It's a shame you couldn't go tonight.....

[Rick]

The official line is that when BP redevelopement was proposed the land was worth 1 million an acre. The last offer was 250K per acre. SC stated he expected now the real going rate is somewhere inbetween should a sale be struck. I would hazzard a guess the land would be worth more without a football ground as part of it. Now if a russian came along with a promise of 1 million a season for 10 years perhaps we could go back to plan A at BP, who knows?.

 

It was clearly stated Wardle wasn't interested, but that begs the question, why bother turning up to talk? another guess would say maybe he was interested a little if the right deal in terms of percentage owned was right (for him).

I agree with the comments about Wardle, I think that if he was willing to speak, he was potentially willing to do a deal, but only if the terms were right for him (this is only my guess).

 

As far as the value of the land goes, I still dont see the difference between the BP site and the Failsworth site. Surely the same rule will apply in relative terms?

 

BTW. Have a look at this.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now THAT would be something to be proud of eh? I would have LOVED that to have been our redeveloped ground

Edited December 10, 2009 by Rick

[edhunteruk]

Depends. One would assume the cost of a night's stay, or gym membership, or cinema tickets would be cheaper outside of town, so people would probably choose Failsworth instead.

 

Also, even if it's only an extra ten minutes on the bus...it's still ten minutes away. If I had the choice between going bowling, to the gym or to the cinema in either place X or somewhere ten minutes further away, then I'd go to place X. There's no point travelling further if you don't need to.

 

if i want to take the kids to the cinema at the moment im going to pilsworth,rochdale or belle vue...alltake around 20 mins to get to,same with bowling etc.

 

if the club build these things then i would go to failsworth or as i see it bottom of broadway,which will take 5 mins 10 max

 

also people who live in that area and dont have transport could easily get there by either walking or taxi.

 

the roxy used to do ok when open,was only forced to close because the council wanted the land.

 

hotels should cost less out of city centres but dont know if they do.

[latic12345]

He also extended an invitation to anyone wanting to make an appoinment with him at the club to run through the REAL financial figures (as opposed to some of the rubbish that gets talked about) then he would be happy to do so.

 

Really? This is an interesting one as financial figures can be spun in any way depending on how you charge liabilities, how you leverage finance etc. It's very easy for people to hold assets and debt off balance sheets etc etc. I would be surprised if he will reveal these in an absolute way. I reckon you are more likely to see a set of accounts, based on a host of assumptions that represent the position of the company at a point in time. I would be amazed if you get anything else...

[Oafc88]

The official line is that when BP redevelopement was proposed the land was worth 1 million an acre. The last offer was 250K per acre. SC stated he expected now the real going rate is somewhere inbetween should a sale be struck. I would hazzard a guess the land would be worth more without a football ground as part of it. Now if a russian came along with a promise of 1 million a season for 10 years perhaps we could go back to plan A at BP, who knows?.

 

It was clearly stated Wardle wasn't interested, but that begs the question, why bother turning up to talk? another guess would say maybe he was interested a little if the right deal in terms of percentage owned was right (for him).

 

I think it was said that was never anything serious, even before Wardle turned up. I think they were put into contact with each other and a meeting set up by mutual friends or something like that, but it was never to discuss a potential investment. (From what i remember was said).

Edited December 10, 2009 by Oafc88

[ghostofcecere]

I agree with the comments about Wardle, I think that if he was willing to speak, he was potentially willing to do a deal, but only if the terms were right for him (this is only my guess).

Rick, from what SC said last I got the impression that it was more of an informal chat with John Wardle. Joe apparently (re-) introduced him to the board during his brief return. Again from what I gathered, SC et al were intersted in anything that JW could say to them about running a football club, but the information he had was more about running a club the size of City rather than us, and the things he talked about were not really applicable to OAFC. I beleive SC said something along the lines of he suggested that TTA must be mad to want to try and deal with a club at League 1 level.

 

It came from the horses mouth with nodded agreement from Alan Hardy that John Wardle is not interested in buying Oldham Athletic.

[ghostofcecere]

The Blackpool development is excellent Dan. At least from what you can see when they're on the telly.

 

I suppose that the problem that Blackpool have, that we may not, is that they are in a bad position so far as the amount of competition they are surrounded by. There wouldn't be much point them building a Hotel on to their ground would there? I suppose without this potential additional revenue scheme, they certainly would have been screwed without a wealthy benefactor.

 

Perhaps I just bought all of the Oldham Arena justification when it was given to us but still think that if we can do it in Failsworth, we should be able to do it on the bit of land inbetween the two Broadways and close to Clayton Playing Fields.

Just to add what been said already by other posters....... the Latvian guy invested £5M in Blackpool which saved them from administration and now pumps in £1M a year.

 

Blackpool along with many others, noteably Huddersfield were identified to us as clubs whereby if the benefactors suddenly pulled out al a Chris Moore, would go straight into administration as they are not financially viable.

[Corporal_Jones]

"the football league hold us up as a model of how a league 1 club should be run"

 

 

 

In other words, know your place.

 

Third division clubs run as third division clubs should be run remain third division clubs.

[ghostofcecere]

In other words, know your place.

 

Third division clubs run as third division clubs should be run remain third division clubs.

Live within your means, don't borrow from banks and not be able to pay back and risk administration, have a long term viable football club.

[Rick]

Just to add what been said already by other posters....... the Latvian guy invested £5M in Blackpool which saved them from administration and now pumps in £1M a year.

 

Blackpool along with many others, noteably Huddersfield were identified to us as clubs whereby if the benefactors suddenly pulled out al a Chris Moore, would go straight into administration as they are not financially viable.

 

Yeah, but if we opened a Lap Dancing Joint, Bowling Alley, Hotel, "Private" shop and Indian Take-Away Restaurant as part of the new development, I'm sure that we could replace the missing £5m initial and £1m ongoing that has seen Blackpool do so well almost immediatley.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Rick

[Corporal_Jones]

And that's just for Gregan alone!

 

It was said that the 12,000 seats are more than enough at the current time, I felt it was implied that if this situation changed it would be looked at, that architects are designing it with expansion in mind. It was also said that it wouldn't be a Shrewsbury or Colchester so this doesn't imply that expansion would be corners filled in, probably like the RRE, if needs be another tier could be put on. Just crossed my mind, I wonder how much this cost the board at the time the RRE was built, if it was a couple of hundred grand would that money have been better spent on keeping us in the Premiership? Just a thought.

 

 

 

Did anybody say why 12000 is now deemed enough when, just a few months ago when we were told the BP redevelopment was going ahead, it was considered that the club required a capapcity of 16000? Did anybody say why we apparently need a ground smaller than that planned by the likes of Rotherham?

 

 

[Corporal_Jones]

Live within your means, don't borrow from banks and not be able to pay back and risk administration, have a long term viable football club.

 

 

 

Yes, viable at this level or below. Which is why the club is building a stadium with a capacity that assumes permanent lower division football.

[Macca]

taken from official sites updates last night.

 

Question:

 

One thing that concerns me is the limit of 12,000 at the new stadium. If we are aiming to reach the top level and are lucky enough to do so, you are limiting that future.

 

We can not have a future with 12,000.

 

AH:

 

Our current average is 5,000. A 12,000 capacity would be more than adequate, and the development would ideally be extendable to 16,000 and would probably be the maximum required when you look at our averages when we were previously in the Premiership.

 

Follow Up:

 

It was said last week that that would not be possible.

 

AH:

 

That was, if I'm honest, a misreporting by the Oldham Chronicle.

 

BO:

 

The furthest thing that I have seen is a lack of ambition. The owners could be long gone from Oldham by now. The sooner that this myth of lack of ambition is dispelled the better.

 

 

[Rick]

also people who live in that area and dont have transport could easily get there by either walking or taxi.

 

Thanks for that

 

Just a shame that anyone living around where BP is at the moment wouldn't though eh?

 

[Rick]

taken from official sites updates last night.

 

Question:

 

One thing that concerns me is the limit of 12,000 at the new stadium. If we are aiming to reach the top level and are lucky enough to do so, you are limiting that future.

 

We can not have a future with 12,000.

 

AH:

 

Our current average is 5,000. A 12,000 capacity would be more than adequate, and the development would ideally be extendable to 16,000 and would probably be the maximum required when you look at our averages when we were previously in the Premiership.

 

Follow Up:

 

It was said last week that that would not be possible.

 

AH:

 

That was, if I'm honest, a misreporting by the Oldham Chronicle.

 

BO:

 

The furthest thing that I have seen is a lack of ambition. The owners could be long gone from Oldham by now. The sooner that this myth of lack of ambition is dispelled the better.

 

My quote of the night from the minutes as they happened last night was this......

 

"BO

 

We run the risk, with over-providing information, that we instil fear or negativity with too much information"

 

Big danger with that one from Latics at the moment El Presidente! The other option is called "Mushroom Management" - keep them in the dark and feed them on crap.

 

Voice of the Fans in the Boardroom?

[Corporal_Jones]

taken from official sites updates last night.

 

Question:

 

One thing that concerns me is the limit of 12,000 at the new stadium. If we are aiming to reach the top level and are lucky enough to do so, you are limiting that future.

 

We can not have a future with 12,000.

 

AH:

 

Our current average is 5,000. A 12,000 capacity would be more than adequate, and the development would ideally be extendable to 16,000 and would probably be the maximum required when you look at our averages when we were previously in the Premiership.

 

 

What we averaged while in the PL is another red herring. Crowds were smaller across the board at the time. When Bolton went up in 1995, at a time when crowds were on the rise, they only managed to average 18000. If we'd stayed there longer, or got back there, our crowds would have risen. They would have begun to rise again had we managed to remain in the second-tier longer than two seasons and make an effort at challenging for the play-offs. Fall down the divisions and your crowds will fall with you. Stagnate, and the fanbase will stagnate. The only way out is a winning team and promotion, or else you have to consolidate at the present level in a small stadium (which will never, ever need to be extended because, in the unlikely event of promotion, it will be a brief Scunthorpe-style brush with the division above, necessitating no expansion.)

 

Why is 16000 'probably the maximum required' when we managed considerably more than that on numerous occasions both during the PL days and the two seasons leading up to them, not to mention in the more distant past?

Edited December 10, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[andy_b_100]

What we averaged while in the PL is another red herring. Crowds were smaller across the board at the time. When Bolton went up in 1995, at a time when crowds were on the rise, they only managed to average 18000. If we'd stayed there longer, or got back there, our crowds would have risen. They would have begun to rise again had we managed to remain in the second-tier longer than two seasons and make an effort at challenging for the play-offs. Fall down the divisions and your crowds will fall with you. Stagnate, and the fanbase will stagnate. The only way out is a winning team and promotion, or else you have to consolidate at the present level in a small stadium (which will never, ever need to be extended because, in the unlikely event of promotion, it will be a brief Scunthorpe-style brush with the division above, necessitating no expansion.)

 

Why is 16000 'probably the maximum required' when we managed considerably more than that on numerous occasions both during the PL days and the two seasons leading up to them, not to mention in the more distant past?

 

 

Why didnt you go and ask ?

[ghostofcecere]

What we averaged while in the PL is another red herring. Crowds were smaller across the board at the time. When Bolton went up in 1995, at a time when crowds were on the rise, they only managed to average 18000. If we'd stayed there longer, or got back there, our crowds would have risen. They would have begun to rise again had we managed to remain in the second-tier longer than two seasons and make an effort at challenging for the play-offs. Fall down the divisions and your crowds will fall with you. Stagnate, and the fanbase will stagnate. The only way out is a winning team and promotion, or else you have to consolidate at the present level in a small stadium (which will never, ever need to be extended because, in the unlikely event of promotion, it will be a brief Scunthorpe-style brush with the division above, necessitating no expansion.)

 

Why is 16000 'probably the maximum required' when we managed considerably more than that on numerous occasions both during the PL days and the two seasons leading up to them, not to mention in the more distant past?

Corp, why don't you email Simon Corney with your concerns, he invited it last night?

[Corporal_Jones]

Why didnt you go and ask ?

 

 

 

Haven't you read the threads where I've answered this? There are several.

[Corporal_Jones]

Corp, why don't you email Simon Corney with your concerns, he invited it last night?

 

 

 

Because I already know the answers I'll get. Unless they're going to say something different than they said last night (which was, as far as I can make out, essentially no different to what they've said ever since Failsworth was announced.)

 

Somehow I don't think I'll get a tailored response, just for little me.

[underdog]

Blonde eh

 

(hopefully her other half isn't reading ....)

 

 

I think you find that he did and has responded..lol....however, grey is tending to show more these days....must be those games at BP this season. Latics need to post a "seriously not good for your health, hair folickles or nails" above the turnstyles when you pass through..

 

 

[ghostofcecere]

Because I already know the answers I'll get. Unless they're going to say something different than they said last night (which was, as far as I can make out, essentially no different to what they've said ever since Failsworth was announced.)

 

Somehow I don't think I'll get a tailored response, just for little me.

You see this is the trouble Corp, you are quick to criticise and spread your lack of ambition mantra, but you don't want to do anything other than keep posting the same things on here over and over again.

 

Many of us agree with lots of what you say, but going on about it is not helping at all is it?

 

SC offered to speak to individuals and at least listen to their concerns or run through the figures with them, why not take him at his word? You might just learn something you never know!

 

Get from behind the comfort of your keyboard and try to effect change...... yeah maybe it will have no effect at all, but at least you can be satisified with what you've done to at least try to change things and you got your point across to the right people. It's got to be better than posting the same things over and over again on here.

[Corporal_Jones]

You see this is the trouble Corp, you are quick to criticise and spread your lack of ambition mantra, but you don't want to do anything other than keep posting the same things on here over and over again.

 

Many of us agree with lots of what you say, but going on about it is not helping at all is it?

 

SC offered to speak to individuals and at least listen to their concerns or run through the figures with them, why not take him at his word? You might just learn something you never know!

 

Get from behind the comfort of your keyboard and try to effect change...... yeah maybe it will have no effect at all, but at least you can be satisified with what you've done to at least try to change things and you got your point across to the right people. It's got to be better than posting the same things over and over again on here.

 

 

 

In what way is attending a meeting and getting the answers you want to hear helping or 'effecting change'? What good does 'getting your point across to the right people' do when all decisions are out of your hands?

 

I'm not interested in pretending to be involved in running the club. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I support the cub by turning up to home games. That's all I'm interested in. I expect those the club employs to occupy themselves in 'effecting change' etc. I don't want to talk to club owners, whoever they may be-I want some dynamism, a return to the Championship and a good go at the top six. Apparently, this is now a utopian ideal. So be it.

 

I'm not interested in seeing any figures. I understand perfectly well the reasoning behind the downscaling of the club. I don't think TTA are evil schemers. I just don't relish the thought of season after season at this level or below, without the dream of something much better to look forward to (which has to be more than just the promise of a hopeless relegation year back in the second tier, folowed by another round of cutbacks and yet more inferior football.) Maybe I'm wrong, but after twenty-five years in the top two divisions, and the 'glory years,' I can't bring myself to get excited, or even interested enough in what's now on offer. Current attendances suggest I'm not on my own.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[Stitch_KTF]

I suppose that the problem that Blackpool have, that we may not, is that they are in a bad position so far as......

 

.....sea levels rising? That's what I thought you were going to say. Pleasant thought.

[LaticsPete]

Because I already know the answers I'll get. Unless they're going to say something different than they said last night (which was, as far as I can make out, essentially no different to what they've said ever since Failsworth was announced.)

 

Somehow I don't think I'll get a tailored response, just for little me.

 

 

If you know the answers to the questions that you have just asked on here, but refused to go and ask last night, give the definitive answers !

 

Or will this be another of your "there are many threads with my facts/opinion/reasons on this" sort of reply?

You have strongly held views CJ . You say you believe that going last night won't change anything but maybe it was because you just didn't feel up to taking on the people who you criticise for lack of ambition?

[Corporal_Jones]

If you know the answers to the questions that you have just asked on here, but refused to go and ask last night, give the definitive answers !

 

Or will this be another of your "there are many threads with my facts/opinion/reasons on this" sort of reply?

You have strongly held views CJ . You say you believe that going last night won't change anything but maybe it was because you just didn't feel up to taking on the people who you criticise for lack of ambition?

 

 

 

The definitive answers are no different than the ones we'd already been given several times over. Just as I anticipated.

 

I've already explained that I'm uninterested in pretending to be involved in running the club. Take them on in what way? With what aim in mind?

 

I don't think TTA lack ambition, by the way, but when it comes to the football club I fail to see how they now take a different approach to the 'not for the likes of us,' one with which we're already too familiar.

 

Incidentally, where were you last night?

Edited December 10, 2009 by Corporal_Jones