Lookers_Carl Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 New stadium is Latics only chance to bring back the good times As the media hacks tunnelled their way through Boundary Park's main stand to the gym area which doubles as a post-match briefing room at the weekend, noses were sent twitching by what seemed to be an application of fresh paint in some unspecified area. Either that or Athletic press officer Roy Butterworth had been buying cheap aftershave from the market again. Top marks to the Athletic staff who battle to try to keep the old place respectable through sweeping, dusting, polishing and painting. Home is home. It doesn't hurt to take some pride in it. At the same time, nobody needs the skills of a forensic detective to work out that Boundary Park is very, very tired indeed these days. It remains rich in memories, but so poor in terms of the basic comforts football folk have come to expect in the modern era. Former Athletic defender Paul Futcher was back and knocking around the press box before the Colchester match. "This place has hardly changed in 30 years," he said, pertinently. Disappointing recent home crowds, including the awful 3,607 figure present last week, indicate that the crumbling state of Boundary Park is a factor in keeping people away. A ground badly lacking in elementary facilities isn't much of a pull and it can't help the team's fortunes, either. Two home wins since February show that Athletic don't prosper at their partly-demolished home, while visitors love the place. As one wag pointed out on the Chronicle Comments section of our website: “No successful fortress in history has had only three sides”. It is abundantly clear that for the club to survive and succeed in the future, Athletic need to cut the current Boundary Park loose as soon as possible . . . which makes it so important that the owners' plans to relocate to Failsworth are backed by the fans. There are plenty of objectors, just as there are plenty of people who thought that John and Edward were a good turn on the X-Factor. Wrong bit of Oldham? That's one you hear a lot, particularly from those who live within walking distance of the current ground. It may be closer to Manchester than Boundary Park, but that should make it easier to attract new fans from different areas of town. Too small? Let's walk before we run, eh? A 12,000 capacity is absolutely fine for a club of Athletic's present size. There is little worth in fans rattling around some gigantic sarcophagus and current crowds aren't anywhere near such a mark. Why not stay and redevelop the current ground? Well, that ship appears to have sailed. The owners have decided that in the current climate the original plans simply aren't viable. Some will wish it were another way, just as I wish I were blessed with Leo Messi's ball skills and Brad Pitt's looks. What about the residents? They are entitled to voice concerns, though in fairness it would probably help the image of FRAG (Failsworth Residents’ Action Group) if they held fire on objections until the plans are revealed, so that they knew exactly what it is they are objecting to. Nothing is set in stone, but it doesn't hurt to look at the glass being half full rather than half empty over the £20million development. Oldhamers often seem conditioned to be negative. Athletic's owners are clearly optimists — otherwise, why invest in a dream by buying a League One club in the first place — and seem to be committed to driving forward a new, exciting stadium project which will hopefully benefit Oldham as a whole. Similar stadium ideas have borne fruit and worked a treat for both club and, in a wider sense, town, in a host of other places around the country. Why not here? Surely it can’t be coincidence . . . NINE professional clubs have moved into new grounds while playing in the Football League this century and all but one — Colchester United — have experienced a consequent immediate rise in attendances. Average attendances, old and new Cardiff City — Ninian Park, 2008-09 (Championship): 18,044; Cardiff City Stadium, 2009-10 so far (Championship): 21,056. Relocation distance: 0.6 miles Increase: 16.7-per-cent Colchester United — Layer Road, 2007-08 (Championship): 5,509; Weston Homes Community Stadium, 2008-09 (League One): 5,084. Relocation distance: 6.7 miles Fall: 7.7-per-cent Coventry City — Highfield Road, 2004-05 (Championship): 16,048; Ricoh Arena, 2005-06 (Championship): 21,302. Relocation distance: 3 miles Increase: 31.1-per-cent Darlington — Feethams, 2002-03 (League Two): 3,312; Darlington Arena, 2003-04 (League Two): 5,023. Relocation distance: 1.1 miles Increase: 51.7-per-cent Doncaster Rovers * — Belle Vue, 2005-06 (League One): 6,139; Keepmoat Stadium, 2006-07 (League One): 7,746. Relocation distance: 2.9 miles Increase: 26.2-per-cent Hull City ** — Boothferry Park, 2002-03 (League Two): 12,843; KC Stadium, 2003-04 (League Two): 16,847. Relocation distance: 2 miles Increase: 31.2-per-cent Leicester City *** — Filbert Street, 2001-02 (Premier League): 19,835; Walkers Stadium, 2002-03 (Championship): 29,219. Relocation distance: 0.1 miles Increase: 47.3-per-cent Shrewsbury Town — Gay Meadow, 2006-07 (League Two): 4,730; Prostar Stadium, 2007-08 (League Two): 5,659. Relocation distance: 1.8 miles Increase: 19.6-per-cent Swansea City — Vetch Field, 2004-05 (League Two): 8,458; Liberty Stadium, 2005-06 (League One): 14,112. Relocation distance: 3.1 miles Increase: 66.8-per-cent * Doncaster moved to the Keepmoat in the latter half of the 2006-07 season. ** Hull City moved to the KC Stadium halfway through the 2002-03 season. *** Leicester played their first game of the 2002-03 season at Filbert Street. MK DONS are counted as a new club and therefore not included in the comparison. Current League One club Southampton opened their new St Mary's stadium in the Premier League and are also therefore left out, while Burton Albion did so while in the Conference and are also excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kellysheroes Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 New stadium is Latics only chance to bring back the good times As the media hacks tunnelled their way through Boundary Park's main stand to the gym area which doubles as a post-match briefing room at the weekend, noses were sent twitching by what seemed to be an application of fresh paint in some unspecified area. Either that or Athletic press officer Roy Butterworth had been buying cheap aftershave from the market again. Top marks to the Athletic staff who battle to try to keep the old place respectable through sweeping, dusting, polishing and painting. Home is home. It doesn't hurt to take some pride in it. At the same time, nobody needs the skills of a forensic detective to work out that Boundary Park is very, very tired indeed these days. It remains rich in memories, but so poor in terms of the basic comforts football folk have come to expect in the modern era. Former Athletic defender Paul Futcher was back and knocking around the press box before the Colchester match. "This place has hardly changed in 30 years," he said, pertinently. Disappointing recent home crowds, including the awful 3,607 figure present last week, indicate that the crumbling state of Boundary Park is a factor in keeping people away. A ground badly lacking in elementary facilities isn't much of a pull and it can't help the team's fortunes, either. Two home wins since February show that Athletic don't prosper at their partly-demolished home, while visitors love the place. As one wag pointed out on the Chronicle Comments section of our website: “No successful fortress in history has had only three sides”. It is abundantly clear that for the club to survive and succeed in the future, Athletic need to cut the current Boundary Park loose as soon as possible . . . which makes it so important that the owners' plans to relocate to Failsworth are backed by the fans. There are plenty of objectors, just as there are plenty of people who thought that John and Edward were a good turn on the X-Factor. Wrong bit of Oldham? That's one you hear a lot, particularly from those who live within walking distance of the current ground. It may be closer to Manchester than Boundary Park, but that should make it easier to attract new fans from different areas of town. Too small? Let's walk before we run, eh? A 12,000 capacity is absolutely fine for a club of Athletic's present size. There is little worth in fans rattling around some gigantic sarcophagus and current crowds aren't anywhere near such a mark. Why not stay and redevelop the current ground? Well, that ship appears to have sailed. The owners have decided that in the current climate the original plans simply aren't viable. Some will wish it were another way, just as I wish I were blessed with Leo Messi's ball skills and Brad Pitt's looks. What about the residents? They are entitled to voice concerns, though in fairness it would probably help the image of FRAG (Failsworth Residents’ Action Group) if they held fire on objections until the plans are revealed, so that they knew exactly what it is they are objecting to. Nothing is set in stone, but it doesn't hurt to look at the glass being half full rather than half empty over the £20million development. Oldhamers often seem conditioned to be negative. Athletic's owners are clearly optimists — otherwise, why invest in a dream by buying a League One club in the first place — and seem to be committed to driving forward a new, exciting stadium project which will hopefully benefit Oldham as a whole. Similar stadium ideas have borne fruit and worked a treat for both club and, in a wider sense, town, in a host of other places around the country. Why not here? Surely it can’t be coincidence . . . NINE professional clubs have moved into new grounds while playing in the Football League this century and all but one — Colchester United — have experienced a consequent immediate rise in attendances. Average attendances, old and new Cardiff City — Ninian Park, 2008-09 (Championship): 18,044; Cardiff City Stadium, 2009-10 so far (Championship): 21,056. Relocation distance: 0.6 miles Increase: 16.7-per-cent Colchester United — Layer Road, 2007-08 (Championship): 5,509; Weston Homes Community Stadium, 2008-09 (League One): 5,084. Relocation distance: 6.7 miles Fall: 7.7-per-cent Coventry City — Highfield Road, 2004-05 (Championship): 16,048; Ricoh Arena, 2005-06 (Championship): 21,302. Relocation distance: 3 miles Increase: 31.1-per-cent Darlington — Feethams, 2002-03 (League Two): 3,312; Darlington Arena, 2003-04 (League Two): 5,023. Relocation distance: 1.1 miles Increase: 51.7-per-cent Doncaster Rovers * — Belle Vue, 2005-06 (League One): 6,139; Keepmoat Stadium, 2006-07 (League One): 7,746. Relocation distance: 2.9 miles Increase: 26.2-per-cent Hull City ** — Boothferry Park, 2002-03 (League Two): 12,843; KC Stadium, 2003-04 (League Two): 16,847. Relocation distance: 2 miles Increase: 31.2-per-cent Leicester City *** — Filbert Street, 2001-02 (Premier League): 19,835; Walkers Stadium, 2002-03 (Championship): 29,219. Relocation distance: 0.1 miles Increase: 47.3-per-cent Shrewsbury Town — Gay Meadow, 2006-07 (League Two): 4,730; Prostar Stadium, 2007-08 (League Two): 5,659. Relocation distance: 1.8 miles Increase: 19.6-per-cent Swansea City — Vetch Field, 2004-05 (League Two): 8,458; Liberty Stadium, 2005-06 (League One): 14,112. Relocation distance: 3.1 miles Increase: 66.8-per-cent * Doncaster moved to the Keepmoat in the latter half of the 2006-07 season. ** Hull City moved to the KC Stadium halfway through the 2002-03 season. *** Leicester played their first game of the 2002-03 season at Filbert Street. MK DONS are counted as a new club and therefore not included in the comparison. Current League One club Southampton opened their new St Mary's stadium in the Premier League and are also therefore left out, while Burton Albion did so while in the Conference and are also excluded. cant wait to walk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Who is this Matthew Chambers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Who is this Matthew Chambers? Is he about 6ft 5 with long curly hair? Sits in Chaddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 That's Mark C, innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Good article, I am much in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Latics' future Well. a feature in the Chron that has facts as well as opinion. Thought it was well set out . But i await the backlash from some of our regular correspondents..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 This Chambers fella strikes me as a bit of a sneering tosspot, but it's a well put together piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUNGFOO Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Latics' future Well. a feature in the Chron that has facts as well as opinion. Thought it was well set out . But i await the backlash from some of our regular correspondents..... probly the first thing in a long time thay have properly about latics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytrap Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I've been in favour of the move since the beginning and this piece reinforces that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardy Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 The fans are staying away because of Boundary Park??? And then mention 2 home wins since Feb! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Latics' future Well. a feature in the Chron that has facts as well as opinion. Thought it was well set out . But i await the backlash from some of our regular correspondents..... Funny how the Chron comes back into favour when it says the acceptable things. What else were they going to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 The fans are staying away because of Boundary Park??? And then mention 2 home wins since Feb! I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Several posters on here have said that the demolition of the Lookers has caused folk not to come for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Several posters on here have said that the demolition of the Lookers has caused folk not to come for instance. I was never in favour of them doing that, it was a mistake........ I don't think for one minute that it stopping fans coming was ever on the radar, I don't think TTA ever considered that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) In detailing attendances boosted by moving to new grounds, the article fails to mention that nearly all of those clubs were, to varying degrees, clubs on the up at the time of moving. They were not trapped in a long trajectory of decline that nobody seems to have a clear idea how to get out of. I notice that it also contains the laughable claim that the club will start to attract the very people inclined to support either the currently most successful or the richest club in the country (ie Mancunians.) Why would they come to watch third division crap (or fourth division crap for that matter) on a regular basis when not only most of the Oldham population won't do so, but many of those who have endured it longer than most are packing it in? Depressingly naive and simplistic thinking. What's most worrying of all is that it comes directly out of the club. Edited November 26, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Good article, I am much in agreement. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 +1 An exceedingly naive article, which simply repeats the club's thinking on the matter. As I've explained in the other thread on the subject, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Why not stay and redevelop the current ground? Well, that ship appears to have sailed. The owners have decided that in the current climate the original plans simply aren't viable. Then wait and redevelop the site around BP. A move to Failsworth is a permanent resolution to a temporary issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 It's obvoulsy a propoganda piece, The fact that it's on the official site - The points raised are all true but I think this is Corney saying write this and we'll call a truce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Why not stay and redevelop the current ground? Well, that ship appears to have sailed. The owners have decided that in the current climate the original plans simply aren't viable. Then wait and redevelop the site around BP. A move to Failsworth is a permanent resolution to a temporary issue. What he said..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 probly the first thing in a long time thay have properly about latics It's obvoulsy a propoganda piece, The fact that it's on the official site - The points raised are all true but I think this is Corney saying write this and we'll call a truce The Chron has made the Club remove it from the OS. It's more than coincidence that the rarely wrong Chron starts to speak in favour of the Club after the Club picks the MEN as its media partner. The MEN ran the same sort of story four months ago. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/spo...ham_on_the_move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 An exceedingly naive article, which simply repeats the club's thinking on the matter. As I've explained in the other thread on the subject, Perhaps the guy who wrote the article agrees with the clubs thinking on this matter in which case it deserves to be repeated in the same manner as any other anti-failsworth article/stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Why not stay and redevelop the current ground? Well, that ship appears to have sailed. The owners have decided that in the current climate the original plans simply aren't viable. Then wait and redevelop the site around BP. A move to Failsworth is a permanent resolution to a temporary issue. Fantastic advice to any business: “You might be making losses year on year but instead of doing something about it, wait and hope that things get better”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Fantastic advice to any business: “You might be making losses year on year but instead of doing something about it, wait and hope that things get better”. The same could also be said for relocating your business right on the doorstep of your bigger stronger competitor too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 I have to agree with the corp slightly here. What the writer fails to pass comment on are the current attendances, some of those figures are two, three or more seasons out of date. An increase in attendances might be prevalent in the first season of a new stadia "new toy syndrome" but there-after, the performances on the pitch would have more effect... 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.