity to remind the council of the overall reduction in community pitches in the borough. Can't really fault them for that. As to their own facilities, of course they're going to try and bargain for the best possible. If this development doesn't have a significant enough commercial angle to it, it definitely needs to focus on the community facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 We are but SC said last night that he still writes a cheque for £40k a month to fund the running of the club. i thought he stated he had this down to £15 grand a month? so,what went wrong? they knock the broadway stand down to stop expenses it was causing,they let BP fall into a state of disrepair,yet we are still £40 grand a month down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't really no how big 30acres is, but what about clayton playing fields, surely you could squeeze a ground on there with extra pitches joined on??? That idea died a death long ago. The NIMBY's were having none of it. Still I hope they enjoy their new views from Carlton Way in a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) 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. Why is a 16000 capacity over-sized when it was still being talked about as a viable option only a few weeks ago? If you read the long post from SW again, you'll see that 3000 crowds were also talked about in connection to the new stadium-which we were told, to suit the purpose of the argument can't be a 25000 capacity one. Why? Nobody has mentioned 25000. For, hopefully, the last time, it is not up to me, or any ordinary fan, to suggest anything. (As if 'suggestions' would be listened to anyway.) I haven't even mentioned alternative owners or 'the type of owner I'd like to see.' I've simply pointed out that, all of a sudden, a whacking 25% of capacity has been lopped off the projected new stadium, and that this clearly represents preparations for a permanent lower division existence (almost all the grounds with such low capacities are, after all, concentrated at that end of the Football League.) This kind of existence may, if it comes off it may be, as you seem to believe, sustainable. Rochdale seem to be a sustainable club, too. Have you ever thought that the mischief making might come from those of you who will only be happy when you're watching the club playing fourth division or Conference football? Edited August 11, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't really no how big 30acres is, but what about clayton playing fields, surely you could squeeze a ground on there with extra pitches joined on??? No can do - as discussed elsewhere, the immediate aftermath of the Sportspark 2000 project was to give Clayton Playing fields "town green" status to back up the covenant under which the land was given to the town. So effectively it's green belt... otherwise I don't doubt that the retail development around Elk mill and Westwood would have expanded across Clayton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 i thought he stated he had this down to £15 grand a month? so,what went wrong? they knock the broadway stand down to stop expenses it was causing,they let BP fall into a state of disrepair,yet we are still £40 grand a month down? I think that was £15k a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) I think that was £15k a week. I think you are right... I would be surprised if it was only 15k a month... That is only £180,000 a year... Edited August 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It was £15k a week, or over £60k a month. So to have managed to get that down to £40k a month is further progress made by TTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 but we were "one of the best run clubs in this division " a year ago... what went wrong? The credit crunch. Hammered the TTA in America, where they're money comes from. So they have not got as much money as thy did have. I am not saying they are on the breadline, but chucking away 1/2m a years is to tought to take. Don;t forget we wou.ld now be well on our way to building all the flats and the other self sustaining developments. The TTA was always making a self sustaining busines then exit. Of course they would make money, but who would begrudge them that after investing 27million. There are not enough Jack Walkers in Oldham to just put allth eir money into LAtics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_R Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Is it just me or didn’t anyone else think that when SC was pressed by that guy from Failsworth Dynamos about whether he was involved in the club just to make money and he replied that he was, that he was just being sarcastic? With the figures he gave out, although just off the top of his head, about how much TTA have already spent and what the current site at BP is worth, I fail to see how they’ll walk away with a nice personal fortune when it’s all done, and I’m sure he said as much. There’s still a lot of unanswered questions. These ‘increased revenue streams’ we keep hearing about seem very vague, the location is a big worry, and for every new stadium that’s worked there’s another one that’s either failed or had little impact on the clubs fortunes. Our plan seems to me more of a case of ‘ this is the only way we can survive’ more than ‘ this is how we can prosper’. The locals don’t seem happy (and in all honesty they do seem to have a point) and it looks like a long, tricky road ahead if it is to go through. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if in 12 months time we hear they’ve ‘revised their plans’, but I’m just not as convinced as some that TTA will walk away with a nice butty at the end of it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.