dave_ragg1984 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Maybe they are saying the same about us! I hope they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 A few thoughts from the Rochdales fans - Apparently Oldhams' chairman has been in touch with Chris Dunphy about the possibility of building a new ground , for both teams to share. The new ground to be built inbetween both clubs. Personally I'm a traditionalist and would hate to move away from Spotland, never mind sharing a ground with Oldham. What does everyone else think about the proposal? bad idea and thought of sharing with local rivals does not appeal to me it does raise many arguments such as stadium name also stuff like how much would each club get in say in its design etc would never work plus would they relocate wilbutts lane to this new stadium lol I would hate to see us move from Spotland. It may be a small, older type ground, but IT IS OURS !! If this went ahead does anyone have any suggestions as to where a new ground might be built ?? I can't think of any space big enough between the two current grounds with the exception of the new development on Kingsway. It is cetainly big and empty enough for a project this size but is probably too far from Oldham and too close to Rochdale ?? Only problem with the new Kingsway developement, being as I'm local to it, is that it would be reminiscent of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the King is telling the Prince about the building of the castle... in the swamp. Thats why the place is still mostly empty after all these years. Just look how waterlogged it gets when it rains. If the plan was seriously considered, somewhere round Shaw or Royton would be best. Roughly halfway, and plenty of open farmland round there. build it on balderstone park its a hell hole anyway Too small, too close to Rochdale for the Oldham fans, and much much too close to Kirkholt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 im gunna be really selfish an say i dont want this to happen. i would like us to do it the way we have already planned the idea of a club that runs itself an makes money for itself as the planned facilities would create sounds great and if we do it on are own we will reap all the benifits whereas if we ground share we would only take half obviously. wold surely be beter for the club to go it alone (although more expensive initially) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky_Latic Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The only place in Rochdale that would even remotely be considered is Kingsway. The amount of land that need's building on there is huge. There'd also be no objections to it and it's closer to Shaw than BP is currently. As for the person who mentioned about Rochdale infirmary closing and that being a potential. Not at all. Given the residents around that way, I highly doubt they'd stand by and let a football stadium be built on their doorsteps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.O.A.M Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 And that's good, is it? Anything is better than what is played at BP Hang the DJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveoafc77 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 its about keeping your identity, the comments of the Dale fans is that although their stadium might not be much it's theirs! i wouldnt want to have to go to Rochdale to go and watch Oldham and say we were to ground share at Boundary Park then im sure the Rochdale fans would not want to watch their team in our stadium, if this does continue out of neccessity then think all parties concerned need to tread very carefully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAV Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The only place in Rochdale that would even remotely be considered is Kingsway. The amount of land that need's building on there is huge. I believe the real rulers of this country have that space..(Retail chain/blue and white stipes/I need a job cause the missus has bought a new car), so i can't say who it is..... Half of langley is being flattened for redevelopment,thats half way between Oldham and Rochdale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Do Oldham fans want a stadium in Rochdale? Do Rochdale fans want a stadium in Oldham? One of the reasons I can't see it happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 If it helps to secure the futures of 2 local professional football clubs, why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's always good to consult the fanbase, but fifteen hundred Dale fans and three thousand Latics fans doesn't seem like much leverage to me. And consider that not all of them are against the ground share, makes the lobbying against the scheme even more futile/ridiculous. Where's Singe and his poll? When there's a need for a poll he's nowhere to be seen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's always good to consult the fanbase, but fifteen hundred Dale fans and three thousand Latics fans doesn't seem like much leverage to me. And consider that not all of them are against the ground share, makes the lobbying against the scheme even more futile/ridiculous. Where's Singe and his poll? When there's a need for a poll he's nowhere to be seen! It's nonsense to say our fanbase is that low. The more disillusioned people get with the club's stagnation, and the more desperate and facile the optimism of the diehard few, the smaller the club's fanbase is said to be. This helps to adjust mentalities for more failures to come: 'at least we've still got a club' is, before our very eyes, becoming 'at least we're still going to have a stadium albeit one that isn't just ours'. The real indication of our fanbase, and thus the potential that could be harnessed was there the will and ability to do it, is in the numbers that turn out for big games. (Yes, 'glory seekers' are indeed part of the fanbase.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's nonsense to say our fanbase is that low. The more disillusioned people get with the club's stagnation, and the more desperate and facile the optimism of the diehard few, the smaller the club's fanbase is said to be. This helps to adjust mentalities for more failures to come: 'at least we've still got a club' is, before our very eyes, becoming 'at least we're still going to have a stadium albeit one that isn't just ours'. The real indication of our fanbase, and thus the potential that could be harnessed was there the will and ability to do it, is in the numbers that turn out for big games. (Yes, 'glory seekers' are indeed part of the fanbase.) But I feel Rummy's point is that Glory Seekers will not care about going to another stadium, as long as they get to see the big game you talk about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 But I feel Rummy's point is that Glory Seekers will not care about going to another stadium, as long as they get to see the big game you talk about. Perhaps, but that wasn't the point I was answering. Fanbase means your potential support, not those that bother to attend games regularly when the team's crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) The real indication of our fanbase, and thus the potential that could be harnessed was there the will and ability to do it, is in the numbers that turn out for big games. (Yes, 'glory seekers' are indeed part of the fanbase.) Agreed. Some of it is latent but it is still a resource . One that is awaiting the stimulus or excuse to attend more frequently. Have to say I also agreed with you about the issue of music played. Some of the correspondents think it should be like one of those discotheque places. It is likely to be a while until I agree with you again . So this can no way be interpreted as coming on to you. (checked I'd got all the words in that phrase). Edited July 8, 2009 by LaticsPete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's nonsense to say our fanbase is that low. The real indication of our fanbase, and thus the potential that could be harnessed was there the will and ability to do it, is in the numbers that turn out for big games. (Yes, 'glory seekers' are indeed part of the fanbase.) It's nonsense to say our fanbase is as good as a turn out for big game. Let's consider that the most anti-ground share noise will come from the fans that go week in week out. Hence the regular 3000 or so that amazingly turn out to watch Latics right now. If we get nigh on 10,000 for a big game against City for example, you'll probably find that the other 50-60% glory seekers are in favour of a decent new stadium, be it on Kingsway or anywhere else for that matter. Just pointing out what a futile effort it would actually be to consult "the fanbase" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Agreed. Some of it is latent but it is still a resource . One that is awaiting the stimulus or excuse to attend more frequently. Have to say I also agreed with you about the issue of music played. Some of the correspondents think it should be like one of those discotheque places. It is likely to be a while until I agree with you again . So this can no way be interpreted as coming on to you. (checked I'd got all the words in that phrase). They'll be demanding alcopops with their pies next. The late eighties/early nineties provide the latest example of the way latent support can be transformed into regular support. Much of that support would have stayed had we not sunk quite so fast after '94. I knew people who changed from being occasional City and United attendees to Latics regulars who never attended the Manchester clubs nor Latics after the big Boundary Park die-off. Edited July 8, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's nonsense to say our fanbase is as good as a turn out for big game. Let's consider that the most anti-ground share noise will come from the fans that go week in week out. Hence the regular 3000 or so that amazingly turn out to watch Latics right now. If we get nigh on 10,000 for a big game against City for example, you'll probably find that the other 50-60% glory seekers are in favour of a decent new stadium, be it on Kingsway or anywhere else for that matter. Just pointing out what a futile effort it would actually be to consult "the fanbase" Fair enough-that is what you were saying. But the fanbase is the latent support. It doesn't matter if many of those who attend big games have Latics as their first allegiance. It's up to the club to win their allegiance. As I say in the above post, this began to happen in the early nineties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Fair enough-that is what you were saying. But the fanbase is the latent support. It doesn't matter if many of those who attend big games have Latics as their first allegiance. It's up to the club to win their allegiance. As I say in the above post, this began to happen in the early nineties. But are those latent fans not likely to be drawn in by the prospect of a new stadium with good facilities, beer, tv's so on and so on than they are a stadium like BP? No matter where it is (within reason) or who it's shared with. And if the move gets some of those to come on a more regular basis that has to be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) But are those latent fans not likely to be drawn in by the prospect of a new stadium with good facilities, beer, tv's so on and so on than they are a stadium like BP? No matter where it is (within reason) or who it's shared with. And if the move gets some of those to come on a more regular basis that has to be a good thing. Some of them might be. But unless it's accompanied by success on the pitch they won't come after the novelty wears off. The idea of the BP redevelopment was to make the club financially independent, so as to facilitate success on the pitch. I realise that everybody is only speculating, but will some (relatively) cheap alternative, shared with another club, as it's being suggested this could be, bring in anything like the same revenue streams as was projected for the revamped, super-duper BP? Edited July 8, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Some of them might be. But unless it's accompanied by success on the pitch they won't come after the novelty wears off. The idea of the BP redevelopment was to make the club financially independent, so as to facilitate success on the pitch. I realise that everybody is only speculating, but will some (relatively) cheap alternative, shared with another club, as it's being suggested this could be, bring in anything like the same revenue streams as was projected for the revamped, super-duper BP? I agree it's speculative - but what's to say that the shared ground wouldn't have similar or even better facilities which would sustain both clubs, but would involve half the risk as Dale would be responsible for half of it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) The reasons so many fans followed Latics in the early 1990s is they brought back a sense of pride in the town, a chance to do a bit of flag waving, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think as long as the name Oldham Athletic is retained and is successful it wouldn't matter if the ground was technically in Rochdale. For example if Oldham Rugby played regularly outside the town (as they have often done) and reached Wembley you would still get 20,000 from the town wanting to go. Despite some abysmal decisions by Oldham Council in the past I think we are all crying out for this town to be the best, and hopefully Latics can again play a part in that dream. Edited July 8, 2009 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticNik Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Whatever is best for the club financially, do it! I support Oldham Athletic, not the town of Oldham. It's a dump. Doesn't matter where we play, success on the pitch is what matters and that's the only way we'll get punters back through the gates. TTA can only put their hands in their pockets for so long. We're indebted to them. If that means moving to Rochdale, Middleton, Milton Keynes, so be it. E4e NOMAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 simply because that we are OLDHAM ATHLETIC who play in OLDHAM In OUR OWN STADIUM, who we share with NOBODY ...except the rugby... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 ...except the rugby... Sweet lord why would you bring that up!? People are already pissed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Whatever is best for the club financially, do it! I support Oldham Athletic, not the town of Oldham. It's a dump. It was the same in the early 1990s, but many who had never seen Latics play before waved the flag simply because it's their town and at last there was something to be proud of. Edited July 8, 2009 by BP1960 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.