oafc0000 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 i think the agreement ran out, and TTA where doing it as a gesture Fair enough... I still think it is a shame the rugby and the football can not have a shared (bright) future... I used to moan about the pitch but it seems less of an issue these days... Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 From the Forum on 10th August: Hamilton says no ground in Oldham has the requirments to satisfy the RFL so i dont think they can use Chadderton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 As a side note... Why did the RFL sell Watersheddings in the first place? Was it money problems or was it off the promise of a new stadium ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The rugby should try and sort out their differences with Ashton. It was brilliant when they played there. Not too farand a proper atmosphere not seen since they left Sheddings. yeah true they just need somewhere for a couple of years until Failsworth is built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Chaddy FC's ground is public property which means the ground is open to the public 24 hours a day which in turn leads to plenty of problems with the local chav's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 From the Forum on 10th August: A's: AH - Its been a lot longer than 6 weeks, dont believe everything you read in the press. The Rugby can be accomadated at Chadderton Football club as that ground has a capacity of 1500-2000 and that is more than enough for the Rugby's needs. AH stated he would be happier if the Rugby had their own stadium. That stinks of lack of ambition for me, do the Roughyeds have no intention of getting back into Super League? A 1500 - 2000 seater stadium suggest the intention is merely survival at a lower level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 That stinks of lack of ambition for me, do the Roughyeds have no intention of getting back into Super League? A 1500 - 2000 seater stadium suggest the intention is merely survival at a lower level. Well it was suggested by OAFC so you are probably right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 yeah true they just need somewhere for a couple of years until Failsworth is built The Rugby won't be using Failsworth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 As a side note... Why did the RFL sell Watersheddings in the first place? Was it money problems or was it off the promise of a new stadium ? a bit of both, when they went bust in 1997 under Jim Quinn they has about £2m debt but where promised off the then council that if they leave Watersheddings to allow houses to be built a new ground WILL be built for them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The Rugby won't be using Failsworth. they will contrary to your forum post, SC and AH have gone on record saying they will be happy for the Roughyeds to use Failsworth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaw_blue Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) That stinks of lack of ambition for me, do the Roughyeds have no intention of getting back into Super League? A 1500 - 2000 seater stadium suggest the intention is merely survival at a lower level. It was never intended to be used for 1st team rugby it was bought for a training ground and academy rugby and a decent HQ for the club. To be honest i am not sure if the rugby do own it as Bill Quinn was purchasing the ground but with the demise of his company and then selling his shares back to hamilton i dont think the sale ever went through. Edited November 12, 2009 by shaw_blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 they will contrary to your forum post, SC and AH have gone on record saying they will be happy for the Roughyeds to use Failsworth In that case I stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oafc88 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Im a bit gutted by this, another nail in the coffin of the roughyeds? It would be a great shame for this town to lose its rugby team, hopefully a solution is thought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yes, because we've been told that BP will not be demolished until the new stadium is ready. Oh of course. I was forgetting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Chaddy FC's ground is public property which means the ground is open to the public 24 hours a day which in turn leads to plenty of problems with the local chav's Intersting that..... if the ground is public property like that I wonder how they get away with charging people to get in? Wouldn't people just be able to claim it was their legal right of way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Your really are totally trusting aren't you ? People lie you know... (I am not suggesting TTA are lying, it is a general point regarding trust) Not fogetting that, as the nodders always like to remind us, situations are subject to constant change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Maybe some people should be alerted to the fact that BP, as part of the deal when TTA bought the ground, must be used for sport for 10 years from the point of sale, hence BP won't be knocked down as soon as possible Moving to a ground share doesn't necessarily have to be because BP is to be immediately demolished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Until proved otherwise, I can only go off what we've been told officially. That is fact until proved to be fiction. Actually, the sentence you quote is not a statement of any kind of fact. It's a promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 If it is relevant that the sale stated BP should be used for sport for 10 years... Then surely it can not be sold for housing for ten years ? or am I missing the point ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Actually, the sentence you quote is not a statement of any kind of fact. It's a promise. At least someone is in the land of reality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Oh of course. I was forgetting. I know it's boring sticking to what we've been told by those in the know, until proved otherwise. It's much more fun to set hares running about being homeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I know it's boring sticking to what we've been told by those in the know, until proved otherwise. It's much more fun to set hares running about being homeless. Did you apply the same logic to Moores by any chance DS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Actually, the sentence you quote is not a statement of any kind of fact. It's a promise. OK, stick to promises until broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 At least someone is in the land of reality... Going by the record of the past two regimes at BP, I'm half expecting an announcement reassuring us that there are no plans to move to a temporary groundshare. To be followed some time later by the announcement that we are moving to a temporary ground share, but that there is no reason to worry etc etc. At least Stott, Brierley et al were consistent in reminding us that all we had to look forward to was more sh1te. And JW Lees had the sense to promise us eff all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I know it's boring sticking to what we've been told by those in the know, until proved otherwise. It's much more fun to set hares running about being homeless. Ah those in the know! 'We have abolished boom and bust.' Remember that one? 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.