Fans Forum: Tara Leisure Centre Shaw

[Delfer]

I don't remember an excuse being given but Dickov accepted full responsibility for it an hopes to put that right this saturday. Him an Taggert got plenty of ribbing about it from Corney though ha

 

One guy made the point of 'i took my grandson on sat for his 6th birthday, and at the end of the day he came away in tears (in relation to the result)' and it didn't come across as tounge in cheek, well i didnt find it as such. I mean some people, what does he expect? a full apology after every bad showing that makes his Grandson cry? he was rightly laughed at but Dickov in fairness said he hopes to put that right next home game an offered his Grandson to come into the changing rooms

 

 

That made me laugh; wait till he's older he'll be doing a lot more crying, especially with a pillock of a grandad like that!

 

Now for BBC1 - a day with Dickov!

[dave_ragg1984]

It was and that was one of the dodged questions in my opinion, they just said they are looking at the options at suitable grounds for the clubs needs nearby but then said there is a chance they may not be able to play at those grounds due to their other commitments (Rochdale for example have the Hornets). They did say we could stay at Boundary Park but there is all the cost involved etc. Again im sure their response was it's up in the air in the minute. Simon did mention he's hoping to announce one or two things in the coming weeks if things work out well but again he said he didnt want to raise false hope so didnt say further.

 

 

This is one of the things I dont get. We wont be able to play for free at Gigg Lane/Spotland/Edgely Park/Wherever, so there is a cost involved still. Plus, the crowds their will be a lot less than the 3500 home support we are currently getting, so we would be well f***ed.

[maddog]

I didn't feel too much was dodged. The bits that were felt like they weren't in a position to give us a definitive answer.

[rosa]

I didn't feel too much was dodged. The bits that were felt like they weren't in a position to give us a definitive answer.

Did you ask Gerry Taggart 'why are you such a big soft Irish puff' like you said you would?

 

Was anything said about whether they're planning on another ticket promotion after the (off the pitch) success of the Carlisle game?

[maddog]

Did you ask Gerry Taggart 'why are you such a big soft Irish puff' like you said you would?

 

Was anything said about whether they're planning on another ticket promotion after the (off the pitch) success of the Carlisle game?

Hehe. No.

 

And yes!

[jorvik_latic]

Did you ask Gerry Taggart 'why are you such a big soft Irish puff' like you said you would?

 

Was anything said about whether they're planning on another ticket promotion after the (off the pitch) success of the Carlisle game?

 

She didn't...

 

Looks like Tranmere will be the next promo. SC is willing to offset the TV money to try and get the fans in again. They really appreciated the crowd for the Carlisle game and were gutted by the result.

[oafc21]

Did you ask Gerry Taggart 'why are you such a big soft Irish puff' like you said you would?

 

Was anything said about whether they're planning on another ticket promotion after the (off the pitch) success of the Carlisle game?

maybe the tranmere game is in talks of a ticket promotion

[Oafc88]

Did you ask Gerry Taggart 'why are you such a big soft Irish puff' like you said you would?

 

Was anything said about whether they're planning on another ticket promotion after the (off the pitch) success of the Carlisle game?

 

Well firstly, Martin (the guy who organised the Carlisle game) was given a big thank you and a round of applause for his efforts.

 

Corney was very pleased with how it all went and says the board are discussing a number of possibilites for maybe another discounted game with talks of using the TV money we will get from the Tranmere game being used to help offset costs the way the local businessess did for the Carlisle game. Nothing concrete yet though.

 

Also noted was that Hardy made mention (i think in relation to someone mentioning the possibilty of reduced prices in general) that if the club had done the Carlisle discount with no cost offset, that even though they got 8000+ in they would have taken more at the gates if they had the usual 3'500 in.

[rosa]

 

Also noted was that Hardy made mention (i think in relation to someone mentioning the possibilty of reduced prices in general) that if the club had done the Carlisle discount with no cost offset, that even though they got 8000+ in they would have taken more at the gates if they had the usual 3'500 in.

I guess the hope would be that it'd work as a longer term strategy, ie hopefully some of those extra 4000 will come back regularly.Which is why it'd make sense to do the same for the Tranmere game - it'll be a better advert for BP if there's some people in it when we're on TV.Of course that does run the risk of the combination of being on TV and cheap admission ensuring that Tranmere turn us over.

[shefflatic]

'though they sound hopeful they might have something in the pipeline'

 

I notice he mentioned the gas works but didn't rule it out. Corney also then said that he knows Oldham better than any of us having suggested 25 odd sites to the council - 'there isn't anywhere other than failsworth....although we are looking at one or two things'

 

if it was failsworth or bust he would've said it and walked away by now knowing that nothing else is possible within the borough - unless another option was on the table....

 

TRUST IN SMARTZATART!!!

 

What was said tonight bangs home what he appears to know is indeed correct 'we are looking at groundsharing but BP is still a possibility'....hmmm

 

KTF WE WILL BE OK

Edited March 1, 2011 by shefflatic

[nava]

This is one of the things I dont get. We wont be able to play for free at Gigg Lane/Spotland/Edgely Park/Wherever, so there is a cost involved still. Plus, the crowds their will be a lot less than the 3500 home support we are currently getting, so we would be well f***ed.

 

Well Hardy mentioned that it could cost £350,000 to maintain BP. Bury are charging FC scum 5 grand a game so over 23 home games that would cost us £115,000 assuming they charge us the same. That alone is a massive saving to a club like us, obviously other things have to be taken into consideration but i understand why they are thinking about it.

[razza699]

did anyone ask Dickov if he is going to re consider this all 11 men back malarky for a corner ? its not working and its allowing oppoistion to pile more into the box every time,

 

and why we are still doing it 3-0 down , the amount of time Amos had the ball and there was no one up field to get it to was infuritating for me

[Lookers_Carl]

This is one of the things I dont get. We wont be able to play for free at Gigg Lane/Spotland/Edgely Park/Wherever, so there is a cost involved still. Plus, the crowds their will be a lot less than the 3500 home support we are currently getting, so we would be well f***ed.

 

Just to clarify first, I am not arguing in favour of a groundshare here, simply stating as I see it (and as I think they see it) the advantages of a groundshare.

 

As tenants of Bury, Rochdale or Stockport we would pay a set amount of rent per game I imagine. FC united were paying about 5k a game (source here), so lets work with that.

 

5k multiplied by 23 league games = £115,000, plus a little more for cup games. But (and I take absolutely zero pleasure in typing this), if you shared grounds, you wouldnt need to employ a groundsman, ticket office staff at bury could probably double up, maybe even laundry staff. Knock them costs off and working on the 5k a game rent, your looking at a figure of less than 100k.

 

We could also be ALOT stricter with the budget, as many of the 'unexpected' repair bills will no doubt be associated with ground maintenance. Won't have that problem if we groundshare

 

The figure for maintaining Boundary Park has been quoted a few times to be quadruple that. So you have the following scenario.

 

Amount it would cost to stay at BP (including maintenance costs and wages of ground staff etc) - The amount it would cost to grounshare (cost of rent plus cost of hiring offices etc) = amount x, or the amount of money a groundshare would save us in this effect, assuming crowds would stay approximately the same.

 

The amount of money we would lose through a probable hefty drop in crowds = amount y

 

If amount x is greater than amount y, then we are still saving money despite a drop in crowds. What the directors need to work out is whether they think cost x will be greater than cost y.

[singe]

Just to clarify first, I am not arguing in favour of a groundshare here, simply stating as I see it (and as I think they see it) the advantages of a groundshare.

 

As tenants of Bury, Rochdale or Stockport we would pay a set amount of rent per game I imagine. FC united were paying about 5k a game (source here), so lets work with that.

 

5k multiplied by 23 league games = £115,000, plus a little more for cup games. But (and I take absolutely zero pleasure in typing this), if you shared grounds, you wouldnt need to employ a groundsman, ticket office staff at bury could probably double up, maybe even laundry staff. Knock them costs off and working on the 5k a game rent, your looking at a figure of less than 100k.

 

We could also be ALOT stricter with the budget, as many of the 'unexpected' repair bills will no doubt be associated with ground maintenance. Won't have that problem if we groundshare

 

The figure for maintaining Boundary Park has been quoted a few times to be quadruple that. So you have the following scenario.

 

Amount it would cost to stay at BP (including maintenance costs and wages of ground staff etc) - The amount it would cost to grounshare (cost of rent plus cost of hiring offices etc) = amount x, or the amount of money a groundshare would save us in this effect, assuming crowds would stay approximately the same.

 

The amount of money we would lose through a probable hefty drop in crowds = amount y

 

If amount x is greater than amount y, then we are still saving money despite a drop in crowds. What the directors need to work out is whether they think cost x will be greater than cost y.

It has to be looked at.

Initial rough guess.

Say We lose 1,000 fans, not a wildly dramatic figure.

Low average extimate of £10 per head, as a lot of kids and parent/s will be put off.

That is at least £230,000 lost revenue.

[outoftheblue]

Well Hardy mentioned that it could cost £350,000 to maintain BP. Bury are charging FC scum 5 grand a game so over 23 home games that would cost us £115,000 assuming they charge us the same. That alone is a massive saving to a club like us, obviously other things have to be taken into consideration but i understand why they are thinking about it.

Last time maintenance figures were quoted, the club 'inadvertantly' included groundstaff wages and other unrelated costs when explaining why £400k was needed for improvements, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

Gates could possibly dip to less than 1500 if we travelled to Gigg Lane etc, which would cripple us in terms of playing budget.

 

All hail our saviours, The Three Amigos. We're in it deeper now than we ever were.

[Luis Enrique]

 

Say We lose 1,000 fans, not a wildly dramatic figure.

 

 

personally i would expect us to lose a lot more than 1,000 fans.

[opinions4u]

It has to be looked at.

Initial rough guess.

Say We lose 1,000 fans, not a wildly dramatic figure.

Low average extimate of £10 per head, as a lot of kids and parent/s will be put off.

That is at least £230,000 lost revenue.

And will you get them back 3 or 4 years later when the new stadium materialises?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

Gates could possibly dip to less than 1500 if we travelled to Gigg Lane etc, which would cripple us in terms of playing budget.

 

Do you think? What if the club stated this was strictly temporary (I know, I know lip service this but what else could they do in this scenario?) and they would put on bus/coach travel FOC for each game? In the event of any groundshare I would expect the club to look into this, and a contract like that could be negotiated with a coach company for a reduced price. I'm sure a few would drop off, but I think now we're pretty much down to our hardcore support. People that would watch us on the moon if it came to that.

 

This has also got me thinking about when Fulham shared with QPR for a couple of seasons. I don't think their crowds dropped away too much, albeit for Premiership football. I'm not advocating a groundshare at all here, I'm just expecting it's a very realistic scenario. The key into buying into it is so long as it is temporary. Groundshare with no future plan at all would probably see oour time as a league club come to an end.

[manshaw]

And will you get them back 3 or 4 years later when the new stadium materialises?

If we lose that many fans, and it could be more.By 3 to 4 yrs time, they have moved on, found something else to do. Life is a habit.

 

We need to keep the fans now.Not try and get new ones when the stadium is eventually built.

 

Stadium share, loss of fans = less money in the pot

[Lookers_Carl]

If we lose that many fans, and it could be more.By 3 to 4 yrs time, they have moved on, found something else to do. Life is a habit.

 

We need to keep the fans now.Not try and get new ones when the stadium is eventually built.

 

Stadium share, loss of fans = less money in the pot

 

Would agree with this to a large extent. However, I am sure many latics fans would agree there is a difference between

 

- Groundsharing with no firm plans in place for a stadium of our own

 

And

 

- Groundsharing with plans in place (as in planning permission granted) for a new stadium

 

If (purely hypothetical) somebody said BP was being rebuilt, as in completely flattened and rebuilt from scratch, and we would be groundsharing for three seasons whilst this was being done, then I don't think this would be viewed as problematic for fans, and we would not lose as many as a result of the groundshare.

[singe]

I think colchester are an example of shiny new stadium does not mean more fans.

OK it could with relegation, but they had not got the history, laike said, people were not in the habit

 

I really hope smartz is right. That somehow out of this mess we get a more central Oldham ground. Then there will be a base to build from. At least some good will have come from not going to Failsworth.

Until there is any official announcement, contracts signed, first sod dug, topping ut done I won't beleive it!

Too may setbacks.

[Takemeanywhere]

Would agree with this to a large extent. However, I am sure many latics fans would agree there is a difference between

 

- Groundsharing with no firm plans in place for a stadium of our own

 

And

 

- Groundsharing with plans in place (as in planning permission granted) for a new stadium

 

Agreed. Which is why groundsharing next season should not even be under consideration. There is no way on earth that planning permission will have been granted anywhere by the time that season tickets need to be put on sale, so the only home for Latics next season is Boundary Park.

[Channel M]

You never know in a peverse kind of way a ground share could work. We carry a strong travelling support to local away games. People point to the poor experience of a day out at Boundary as a reason not to go but get enthused about a trip to the Bury, Stockport & Rochdale boozers. If every game felt like an away match it might boost the atmosphere! Maybe we could become like England when they toured the country during the Wembley re-build. It's a shame that we can't play at a different local ground every week!!

[Steve_R]

Would agree with this to a large extent. However, I am sure many latics fans would agree there is a difference between

 

- Groundsharing with no firm plans in place for a stadium of our own

 

And

 

- Groundsharing with plans in place (as in planning permission granted) for a new stadium

 

If (purely hypothetical) somebody said BP was being rebuilt, as in completely flattened and rebuilt from scratch, and we would be groundsharing for three seasons whilst this was being done, then I don't think this would be viewed as problematic for fans, and we would not lose as many as a result of the groundshare.

The problem is that it would appear that they are seriously considering groundsharing as a cost cutting exercise with absolutely no future plans in place.

 

I didn't go last night but from what I've read on here and on the Official site they seem to be saying that Failsworth was the only site available in Oldham. Corney is quoted as saying he's examined every available piece of land and none fits the bill.

 

Sadly, the only conclusion I can draw myself from that (unless or until thay come up with something more positive), is that if we move out of Oldham to groundshare, we ain't coming back.

[Lookers_Carl]

I think colchester are an example of shiny new stadium does not mean more fans.

OK it could with relegation, but they had not got the history, laike said, people were not in the habit

 

I really hope smartz is right. That somehow out of this mess we get a more central Oldham ground. Then there will be a base to build from. At least some good will have come from not going to Failsworth.

Until there is any official announcement, contracts signed, first sod dug, topping ut done I won't beleive it!

Too may setbacks.

 

And like latics, I would not trust oldham council to deliver it, and would be of this opinion untill the first bricks are being laid.

 

Colchesters move to the flatpack ikea diy stadium Weston Homes Community Stadium was about the same distance as our move to failsworth.

 

A couple of things though. Failsworth would have been very accessible via main roads (Oldham Road and Broadway), bus routes and right next to a tram route. Colchester moved from a residential area in the south west of the town, to a business park in a remote area in the north of the town, with the nearest train station being two miles away.