RobOAFC Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 But who has got that kind of money in this current financial environment to spend on subsidising a football club with falling gates as well as building a new stadium? As for the other potential sites in Oldham, didn't they say we would need 10 acres absolutely bare minimum? Beal Valley was a floodplain? Ferney field was a nogo? I would still love to know whether a scaled down development on the lancaster club part only is a possibility, as I think the pylons were only affecting the lower memorial patch of land? Its easilly big enough to accomodate a stadium of a similar size to chesterfields or shrewsburys. Chesterfields b2net is built on a 10 acre site (or the club at least owns a 10 acre site) with another 12 acres dedicated to Tesco etc.. A 15-20 acre plot would be viable surely? Just a downscale on the plans, or instead, build upwards rather than outwards.. Something similar to Chesterfields will be self-sustainable? Or will be close to it? Theirs is a 10,600 capacity stadium, say if we had it as a 12,000 - 13,000 with room for expansion (fill in corners) it is viable? Their gates doubled from move to the new stadium... We dont need a 30 acre site, we just want a 30 acre site.. viable????..nope they want a 30 acre site to make it self sufficient so we dont have to rely on gates of sub 5k... you build a sparkly new stadium only in a small area of town and you have the same problems you have now...only income is through match days and the odd sponsership deal... build the all singing dancing version where the club is utilising income from 7 days a week all year round,and that pays for itself,and means it also pays for better players,better wages and were set for life so to speak.... Sparkly new stadium with facilities for conferences and able to host parties etc will bring in additional money throughout the year.. If we had a new stadium with facilities like them, their would probably be at least an extra thousand on the gate.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That doesn't make it right. In the interests of TTA and not OAFC. If new investors/owners can deliver a stadium in Oldham then that should be the correct thing to do. In your opinion that is, which I respect fully. But not everyones. As I said earlier, I have had a quick goosey at the failsworth site again. The pylons are only a problem on the lower memorial part of the proposed site. The bigger part of the site that the lancaster club resides upon does not seem affected by pylons, and we could easilly fit on there a stadium the size of Shrewsburys or Colchester, maybe a bit bigger. There must have been a reason why we couldnt build the stadium on that part of the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 We dont need a 30 acre site, we just want a 30 acre site.. A football stadium doesn't need a 30 acre site. The 30 acre site is to make it viable for TTA. There must be other options available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Chesterfields b2net is built on a 10 acre site (or the club at least owns a 10 acre site) with another 12 acres dedicated to Tesco etc.. A 15-20 acre plot would be viable surely? Just a downscale on the plans, or instead, build upwards rather than outwards.. Something similar to Chesterfields will be self-sustainable? Or will be close to it? Theirs is a 10,600 capacity stadium, say if we had it as a 12,000 - 13,000 with room for expansion (fill in corners) it is viable? Their gates doubled from move to the new stadium... We dont need a 30 acre site, we just want a 30 acre site.. Sparkly new stadium with facilities for conferences and able to host parties etc will bring in additional money throughout the year.. If we had a new stadium with facilities like them, their would probably be at least an extra thousand on the gate.. See my post above, how big is the part of the site that the lancaster club lies on, which is not held by a charitable trust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 In your opinion that is, which I respect fully. But not everyones. As I said earlier, I have had a quick goosey at the failsworth site again. The pylons are only a problem on the lower memorial part of the proposed site. The bigger part of the site that the lancaster club resides upon does not seem affected by pylons, and we could easilly fit on there a stadium the size of Shrewsburys or Colchester, maybe a bit bigger. There must have been a reason why we couldnt build the stadium on that part of the site. They could build it but need the extra area to make it viable. Someone else may not need that extra land to make it viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Well theres a listed building on the site and all the lawas that go with that. And I think Prozac mentioned that theres a lot of low, overhead power lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Well theres a listed building on the site and all the lawas that go with that. And I think Prozac mentioned that theres a lot of low, overhead power lines. Fair doos I pass it on the route to manc, you can only really notice the ones on the lower memorial park Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) They could build it but need the extra area to make it viable. Someone else may not need that extra land to make it viable. It's not only about a new stadium with extra-curricular facilities that generate extra-income, but the site needs to be bigger to MAXIMISE revenues. Hotels and leisure facilities such as 3g pitches, bowling alleys, cinemas and restaurants will generate year round income too. The big chains rarely buy the land up preferring to lease their areas and pay yearly rent - then if it goes tits up they can get out after a certain timescale. Perhaps TTA are being greedy with the area they want, but they want to leave a legacy (along with making a bundle back) of leisure facilities, a new stadium and income streams that will continue to benefit them and the club. That's the way I see it. If a new ground is built in another location will the money be there to build enough corporate hospitality? Conferencing and banqueting suites? Or will we get an empty shell with slightly better facilities that pretty much don't benefit anyone? (Ala Walsall before they enlarged the stand, Scunthorpe and Shrewsbury - yes Shrewsbury, they dropped a massive bollock by not factoring in enough boxes and are missing out on thousands every week!) It's not simply about a ground, it's about becoming self-sustainable. Not having to auction off mascot places, not having to collect for additions to the squad. It's about giving the club a chance to stand on its own two feet on a site that will be used 24/7. If push came to shove I would love to stay in Oldham, but it's not going to happen. The council will find a hurdle at every turn no matter who is in charge. Sportspark 2000, Oldham Arena and this sorry mess have been going on for nearly 17 years and that's before I mention the ground we entered into discussions with M & S and their partners to build back in 1989. Edited February 4, 2011 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Well theres a listed building on the site and all the lawas that go with that. And I think Prozac mentioned that theres a lot of low, overhead power lines. Yeah the architect, Ian Hill and Alan Hardy all stated that the LMP piece of land was the only area where the stadium could feasibly be built on the site., due to powerlines, possible traffic disruption during construction on Broadway due to access issues and the listed building status... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 See my post above, how big is the part of the site that the lancaster club lies on, which is not held by a charitable trust? A surveyor’s report valued the 11.75 acres of land to the North of the Lancaster Club at £60,000, the 13 acres of land at Medlock Vale at £72,000 and the 12.61 acres of land at Warwick Road at £100,000 - giving the charity an increase in value of £112,000. Taken from the Chron So thats 11.75 acres that is held by a charitable trust (i think?) leaving us with 18.25 acres.. The stadium would be a 10 acre site - including conference facilities etc inside.. leaving us with 8.25 acres for other areas to bring in revenue.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) It's not only about a new stadium with extra-curricular facilities that generate extra-income, but the site needs to be bigger to MAXIMISE revenues. Hotels and leisure facilities such as 3g pitches, bowling alleys, cinemas and restaurants will generate year round income too. The big chains rarely buy the land up preferring to lease their areas and pay yearly rent - then if it goes tits up they can get out after a certain timescale. Perhaps TTA are being greedy with the area they want, but they want to leave a legacy (along with making a bundle back) of leisure facilities, a new stadium and income streams that will continue to benefit them and the club. That's the way I see it. If a new ground is built in another location will the money be there to build enough corporate hospitality? Conferencing and banqueting suites? Or will we get an empty shell with slightly better facilities that pretty much don't benefit anyone? (Ala Walsall before they enlarged the stand, Scunthorpe and Shrewsbury - yes Shrewsbury, they dropped a massive bollock by not factoring in enough boxes and are missing out on thousands every week!) It's not simply about a ground, it's about becoming self-sustainable. Not having to auction off mascot places, not having to collect for additions to the squad. It's about giving the club a chance to stand on its own two feet on a site that will be used 24/7. If push came to shove I would love to stay in Oldham, but it's not going to happen. The council will find a hurdle at every turn no matter who is in charge. Sportspark 2000, Oldham Arena and this sorry mess have been going on for nearly 17 years and that's before I mention the ground we entered into discussions with M & S and their partners to build back in 1989. The highlighted parts are exactly the point. With the greatest respect the vast majority of posters are not privy to or have the experience to put a scheme together that can move the club forward. The people dealing with the scheme are professionals and do have the experience. Architect, surveyors, the PR lady who has "done" (can you say that these days) several stadiums, etc etc. The experience is there we just need a council to see a scheme through. 20 years + and waiting since M&S on Claytons Edited February 4, 2011 by Harry Dowds Green Shirt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazlatic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The highlighted parts are exactly the point. With the greatest respect the vast majority of posters are not privy to or have the experience to put a scheme together that can move the club forward. The people dealing with the scheme are professionals and do have the experience. Architect, surveyors, the PR lady who has "done" (can you say that these days) several stadiums, etc etc. The experience is there we just need a council to see a scheme through. 20 years + and waiting since M&S on Claytons Can't say "smashed" apparently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodger er Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 A surveyor’s report valued the 11.75 acres of land to the North of the Lancaster Club at £60,000, the 13 acres of land at Medlock Vale at £72,000 and the 12.61 acres of land at Warwick Road at £100,000 - giving the charity an increase in value of £112,000. Taken from the Chron So thats 11.75 acres that is held by a charitable trust (i think?) leaving us with 18.25 acres.. The stadium would be a 10 acre site - including conference facilities etc inside.. leaving us with 8.25 acres for other areas to bring in revenue.. Give this guy a job hes just thought of the perfect original idea give yourself a clap son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) So thats 11.75 acres that is held by a charitable trust (i think?) leaving us with 18.25 acres.. The stadium would be a 10 acre site - including conference facilities etc inside.. leaving us with 8.25 acres for other areas to bring in revenue.. A little simplistic methinks. Got to leave some room for the seats in the stadium and car parking outside. You can't simply knock 35% off the size of the development and keep the same income streams planned. I still think the approvals for Failsworth can be obtained. It's just that our LA will have to be more professional about it next time round. Edited February 5, 2011 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Does ALL COSTS mean a 6,000 capacity or less stadium in the Borough would be acceptable ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYLEOAFC Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Ashton Moss would be a dream move and if it were my money at risk thats where I would relocate to! The council (Tameside) currently has a leader who has already demonstrated his desire to bring new innovative business and new industry to the town especially in and around this site with the likes of Ikea, Ashton moss retail park and the metro link already secured or in place. Curzon Ashtons ground has potential and I am pretty sure planing approval already as a site to be increased in size and is in a prime catchment area for new fans. It has overspill car parks in reserve and traffic management systems for big events (Usually fire work displays 10-15k attend just from that area alone). Its less than a quater of a mile from j23 of the M60 with a dual carridge way right to the ground. Its also 5 mins walk from Bus and train sations and in the next year will have its own metro station stop round the corner! Its a fantastic time to move to Tameside......this could be a blessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Hi Kyle. Completely agree it makes HUGE ECONOMIC sense and MANY OF THE ISSUES that have held us back are addressed in your few lines. Access, Backing. In no way am I trashing the work of Curzon Ashton. Simply think its an option well worth a look for all the reasons you state. We will be shot at dawn for such thoughts but if Latics are to stay in Oldham MASSIVE issues need to be sorted and doubt ability to do so from those in power. I think it's an option and as has been pointed out Bath City and Dorchester have previously shared their grounds with Football League clubs at no detriment to their existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYLEOAFC Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Its one thing for Oldham Council to hold the club back cut our wings and damage the life and soul of the club, but its Sacrilege for our fans to do so by not realising that a move is needed in order for us to have any kind of future at this level. Oldham Council would need to be a key instrumental partner in making a move possible in the borough. You could describe the club and councils relationship in many words but partners would not be one. Ashton Moss and Tameside Council could work and both parties would reap the benefits and work hard together. As for the Fans who say a move out of Oldham is a bad idea Oldham itself is killing the club and Ashton has a bright future with the OL7 tag! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KYLEOAFC Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Oldham's Motto: Sapere aude (dare to be wise) Ashtons Motto: Labor omnia vincit (Persistent Works Triumphs) Which one lives up to their word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I don't know if this as been mentioned, more than likely as like, but anyway. Can someone tell me what would the difference be if TTA built houses on the Failsworth plot (leaving this small charity held land alone) raising the cash for BP redevelopment to incude the hospital worker block, hotel, eating establishments etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Hi Kyle. Completely agree it makes HUGE ECONOMIC sense and MANY OF THE ISSUES that have held us back are addressed in your few lines. Access, Backing. In no way am I trashing the work of Curzon Ashton. Simply think its an option well worth a look for all the reasons you state. We will be shot at dawn for such thoughts but if Latics are to stay in Oldham MASSIVE issues need to be sorted and doubt ability to do so from those in power. I'm not convinced by this argument. It used to make economic sense to move to Tameside. Without a doubt. Before they built a cinema, bowling alley, hotel etc. The stadium move though is not just about a stadium. It's a project whereby the current owners get lots of money and the this is used to help ensure the club breaks even. A kind of win-win where everyone is happy. If we move to Tameside and Curzon in particular, what will the extra revenue streams be? In my opinion, this ship has sailed. We were too slow. This isn't an option for the kind of self sustaining solution we're looking for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I don't know if this as been mentioned, more than likely as like, but anyway. Can someone tell me what would the difference be if TTA built houses on the Failsworth plot (leaving this small charity held land alone) raising the cash for BP redevelopment to incude the hospital worker block, hotel, eating establishments etc etc. i seriously doubt they would get planning permission for houses on the failsworth site....the big issue for the nimbys is that the area we want is to be left as a nature trail,country park etc etc....so housing isnt really an option i would say. plus with already having sold the back of the chaddy area and hoses started,where would you put the hotel???? that was going on the corner of the lookers n chaddy end.... i think if they just want to build on the lancaster club as it is,they have to come up with a radical design to imcorporate everything...if that means putting car park under ground and building a semi high rise building for offices cinema bowling eateries etc then fine,lets be innovative.... the big issue i want to know is why is oldham council so set against us remaining at bp....what do they want the area for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakerT Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 A little simplistic methinks. Got to leave some room for the seats in the stadium and car parking outside. You can't simply knock 35% off the size of the development and keep the same income streams planned. I still think the approvals for Failsworth can be obtained. It's just that our LA will have to be more professional about it next time round. Opinions did you manage to shift the motor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakerT Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 A little simplistic methinks. Got to leave some room for the seats in the stadium and car parking outside. You can't simply knock 35% off the size of the development and keep the same income streams planned. I still think the approvals for Failsworth can be obtained. It's just that our LA will have to be more professional about it next time round. Opinions did you manage to shift the motor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakerT Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 A little simplistic methinks. Got to leave some room for the seats in the stadium and car parking outside. You can't simply knock 35% off the size of the development and keep the same income streams planned. I still think the approvals for Failsworth can be obtained. It's just that our LA will have to be more professional about it next time round. Opinions did you manage to shift the motor? 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.