Fans Forum: Tara Leisure Centre Shaw

[outoftheblue]

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.

It's a guess Jamie, but yes, I really think it would dip that much.

To use Gigg Lane as an example, the last time we played there I went by coach. It took over 40 minutes, and the cost was £5 each.

If the club were to lay on free transport, even after striking a deal with a coach company it would still cost them at least £3.50 per supporter - they certainly couldn't reduce admission by that much at the moment, so I don't see how they'd cover it in free transport.

I wouldn't be prepared to add an hour and half to my matchday travelling (Particularly on a Tuesday night), plus forking out for the privilege, and I suspect there are a great many more who wouldn't. Especially when the playing budget has been inevitably cut, and we are watching performances akin to that of last Saturday.

I thought we had a hardcore of 4500 that wouldn't desert us, but that keeps on getting lower, so who really knows exactly how many would follow us to the moon? If it is those who were still there at the final whistle on Saturday, then it is little over a thousand.

[manshaw]

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!!

Now there is an idea.How many grounds are in a 10 mile radius of BP?

[al_bro]

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.

There is also the number of seasons we would be ground sharing for. My guess would be at least 3 and that's if everything ran smoothly. In my view it is not feasible to ground share for this long. Rochdale and Stockport both play on mud heaps, which would be even worse when 3 teams are sharing the same pitch. This would definitely not suit our style of play.

[BP1960]

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.

 

It's my understanding a club can only ground share with another for a short period of time until a new permanent location in the town is secured (as in the case of Rotherham United).

The clubs mentioned already share with others so they that can't possibly work due to fixture problems and obviously deteriorating pitch conditions over the course of a season.

[Lookers_Carl]

It's my understanding a club can only ground share with another for a short period of time until a new permanent location in the town is secured (as in the case of Rotherham United).

The clubs mentioned already share with others so they that can't possibly work due to fixture problems and obviously deteriorating pitch conditions over the course of a season.

 

And it could be that the league will only approve a groundshare for a max of five seasons (such as rotherham) and threaten to chuck us out of the league if we dont move into our own ground after this set period of time.

[singe]

And it could be that the league will only approve a groundshare for a max of five seasons (such as rotherham) and threaten to chuck us out of the league if we dont move into our own ground after this set period of time.

That is the real danger.

And of course, with his current stance it is all to easy for Simon Corney to blame the Council.

Of course, he is pretty much right in that assessment, but nonetheless, you have to work with what cards you are dealt.

 

The negotiation point for OAFC is to put pressure on the council come up with the solution, not look for someone to blame.

LEt's hope that is the reason for current standoff, but there is a point at which the council will say they are not working with us and also wak away.

A bit of flex on the 30 acres, and we could have a win-win.

But who knows what dialogue is happening behind the scenes.

[BP1960]

That is the real danger.

And of course, with his current stance it is all to easy for Simon Corney to blame the Council.

Of course, he is pretty much right in that assessment, but nonetheless, you have to work with what cards you are dealt.

 

The negotiation point for OAFC is to put pressure on the council come up with the solution, not look for someone to blame.

LEt's hope that is the reason for current standoff, but there is a point at which the council will say they are not working with us and also wak away.

A bit of flex on the 30 acres, and we could have a win-win.

But who knows what dialogue is happening behind the scenes.

 

You are right Singe, the 30 acres idea must be ditched, beggars can't be choosers.

[garcon]

I think someone mentioned early on that there was some explanation as to why redeveloping BP was a non-starter. Any further info on that?

 

On the subject of ground moves, does anybody know what proportion of their fans Brighton lost when they moved from the Goldstone to Withdean and how that compares to current gates? Yes there are differences, but there are similarities too.

 

I simply do not see how a groundshare with Rochdale, Bury or Stockport is practical, unless the teams they already share with (Hornets, FC United and Sale) were to move elsewhere. At Edgeley that would mean Stockport moving (!), I can't see Hornets moving, and much as I'd like to make FC United homeless for a couple of seasons while they build their Failsworth stadium I can't really see that happening either.

 

The overall impression I get from last night (from people I actually believe) is one of constructiveness and honesty, all be it with little or no concrete progress.

[beag_teeets]

You are right Singe, the 30 acres idea must be ditched, beggars can't be choosers.

 

 

But without the 30 acres worth of development there is no money to do the development or fund the club longer term.

 

We would have a stadium that gets 3000 people in every other Saturday and the odd Tuesday to watch little more than pub players going backwards down the leagues.

 

With the <shudder> retail & leisure opportunities bringing 365 day income <shudder/> into the club/parent company/whatever we stand a fighting chance of Championship football.

 

If we had the wealthy and mad owners willing to put cash in we would be fine, we can't even get the moderately comfortable fans into the ground and part with their hard earned for whatever mealy mouthed reasons.

 

No development, no point.

 

If we're going bust I just wish it would hurry up.

[blueatheart]

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.

We've had planning permission before. With plans in place. Look where we are now.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Do Huddersfield share in winter?

[Matt]

<shudder> retail & leisure opportunities bringing 365 day income <shudder/>

That tag is wrong.

[BP1960]

But without the 30 acres worth of development there is no money to do the development or fund the club longer term.

 

We would have a stadium that gets 3000 people in every other Saturday and the odd Tuesday to watch little more than pub players going backwards down the leagues.

 

With the <shudder> retail & leisure opportunities bringing 365 day income <shudder/> into the club/parent company/whatever we stand a fighting chance of Championship football.

 

If we had the wealthy and mad owners willing to put cash in we would be fine, we can't even get the moderately comfortable fans into the ground and part with their hard earned for whatever mealy mouthed reasons.

 

No development, no point.

 

If we're going bust I just wish it would hurry up.

 

 

Why isn't 15 or 20 acres enough?

[BP1960]

Do Huddersfield share in winter?

 

Salford's new stadium is probably closer.

[ghostofcecere]

I think someone mentioned early on that there was some explanation as to why redeveloping BP was a non-starter. Any further info on that?

 

It's because it's the sale of the whole of BP that provides the funds for a new stadium. After the credit crunch the value of BP dropped so much that just selling a portion of it (as per TTA's original plan) was no longer an option.

[outoftheblue]

But without the 30 acres worth of development there is no money to do the development or fund the club longer term.

 

We would have a stadium that gets 3000 people in every other Saturday and the odd Tuesday to watch little more than pub players going backwards down the leagues.

 

With the <shudder> retail & leisure opportunities bringing 365 day income <shudder/> into the club/parent company/whatever we stand a fighting chance of Championship football.

 

If we had the wealthy and mad owners willing to put cash in we would be fine, we can't even get the moderately comfortable fans into the ground and part with their hard earned for whatever mealy mouthed reasons.

 

No development, no point.

 

If we're going bust I just wish it would hurry up.

Wasn't some of that 30 acres needed to replace existing sports pitches on the FW site?

If so, then surely we would only need enough land to build the facilities that would fund the club?

[singe]

You are right Singe, the 30 acres idea must be ditched, beggars can't be choosers.

Not wholeheartdely, we still need a self financing stadium.

But a bit of a compromise.

[Diego_Sideburns]

..If we're going bust I just wish it would hurry up.

 

Why? Where there's life, there's hope.

[Diego_Sideburns]

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!!

 

For a fair percentage of the 3,500 diehards, every game is already an away game.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

365 days a year income? Why not buy a leisure facility somewhere else and use it to fund the club? Why not buy

a hotel and bowling alley in London?

 

I am not a businessperson.

[beag_teeets]

That tag is wrong.

 

 

/D'oh!

[Lookers_Carl]

If the new stadium is going to be in Oldham, then I think the 30 acres will probably have to be split over two sites.

[Lookers_Carl]

It's because it's the sale of the whole of BP that provides the funds for a new stadium. After the credit crunch the value of BP dropped so much that just selling a portion of it (as per TTA's original plan) was no longer an option.

 

Exactly this. Just selling the land around boundary park now will not raise enough capital for a stadium. They need to sell the whole site. And the price per acre will also increase a fair whack if there is not going to be a football stadium on the site.

[Takemeanywhere]

365 days a year income? Why not buy a leisure facility somewhere else and use it to fund the club? Why not buy

a hotel and bowling alley in London?

 

I am not a businessperson.

 

Two planning applications.

Two Section 106s

Two sets of archtiects drawings

Two sets of NIMBYS

Two headaches at once

 

Also, some of the things included in the leisure facility work because there is a football stadium adjacent, that brings x number of thousand people to the area at least once a fortnight.

[garcon]

Exactly this. Just selling the land around boundary park now will not raise enough capital for a stadium. They need to sell the whole site. And the price per acre will also increase a fair whack if there is not going to be a football stadium on the site.

 

Too much to ask I know, but I'd still like to see the figures.