|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Jan 10, 2005 15:13:39 GMT 1
rushdens stadium was paid for by the like of you and I buying Dr Martens boots and their sugar daddy getting rich
our chairman wants a fighting fund which is a fab idea
but there has been a severe lack of research and ideas into the planning of the new stadium
do we blow the cash on a decent stadium or blow it on the team..??
DONT SAY BOTH.. that does not count
Rushden though now struggling have stopped their resturants and what have you as the fickle no longer go .. people want to see a winning side
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 10, 2005 15:18:08 GMT 1
I'm alarmed about the New Meadow but it will take years to sort it out - partly in the sense of what facilities are there but more in the sense of what the club want to do with it. Mr Peters would probably spend the money more wisely than other people at the football club. But you should not have to spend spend spend your way out of the 4th Division.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2005 15:27:23 GMT 1
The early season team that was playing were being paid much more than those that put in 4 decent performances in the last 4 games.
Anyhoo, this 'fighting fund' that the board are talking about is a really strange one and I see little (i.e. 'no') evidence that it is a serious plan.
First of all the board have no idea how much this will amount to, and the cost of the New Meadow fell by almost a million in the course of a week. Does this mean we're going to have a million in a bank?
We still of course have the turnover Vs wages issue. Thus how long is the life of a 'fighting fund'? Does it only last for 1 financial year on the 'in' side? And is it better to have 150K in the bank or spend it on a supporter's bar that will pull ing 50K per annum for the life of the stadium.
I want a stadium that provides better facilities than the current ground and provides the supporters with a chance to get closer to their club whilst ensuring the future of it is one as being able to support a financially viable professional football team.
|
|
Wrighty
Midland League Division One
Posts: 465
|
Post by Wrighty on Jan 10, 2005 15:31:06 GMT 1
For me if I must choose one it is definately a speculate to accumulate situation and good investment now would lead to a bigger war chest later
|
|
|
Post by tbh NOT LOGGED IN on Jan 10, 2005 15:36:17 GMT 1
a decent bar would make £50k a year, and help increase the turnover for wages
£100k on Mark Blake rapidly became nothing
£40k (or however much it was) on Simpkin rapidly became nothing
The £20k on Banim rapidly became nothing
Decent facilities:
1) Last 2) Make money 3) Provide a greater association with the football club
|
|
|
Post by nickjonesey on Jan 10, 2005 15:37:42 GMT 1
I agree with Wrighty, if you have a better team, you have success, you get increased fans/ revenue and you can upgrade facilities as required. Why have a fantastic stadium now (half full) but poor results that deter the fairweather supporters? Surely better to get the basic facilites which can grow with the team. By the time we are in The Championship you will have breweries taking your arm off to fund/ run whatever bar facilities you want. Sponsors are far more likely to want to be associated with a professional/ successful outfit so the revenue from this source would be massively improved
|
|
|
Post by tbh NOT LOGGED IN on Jan 10, 2005 15:38:29 GMT 1
and the idea you have to have a crap team with a decent ground is rubbish
Look at Yeovil, they did the hard work and are now reaping the rewards with a decent ground and decent facilities.
The quality of your signings is almost entirely dependant on wages not transfer fees
Consistent higher turnover and profit for the club would provide a better team over a long period, not just as long as there was a bit of cash lying around
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Jan 10, 2005 15:43:51 GMT 1
thought as much - was interested in peoples opinions after going to rushden I think I have got my 6 directors for when I win the Spanish Lottery
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2005 16:10:50 GMT 1
thought as much - was interested in peoples opinions after going to rushden I think I have got my 6 directors for when I win the Spanish Lottery Rushden is such an incredible story. The last 10 years is just waiting to be told properly. The shame for them is that it the removal of Griggs' money for them to start utilising the fantastic facilities they had there. And also the fact that trying to save a few quid last March (where they got rid of anyone they could) resulted in what could be a slide from League 1 mid-table to non league in about 14 months.
|
|
|
Post by Shroze Berry on Jan 10, 2005 16:52:43 GMT 1
You can always drive to Telford if you want to watch a cr@p team in a fab stadium.
|
|
|
Post by soupie on Jan 10, 2005 17:31:05 GMT 1
You can always drive to Telford if you want to watch a cr@p team in a fab stadium. Why do you have to spoil a genuinely interesting thread with such an unecessary comment. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Jan 10, 2005 17:41:16 GMT 1
The quality of your signings is almost entirely dependant on wages not transfer fees And you're more likely to attract players if you have a better ground/facilities. Because who wants to play week-in, week-out in a poo-hole when a club with a decent ground will pay you the same. Decent ground = club who looks like they are going places.
|
|
|
Post by nickjonesey on Jan 10, 2005 17:46:53 GMT 1
I'm not saying sh!t ground, rather one vastly improving upon the meadow, but not the all singing, all dancing white elephant.
And I don't think it's harsh making the comparison with our friends down the M54 or at the New Deva
|
|
|
Post by Richard_Bruvofetc on Jan 10, 2005 18:52:23 GMT 1
Why do you have to spoil a genuinely interesting thread with such an unecessary comment. Shame on you. Interesting? I thought it was a pith take.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 10, 2005 19:03:41 GMT 1
I personally doubt very much if any sort of fighting fund exist's, what i do know is that the new ground is going to happen and it's vitally important to me that we make the best effort we can.
We must have a stadium that we feel comfortable in, have pride in and where we can generally feel valued and welcomed on match days.
Sure we could throw all manner of imaginary funds at raising the quality of players to replace those already here but in a few years they will be gone.
When we have completed the new ground it is here to stay.
We have to get it right.
I have faith in GP having sufficient knowledge and experience to see this season through successfully and then look to build for the next few years. I'm not saying we neglect the playing side i'm just saying that for all of us the new ground is a once in a lifetime chance.
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on Jan 10, 2005 19:35:46 GMT 1
Better to create a long term income stream in my view. It looks like we have a gaffer who can pick up players who wont cost the earth in fees and wages anyway.............
|
|
|
Post by townfanincrewe on Jan 10, 2005 20:38:33 GMT 1
I know its more than likely been said befor but could the fans not fund the extras we want eg astro turf pitches bigger club/bar our selves through fund rasing /partnership with brewarys etc then run them ourselves. a supporters trust would have to run the hole club so this would be a good way to get in to it slowly.the club could give /rent us the land then proffits can be used to inprove fascilatys /the team. as long as we get a good ground the rest can be done in time as and when we/supporters clubs raise the money.
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Jan 10, 2005 20:50:38 GMT 1
Why do you have to spoil a genuinely interesting thread with such an unecessary comment. Shame on you. But true. Read Matts initial post >>do we blow the cash on a decent stadium or blow it on the team..?? DONT SAY BOTH.. that does not count<< For the record i dont think there ground is anything special.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2005 21:23:51 GMT 1
The thing is its not as simple as spending money on the team and becoming good or spending money on the facilities but having a crap team. Spending money on players is not a guarantee of success. Personally I would prefer the money to be spent on better facilities. The so called fighting fund could quite easily be wasted on players and all that is left to show of this money is the players names in the statistics. Whereas spending money on facilities will improve the general football experience for the average fan and of course in the long run should generate extra revenue which can then be used to improve the team Gary Peters himself has said that players, managers and directors come and go but its us fans that will be permanently. Then again for the cynical amongst us this money is only being kept back so the likes of Poole & Wingrove can get a portion of it (no doubt to share with Gutterman & Hamilton)
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jan 10, 2005 21:32:24 GMT 1
The aim is to get the ground as a playing facility and there being no debt - even if borrowings would back a good investment. That way Roland Wycherley has a legacy: A new ground and no debt, which means he can leave with his head held up high.
|
|
|
Post by mr1972 on Jan 10, 2005 21:54:02 GMT 1
Can't we have both .... Players cost F.A. at this level
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Jan 10, 2005 22:51:58 GMT 1
why has this been read 450 times and only 21 voted..??
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Jan 10, 2005 22:59:13 GMT 1
why has this been read 450 times and only 21 voted..?? Maybe because some of us dont see having a fab stadium necessarily equalling a poor team.
|
|
|
Post by warbiesbread on Jan 10, 2005 23:24:36 GMT 1
I think we are in need of a new stadium bit we do not have to have crap football. The gay meadow is very nostalgic, but as for being inviting to families, kids, or ladies it is not. This needs to alter. Both my wife and i have season tickets and stand on the riverside, one female toilet AND TWO HOLES IN THE GROUND FOR MEN WITH ONE AIR FRESHENER. Hardly appealing or drawing to families. Work it out 2 adults £28 two kids £14 program £2.50=£44.50 no facilities add to this two cokes two mars bars and a tea and coffee = £5.50 works out at a grand total of £50.00 to visit a crap ground with no facilities and an improving side with a good honest manager.
I also watch rugby league and warrington poor side crap ground average attendance 5000 per home game. Move to new ground good facilities reasonable food and lots for the kids average attendance 8,500 increase on every home gate of 3,000 people still a poor side.
Ok you may say it dos'nt work in football but from my opinion new ground, with a good honest manager with a team of potential champions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2005 8:49:06 GMT 1
Just to also make clear: We spent 200K more on our playing budget the year we finished bottom of the league than the previous year when we finished a whisker outside the play-offs.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Jan 11, 2005 11:57:12 GMT 1
As has been said the only way we can find out how good a manager is in the transfer market is by giving him funds in which to buy players.
Thats an expensive form of triial and error, and one we havent really learnt from in the past (currie,simpkin,whiston, spink,cooksey, wheelan,banim-just some of the players we''ve spent money on only to see leave the club for nothing)
With facilities you are encouraging people to part with morn money on match days, you are also more likely to encourage them to come and use the facilities during the week.
However if very much looks like our club is following the path that many bigger clubs have followed in the past, with a much greater emphasis on the "executives" and "corporate" supporters than you and I......
|
|
|
Post by Shroze Berry on Jan 11, 2005 13:22:21 GMT 1
Question:
You're a professional footballer looking for a club. You have two choices:
1. Luton Town - Cr@p ground - have been looking for a new ground for at least 10 years longer than STFC. Fought their way out of administration. Good following. Going great guns in League 1.
2. Rushden & Diamonds - Excellent stadium. Massive debts. Could lose league status. No more sugar daddy. Weak support.
Who would you choose?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2005 13:24:38 GMT 1
A daft example.
|
|
|
Post by stainesr on Jan 11, 2005 13:45:34 GMT 1
Has someone considered raising the bar/training area/white seats issues with the Super Blues club? They are there to raise cash to pay for special projects like these. Apologies if this has already been covered.
|
|
|
Post by Shroze Berry on Jan 11, 2005 13:53:06 GMT 1
Why? What is daft? Where are your reasons for quoting this? A simple question linked to "which would you prefer to watch?" and asking "which you would prefer to play for?".
|
|