MaskedOwl Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...tial-for-latics or just wishful thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 (edited) http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...tial-for-latics or just wishful thinking? Hopefully it will happen... Not like the chron to get it wrong is it... If it went through maybe TTA could stump up the cash to pay off DP Seriously though, I would imagine it would just go towards paying back the debt or keeping it from getting worse...which is no bad thing... The club has a 20-per-cent sell-on clause and a transfer fee of £12m would translate as £2.4m for the Boundary Park kitty. Yeah right Edited January 4, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Well if we are losing in the region of 600k a yr, should mean TTA wont have to put their hands in their pockets for 3 yrs or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Well if we are losing in the region of 600k a yr, should mean TTA wont have to put their hands in their pockets for 3 yrs or so Or go straight to their pockets to recoup the money lost on us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 If we do get a £2.4M windfall I'd want to see it invested directly into the club. It's essentially money for nothing, can't have been budgeted for and could make all the difference to us and our prospects. £400k into next seasons playing budget and £2m for an extra 2000 on the capacity at Failsworth would be spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 If we do get a £2.4M windfall I'd want to see it invested directly into the club. It's essentially money for nothing, can't have been budgeted for and could make all the difference to us and our prospects. £400k into next seasons playing budget and £2m for an extra 2000 on the capacity at Failsworth would be spot on. It'd be nice if it happened. It won't though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 If we do get a £2.4M windfall I'd want to see it invested directly into the club. I would love to see the same but that would mean still subsidising by TTA of around £600K per year. I would question their sanity if they did that and ignored the windfall completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I think they would have let the club see the whole benefit if it were not looking like their ownership was going to cost them a fair bit more than they once imagined. Shame really as I reckon it's one of those where wise investment of £2.4M could see it recouped with more when they come to sell the club, or simply via promotion. Very easy for me to say when I'm not putting in the £2.4M though! I do think they'll reinvest something - they always have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 £2million would subsidise losses for a sufficient period whereby a recovery has taken place in property prices, so that the original plans to redevelop BP can be implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I would like to see £1.4 towards running costs / debt... £1 million towards the team... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I'd suspect most of it would line their pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I'd suspect most of it would line their pockets. Considering the club owe something like £3 million back to TTA the idea of them lining their pockets is a stupid one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Considering the club owe something like £3 million back to TTA the idea of them lining their pockets is a stupid one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I'd suspect most of it would line their pockets. It's easy to snipe "line their own pockets", yet they chose to plough money in in the first place? Your suspicion can of course be justified when considering the extra expense they have had to undertake with the credit crunch etc. However this justification would also pretty much excuse them for 're-lining' their own pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I'd prefer Richards to still be at City until we know exactly where the club is going regarding the move/ownership/league status. For the money to end up in the hands of a board of directors who are about to jump ship* would be extremely worrying to those who had hoped to see it invested in the team. *Controversial can of worms this one, but even the most trusting of the pro-TTA fans would have to concede that TTA have already said they will leave the club 'in a sustainable economic position', which does not necessarily mean they will fling a further load of cash at the team as a parting gesture. The money will be theirs, and they would be entitled to pocket it after setting us up in a new ground and walking away with the proceeds from the BP land as their side of the deal. Micah's money could be a nice little bonus for them. I may be wrong, but I will never be naive enough to trust anyone in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I'd prefer Richards to still be at City until we know exactly where the club is going regarding the move/ownership/league status. For the money to end up in the hands of a board of directors who are about to jump ship* would be extremely worrying to those who had hoped to see it invested in the team. Its a decent suggestion... The risk is obviously a players value can change massively over time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 If we do get a £2.4M windfall I'd want to see it invested directly into the club. It's essentially money for nothing, can't have been budgeted for and could make all the difference to us and our prospects. £400k into next seasons playing budget and £2m for an extra 2000 on the capacity at Failsworth would be spot on. We need an extra 4000 (if the capacity is really set to be 12000 and not considerably less, as some have claimed), to bring the club back in line with the ambitions embodied in the BP redevelopment plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 We need an extra 4000 (if the capacity is really set to be 12000 and not considerably less, as some have claimed), to bring the club back in line with the ambitions embodied in the BP redevelopment plan. Without turning this into another ground capacity/lack of ambition thread, I could live with 12 - 14k, provided we are not being left with a stadium that we can't increase. Otherwise, no amount of cash from the likes of Micah would ever allow us to sustain a decent league standard, as the smaller crowds won't generate the required revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Without turning this into another ground capacity/lack of ambition thread, I could live with 12 - 14k, provided we are not being left with a stadium that we can't increase. Otherwise, no amount of cash from the likes of Micah would ever allow us to sustain a decent league standard, as the smaller crowds won't generate the required revenue. It is going to be 11-12k according to Alan Hardy. As for the stadium capacity, it is our intention to have as big a capacity as we need on the site which, because of some constraints with certain things, will initially restrict capacity to somewhere between 11000 and 12000. We expect this to be within four stands with the corners left open which could then be used to increase capacity in the future if needed to around the 15000 to 16000 figure. This second phase may have to be the subject of a further planning application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Without turning this into another ground capacity/lack of ambition thread, I could live with 12 - 14k, provided we are not being left with a stadium that we can't increase. Otherwise, no amount of cash from the likes of Micah would ever allow us to sustain a decent league standard, as the smaller crowds won't generate the required revenue. Once the stadium is built it will never be extended. That's because a sub-12000 capacity represents, at the very best, ambitions to have only brief Scunthorpe and Colchester-type forays into the Championship. Relegation within a season or two will necessitate no ground extension, particularly as it's likely to lead, sooner or later, to a further decline. As will happen soon to the above-mentioned clubs, both of whom will be back in the fourth division within five years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Once the stadium is built it will never be extended. That's because a sub-12000 capacity represents, at the very best, ambitions to have only brief Scunthorpe and Colchester-type forays into the Championship. Relegation within a season or two will necessitate no ground extension, particularly as it's likely to lead, sooner or later, to a further decline. As will happen soon to the above-mentioned clubs, both of whom will be back in the fourth division within five years. Sorry Corp, as much as I share your concerns, I really don't want to hijack this thread, as the issues originally raised in the thread are worth discussing themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 (edited) Sorry Corp, as much as I share your concerns, I really don't want to hijack this thread, as the issues originally raised in the thread are worth discussing themselves. The issue of capacity is hardly unconnected to what happens to the hypothetical Micah money, and it wasn't me who introduced it into the thread. Edited January 4, 2010 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 We need an extra 4000 (if the capacity is really set to be 12000 and not considerably less, as some have claimed), to bring the club back in line with the ambitions embodied in the BP redevelopment plan. Quite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 The issue of capacity is hardly unconnected to what happens to the hypothetical Micah money, and it wasn't me who introduced it into the thread. As I said earlier, I don't expect any connection whatsoever between the Richards money and the stadium. My worry is that the receipt of the money will coincide with the departure of TTA, and neither the team nor its home will benefit from the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFCMIKE Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 As I said earlier, I don't expect any connection whatsoever between the Richards money and the stadium. My worry is that the receipt of the money will coincide with the departure of TTA, and neither the team nor its home will benefit from the money. Or it will go on the other half of Huddersfield's reserves. 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.