Fossetts Way

[mrsblue]

Turf Moor holds 22k, Bournemouth have a wealthy Russian backer.

There you have just said it...new stadia isn't the be all and end all...its the wealthy backer.....ditto every successful club...where would Chelsea and Man City be without vast backing.

 

[Firestorm]

Never eyed the contents I'm afraid....all I know is the club are losing £20,000 every week year on year and that is rather crazy.

It isnt that crazy if you look at the accounts, thats what they are for , to explain things.

That said, the cost of running the club does appear to have shot up of lare , so I imagine that MD, are possibly starting to claim some of the money owed to finance the increased activity re Ff

 

[fbm]

When considering the impact of new stadia, you have to take into account where the clubs were prior to the stadium being built and will that new ground enable them to compete at a higher level (or better at the same level in the case of top sides).

I'm not sure that ground redevelopments can be factored in here as that would apply to many, many teams.

Incidentally - interesting fact. When Roots Hall was built, we had the most modern ground in the country until Scunthorpe moved to Glanford Park in 1988.

Walsall moved to the Bescot in 1990 and since then, many clubs have re-located.

In the above clubs cases, I would argue that it has left them probably where they were before but in a lot more comfort and able to survive, compete and attract players. Then again, they didn't do a "Darlington" and go from a small, division 4 ground into a bloody great 30k stadium that they would have no hope in hell of filling. The demographic in Darlington means that there probably isn't an event you could put on that would attract 30k people, football related or otherwise. That was madness.

So what of the other clubs that have had new grounds? Has it helped them?

As said earlier in this thread, Swansea, Reading, Cardiff, Wigan, Hull, Burton, Brighton and Wigan are all obvious benefactors. I would also add Leicester and Man City in there.

In respect of other clubs, Doncaster, Rotherham, Colchester, Chesterfield, Derby, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Arsenal, Millwall, Northampton, Doncaster, Mansfield, Oxford and Shrewsbury are probably where they were before, but in more comfort and more ability to compete.

Huddersfield pre World War 2 were a huge team but fell from grace long before they vacated their Leeds Rd ground so you can't really claim that it was a stadium move that hurt them. They are however now an established Championship club who may even make the Prem next season via the play offs. They wouldn't have done that without a new ground.

Coventry are the victim of an appallingly run club with unbelievably unfit owners. With West Ham it's too early to say as every game for them is an away game almost. It takes 2-3 years to settle into the new home.

We are not a big club. Historically, we should be sitting mid to lower league one. I think FF will give us that ability to make forays into the Championship more likely than they have been through our history.

And whilst mrsblue is correct when she says that new stadia doesn't guarantee success, it certainly does help when attracting players. The only reason we've been able to get the likes of who we have got is down to the stadium dream and a high profile manager like Phil Brown. Without it, we would absolutely have folded by now and end up with our main rivals being clubs like York, Stockport and Southport... if we were still in existence.

 

[kentblues]

This 3 sides debate- its 3 sides because the 4th side was funded differently- Sainsbury agreeing to fund the 3 sides the 4th by the hotel project attached to it.

There is no Sainsbury now so not sure if this changes anything but heard Hilton are supposedly close to being the hotel partner? If they are in place does this bring the possibility of both happening at the same time as part of a bigger project?

 

[mrsblue]

When considering the impact of new stadia, you have to take into account where the clubs were prior to the stadium being built and will that new ground enable them to compete at a higher level (or better at the same level in the case of top sides).

I'm not sure that ground redevelopments can be factored in here as that would apply to many, many teams.

Incidentally - interesting fact. When Roots Hall was built, we had the most modern ground in the country until Scunthorpe moved to Glanford Park in 1988.

Walsall moved to the Bescot in 1990 and since then, many clubs have re-located.

In the above clubs cases, I would argue that it has left them probably where they were before but in a lot more comfort and able to survive, compete and attract players. Then again, they didn't do a "Darlington" and go from a small, division 4 ground into a bloody great 30k stadium that they would have no hope in hell of filling. The demographic in Darlington means that there probably isn't an event you could put on that would attract 30k people, football related or otherwise. That was madness.

So what of the other clubs that have had new grounds? Has it helped them?

As said earlier in this thread, Swansea, Reading, Cardiff, Wigan, Hull, Burton, Brighton and Wigan are all obvious benefactors. I would also add Leicester and Man City in there.

In respect of other clubs, Doncaster, Rotherham, Colchester, Chesterfield, Derby, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Arsenal, Millwall, Northampton, Doncaster, Mansfield, Oxford and Shrewsbury are probably where they were before, but in more comfort and more ability to compete.

Huddersfield pre World War 2 were a huge team but fell from grace long before they vacated their Leeds Rd ground so you can't really claim that it was a stadium move that hurt them. They are however now an established Championship club who may even make the Prem next season via the play offs. They wouldn't have done that without a new ground.

Coventry are the victim of an appallingly run club with unbelievably unfit owners. With West Ham it's too early to say as every game for them is an away game almost. It takes 2-3 years to settle into the new home.

We are not a big club. Historically, we should be sitting mid to lower league one. I think FF will give us that ability to make forays into the Championship more likely than they have been through our history.

And whilst mrsblue is correct when she says that new stadia doesn't guarantee success, it certainly does help when attracting players. The only reason we've been able to get the likes of who we have got is down to the stadium dream and a high profile manager like Phil Brown. Without it, we would absolutely have folded by now and end up with our main rivals being clubs like York, Stockport and Southport... if we were still in existence.

Well measured response which I agree with every word until your last para.

High profile players currently here are because of one thing....money !

No player worth his salt would sign here with the promise of the new stadium in the forefront of his decision,Phil may have because of his standing in the game had the chance to talk to these guys,at the end of the day these players mainly family men have just two things to consider...wages and length of contract.

 

[kaymac]

There you have just said it...new stadia isn't the be all and end all...its the wealthy backer.....ditto every successful club...where would Chelsea and Man City be without vast backing.

Yesterday, the claim was success was down to being a city and not a town, oh contradictory one....and Spurs have a very wealthy backer but not been the most successful of clubs over the last few decades.

 

[rigsby]

Well measured response which I agree with every word until your last para.

High profile players currently here are because of one thing....money !

No player worth his salt would sign here with the promise of the new stadium in the forefront of his decision,Phil may have because of his standing in the game had the chance to talk to these guys,at the end of the day these players mainly family men have just two things to consider...wages and length of contract.

You need to make your mind up mrs. Ron can't be robbing us blind but at the same time spending thousands per week on a huge wage bill.

 

[RHB]

And I think it's time for this thread to leap across to its proper home.

 

[mrsblue]

Yesterday, the claim was success was down to being a city and not a town, oh contradictory one....and Spurs have a very wealthy backer but not been the most successful of clubs over the last few decades.

:hilarious:Spurs are currently second and the last few seasons always finish top 5 apart from 6th one season!

Spurs are a city based club with a stadium capacity of 35000,hence why the new stadium will hold 55000 or more.

I rest my case m'lord.

 

[Mick]

City clubs with new stadium currently in the 92 clubs are
4,7,9,11,12,17,18,19,20,21,29,34,50,54,56,66th

Town clubs with new stadium currently are
23,24,31,33,34,36,50,53,57,62,70,74,77th

Highest ranked town club with new stadium are placed 23rd in current league ranking.

Pick and choose at will, means absolutely zilch, likewise being deemed a town or city means zilch too. Very poor effort
that....but there again if it keeps you happy....

A strange and unhelpful differentiation - cities !

If only Ely City had a new stadium the Thurlow Nunn League would be a distant memory.

 

[mrsblue]

A strange and unhelpful differentiation - cities !

If only Ely City had a new stadium the Thurlow Nunn League would be a distant memory.

Not forgetting Chelmsford City.

 

[fbm]

Well measured response which I agree with every word until your last para.

High profile players currently here are because of one thing....money !

No player worth his salt would sign here with the promise of the new stadium in the forefront of his decision,Phil may have because of his standing in the game had the chance to talk to these guys,at the end of the day these players mainly family men have just two things to consider...wages and length of contract.

Money plays a part but is not the be all and end all. We don't pay THAT much. With Anton Ferdinand, I believe we were in group of clubs offering him a contract that numbered the grand total of 1 - us. No one wanted him.

Cox, McLaughlin, Wordsworth... these players had other options and chose us and it wasn't just down to money. Partly because we offered them a decent package, partly because of PB and partly because we DO have a dream... albeit one that is taking a hell of a long time to come to fruition.

Without that dream, we would be having to pay a hell of a lot more to get players to stay.

Personal conversations with Steve Tilson, Paul Sturrock and Steve Kavanagh have confirmed to me that the stadium - especially when it arrives - is a big pull, especially when compared to poor old Roots Hall - the Wembley of the fourth division, as once dubbed by Kevin Keegan in the 1970's.

It's no co-incidence that Brighton, a big club with massive support and who used to regularly get 25000 in the Goldstone Ground, suddenly become a Prem team and championship champions elect within 2 years of the Amex being built. Swansea, within 3 years of the Liberty being built, got out of L1 into the Championship and 3 years later made it to the Prem, where they still are, although currently only by clinging on.

The up-swell of support and interest generated by moving stadium gives a 4-5 year "honeymoon period" where, whilst the club settles in to it's new surroundings, fans are perhaps more patient and the curiosity factor boosts attendances. Beyond that period, it is the running of the club that determines success.

As I said before - if success at the FF development is good for Ron Martin then that also spells success for this club. I would much rather him than Latvian owners, faceless chicken companies in India, Hedge funds or mad Italians. As I say - I don't, and won't, begrudge him a penny if it comes off.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Kevin Keegan said that about us? I only dislike him now.:smile:

 

[mrsblue]

Money plays a part but is not the be all and end all. We don't pay THAT much. With Anton Ferdinand, I believe we were in group of clubs offering him a contract that numbered the grand total of 1 - us. No one wanted him.

Cox, McLaughlin, Wordsworth... these players had other options and chose us and it wasn't just down to money. Partly because we offered them a decent package, partly because of PB and partly because we DO have a dream... albeit one that is taking a hell of a long time to come to fruition.

Without that dream, we would be having to pay a hell of a lot more to get players to stay.

Personal conversations with Steve Tilson, Paul Sturrock and Steve Kavanagh have confirmed to me that the stadium - especially when it arrives - is a big pull, especially when compared to poor old Roots Hall - the Wembley of the fourth division, as once dubbed by Kevin Keegan in the 1970's.

It's no co-incidence that Brighton, a big club with massive support and who used to regularly get 25000 in the Goldstone Ground, suddenly become a Prem team and championship champions elect within 2 years of the Amex being built. Swansea, within 3 years of the Liberty being built, got out of L1 into the Championship and 3 years later made it to the Prem, where they still are, although currently only by clinging on.

The up-swell of support and interest generated by moving stadium gives a 4-5 year "honeymoon period" where, whilst the club settles in to it's new surroundings, fans are perhaps more patient and the curiosity factor boosts attendances. Beyond that period, it is the running of the club that determines success.

As I said before - if success at the FF development is good for Ron Martin then that also spells success for this club. I would much rather him than Latvian owners, faceless chicken companies in India, Hedge funds or mad Italians. As I say - I don't, and won't, begrudge him a penny if it comes off.

Those players would clearly know they won't be here whenever the stadium is built,most players at out level know they will have 2/3 seasons here at most .

conversation between Phil and Simon's agent.
Agent...what is on the table
Phil......we can include the FF vision
Agent...that's been going on for over a decade and not a single brick laid
Phil...aye but it might happen soon and Coxy would love to play at FF
Agent..FF don't pay the bills,Simon is only interested in the financials regarding playing football.

See what I mean...if FF started next week then the build time would be 2 years,Coxy's deal runs out in a year,will he resign again,who knows.

 

[Firestorm]

We have successful teams with small grounds and wealthy backers, who would make more money if they had bigger grounds
we have successful teams with wealthy backers who have good size grounds and are building bigger grounds because their fanbase will fill bigger grounds
we have smaller teams who thought that a new ground would be the answer , and it wasnt
I am struggling to think of a comparison to us though, where the new stadium is largely to facilitate a development around the stadium which will assist in the day to day finances, as well as accomodating larger crowds ?
I know that we are relying on , as yet decided, ownership , rental and income sharing arrangements, but the early statements are that the post move nett income will outweigh the ongong costs.
We will have to wait until its too late, but given that 8 or so seasons in the lower two divisions have cost 10m, we can hardly expect anything other than lower league mediocrity if we stay as we are

 

[southend_aussies]

These arguments are almost pointless as whether we need it. It has almost come to the stage where Roots Hall can't be developed or maintained without a large commitment. That commitments could and should go to a new stadium.

 

[Benfleet A1]

These arguments are almost pointless as whether we need it. It has almost come to the stage where Roots Hall can't be developed or maintained without a large commitment. That commitments could and should go to a new stadium.

Agreed, looked at the old girl today without the rose tinted glasses. The years have not been kind. We badly need to move before the place is condemed.

 

[kaymac]

Like I say, Mrs B***, you can pick and choose all you like...and over and over again. But just to humour you, how many titles was that for Spurs in the last few decades? Second place isn't a notable
achievement....ho hum

 

[mrsblue]

Like I say, Mrs B***, you can pick and choose all you like...and over and over again. But just to humour you, how many titles was that for Spurs in the last few decades? Second place isn't a notable
achievement....ho hum

Since Arsenal left Highbury(capacity 38000)and moved to Emirates with 60,000 capacity....their last league title was at guess what at their smaller stadium...in fact since they left the smaller stadium they have only won the cup twice.

You much do better:hilarious:

 

[E for B and Billy Best]

On reflection in my original post I was insulting to the owners of scrapyards as scrapyards are probably a bit less unsightly than B&L, and I will have to bow to your superior knowledge of the workings of the academy system.
However, my original point still stands as after 10+ years since planning permission was granted all we have is:
A pile of second hand metal.
A fence.
A slew of broken promises. The next instalment designed to placate us and insult our intelligence will probably be released in the very near future.