danoafc Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) The point is that big shiny stadium isn't the be all and end all of success, or extended stays in higher divisions than this. I'd prefer nothing more than a packed 20,000 arena on the current BP site. But nobody has the will or finance to make it happen. So I go with the compromise. What's the compromise? 20,000 seast on far cheaper land, out of our traditional heartland? Or 12,000 seats on the current site. 12,000 seats on far cheaper land and out of our traditional heartland? This is a double whammy isn't it? Edited September 9, 2009 by danoafc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 no, they were relegated after being on the brink of the play offs to the premiership but with an attractive stadium, with enough space, they have attracted interest from somebody with a lot of money, so this season or next they will be back in the championship so on that i dont see your point Nah, sorry. Not disputing the Gayfarm is a great stadium, but they got investment froma lifelong fan who would have given them cash irrespective of where they are playing... Not saying a nice stadium isnt a benifit to investment, but 'udders are a bad example. It would also help if we had another succesful sports team to share the stadium with, however the Rugby were destroyed as a competitive force long before this came into conception... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It would also help if we had another succesful sports team to share the stadium with, however the Rugby were destroyed as a competitive force long before this came into conception... Quite. The rugby were a Superleague side until they were screwed by the council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Nah, sorry. Not disputing the Gayfarm is a great stadium, but they got investment froma lifelong fan who would have given them cash irrespective of where they are playing... Not saying a nice stadium isnt a benifit to investment, but 'udders are a bad example. It would also help if we had another succesful sports team to share the stadium with, however the Rugby were destroyed as a competitive force long before this came into conception... so the guy who is bankrolling them now is a lifelong fan, or the lifelong fan is Robert McAlpine who built the stadium? if that is the case i wouldnt mind supporting a team which is a bad example and quote me if im wrong, but i dont think Huddersfield rugby were any where near the superleague when the McAlpine was built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 so the guy who is bankrolling them now is a lifelong fan, or the lifelong fan is Robert McAlpine who built the stadium? if that is the case i wouldnt mind supporting a team which is a bad example and quote me if im wrong, but i dont think Huddersfield rugby were any where near the superleague when the McAlpine was built Nope, the guy who gave them 7 million last season owns a national Card-shop... forgotten which one, card-factory or something? Anyway, he was rich enough to say that he just wanted spent on the players and coaching staff, and to pay for the losses around the season ticket offer last year... hence why there are already suggestions that if Clarke doesnt get it right this season they could be screwed... just having Andy Cole on the payroll must be costing a fair whack! Hence why i say 'udders are a bad example... it could be built on a pack of cards. If they dont win this season and this guy doesnt put more money in then they could be screwed. Fair enough, they build the Mac, but as quickly as they had success they came back down... they werent exactly ripping up trees a couple of seasons back without this guys money... However... still not saying that a stadium like the Mac wouldnt attract investment... it just comes a lot easier if you have a fan who has a few spare million! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Just done a quick search - and the 'udders guy is Dean Hoyle - who does own card factory... Interestingly, his deal to become chairman has nothing to do with the ground whom are owned by a different company - KDSL Ltd, Town have no shares and are essentially a tennant - who can be kicked out at any time. The stadium had absolutely nowt to do with him investing, he just did it as he is a lifelong fan... Dean Hoyle and the Gayfarm Havent followed the ins and outs of our stadium close enough - but I'm sure a stadium that we own will attract more investment than nothing at all.... like Town... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Personally I think the club have missed a good oportunity off Coal pit lane. Failworth folk wont go to the new ground. Not in enough numbers anyway. Where as Limeside, Fitton Hill & north Ashton is a total different kettle of fish. I cannot believe that coal pit lane site would cost mega £ more. Even if the costs were higher I think the benefits out weigh it. But it's no point going over it now, it's gone and Failsworth it is. So now we have to make sure this new stadium is fit for purpose of at least trying to move up a level. This is now my major concern. Not that TTA will make some money from the land deals, I hope they do to be honest for the monies they've put into Latics to keep it floating. They can ride off into the sunset afterwards if that's what they want to do with their chapter in our book mainly rosey. Providing they leave us a stadium someone would want to come into thats ready and able to move up without this nonsense of building stands again. Coal Pit Lane is Green Belt land. It cannot be built on. And that's before the access problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Coal Pit Lane is Green Belt land. It cannot be built on. And that's before the access problems. Also hoofing the ball onto the golf course would be unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Coal Pit Lane is Green Belt land. It cannot be built on. And that's before the access problems. Aye and so was Limehurst estate like many other green belts. If old coal mining slag heaps is green belt god help us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 What's the compromise? 20,000 seast on far cheaper land, out of our traditional heartland? Or 12,000 seats on the current site. 12,000 seats on far cheaper land and out of our traditional heartland? This is a double whammy isn't it? That's an intersting poser Dan, but being honest I suspect that thet a more true analogy might be: 9,000 on the current site, or 12,000 on cheaper land a bit further out of our heartland and riskier. Supposition I know. Which one would that be, if that was the choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 What's the compromise? 20,000 seast on far cheaper land, out of our traditional heartland? Or 12,000 seats on the current site. 12,000 seats on far cheaper land and out of our traditional heartland? This is a double whammy isn't it? That's an intersting poser Dan, but being honest I suspect that thet a more true analogy might be: 9,000 on the current site, or 12,000 on cheaper land a bit further out of our heartland and riskier. Supposition I know. Which one would that be, if that was the choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Has anyone heard of chicken little? To be honest it might be worth reading before people get make their next comment based on "facts" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Aye and so was Limehurst estate like many other green belts. If old coal mining slag heaps is green belt god help us. Go for it then lags. If you can find a way to get planning for coal pit lane, and then sort out access - what's it going to be - daisy nook; ashton road; hollins road through limeside and westminster road through failsworth? Wait 'til the councillors look at that one - 4 single lane single carriageways, 2 through residential areas, 1 through a narrow limited lane and 1 on a main road that's single lane. What capacity do you think they would allow? BTW What does scunny's ground hold and why have they slipped off Corp's "clubs that have passed us" list since the 12k was mooted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fittonhillbilly Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Has anyone heard of chicken little? To be honest it might be worth reading before people get make their next comment based on "facts" when do we sign him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Has anyone heard of chicken little? To be honest it might be worth reading before people get make their next comment based on "facts" Any relation to Colin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Lol could be....................but no !!! not like the sodje twins ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) I think we'll survive Jacs. Our whole hardcore fanbase ain't not going to bother going just because it's 3 miles further to travel. There may be a select few, but I think they'll be offset by a few more going because it's 'new' and a better matchday experience. We'll have about the same crowds as soon as we move I'd guess. But your reasoning about TTA is absolutely spot on. Not sop much a secret now, since the "We'll not be around forever" speech came out. Basically, this move IS happening, and soon after that I'd reckon on TTA selling up and going, leaving us to find investment in the team elsewhere. Can't blame them whatsoever given the crap they've taken from both the council and apathy in general. You could argue that fundemental things need to happen to get fans back, but the bottom line is there should have been better support when it mattered, rather than games like Everton away. Significantly increased support has not been there because nothing has really been done to warrant it. Had the 2006-7 promotion push been successful, or, if not, maintained the following season, crowds would have continued to slowly rise. Instead, we had a chaotic shambles. Most lapsed fans I know just laugh and shrug their shoulders nowadays. They have no interest in becoming regulars again and didn't believe for one minute in the talk of promotion. We have the last fifteen years to blame for creating these kind of cynics. Oldham is no more apatheic than any similar town. Bolton, Preston, Blackburn etc all had similar crowds to ours when they were similarly struggling. I do actually believe TTA are planning their exit from the club, maybe they aren't willing to wait the 5-6 years it will take for BP to get finished and see Failsworth as a way of making good on their promise to leave us in good shape whilst making a bit back themselves (although I struggle to see how they'll be making a profit on us once they are done). It ain't got a problem with that. We won't be in good shape in a small Lego stadium in Failsworth, for a whole variety of reasons already touched on. Spot on and who could forget 'Celebration Sunday'? Certainly not TTA. Loads of people came to a match with free admission, and then went away again. Hardly shock of the century. We might have won 6-0 on the day, but we remained a mediocre outfit. It's irrelevant to all but the holier-than-thou superfans. Have you seen the stadium design? Possible fact, isn't that another word for a guess? How are City going to affect more than they do at the moment, go to Oldham and theres more kids wearing City shirts than Oldham shirts. Maybe some fans are willing to wait and gather the correct information before proclaiming doom like some of the tin foil hat wearing supporters we seem to have. The likelihood of an inferior stadium is in the vastly reduced budget. When City were struggling or, at best, mediocre, they might not have exerted much of a pull, but they are on the up and can offer attractive games at little more cost than we can. Why would uncommitted Oldham residents, let alone those in Failsworth and nearby Newton Heath etc, opt for third or fourth division football at Broadway, when they can travel the extra mile-and-a-half and see international stars in a better ground? It's all speculation, true, but it's more interesting that way. Just look at the thread views. This is what they want! Did 20,000+ seats get Huddersield up a division? Not the point. The point is that when they do go up (and they will), they will get over 20,000 several times a season. If they'd built a 12000 seater stadium, they wouldn't be seriously trying to get promoted. Neither will we. The point is that big shiny stadium isn't the be all and end all of success, or extended stays in higher divisions than this. I'd prefer nothing more than a packed 20,000 arena on the current BP site. But nobody has the will or finance to make it happen. So I go with the compromise. Once again, nobody is calling for a 20000 capacity stadium for Latics. All along, what people have been asking is why, overnight, it was decided that we could lose 25% of the proposed capacity for the BP redevelopment. That was 16000, lest we forget, not 20000. It's a ploy of those who back Project Lickle Oldham to try to blur the issue by claiming that people are calling for 20000 or 25000 capacity stadiums, or to make out that people are asking for something like the Emirates. I haven't heard anybody do that. The point is that big shiny stadium isn't the be all and end all of success, or extended stays in higher divisions than this. I'd prefer nothing more than a packed 20,000 arena on the current BP site. But nobody has the will or finance to make it happen. So I go with the compromise. Compromise after compromise has turned us into the incredible shrinking club. See you in the Conference. Oh no-I won't. Along with many others, I won't be there. Nope, the guy who gave them 7 million last season owns a national Card-shop... forgotten which one, card-factory or something? Anyway, he was rich enough to say that he just wanted spent on the players and coaching staff, and to pay for the losses around the season ticket offer last year... hence why there are already suggestions that if Clarke doesnt get it right this season they could be screwed... just having Andy Cole on the payroll must be costing a fair whack! Hence why i say 'udders are a bad example... it could be built on a pack of cards. If they dont win this season and this guy doesnt put more money in then they could be screwed. Fair enough, they build the Mac, but as quickly as they had success they came back down... they werent exactly ripping up trees a couple of seasons back without this guys money... However... still not saying that a stadium like the Mac wouldnt attract investment... it just comes a lot easier if you have a fan who has a few spare million! The 'lifelong fan' chairman is a red herring. For every club who've been transformed by a rich, lifelong fan (usually the example is Wigan, even though Whelen is a lifelong fan of Blackburn Rovers), there are two who have been transformed by somebody who was largely indifferent to them before they went up for sale. Has anyone heard of chicken little? Yes-it's two words usually uttered by simpletons who dont want to hear bad or discomforting news. BTW What does scunny's ground hold and why have they slipped off Corp's "clubs that have passed us" list since the 12k was mooted? The point has been addressed many times. Basically, it's a myth akin to that which said that just because Blackpool came out of nowhere to take the play-off promotion spot, it automatically follows that we can do it. No it doesn't, as we have already seen. Scunthorpe, Colchester, Southend... The list of small clubs who can challenge to be the Championship yo-yo club is already closed. In any case, all of these are historically smaller clubs than we are. Who would have thought when we got relegated in '97 that we'd be still down here and looking at the likes of Scunthorpe and Colchester for inspiration? Utterly pathetic. Edited September 10, 2009 by Zorrro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Yes-it's two words usually uttered by simpletons who dont want to hear bad or discomforting news. or maybe its just an analagy regarding the way snippets of information that individuals receive can induce panic with the ensuing behaviour/reults creating a far worse situation than originally existed. I have come into contact with a number of extremely successful, high powered executives working within some of the most well known and successful corporations in the world that hold this little anecdote in high regard. Simpletons.......... I don't think so Corp. The day you or I are in their league is the day we would have the wealth and contacts to really affect what happens to the club and the decisions made around it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) or maybe its just an analagy regarding the way snippets of information that individuals receive can induce panic with the ensuing behaviour/reults creating a far worse situation than originally existed. I have come into contact with a number of extremely successful, high powered executives working within some of the most well known and successful corporations in the world that hold this little anecdote in high regard. Simpletons.......... I don't think so Corp. The day you or I are in their league is the day we would have the wealth and contacts to really affect what happens to the club and the decisions made around it. Being in a high-powered job, as should be clear enough when you take a look at who is running the world, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. Nor are high-powered careers necessarily closed to simpletons. That aside, the point isn't that snippets of information are not sometimes used to induce panic, but the tendency of those in societies relatively free from serious threats to life and limb to dismiss each and every warning sign or piece of bad news as 'hype' or self-serving propaganda. And regard it as a chance to murmur the words 'Chicken Little.' For example, I've lost count of the number of people who seem convinced that the current swine flu worries are due to an attempt by the authorities and the media to scare us. What the authorities and media, dependent as they are on a stable society and a complacent population, have to gain by scaring us is never made clear. Most of what I've heard about swine flu tends to emphasise that a flu pandemic has been imminent for some time, that this could be it, and that the last worldwide flu pandemic killed vast numbers of people. So we should be ready. Whether certain drug companies cash in on this is largely coincidental, rather than a conspiracy. Edited September 10, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Being in a high-powered job, as should be clear enough when you take a look at who is running the world, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. Nor are high-powered careers necessarily closed to simpletons. My hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 My hero. People seem to have forgotten that Dubya was, in theory at least, the most powerful man in the world only a few months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTLEY Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Being in a high-powered job, as should be clear enough when you take a look at who is running the world, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. Nor are high-powered careers necessarily closed to simpletons. That aside, the point isn't that snippets of information are not sometimes used to induce panic, but the tendency of those in societies relatively free from serious threats to life and limb to dismiss each and every warning sign or piece of bad news as 'hype' or self-serving propaganda. And regard it as a chance to murmur the words 'Chicken Little.' For example, I've lost count of the number of people who seem convinced that the current swine flu worries are due to an attempt by the authorities and the media to scare us. What the authorities and media, dependent as they are on a stable society and a complacent population, have to gain by scaring us is never made clear. Most of what I've heard about swine flu tends to emphasise that a flu pandemic has been imminent for some time, that this could be it, and that the last worldwide flu pandemic killed vast numbers of people. So we should be ready. Whether certain drug companies cash in on this is largely coincidental, rather than a conspiracy. I accept the first part to a level, I have seen people promoted out of certain positions rather than removed altogether despite low level performance due to their own inability. Normally because it suits the company to do so. I would suggest this is more prevalent in the public sector where there tend to be more layers of mid-management for people to exist within, rather than private sector esp where the head office is in the US or Asian Pacific geography eg Korea. These guys don't have problems with removing senior management if their performance is not deemed to be upto scratch. Swine Flu is an opportunity for the drug companies, as is Sars(not sure about my spelling here), Bird Flu and the next potential disease capable of causing a pandemic. HIV, Cancer, heart disease and Parkinsons also represent opportunities for drug companies but I don't see the same hysteria around these awful illnesses though I suppose the conspiracy theory here that some would state that cures for these conditions would lead to an unsustainable global population therefore the drug companies are paid not to release their panaceae(?)for them. Long winded as thsi paragraph was basically I AGREE with you here. My reading of the chicken little story is that basically a little information that relates to a bigger picture can be dangerous when used in isolation of the whole picture(whether you are party to it or not). My point was that there is a lot of conjecture as to the reasons for the new development but only the tta and council know the whole truth. We can guess and I am pretty positive that much of the conjecture is probably true particularly re the sudden acceptance and backing of the new scheme by the council allowing them to get hold of valuable land at a lower cost to be ear marked for key worker/social housing. Eventually back to my point, you have had the "chicken little" story pushed at you by people whose intellect/common sense maybe? you don't respect, however the people that I have heard use this anecdote a/ understand it is just that and use it to illustrate particular points and b/ tend to be pretty shrewd/not intellectually challenged individuals. Apologies for a very long winded response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 My reading of the chicken little story is that basically a little information that relates to a bigger picture can be dangerous when used in isolation of the whole picture(whether you are party to it or not). My point was that there is a lot of conjecture as to the reasons for the new development but only the tta and council know the whole truth. We can guess and I am pretty positive that much of the conjecture is probably true particularly re the sudden acceptance and backing of the new scheme by the council allowing them to get hold of valuable land at a lower cost to be ear marked for key worker/social housing. Eventually back to my point, you have had the "chicken little" story pushed at you by people whose intellect/common sense maybe? you don't respect, however the people that I have heard use this anecdote a/ understand it is just that and use it to illustrate particular points and b/ tend to be pretty shrewd/not intellectually challenged individuals. Fair enough, although some of the facts that have been released-the reduced budget and the scaled-down capacity, for instance-do, as you say, seem to indicate pretty convincingly where the club is going. The tendency to dismiss everything apart from the lullabies (or the bad news that individuals DO want to hear-everybody wants to hear the bad news that confirms their own worldview*), as 'Chicken Little,' is a widespread phenomenon rather than anything to do with individual acquaintances of mine. Perhaps the internet makes it worse. *I tend to get round this problem by believing ALL the bad news... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 That's an intersting poser Dan, but being honest I suspect that thet a more true analogy might be: 9,000 on the current site, or 12,000 on cheaper land a bit further out of our heartland and riskier. Supposition I know. Which one would that be, if that was the choice? 9000 on the current site? The Rocky holds 4600 and the Chaddy holds c3000 I believe. Neither of which are in desperate need of renovation (though improved food kiosks and a bar in the CRE, along with a new roof would be nice). That's 7600 seat which are in decent nick and could be lived with until the economic situation improved. Build a new mainsatand on the Lookers similar in size to the RRE - dunno how much that would cost but I'd assume c1/3 of the cost of the proposed development (a conservative guess of say £7m based on the fact the whole thing is gonna cost £20m @ Failsworth), and we have then something in the region of 12200 seats aleady. I'm assuming this could be paid for by selling of parts of the BP site 'piecemeal' as is the plan with Failsworth. Then redevelop the current mainstand when the market improves. Only trouble is that TTA still get their get out clause, but don't get their pay off (and I don't begrudge them clawing some of their capital layout back). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 *I tend to get round this problem by believing ALL the bad news... ...and there we have it. 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.