|
Post by lincolnfan on Jun 9, 2014 22:41:14 GMT
I think a more important hope for a bright future is that you get out of the Conference very quickly. I don't think a super duper stadium would help if you happen to get stuck down there. Fifteen in the away end from Braintree may not look that good. The Conference is not an attractive proposition for sponsors, corporates etc whatever spin is put on it. Just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2014 23:16:58 GMT
the only hope for a bright future is the UWE being built. Why's that then? The figues never did make much sense, now the build cost is rising for both UWE and Sainsbury's, so far we have a statement saying that the figures have already drifted by £1,500,000.00. We don't know who will own the company that owns the stadium. We have no idea what revenue it will generate or who that income will go to. The present board have shown themselves capable of losing the best part of a million quid a year whilst getting relegated, so just how much income do they need to be successful? Admire your optimism, but not too sure what it's based on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 10:07:08 GMT
Higgs isn't now talking about those being the reasons for the latest delay though is he. So you sit on your hands and do nothing whilst the JR and the obviously doomed to failure stalling tactic of trying to get the stadium classified as a War Memorial play out? I'll answer my own question. Not if you are serious about getting the new stadium built ASAP you don't. As someone said earlier today, it should only be a couple of phone calls to get Higgs and reps from UWE and Sainsbury's all in the same place at the same time, joint statement, no double talk or spin, make it clear that everyone is still 100% committed to getting things completed and that the numbers add up and instantly the speculation and doubt will evaporate. But we dont need a big stadium...am I the only one to get it. We need a team capable of avoiding relegation from the Conference Prem. But we do need a big stadium for all those Concerts we will beholding (Thanks South Glous for the new figures) and for the promotions coming up over the next few years !
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jun 10, 2014 10:19:02 GMT
the only hope for a bright future is the UWE being built. Why's that then? The figues never did make much sense, now the build cost is rising for both UWE and Sainsbury's, so far we have a statement saying that the figures have already drifted by £1,500,000.00. We don't know who will own the company that owns the stadium. We have no idea what revenue it will generate or who that income will go to. The present board have shown themselves capable of losing the best part of a million quid a year whilst getting relegated, so just how much income do they need to be successful? Admire your optimism, but not too sure what it's based on. The blind faith that new stadium = success is what concerns me more than anything too beyond any debate about revenue streams, ownership (I accept this is vital but as we have zilch actual information on that I don't enter that debate). But I think the optimism that stadium = success is based on confusing correlation with causation. Yes, clubs who have gotten new stadiums have generally done well but you have to think that if everyone gets a new stadium then the competitive advantage from having one decreases considerably. But more importantly it's not the new stadium in and off itself that is the sole reason for success. A new stadium is one one indicator of a dynamic, progressive, well run club that is likely to be doing a lot of other things right. I'd argue that the clubs who did well with new grounds also did a lot of other things right before, during and after their move; they professionalised themselves, they set up a balanced and sustainable playing structure that didn't just rely on one man's (the manager's) ability to manage the playing situation, they built a fanbase through mutual respect (not always though -some just sold up to rich foreigner like Cardiff and Hull) and they invested in good youth systems and scouting (I actually think we are doing a good job on the youth side). The point is the stadium was the ultimate sign of a club that was doing the right things in all areas. However, there are also examples (that a lot of people seem to just like to ignore) of clubs that built stadiums and didn't achieve success - in fact the stadium in many cases crippled them. These tend to be the ones who spent years focusing entirely on the stadium and were completely focused on getting that built at all costs to detriment to other aspects of the club. Oxford (did a deal with devil in Kassam because they were so desperate to get it built), Darlington (similar with that nutter Reynolds), Notts County (didn't move but completely renovated Meadow Lane in mid 90s when they were a tier 2 team out of desperation to match Forest - have never recovered), Coventry (spent years and years trying to get out of Highfield Road and ended up cutting a terrible deal in order to do it - would love to go back now I'd have thought). I worry that we have slipped into the same one eyed territory. ie. If we have a stadium everything else will sort itself out. Doesn't work like that. We may well need one (certainly if we have genuine ambitions to ever play 2nd tier football again-blimey that seems a long way off now) but it's not THE ANSWER to all our problems. Obviously I'd rather we had it than didn't but you can see why with the generally decline of the club over the last 15 years quite a few people have some doubts about which direction our stadium will take us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 14:52:01 GMT
Well who else's fault was the JR delay. Who else's fault was the EH Listing delay. I somehow can't see Nick with Scrafton, Radice and Carstairs planning this - can you? Not every project gets scuppered by sandal wearing tree huggers with well trimmed grey beards, but that's not the point, why aren't all the contracts ready pending the outcome of the latest stalling tactic? He can't even clarify the position (which he hasn't really, all he's done is said something different to what he's quoted as having said last week whilst still managing not to commit to anything) without lashing out and blaming people. So, the start date is when exactly? He won't say, ''we still intend to get onsite and start building later this year''. Doesn't inspire any confidence whatsoever. It looks to me like it's being made up as they go along. Sorry if that's ''board bashing'' How can you sign a contract when you dont know if the scheme will go ahead,until it is clearde by the relevant authorities what is the point,if it all goes t..s up it will cost the club more money in breach of contract litigation
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 15:43:43 GMT
Not every project gets scuppered by sandal wearing tree huggers with well trimmed grey beards, but that's not the point, why aren't all the contracts ready pending the outcome of the latest stalling tactic? He can't even clarify the position (which he hasn't really, all he's done is said something different to what he's quoted as having said last week whilst still managing not to commit to anything) without lashing out and blaming people. So, the start date is when exactly? He won't say, ''we still intend to get onsite and start building later this year''. Doesn't inspire any confidence whatsoever. It looks to me like it's being made up as they go along. Sorry if that's ''board bashing'' How can you sign a contract when you dont know if the scheme will go ahead,until it is clearde by the relevant authorities what is the point,if it all goes t..s up it will cost the club more money in breach of contract litigation because the contract with Sainsburys was ( yep I said was) not water tight? If, and I say if, they had an option to opt out at any time then no commitment could be made before confirmation on their part to proceed. Regardless of planning permission. If so this was never a done deal.
|
|
LincsBlue
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 685
|
Post by LincsBlue on Jun 10, 2014 16:15:53 GMT
So...on the bright side I know where I MIGHT be for my 50th....Aug 27th 2016
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 16:26:16 GMT
But we dont need a big stadium...am I the only one to get it. We need a team capable of avoiding relegation from the Conference Prem. But we do need a big stadium for all those Concerts we will beholding (Thanks South Glous for the new figures) and for the promotions coming up over the next few years ! Sorry I'd forgotten about that particular mythical golden goose, although as we would only be renting out the stadium not acting as promoters there would never be a fortune in it for us.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jun 10, 2014 16:27:17 GMT
So...on the bright side I know where I MIGHT be for my 50th....Aug 27th 2016 Be certain to arrive early Lincs, just in case like.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jun 10, 2014 16:29:29 GMT
Why's that then? The figues never did make much sense, now the build cost is rising for both UWE and Sainsbury's, so far we have a statement saying that the figures have already drifted by £1,500,000.00. We don't know who will own the company that owns the stadium. We have no idea what revenue it will generate or who that income will go to. The present board have shown themselves capable of losing the best part of a million quid a year whilst getting relegated, so just how much income do they need to be successful? Admire your optimism, but not too sure what it's based on. The blind faith that new stadium = success is what concerns me more than anything too beyond any debate about revenue streams, ownership (I accept this is vital but as we have zilch actual information on that I don't enter that debate). But I think the optimism that stadium = success is based on confusing correlation with causation. Yes, clubs who have gotten new stadiums have generally done well but you have to think that if everyone gets a new stadium then the competitive advantage from having one decreases considerably. But more importantly it's not the new stadium in and off itself that is the sole reason for success. A new stadium is one one indicator of a dynamic, progressive, well run club that is likely to be doing a lot of other things right. I'd argue that the clubs who did well with new grounds also did a lot of other things right before, during and after their move; they professionalised themselves, they set up a balanced and sustainable playing structure that didn't just rely on one man's (the manager's) ability to manage the playing situation, they built a fanbase through mutual respect (not always though -some just sold up to rich foreigner like Cardiff and Hull) and they invested in good youth systems and scouting (I actually think we are doing a good job on the youth side). The point is the stadium was the ultimate sign of a club that was doing the right things in all areas. However, there are also examples (that a lot of people seem to just like to ignore) of clubs that built stadiums and didn't achieve success - in fact the stadium in many cases crippled them. These tend to be the ones who spent years focusing entirely on the stadium and were completely focused on getting that built at all costs to detriment to other aspects of the club. Oxford (did a deal with devil in Kassam because they were so desperate to get it built), Darlington (similar with that nutter Reynolds), Notts County (didn't move but completely renovated Meadow Lane in mid 90s when they were a tier 2 team out of desperation to match Forest - have never recovered), Coventry (spent years and years trying to get out of Highfield Road and ended up cutting a terrible deal in order to do it - would love to go back now I'd have thought). I worry that we have slipped into the same one eyed territory. ie. If we have a stadium everything else will sort itself out. Doesn't work like that. We may well need one (certainly if we have genuine ambitions to ever play 2nd tier football again-blimey that seems a long way off now) but it's not THE ANSWER to all our problems. Obviously I'd rather we had it than didn't but you can see why with the generally decline of the club over the last 15 years quite a few people have some doubts about which direction our stadium will take us. I think I said back on the old BBC 606 forum when the Mem redevelopment was being touted and people were saying that would save us - just because I throw myself a birthday party in Wembley Stadium doesn't mean I've got 90,000 friends.
|
|
|
Post by Surrey Gas on Jun 10, 2014 17:55:28 GMT
The blind faith that new stadium = success is what concerns me more than anything too beyond any debate about revenue streams, ownership (I accept this is vital but as we have zilch actual information on that I don't enter that debate). But I think the optimism that stadium = success is based on confusing correlation with causation. Yes, clubs who have gotten new stadiums have generally done well but you have to think that if everyone gets a new stadium then the competitive advantage from having one decreases considerably. But more importantly it's not the new stadium in and off itself that is the sole reason for success. A new stadium is one one indicator of a dynamic, progressive, well run club that is likely to be doing a lot of other things right. I'd argue that the clubs who did well with new grounds also did a lot of other things right before, during and after their move; they professionalised themselves, they set up a balanced and sustainable playing structure that didn't just rely on one man's (the manager's) ability to manage the playing situation, they built a fanbase through mutual respect (not always though -some just sold up to rich foreigner like Cardiff and Hull) and they invested in good youth systems and scouting (I actually think we are doing a good job on the youth side). The point is the stadium was the ultimate sign of a club that was doing the right things in all areas. However, there are also examples (that a lot of people seem to just like to ignore) of clubs that built stadiums and didn't achieve success - in fact the stadium in many cases crippled them. These tend to be the ones who spent years focusing entirely on the stadium and were completely focused on getting that built at all costs to detriment to other aspects of the club. Oxford (did a deal with devil in Kassam because they were so desperate to get it built), Darlington (similar with that nutter Reynolds), Notts County (didn't move but completely renovated Meadow Lane in mid 90s when they were a tier 2 team out of desperation to match Forest - have never recovered), Coventry (spent years and years trying to get out of Highfield Road and ended up cutting a terrible deal in order to do it - would love to go back now I'd have thought). I worry that we have slipped into the same one eyed territory. ie. If we have a stadium everything else will sort itself out. Doesn't work like that. We may well need one (certainly if we have genuine ambitions to ever play 2nd tier football again-blimey that seems a long way off now) but it's not THE ANSWER to all our problems. Obviously I'd rather we had it than didn't but you can see why with the generally decline of the club over the last 15 years quite a few people have some doubts about which direction our stadium will take us. I think I said back on the old BBC 606 forum when the Mem redevelopment was being touted and people were saying that would save us - just because I throw myself a birthday party in Wembley Stadium doesn't mean I've got 90,000 friends. No but 40,000 the 3 times we've been there isn't a bad effort. UWE isn't the answer to all of our problems but it will make us a much more attractive proposition. For every Darlo failure there are countless success stories of teams thriving in a new stadium
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jun 10, 2014 18:12:55 GMT
I think I said back on the old BBC 606 forum when the Mem redevelopment was being touted and people were saying that would save us - just because I throw myself a birthday party in Wembley Stadium doesn't mean I've got 90,000 friends. No but 40,000 the 3 times we've been there isn't a bad effort. UWE isn't the answer to all of our problems but it will make us a much more attractive proposition. For every Darlo failure there are countless success stories of teams thriving in a new stadium But like Irish says: the stadium is a symptom not a cause.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 18:19:58 GMT
But we do need a big stadium for all those Concerts we will beholding (Thanks South Glous for the new figures) and for the promotions coming up over the next few years ! Sorry I'd forgotten about that particular mythical golden goose, although as we would only be renting out the stadium not acting as promoters there would never be a fortune in it for us. Standard procedure is for a percentage of the takings... thats why the SH*T made £500,000 for the WHO Concert
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 10, 2014 19:04:17 GMT
Henbury, how practical is it to have more than 3 concerts?
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Jun 10, 2014 19:28:48 GMT
You can have as many concerts as you like if the local authority grants you a licence. At the moment it is restricted to three by them.
Wembley have had a concert with over 40,000 there and three days later have played football on it. With us there could be a concert each weekend we don't have a home game if there was a call for it and we got the relevant licence
|
|
|
Post by Surrey Gas on Jun 10, 2014 19:37:16 GMT
No but 40,000 the 3 times we've been there isn't a bad effort. UWE isn't the answer to all of our problems but it will make us a much more attractive proposition. For every Darlo failure there are countless success stories of teams thriving in a new stadium But like Irish says: the stadium is a symptom not a cause. Big stadium attracts more players and fans - that constitutes a cause in my book. It is not the only ingredient to success but it is a significant one. The other main ingredient of course is good management.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 10, 2014 19:48:25 GMT
You can have as many concerts as you like if the local authority grants you a licence. At the moment it is restricted to three by them. Wembley have had a concert with over 40,000 there and three days later have played football on it. With us there could be a concert each weekend we don't have a home game if there was a call for it and we got the relevant licence In theory you could, yes but practicaloties of end of season and the summer months for open air concerts. I dont see many concerts in November for instance. I am sure 3 is ample, i mean how many acts do we honestly think we could attract that would fill it? Certainly no bad thing to have the ability to have more than 3 though
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 19:52:44 GMT
Sorry I'd forgotten about that particular mythical golden goose, although as we would only be renting out the stadium not acting as promoters there would never be a fortune in it for us. Standard procedure is for a percentage of the takings... thats why the SH*T made £500,000 for the WHO Concert It's just rent by any other name, in fact ifs its so it's to the promoters advantage because if they don't sell out they pay less. Personally I'd just settle for a guaranteed rent, equally I doubt we'll get anything from food and drink.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jun 10, 2014 19:55:57 GMT
But like Irish says: the stadium is a symptom not a cause. Big stadium attracts more players and fans - that constitutes a cause in my book. It is not the only ingredient to success but it is a significant one. The other main ingredient of course is good management. Well then from that comment I can conclude two things. 1. You didn't see the Conference play-off final. 2. When you fry an egg you think to yourself "Blimey when the egg turns white it don't half make the pan get hot".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 20:56:16 GMT
But like Irish says: the stadium is a symptom not a cause. Big stadium attracts more players and fans - that constitutes a cause in my book. It is not the only ingredient to success but it is a significant one. The other main ingredient of course is good management. Bonkers, not just ordinary bonkers but absolutely the almost most bonkers any literate and sensible person can be. "Build it and they will come" We're not getting more successful...fact. Less success = lower league = less paying customers. 22000, frankly 3000 is optimistic.
|
|