opinions4u Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Haha Knowing Latics' attendances for night matches, unlikely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 The Arabs want the biggest and best club in Europe and yet weren’t put off by buying the one closest to the existing biggest and, erm, ‘best’ club in Europe. I think it’s a relevant retort to your not unfounded concern. Yes, taking over the club and its debts enabled TTA to smoothly purchase the land, but I would insist that they bought the club primarily to fulfil a dream which tempts many rich men. They are just looking to do it as cheaply as possible, or even turn a profit. I suppose you’re point was fair, it just came across as though you’re part of the school that doesn’t realise that the land is pretty much all to do with the club. City were a sleeping giant starved of success, if successful they are more than capable of pulling in 60,000+ crowds and so the potential was already there. As for the land...I never said it belonged to the club in my original post, I reffered to it as land potential! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 City were a sleeping giant starved of success, if successful they are more than capable of pulling in 60,000+ crowds and so the potential was already there. As for the land...I never said it belonged to the club in my original post, I reffered to it as land potential! Maybe, but you stated that TTA will never find a buyer with United and City so close, which I just don't agree with. I compared the scenario to the City one because people would have no doubt ruled City out of attracting the richest owners imaginable on similar grounds, and besides, we could pull 60,000 crowds if we had the backing City now have. Looking on the bright side, whilst being so close to United and now City clearly has it's disadvantages, I think a close association with Europe's current top footballing city also has advantages. As for your second point, fair enough. 1-1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It might be. But that's the way it goes. People aren't generally all that rational. For my part, I've seen enough to know that you can treat what comes out of the club with a pinch of salt, but recognise that staying away only makes the problem worse. I would finally draw the line at fourth division football though. It all comes down to cash through the turnstiles. I believe the stayaways' unwillingness to go through thin and thinner, like the diehards, has got us in the current financial position. It's their prerogative and no doubt they consider the diehards to be mad. You say they won't return until they consider it (what they read about in the Chron and what they hear from the diehards) and the position in the League appears to be attractive enough for them. So be it, they've made that decision. When TTA bought the Club, the rarely wrong Chron reported: Simon Blitz said: "We know exactly what finance we need to put in and are prepared for that. After that we hope it can eventually become self-financing. We are businessmen - we're not daft - and the situation at Leeds, for example, shows us how to do things wrong." The investors ....believe the club's finances can be resurrected by redeveloping Boundary Park and growing the fan base. They say Latics could be a stable first division club inside five years, but stress all decisions will be based on business sense rather than emotion. Danny Gazal said: "The attendances are key. We need to get to a position where 8 to 9,000 people are coming on a regular basis." We haven't got to that position and, on the face of it, the economic recession has scuppered the BP redevelopment plans. I think TTA have given it a fair crack of the whip and I understand why they have had to reduce the scale of their dream. Obviously a 12,000 capacity stadium reflects that reduced dream, or ambition for the future as you point out, but who can really blame them when they've been let down by the Oldham public and Council? We can only hope that when TTA sell up, the new owners will invest enough, without getting into a mess like Leeds, and be lucky enough, to go onwards and upwards to the higher tiers of football and put another tier onto the new stadium to accommodate the increaed attendances. Meanwhile I await the plans to see how the Club is to be sustained by non-football revenue, but I'll not be holding my breath for a rosy future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Another option for TTA, which I haven't heard mentioned before is for them to sell BP to one of the supermarket chains and written into the agreement that [insert name of supermarket] build a new stadium. Scunthorpe/ Sainsburys. Takes a whole load of hassle away from TTA, land sold, money banked, thanks very much see ya later...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Another option for TTA, which I haven't heard mentioned before is for them to sell BP to one of the supermarket chains and written into the agreement that [insert name of supermarket] build a new stadium. Scunthorpe/ Sainsburys. Takes a whole load of hassle away from TTA, land sold, money banked, thanks very much see ya later...... It would never get planning permission. You've got a Tesco at either end of the bypass, and 2 Asda stores and a Saisnsbury's within splitting distance of BP. Still, every cloud..........Simon Hewitt would have a pink fit!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Apparently we will be renting the land... Leasing. There's a big difference in business - a lease is an asset, whereas rental is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100milesaway Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 This is a stadium for survival at the lower end of the game No cj, on our way to saturdays game we passed Bedale towns ground, the game was being watched by 15 people, no seats, no stands, no shelter,just a pitch and two dugouts for the subs. THATS the lower end of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Another option for TTA, which I haven't heard mentioned before is for them to sell BP to one of the supermarket chains and written into the agreement that [insert name of supermarket] build a new stadium. Scunthorpe/ Sainsburys. Takes a whole load of hassle away from TTA, land sold, money banked, thanks very much see ya later...... How about 'The Costcutters Stadium' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Another option for TTA, which I haven't heard mentioned before is for them to sell BP to one of the supermarket chains and written into the agreement that [insert name of supermarket] build a new stadium. Scunthorpe/ Sainsburys. Takes a whole load of hassle away from TTA, land sold, money banked, thanks very much see ya later...... As long as we don't end up like Bolton at Burnden Park with a supermarket in the away end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonLatics Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) As long as we don't end up like Bolton at Burnden Park with a supermarket in the away end Didn't Hull have an iceland in the back of their old stadium aswell? And as far as putting a supermarket on the BP site, I cant imagine this would get the go-ahead, not after the amount of fight the local residents put into the ground development. What ever happens to the site I just hope those Royton NIMBYS suffer from years of sleep deprevation and traffic jams that last all day for the s**t they stirred up in the past. Edited November 11, 2009 by RoytonLatics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 As long as we don't end up like Bolton at Burnden Park with a supermarket in the away end I'd settle for a supermarket in our end though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) I'd settle for a supermarket in our end though They could build one now where the Lookers stand was. On second thoughts no, my wife would want me to take her shopping there on match days and I might not emerge from the store in time for the kick off. Edited November 11, 2009 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 They could build one now where the Lookers stand was. On second thoughts no, my wife would want me to take her shopping there on match days and I might not emerge from the store in time for the kick off. Two birds one stone, you get to watch the game while the wife can shop til her merry little hearts content, thats a plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.O.B. Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 No cj, on our way to saturdays game we passed Bedale towns ground, the game was being watched by 15 people, no seats, no stands, no shelter,just a pitch and two dugouts for the subs. THATS the lower end of the game. The first club Simon Grayson played for. He has a pic in their clubhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 We haven't got to that position and, on the face of it, the economic recession has scuppered the BP redevelopment plans. The length of time we took getting to the planning permission stage probably did not help either... I think TTA have given it a fair crack of the whip and I understand why they have had to reduce the scale of their dream. Obviously a 12,000 capacity stadium reflects that reduced dream, or ambition for the future as you point out, but who can really blame them when they've been let down by the Oldham public and Council? At least people are starting to accept this a reduction in ambition (as corporal kept saying and everyone kept denying).. Also how are the council to blame ? All they did was save the stadium, contrbute a month delay to the project, and help us find the site in Failsworth... We can only hope that when TTA sell up, the new owners will invest enough, without getting into a mess like Leeds, and be lucky enough, to go onwards and upwards to the higher tiers of football and put another tier onto the new stadium to accommodate the increaed attendances. Meanwhile I await the plans to see how the Club is to be sustained by non-football revenue, but I'll not be holding my breath for a rosy future. Fingers crossed... I share your fear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) Leasing. There's a big difference in business - a lease is an asset, whereas rental is not. I am sure an accountant would give a dam... I doubt me and ed care... Thanks for your arseyness though... Edited November 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I am sure an accountant would give a dam... I doubt me and ed care... Thanks for your arseyness though... It's a pretty big difference - compare say owning your house on a 1000 year leasehold to renting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It's a pretty big difference - compare say owning your house on a 1000 year leasehold to renting? Its neither here or there in the context me Ed was talking about... I also doubt its going to make a big difference to the books either... We are not talking about a huge piece of land either (waits for farther time to spprove my comment ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Its neither here or there in the context me Ed was talking about... I also doubt its going to make a big difference to the books either... We are not talking about a huge piece of land either (waits for farther time to spprove my comment ) what you draggin me into now.lol i just dont understand it really...we are to a certain degree now self sufficient in as much as we are owned by tta,they have set up another company to handle the land purchase but its the same people in context.and we dont pay any rent for bp we own it. so why look for a different land aqusition where we have to rent or lease call it what you will.at the end of the day..we are still going to be paying out each year a charge set by the council..where if they feel it necessary can increase at any given time they want to..knowing how the council operate it is something i am concerned about as i am sure others are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Also how are the council to blame ? All they did was save the stadium, contrbute a month delay to the project, and help us find the site in Failsworth... It was not only a 1 month delay. The planning application was submitted in the April and the planning process requires that they should make a decision within 13 weeks. (If you don't believe me on this, then consult with Diego who I am sure will be happy to confirm) Therefore we should have had an answer by the end of July AT THE LATEST. Instead we had to wait until mid December, a delay of four and a half crucial months. But for the delay, it is highly likely that a sale of the land around BP would have been completed. Cheers, Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It was not only a 1 month delay. The planning application was submitted in the April and the planning process requires that they should make a decision within 13 weeks. (If you don't believe me on this, then consult with Diego who I am sure will be happy to confirm) Therefore we should have had an answer by the end of July AT THE LATEST. Instead we had to wait until mid December, a delay of four and a half crucial months. But for the delay, it is highly likely that a sale of the land around BP would have been completed. Cheers, Harry Well said, Chaim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) It was not only a 1 month delay. The planning application was submitted in the April and the planning process requires that they should make a decision within 13 weeks. (If you don't believe me on this, then consult with Diego who I am sure will be happy to confirm) Therefore we should have had an answer by the end of July AT THE LATEST. Instead we had to wait until mid December, a delay of four and a half crucial months. But for the delay, it is highly likely that a sale of the land around BP would have been completed. That is not true though is it... Is it not the case that a local authority only have to deal with a certain percentage of applications in a 13 week time frame ? It would be infeasible for the council to deal with EVERY application within the 13 week period ? EDIT: Apparently the goverment set a target of 60% of applications being dealt with within 13 weeks... http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/plannin...anningappq32007 The latest statistics show that 313 (85 per cent) planning authorities met or surpassed the Government's target of deciding 60 per cent of major planning applications within 13 weeks; 340 (93 per cent) met the target of deciding 65 per cent of minor planning applications and 335 (91 per cent) met the target of deciding 80 per cent of other planning applications within 8 weeks. Edited November 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 expansion is at the forefront of the stadium design. That means absolutely nothing surely, isn't it the locale that dictates expansion first and foremost over design? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Well said, Chaim. Apparently not... 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.