Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) It was not over night though was it, it was somepoitn between getting plannig permission and the launch of this new stadium plan ie btween Dec 2007 & Jul 2009 It's obviosly escaped you, but I have to inform you there have been a few financial difficulties, for both the owners and wider economy, and in both Britain and the US, during the same time scale. No, it was overnight. We were told only a matter of weeks ago that the redevelopment of BP was still on the cards. Nobody mentioned anything about downscaling ground capacity until the Failswoth announcement came out of nowhere. And how can all that escape me when I was the first one on here to predict that the BP plan would be abandoned due to the economic crisis? An economic crisis we are certainly in, but there are nonetheless still clubs who manage, in one way or another, to follow their ambitions. Edited August 11, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Perhaps TTA don't get regular Bank Statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The question was "Did Bolton need a Jack Walker?" And the answer quite simply is yes, they did. He's not just a major investor, but a saviour of the club. Just because he has less money than Jack Walker doesn't lessen the fact that without him Bolton were doomed. Similar to us in fact. "He probably wouldn't have invested if the club hadn't done significant groundwork and got themselves into a worthwhile position in the first place" Where did this nugget come from, and what facts is it based upon. My understanding of the facts is that Davies (personally and via his company Strix) has been saving Bolton from financially ruin since 1999, only two years after the Reebok stadium was built, and strangely enough whilst Bolton were in the Premier League. The fact that Bolton have prospered has nothing much to do with them building a good sized stadium, more the opposite in fact, and more the case of a certain mister Allardyce, and the aforementioned fan-come-good Mr Davies. The truth is that building the Reebok, so nearly sent Bolton into oblivion given the debt they ended up saddled with. I could go on, but there's not much point really...... Building the stadium was a statement of intent without which there would probably have been no serious investment. It was what's known as speculating to accumulate. It worked. They are in debt but they can manage that debt due to hiolding their own in the league where all the money is. If you can find a single Bolton fan who sincerely wishes that the positions of our respective clubs could be reversed, get him on here. It would be fascinating to hear what he has to say. Just had a quick look through at least 11 pages of comments on this same subject, and guess what ?... the good old Corp has at least half of the postings !... same answers, same negativity, same old rubbish, same old moaning, same old subjects, same old twisted fairy stories. Quite clearly from your comments YOU believe that having a new stadium, with an initial capacity of 12,000, plus all the other good things that will naturally come with a new development, as this is !... will be a negative move by the Club, the TTA and indeed anyone who disagrees with YOU ! For once Corporal just think about how many other people, who in their lifetimes have NEVER seen anything other than Boundary Park in it's state of dilapidation, I have have seen it this way for over 55 years and to be honest it's a palace compared with what it has been in many years gone by. You are decrying almost everything the Club and Owners are trying to do, I don't see you or any of the other Negatives coming forward with a couple of million to plough into the club and then see it disappear over the next few years, as quite clearly S.C. has stated and proved many times now!....and as things remain at B.P.... what is the point of continuing to spend money on deterioration ?......Would you ?...of course not !... but then again your letters suggest I may be wrong there! It IS a positive move forward and most of us welcome the TTA, and their plans, most of them have been explained quite clearly and in language we can - well most of us !... can understand, somehow you appear to be living the life of a Business or Club owner who knows sod all about the facts. The move to Lancaster Park or whatever it may be called, is in my opinion and I have to add the opinion of many others ! ...a totally positive move under present world conditions, the fact that the TTA are still here after all the uncalled for suggestive flak is in my opinion a miracle and one we should be grateful for.....We still have a football club, however I fear for the future should yourself and the minority of similar ilk ever get the power that your horrendous comments suggest... Once again (sigh), I am not decrying everything. I am simply asking one simple question-whay has the the ground capacity been set so low if there are genuine ambitions to briung to the club anything better than lower division football? I haven't suggested staying at BP or anything else that your overactive imagination is conjuring up. If, as you claim, you've read all eleven pages of the thread, you don't appear to have done it very well. When TTA took over the club was losing close to £45k per week from the Chris Moore era. I was told they were losing £15k per week about 2 years ago but have since brought it down further to £10k per week. Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy the owl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 What with having my sarcasm button switched off on my computer i cant detect if your reply of "right" was typed as in "right, whatever you say knob head" or "right, thanks for clarifying" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 What with having my sarcasm button switched off on my computer i cant detect if your reply of "right" was typed as in "right, whatever you say knob head" or "right, thanks for clarifying" I always find if I want to take the piss...I post/say...righto... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Does anyone know how much BP get's used when Oldham (either football or Rugby) aren't at home? I would imagine its very very little. For some reason my school had its leaver's ball at OT (I went to school in Bury), I would imagine a good football stadium which is used to having stuff like pre-match executive meals could be used for this in Oldham. My Mum (who works in the NHS) goes to conferences/interviews/other stuff at the Reebok quite regularly and I know Ewood Park has this sort of thing also as well as both OTs. The Reebok (as we have some figure for that) is actually in a very good location for this sort of thing because its right by a motorway, has a train station very near and with it being in Bolton its in the middle of the North West (an awful lot of government type organisations are such such North West). Considering the proposed new location isn't that far from a motorway, will probably have a very nearby Met stop (BP's nearest train station is comparitively miles away) and is roughly halfway between Oldham and Manchester I could see it being a good location. Having said that BP is still in a good location. This brings me on to what is essentially my point any new stadium of any size for any football club would be downright foolish if they didn't have very good conferencing/banqueting facilities. Whilst the executive facilities at BP are average (at best for this division) to watch football they are downright awful for anything else as they are too small (and to be honest far too focused on the football side). A club in a decent location with decent executive facilities and good transport links will find they are able to make money for more than 40 days a year (I was thinking that if you did it right a football club wouldn't be too hard to have a casino in). If I was Alan Hardy or TTA I would be finding out what would be preferable to some of the organisations that use conference facilities regularly- a good place to start would be someone like the Chief exec of Pennine Acute NHS trust since there ain't that many good conferencing sites in Oldham, Bury, Rochdale and that bit of North Manchester at the mo and the trust owes the club a favour after the link4Pink. It could be that actually BP is in as good a location and instead of spending £x million on a brand new stadium we could spend less on a brand new stand (and then add in the houses etc once the market improves). As already mentioned a club loosing far too much money (say for argument's sake £1million pa) will still be loosing far too much money in a new ground even if an extra 500 people turn up per game (which is being generous), somewhere in the region of £200k, still leaving a shortfall of £800k. A new ground with the same old inability to make money outside of home games being run in the same bad way won't make that much difference to the bottom line. However a new location having been financed by the sale of an old location but with less ability for development for something other than a football club will NOT be as attractive a proposition for potential investors. It doesn't matter if the stadium is in Oldham, Failsworth, Manchester or the moon if its still a bad stadium the club will still stagnate/decline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wozz_oafc Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I am simply asking one simple question-whay has the the ground capacity been set so low if there are genuine ambitions to briung to the club anything better than lower division football? Corp if this is the only simple thing you are asking. The answer is because we dont have enough fans to warrant building a bigger stadium. 12,000 is more than sufficient for our club in the Championship. We would get more in the Premiership, they said last night it will be expandable. Surely if the capacity is enough to cater for our support in the division above and there is further room to expand then the project has taken into account plenty of ambitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FyldeBlue Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Building the stadium was a statement of intent without which there would probably have been no serious investment. It was what's known as speculating to accumulate. It worked. They are in debt but they can manage that debt due to hiolding their own in the league where all the money is. If you can find a single Bolton fan who sincerely wishes that the positions of our respective clubs could be reversed, get him on here. It would be fascinating to hear what he has to say. Once again (sigh), I am not decrying everything. I am simply asking one simple question-whay has the the ground capacity been set so low if there are genuine ambitions to briung to the club anything better than lower division football? I haven't suggested staying at BP or anything else that your overactive imagination is conjuring up. If, as you claim, you've read all eleven pages of the thread, you don't appear to have done it very well. Here you go again Corp.....quite clearly you have not even bothered to look at some of the stuff you have posted, most of which IS TOTALLY NEGATIVE.... even your answers to questions posed to you, I have read almost every post, though have to admit I'm not bothering with any of yours anymore, I can't stand positives being turned into negatives by people like you, who basically don't have a bloody clue, specifically about business, which is what OAFC is like it or not !. The quite obvious reasons for putting forward PROPOSALS for a new stadium are to get views and reaction from all and sundry, I'm certain that the TTA know full well after almost 6 years, what they will sadly get from a minority of Oldhamers - NEGATIVITY . Can I ask you one question please SIR ?....If the TTA and OAFC had put forward proposals for a new stadium with a capacity of 20,000 would you have been happy ?....I very much doubt it, in fact I'll go as far as saying that I suspect that whatever comes out of B.P. will be seen as something for you to target through OWTB, basically because without this medium, you would have absolutely nowhere to spout off the rubbish and totally argumentative tripe you post.... oh I forgot the Oldham Chronicle but everyone knows about them and hardly anyone reads it anyway. IF any fans are unhappy or disappointed with a 'proposal ' for a NEW stadium rather than staying in one which is basically falling down, a NEW stadium that will have 12,000 capacity with further options to increase it as and when required and needed and see it as a negative move - you and they need to have some serious consulations with the nearest shrink ! And with that Corp..... I have nowt else to say on the subject or to you pal..... I am like yourself of the opinion that OWTB allow me to post my views without much interference, if I use language that offends, then I expect the mods to not just say so, but remove it, I have no wish or desire to almost totally take over the website as you have and continue to do on a daily basis and sadly turn it all into something which has now become very boring and little interest, which is very sad. Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Does anyone know how much BP get's used when Oldham (either football or Rugby) aren't at home? I would imagine its very very little. For some reason my school had its leaver's ball at OT (I went to school in Bury), I would imagine a good football stadium which is used to having stuff like pre-match executive meals could be used for this in Oldham. My Mum (who works in the NHS) goes to conferences/interviews/other stuff at the Reebok quite regularly and I know Ewood Park has this sort of thing also as well as both OTs. The Reebok (as we have some figure for that) is actually in a very good location for this sort of thing because its right by a motorway, has a train station very near and with it being in Bolton its in the middle of the North West (an awful lot of government type organisations are such such North West). Considering the proposed new location isn't that far from a motorway, will probably have a very nearby Met stop (BP's nearest train station is comparitively miles away) and is roughly halfway between Oldham and Manchester I could see it being a good location. Having said that BP is still in a good location. This brings me on to what is essentially my point any new stadium of any size for any football club would be downright foolish if they didn't have very good conferencing/banqueting facilities. Whilst the executive facilities at BP are average (at best for this division) to watch football they are downright awful for anything else as they are too small (and to be honest far too focused on the football side). A club in a decent location with decent executive facilities and good transport links will find they are able to make money for more than 40 days a year (I was thinking that if you did it right a football club wouldn't be too hard to have a casino in). If I was Alan Hardy or TTA I would be finding out what would be preferable to some of the organisations that use conference facilities regularly- a good place to start would be someone like the Chief exec of Pennine Acute NHS trust since there ain't that many good conferencing sites in Oldham, Bury, Rochdale and that bit of North Manchester at the mo and the trust owes the club a favour after the link4Pink. It could be that actually BP is in as good a location and instead of spending £x million on a brand new stadium we could spend less on a brand new stand (and then add in the houses etc once the market improves). As already mentioned a club loosing far too much money (say for argument's sake £1million pa) will still be loosing far too much money in a new ground even if an extra 500 people turn up per game (which is being generous), somewhere in the region of £200k, still leaving a shortfall of £800k. A new ground with the same old inability to make money outside of home games being run in the same bad way won't make that much difference to the bottom line. However a new location having been financed by the sale of an old location but with less ability for development for something other than a football club will NOT be as attractive a proposition for potential investors. It doesn't matter if the stadium is in Oldham, Failsworth, Manchester or the moon if its still a bad stadium the club will still stagnate/decline. how dare you talk sense on this board Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Corp if this is the only simple thing you are asking. The answer is because we dont have enough fans to warrant building a bigger stadium. 12,000 is more than sufficient for our club in the Championship. We would get more in the Premiership, they said last night it will be expandable. Surely if the capacity is enough to cater for our support in the division above and there is further room to expand then the project has taken into account plenty of ambitions. Bristol City are in proposal stage of building a new stadium...with a capacity of 29,000 which for a club with premiership ambitions in a city the size of Bristol and considering Rovers support is gash...is i believe a sensible proposition and much along the lines of what TTA/oafc are proposing...it will have an inbuilt design to allow expansion to 40 odd k capacity, if and when they hit the bigtime and possibly England get the 2018 WC and Bristol is selected as a host city.. Bristol City could sustain a 29,000 capacity stadium in the CCC, I doubt we could sustain a 16,000 in CCC never mind Div 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jac Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Oh my God my head hurts after trying to read all that. Well, what this comes down to is really, it's nothing to do with us. It's not our club. We don't own it. We don't own the land. If TTA want to move us, then it's going to happen. The best thing you can do is try and have constructive input into what happens. If they consult properly. You're all going round and round in circles, asking the same old questions and it won't change what's obviously going to happen anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Oh my God my head hurts after trying to read all that. Well, what this comes down to is really, it's nothing to do with us. It's not our club. We don't own it. We don't own the land. If TTA want to move us, then it's going to happen. The best thing you can do is try and have constructive input into what happens. If they consult properly. You're all going round and round in circles, asking the same old questions and it won't change what's obviously going to happen anyway! Spot on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 At last !! He who pays the piper calls the tune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Corp if this is the only simple thing you are asking. The answer is because we dont have enough fans to warrant building a bigger stadium. 12,000 is more than sufficient for our club in the Championship. We would get more in the Premiership, they said last night it will be expandable. Surely if the capacity is enough to cater for our support in the division above and there is further room to expand then the project has taken into account plenty of ambitions. It's like talking to the wall sometimes on here. I refer you to the many posts where I have explained how there are hardly any clubs in the Football League who have a stadium capacity dictated by their average attendance when the stadium was built, and how stadium capacities are more about the ambition of the club. Once again: to propose a 12000 capacity stadium reflects an acceptance that we will never be playing big clubs on a regular basis again. Even over the past fifteen years we have, on a number of occasions, still attracted gates in excess of 12000. Edited August 11, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 At last !! He who pays the piper calls the tune. Yes-and the tune is called The Lower Division Blues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And your needle is stuck AGAIN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Bristol City are in proposal stage of building a new stadium...with a capacity of 29,000 which for a club with premiership ambitions in a city the size of Bristol and considering Rovers support is gash...is i believe a sensible proposition and much along the lines of what TTA/oafc are proposing...it will have an inbuilt design to allow expansion to 40 odd k capacity, if and when they hit the bigtime and possibly England get the 2018 WC and Bristol is selected as a host city.. Bristol City could sustain a 29,000 capacity stadium in the CCC, I doubt we could sustain a 16,000 in CCC never mind Div 1. Sigh. Watch my lips: stadium capacity is about a clubs ambitions. A decent-size capacity reflects an ambition to play as many big games as possible; a small capacity is about accepting that you are not going to be playing big clubs all that often again. Stadium capacity and not about what your average attendance is at the time the stadium was proposed or at some arbitrary point in the past. And your needle is stuck AGAIN Are you going to take up that challenge I made, Bertie? Edited August 11, 2009 by sheridans_world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Lots of good comments here. What do people think of the rugby issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Lots of good comments here. What do people think of the rugby issue? Is it really an issue to be honest? I think its a pretty safe bet they wont be playing on it Edited August 11, 2009 by Lookers_Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 They pay rent on the ground... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Are you going to take up that challenge I made, Bertie? Do try and keep up, I've already answered that one. Life's too short to spend most of it waffling on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Do try and keep up, I've already answered that one. Life's too short to spend most of it waffling on here. So you bottled it then? You're not so confident that I'm wrong when it comes down to it, are you? Some people just don't want to hear the bad news, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Sigh. Watch my lips: stadium capacity is about a clubs ambitions. A decent-size capacity reflects an ambition to play as many big games as possible; a small capacity is about accepting that you are not going to be playing big clubs all that often again. Stadium capacity and not about what your average attendance is at the time the stadium was proposed or at some arbitrary point in the past. Are you going to take up that challenge I made, Bertie? A decent-size capacity reflects an ambition to play as many big games as possible; a small capacity is about accepting that you are not going to be playing big clubs all that often again. Says who.....?? Oh...you do....righto... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 A decent-size capacity reflects an ambition to play as many big games as possible; a small capacity is about accepting that you are not going to be playing big clubs all that often again. Says who.....?? Oh...you do....righto... Never mind. Just stand in line like a good lad and your latest spoonful of :censored:e will be along soon. Don't forget to swallow it without chewing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jac Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Excuse me but we're not 'standing in line' as you put it. Nor are we lemmings. We have an opinion, like you have yours. You have the same opinion of other people. That doesn't make you a lemming. So get over yourself, you aren't unique. 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.