Corporal_Jones Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Exactly it will be a different route the one your suggesting which ineviatbly leads us to administration has no turn offs as we won't even be able to bring in anyone a crap team and having a transfer embargo starting on -10 points really isn't worth it. The way we are going at the moment does leave us with a number of side roads where we can turn off onto another road if we pull our finger out we can easily avoid relegation certainly this season and go forwardif we are prudent with our resources and maximise them. Permanent lower division football will quite likely lead to administration because lack of interest damages club finances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 It makes you wonder why no one else has done it before, doesn't it? I suspect it's because self-sustainability simply won't work in football. Because the people getting involved and running football clubs woth the odd exception have been rich football fans who aren't in it for the money and are in it for the status of owning a football club and because they love the sport, or town philanthrapy might be the wrong word here but certainly an ejoyment factor of being involved in football counts for something. Lets not forget aswell by the way the role fans play here aswell they do put pressure on chairman, on managers to put out a winning side which intern drives up the price of players wages as clubs compete frantically for the best talent. Their is no reason why self sustainability won't work in football or why Oldham Athletic won't be profitable although it won't be down to just football activities alone. Their is adanger here aswell as having a cinema, hotel, offices which make it money you might attract a new type of owner who might buy the club for those add ons and then sell them off to himself and leave just a football club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 And you tend to tell me that I've told you on an almost daily basis, which makes me wonder why you wish to silence those who don't swallow whole everything the club tells them. You might think you're waiting for the club to announce it's plan, but to all intents and purposes it's done so already. Both silence and repetition on a forum do not improve the debate. You may well be right in thinking you know what the 'plan' is, but I prefer to wait for it to be announced for consultation purposes. Each to his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeuwenhoek Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The ideal of self-sustained stability was a noble one, but it is time to accept it as nowt but an impossible myth. I very much doubt that any club from the top of the Premiership to the bottom of the Conference North is truly self-sustaining, if you actually examine the full extent of their accounts. If you accept that then what, ultimately, is there to lose by spending millions you haven't got on a bid for glory? Quite frankly I'd rather see the club do that and go out of business than continue suffering the long and painful death by cancer that has currently set in. Oh, and this idea that going out of business would be some kind of permanent end is nonsense. If OAFC (2004) Ltd does end up in liquidation and Oldham Athletic AFC are expelled from the Football League, then I have no doubt that Pine Villa FC will rise from the ashes and be found playing in the second division of the Manchester League in front of a small band of die hard latics fans. I'd go, as long as they didn't play in Failsworth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spadam Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 we really need to get stable and soon, our situation is poor and while there are a lot of clubs in the fire t the moment were just simmering on the outside of it, it is around about the make or break period for a lot of clubs including us, we either do something that gets us stable, take risks but not too much of one (which is what i think the new stadium is doing for us) or we end up in the fire like the rest of them i remember reading about scunthorpe and how they are one of only a few clubs who are currently financially stable in the top 2 divisions and i think that is mainly down to new stadium, think if we get this new stadium we should be ok, looking at colchester aswell they seem to be stable at the moment aswell thanks hugely to the income of the new stadium. infact if you look at all clubs who have received new stadiums they seem to be doing alright,whereas those riding on the finances from players are facing huge problems don't agree look at southampton and darlington. They have new grounds but its just got them in a mess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 (edited) GlossopLatic - So you honestly think that all these rich football fans who buy football clubs actually make a choice to spunk loads of cash on their club instead of working to a sustainable model? There is one simple and very good reason why self-sustainability won't work. The figures simply do not add up. Two years ago Simon Blitz stated that our overall annual income was approximately £2.5M. At that time, our expenditure on players' wages was £2M. If you begin to add all our other expenses to that it's very easy to see how TTA were subsidising the club to the tune of £1M a season just to balance the books. I suspect those figures have dropped this season to an income of (at best) £2M and players' wages of £1.5M. And all those other expenses are roughly constant. There is no sustainable level - the more you downscale, the larger the proportion of overall income has to come from the owners' pockets. Edited January 12, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 What side roads would they be then? We're on the verge of turning into one - and it's a pretty steep cul-de-sac in Failsworth. we have the option currently to sign players we have players to come back from injury and we don't have administrators at the door telling us to sell at all costs we aren't in that position at the moment and we won't be aslong as we have TTa putting in a sustainable amount of cash. Anyway I will leave it their Ive stated what I think now you may disagree with what I think as is your democratic right on a message board. I won't be going on and on and on their is no prize for getting the last word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeuwenhoek Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 don't agree look at southampton and darlington. They have new grounds but its just got them in a mess And Oxford. They dropped into the conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 we have the option currently to sign players we have players to come back from injury and we don't have administrators at the door telling us to sell at all costs we aren't in that position at the moment and we won't be aslong as we have TTa putting in a sustainable amount of cash. Anyway I will leave it their Ive stated what I think now you may disagree with what I think as is your democratic right on a message board. I won't be going on and on and on their is no prize for getting the last word. Ah, so "sustainable" now involves the owners "putting in a sustainable amount of cash". Something TTA have very clearly said they will not do indefinitely. In fact, they've stated that if Failsworth doesn't happen they will wind down expenditure to the level of club income. Which is I suppose another of your side roads - straight into administration. Not trying to get the last word, just answering each point as it's raised. And yes, it goes without saying that this is my opinion (except where I include facts such as TTA statements) and that other opinions are available and may differ. My opinion may go down as well as up, etc etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 QUOTE (spadam @ Jan 12 2010, 15:42 PM) don't agree look at southampton and darlington. They have new grounds but its just got them in a mess And Oxford. They dropped into the conference. further to that. In the case of Darlington, they built a stadium to make a statement to their neighbours, and by a rich (but crokked) owner. Southampton just borrowed loads of (now) expensive money that was around at the time. Oxford just had a rich owner who pumped money in. None of the above are built on the sustainable model as far as I can see, so not comparable with our move, which is reportedly desinged to make us someway toself sufficieny. You know, we could become pioneers again (remeber those days!) and by a vanguard for the way football clubs are run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Personally I can't wait to see what this sustainable model you speak of looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 And you tend to tell me that I've told you on an almost daily basis, which makes me wonder why you wish to silence those who don't swallow whole everything the club tells them. Exactly. Both silence and repetition on a forum do not improve the debate. You may well be right in thinking you know what the 'plan' is, but I prefer to wait for it to be announced for consultation purposes. Each to his own. That doesn't answer his question. He asked why do you wish to silence those who prefer to be skeptical, and don't swallow everything the club tells them. I prefer to wait for it to be announced for consultation purposes. Each to his own. Yes, I too prefer to wait to see the so-called plans before weighing up, but as you say - each to their own, so let C_J discuss as he sees it at this moment - as you have implied, that's what a forum is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Personally I can't wait to see what this sustainable model you speak of looks like. Neither can I. Unless there is friggin' oil underneath BP, a few all-weather pitches and a poxy conference room ain't gonna see Latics ripping up the divisions any time soon. There must be more to the project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 There must be more to the project. To create the new Valhalla there must be. But I can't see how. There simply isn't the market there for the kind of income we need, even on the border of Manchester... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 But if the 'plan' as the corp calls it, is to become a self sufficient basement club, their not exactly going to announce to a press conference "Our new plan of action is to become self sufficient, although this does mean we will be predominantly playing our football in the bottom two tiers, maybe the odd season in the second tier" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Fixed for you. Well done Nutall. You have managed to win this one..... Ryan - can you ban him please for personal insults. I think this thread should now be locked.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 Neither can I. Unless there is friggin' oil underneath BP, a few all-weather pitches and a poxy conference room ain't gonna see Latics ripping up the divisions any time soon. There must be more to the project. Even I, as wrongly labelled Happy Clapper, agree that some all weather pitches and conference facilities will not be self financning. Which after all is going to need to bring in £2m+. But why are the doom monger so sure that IT WILL NOT work when they have not seen the plans? "There must be more to the project." I'd hope so too, but I think it right to approach it as you have done with ;it has to be more, maybe it could contain x,y,z' is better than it is inevitiably going to fail. A bit more interesting to read, as a bonus. I don't think those of us criticising Corp are denying his pont, and most certainyly not his silence. Just we know the worst case scenario, why keep harping on as if we don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I can't ban people for stating the truth, Alex, no matter how difficult it is to swallow... (snigger) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 (edited) Why? What have you heard about the timetable? Nothing... When are you expecting the plans ? Any firm dates from the TTA ? Edited January 12, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 That doesn't answer his question. He asked why do you wish to silence those who prefer to be skeptical, and don't swallow everything the club tells them. I said both silence and repetition on a forum do not improve the debate. I do not wish to silence anyone and look forward to different views. I cannot see the benefit of keep repeating the same point, and the fact that the Forum Rules do not permit it makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I cannot see the benefit of keep repeating the same point That would have more credibility if you didn't keep doing it yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 That would have more credibility if you didn't keep doing it yourself. The "point" refers to opinion - I don't repeat the same opinion, but repeatedly question the need to keep repeating the same opinion, particularly when asked for explanations by members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 That would have more credibility if you didn't keep doing it yourself. As you, repeatedly, say.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 (edited) I don't repeat the same opinion, but repeatedly question the need to keep repeating the same opinion Which, as far as I'm concerned is even more boring than repeating the same opinion. Not to mention more disruptive of the board. Show me any member on here who doesn't repeat the same opinion when similar things are being discussed. Well ok, any member who is intelligent and consistent enough to know what their opinion is and stand by it. It's a good job you've never been guilty of beating a dead horse or questioning forum policy, eh... Edited January 12, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 As you, repeatedly, say.. Oi, you got the wrong man - that's the first time I've said that! 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.