DawZi wrote:it's not what your buying its what your paying builder's & materials and dont belive the wages for tradesmen and material's back then have changed all that much significantly now
i still think there something wrong somewhere why we cant have a roof on the north stand especially when the builders are sponsoring the new ground
they could just build it and then we pay them back at the end of the sponsorship or give them a extra year of the sponsorship deal from 4yrs to 5yrs or installments, it's just commen sense to get it built while the manpower & machinery is there now
AND whilst wages have increased in-line with inflation
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:Its an uncharacteristic short sighted decision by the board IMHO.
If we go up via the play-offs and teams like Leeds , Southampton , Sheffield Wednesday and Carlisle are in that league then we will not be able to accommodate all the away fans that come. The new North side if bigger and covered could be used as an overflow for away fans when the East stand is full.
mrpotatohead wrote:totally agree with all glens points.
But from past experience, well meaning well off people do not understand the meaning of skint.
the home and away ends will be what they are now.
the new carwash terace will be the same and probably used for extra away support.
The centrepiece of our new arena will be at best , half full for all major games, which is total madness.
heysham_mfc wrote:just out of interest how many away fans can we take?
shrimper wrote:heysham_mfc wrote:just out of interest how many away fans can we take?
http://www.morecambestadium.co.uk/more_info.asp?current_id=57
Plus there's a section of the seating allocated to away fans.
shrimper wrote:Heysham_Shrimp wrote:Its an uncharacteristic short sighted decision by the board IMHO.
If we go up via the play-offs and teams like Leeds , Southampton , Sheffield Wednesday and Carlisle are in that league then we will not be able to accommodate all the away fans that come. The new North side if bigger and covered could be used as an overflow for away fans when the East stand is full.
I've said this before but it seems it's worth repeating.
The whole point of this move is to get a stadium and other facilities that can bring the club revenue 364 days a year. Without that, on the gates we get, we would be forever in the situation of relying on generous directors to keep us afloat, never mind in the Football League.
When people are going on about roofs on that side they should keep that in mind.
There were grants available a couple of years ago that, because of various spending cuts, are no longer available. There was also a realistic anticipation of a lot of money from the interest on the sale of Christie Park - interest rates plummeted and so did that cash.
IF things had been the same now as they were a few years ago then a lot of the facilities originally planned would have come to fruition and that would have included things like a roof on the north terrace - it was in the original plan.
But cutbacks had to be made (and can we not trust this particular board, for all they've done for this club, to make sensible decisions?).
They have concentrated on those parts of the ground that are going to offer our club an immediate income, rather than spending on parts of the ground that will have relatively limited use, only on match days. Yes we 'may' have to accommodate Leeds or Southampton in future - but do we spend money now on that off-chance or, say, on the function room that we know will bring us an income?
All those features people mention - roofs, enclosed corners etc - are still in the longer term 'ideas' and the ground plan has merely had them removed for now.
We're all regulars and can have our say - but really this town doesn't support the club well enough to expect what we're getting with this new stadium, never mind analysing its 'faults'.
We're blessed with a great board who are giving us something we should be thankful for. They DO care about what the fans think but sometimes there are tough decisions to make and I think they are making them sensibly. I also think that, if and when things improve a bit, they WILL try to meet all our reasonable expectations. But we may have to be patient and trust them for now.
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:If the difference was for arguments sake £300,000 I am sure a good business plan and cashflow forecast could be put to the lending institutions. Borrowed over 10 years thats £30k per year + interest. You would only need about 4 "big" matches per season where the away fans overflow into the north side to make the repayments. I agree that unless we go into league 1 we have to keep it as it is though.
Keith wrote:Heysham_Shrimp wrote:If the difference was for arguments sake £300,000 I am sure a good business plan and cashflow forecast could be put to the lending institutions. Borrowed over 10 years thats £30k per year + interest. You would only need about 4 "big" matches per season where the away fans overflow into the north side to make the repayments. I agree that unless we go into league 1 we have to keep it as it is though.
...or we could miss out on promotion, end up relegated next season and have a £300,000 debt to repay from a three-quarter empty stadium?
I'm not suggesting we will get relegated back to the Blue Square, but your 'big game theory' involves us not just getting promoted to League 1 but remaining there for a decade. It is not beyond the realms of probability that even if we go up soon, we would be favourite to come straight back down, so most of that ten year plan may need to be repaid on League 2 attendances. I'd rather trust the board's decision, not through blind faith or sycophancy but simply because they have proved they can make the right decisions previously.
RedRedWine wrote:I think you've got to question the spend on the project and where the money has gone. Yes we are getting more than just a stadium, but it's still a bit of a head scratcher when you try and cost out where all the money has gone. Obviously I'm basing this on what other clubs have paid, Burton Albion for example paid £7 million for there new stadium which isn't too much different to our own. They don't have the community facilities, but I can't equate those to a further £5 million plus the cost of a decent sized terrace with a roof along the north side of the ground. Does the £12 million figure include the loans that have been repaid to directors?
Christies Child wrote:When asked the question at the AGM of Shareholders it was confirmed that all outstanding monies owed to Directors had been settled.
As far as I'm concerned it's not for us to quibble about the cost. That's the Boards responsibilty and as long as we have the present people on the Board I trust their judgement in this matter.
It would be nice to have that additional roof but at the moment our gates don't warrant diverting money from other areas. Maybe in 12 months it will be necessary!
I'm confident that they have a Business Plan that covers all eventualities. Let them get on with it and just be grateful that we are looking to be self financing, something that few clubs can aspire to.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests