garcon Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I reckon the pitches would bring in a maximum of 250k per year gross. So that'd be two years before they cleared any profit at all, and maybe 100k per annum after that. Champions League here we come... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I reckon the pitches would bring in a maximum of 250k per year gross. So that'd be two years before they cleared any profit at all, and maybe 100k per annum after that. Champions League here we come... But that would make a huge difference. £100k - £200k a year off one facility is big. then you add everything else to that it reads happy days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 £5m windfall? Those who said it would be unfair for Blitz to call in his loan then it wouldn't it would leave us debt free, and with a spare £m. I'd look to use the spare million in making the Chaddy and Main Stand last a few more years. If Blitz doesn't call the money in, i'd look to use the £5m to extend Chaddy and Main Stand's life for about 10 years each.. Remaining money i'd look to invest into the youth system, enabling us to get some of the better younger players, and have more chance of developing their potential with them making a bigger impact on the pitch, and being able to generate a larger income stream through selling them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 £5m windfall? Those who said it would be unfair for Blitz to call in his loan then it wouldn't it would leave us debt free, and with a spare £m. I'd look to use the spare million in making the Chaddy and Main Stand last a few more years. If Blitz doesn't call the money in, i'd look to use the £5m to extend Chaddy and Main Stand's life for about 10 years each.. Remaining money i'd look to invest into the youth system, enabling us to get some of the better younger players, and have more chance of developing their potential with them making a bigger impact on the pitch, and being able to generate a larger income stream through selling them. Agree with you re the youth system, but re boundary park there is no point in spending money to paper over the cracks. Both the chaddy end and the main stand would need a considerable sum spending on them to make them last another five years, let alone 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 Agree with you re the youth system, but re boundary park there is no point in spending money to paper over the cracks. Both the chaddy end and the main stand would need a considerable sum spending on them to make them last another five years, let alone 10. I haven't been in the main stand for ages, but it doesn't look much better now and it probably needs quite a bit spending on it, but the roof should be ok for a while, it's not that old. As far as the Chaddy goes does anyone know what is actually wrong with it, it looks quite sound to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I haven't been in the main stand for ages, but it doesn't look much better now and it probably needs quite a bit spending on it, but the roof should be ok for a while, it's not that old. As far as the Chaddy goes does anyone know what is actually wrong with it, it looks quite sound to me. I reckon the main stand is a bloody death trap, there are no horizontal gangways and nowhere near enough accessible exits...I really wonder how the hell it gets a safety certificate......I would hate to be in there if a fire broke out, it would be absolute pandemonium!!!! There's no way you could improve it and you would have to knock it down and start again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Fent Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Awareness of the club would drastically increase if the facilities were on the same site. E.g. Bolton and Middlebrook Retail Park. Hundreds of thousands of people a year visit that retail park, many not even football fans let alone Bolton fans. Yet whenever they do, they will pass a nice shiny modern stadium with a massive big Bolton Wanderers logo. And if asked where Middlebrook Retail Park is, most people would answer 'Near Bolton's Ground'. Its a great way to increase the profile of the club and pick up a few floating fans. If we build a stadium at Boundary Park and the facilities at Failsworth, people would not make the same connection between the facilities and the club. And again you would have a situation where people would only go to this stadium once a fortnight to see the football. As I said in another post, a 'redevelopment' of Boundary Park simply isnt an option, and if done stand by stand could take upwards of 8 years. We can't afford to wait that long. And we would be allowed to move to Tameside. The FL rules state we cant move to an area which already has a league club, which would rule out somewhere like Kingsway Business Park, but not Tameside as the highest ranked clubs in Tameside are in Conference North, and are not likely to become league clubs anytime soon. I'm pretty sure that after the MK issue the FL changed the rules to state that a club's permanent base has to be at least 5 miles from the town centre of the club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I'm pretty sure that after the MK issue the FL changed the rules to state that a club's permanent base has to be at least 5 miles from the town centre of the club colchester united have a problem then, they are 7.1 miles out side the town centre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'm pretty sure that after the MK issue the FL changed the rules to state that a club's permanent base has to be at least 5 miles from the town centre of the club So that'a why Latics have to move from BP - at least we now know the reason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 colchester united have a problem then, they are 7.1 miles out side the town centre 7.1 miles is definitely at least 5 miles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 7.1 miles is definitely at least 5 miles. It is amusing how our brains allow us to see what we want to see / expect to see ... even if it isn't really there! (a bit like this season's play-off challenge!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Failsworth was going to have 3g footy pitches, cinema, gym, food court, and a travelodge style hotel. As people correctly pointed out on here, although technically in Oldham, Failsworth was closer to Manc City Centre than Oldham Town Centre, and it was just off a main road that goes straight into manchester. You clearly had access to information the rest of us didn't then... None of that was committed to and the amount OAFC would get from such developments was never mentioned... *waits here to be proved wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Yes they do. Pitches to rent for 1 hour your looking £25 - £50. So having a few of them being used is a lot of money. You clearly have no grasp of the extent of the funding gap Latics face if you think a couple of football pitches was ever enough alone... Ok I accept if you throw in maybe rent from offices, a restaurant, conference facilities and maybe a gym... Throw in an increase in attendance and then the club might be doing better... What Latics would get money from the Failsworth development was totally unknown. Throw in a promotion and the mandatory increase in playing budget and unless the club are going to buck the trend of the entire football league, throwing money chasing a second promotion... All of a sudden those extras start coming up short again. Turning OAFC into 7 days a week business is the right thing to do but we should but looking at pushing the clubs to run themselves a bit more realistically and stop throwing silly money at overpaid players as well. Edited April 25, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You clearly had access to information the rest of us didn't then... None of that was committed to and the amount OAFC would get from such developments was never mentioned... *waits here to be proved wrong... Definatly sure that it was mentioned at the consultation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Definatly sure that it was mentioned at the consultation. That is called hearsay... Not a commitment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) You clearly have no grasp of the extent of the funding gap Latics face if you think a couple of football pitches was ever enough alone... Ok I accept if you throw in maybe rent from offices, a restaurant, conference facilities and maybe a gym... Throw in an increase in attendance and then the club might be doing better... What Latics would get money from the Failsworth development was totally unknown. Throw in a promotion and the mandatory increase in playing budget and unless the club are going to buck the trend of the entire football league, throwing money chasing a second promotion... All of a sudden those extras start coming up short again. Turning OAFC into 7 days a week business is the right thing to do but we should but looking at pushing the clubs to run themselves a bit more realistically and stop throwing silly money at overpaid players as well. Overpaid players? The good players demand a good wage. we pay that wage because we want to go up. if we dont pay a certain wage then we wont get the good players and we will just be stuck in league 1 or even worst relegated. That is called hearsay... Not a commitment... It wasnt by fans either it was by one of the officials who were there. Edited April 25, 2011 by LaticsLee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Overpaid players? The good players demand a good wage. we pay that wage because we want to go up. if we dont pay a certain wage then we wont get the good players and we will just be stuck in league 1 or even worst relegated. Edited April 25, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) It strikes me a few people may have ended up somewhat disappointed with the reality at Failsworth. The emphasis throughout the Failsworth project was on a "community" development. What that actually meant is anyone's guess, but to me it suggested there would be less commercial development than there was in the BP redevelopment plan, bringing in less commercial income, and being altogether a more modest project. Also, the financial emphasis of the Failsworth project appeared to be centred on a one-off income from the sale of the Boundary Park land for residential development, to be fed into the Failsworth build, rather than investment in income streams for the long term support of the club (apart from those few football pitches...). Of course, with the lack of published details, that is partly speculation - but half as much speculation as those who seem to think we were going to build another Trafford Centre... Edited April 25, 2011 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You clearly had access to information the rest of us didn't then... None of that was committed to and the amount OAFC would get from such developments was never mentioned... *waits here to be proved wrong... It was mentioned at the first consultation that was held at the lancaster club (shortly after the stadium design was unveiled). Some of the businesses the club were looking to get on board if my memory serves me correctly were ABC Cinemas, Fitness First, and I am sure the hotel was Innkeepers Lodge at the time, although I can't say that with certainty. Had the Charity Comission ruled differently, then I presume 2nd and final consultations would have been held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Fent Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Football League AGM rule change on relocation By Alan Liptrott Date: 10/6/2005 Football League chairmen voted at their AGM in Chester to change the rules in an effort to stop another Franchise FC farce. The rule relating to Clubs moving their ground has been strengthened to include a list of criteria that the League's Board must be satisfied with before it would grant consent The new rule states that the Board must be satisfied that the granting of permission: a) Would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association Would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground c) Would not adversely affect such Club's Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities d) Would not have an adverse effect on visiting Clubs; e) Would not adversely affect Clubs having their registered ground in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location f) Would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Football League AGM rule change on relocation By Alan Liptrott Date: 10/6/2005 Football League chairmen voted at their AGM in Chester to change the rules in an effort to stop another Franchise FC farce. The rule relating to Clubs moving their ground has been strengthened to include a list of criteria that the League's Board must be satisfied with before it would grant consent The new rule states that the Board must be satisfied that the granting of permission: a) Would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association Would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground c) Would not adversely affect such Club's Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities d) Would not have an adverse effect on visiting Clubs; e) Would not adversely affect Clubs having their registered ground in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location f) Would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally And this is why Orient are suing re the West Ham move. I believe it may be at least 5 miles from the incumbent club rather than 5 miles from a Town Centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 And this is why Orient are suing re the West Ham move. I believe it may be at least 5 miles from the incumbent club rather than 5 miles from a Town Centre. And i hope they win the case ! Billy big bollocks clubs need knocking down a peg or two ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 And i hope they win the case ! Billy big bollocks clubs need knocking down a peg or two ! Billy big bollocks Greedy League clubs don't come under the jurisdiction of the Football League, but if West Ham are relegated, Orient may have not only three kings but also four aces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Billy big bollocks Greedy League clubs don't come under the jurisdiction of the Football League, but if West Ham are relegated, Orient may have not only three kings but also four aces. And that's looking more likley with each passing day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Does anyone think West Ham United moving five miles to Olympic Stadium is really going to get flagged under these rules ? or is in anyway similar to MK Dons ? Not a chance... West Ham are a London team and should be given the freedom to move anywhere within London they feel is right. By saying any London team should stick so rigidly to their locality in the suggested way would be seriously unfair and would stop any chance of that club competing. Are we ready to accept that Latics moving all the way to Failsworth should be banned under the rules ? That move is even further away... Edited April 26, 2011 by oafc0000 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.