A Stadium of three sides ÔÇô official

Anything yellow and blue
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Post by Snake »

We could have erected a 4th temporary stand for either or both of the home games against Dagenham and Macclesfield and ironed out any problems in advance while small numbers of away fans were in attendance in regard of H&ampS, the council, and TVP well before the Scum came to visit. And then it could have stayed there with the very real possibility of a home play-off semi-final to come in May. A lot of the costs involved would be building it and taking it down, but there is no mention in the club’s official statement in regard of considering a ten week lease.

As for the parking and traffic excuse, then that’s simply pathetic and naive. If people want to really go and see a game of football then they will find a way of getting there and back, even if it does mean a bit of hassle.

No ambition, Ian.
Ancient Colin
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Nowhere near Treviso

Post by Ancient Colin »

There was never, ever, ever, going to be a temporary stand for the Scum game. Did anyone seriously believe that there would be? The security issues (and the reputational damage from the inevitable security failure) overwhelmed any commercial issues. A prime FA cup home game against a docile premiersh!t side, maybe, but never the Scum game.
Hog
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4540
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:30 pm

Re:

Post by Hog »

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:There was never, ever, ever, going to be a temporary stand for the Scum game. Did anyone seriously believe that there would be? The security issues (and the reputational damage from the inevitable security failure) overwhelmed any commercial issues. A prime FA cup home game against a docile premiersh!t side, maybe, but never the Scum game.
Nail. Head. Well and truly hit!
recordmeister
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1808
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
Location: London

Re: A Stadium of three sides ÔÇô official

Post by recordmeister »

&quotSnake&quot wrote:
&quotAndrewmaha&quot wrote:
&quotSnake&quot wrote:Even with a potential of a 14,500|| crowd WPL will not build a temporary fourth one (‘cos it cost too much and is too much hassle) and unless we get into the Prem I’d guess that a capacity of 12,500 will be fine and dandy at the Kassam even at Championship level with this lot in charge of the club’s future.

On the flip side it’s great news for people who like to see a decent sunset over the Ozone in the open West end or like watching hoofball where the westerly winds make Fourth Division football even more of a lottery than it already is.
The theoretical capacity may well be 12,500 but by the time fan segregation is introduced for high risk matches, particularly during early March, I reckon actual capacity will be somewhat less.
As you will be well aware from your Swansea City viewing experiences, Mr. C, empty seats equal lost revenue to a club when demand exceeds supply. I mailed Kelvin months ago about this issue arguing along the lines that paying for more stewards and police is better value than a physical gap with that crap bit of black netting to segregate Them from Us.

I’m really glad I have a ticket for the South Stand on March 3rd, because if it kicks off in the North Stand I’ll be safe and have a good view of it all.

We go and accept an offer for Beano from Them, and then we do this. No ambition, no sense, and not the Oxford United I used to know.
Is this the 'Oxford United' that got us all the way in to.... the Conference. Yeah! Go ambition!

The only time we've had ambition was when we were using the stolen funds of a multi-millionaire. And look where that got us, once it was gone...
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re:

Post by Snake »

&quotHog&quot wrote:
&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:There was never, ever, ever, going to be a temporary stand for the Scum game. Did anyone seriously believe that there would be? The security issues (and the reputational damage from the inevitable security failure) overwhelmed any commercial issues. A prime FA cup home game against a docile premiersh!t side, maybe, but never the Scum game.
Nail. Head. Well and truly hit!
Disagree. The policing for the game at the CG worked. Maybe it was TVP who were the final decision makers as it would be tough for them to match their colleagues performance and organisation in the corresponding fixture in Wiltshire.
recordmeister
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1808
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
Location: London

Re:

Post by recordmeister »

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:If the capacity would exceed 14,000, then the capacity of the temporary stand would be just over 1,500.

At a cost of £17.74 || VAT per seat, that works out at a minimum cost of £31,932 to have a 4th stand for this fixture.

That cost would be partially repaid by 1,500 tickets sold at £11.94 || VAT per seat = £21,492, leaving a deficit of £10,440 to be paid for by additional seats sold in the North Stand to OUFC supporters.

The tickets in the North Stand would need to be priced at the same level as those who have already paid to avoid inequity i.e. £18.00 per ticket.

Therefore the club would have to sell an additional 580 tickets (at adult prices) out of the 1,974 that would be available to make the 4th stand pay for itself.

The club's argument is that there are only 165 fans who have registered an interest in buying tickets, and so the 580 tickets necessary would not be sold.

Personally, I think the club has done a great job in publishing the figures for this and I really welcome that openness.

What I find a little bizarre is that the club could at this point have said, we need another 415 fans to register their interest to make this project viable. They could even have taken the ticket money now and refunded it later if demand were not there. Relying purely on those who have registered an interest so far may not be a very accurate way of assessing demand.

Part of the problem is that the calculations appear to have been left quite late, so there may be insufficient time to organise this properly. And another part of the problem is that Swinedown fans have to be given an opportunity to buy tickets in advance, but the club could have allocated them with 1,252 tickets pro tem, without an allocated stand or seat on the ticket. And then issued the additional 248 tickets if there was sufficient demand from Oxford fans.

Had these calcs been done before Christmas, this process would have been that much easier.

I applaud the openness, which is great. I'm not sure they've reached the right conclusion though as there was a way they could have tested the market.

The stuff about traffic is flim flam to add weight to the argument, but is not a reason to change the conclusion that should be reached.

Edit: One factor I did not mention is that if all 1,974 additional seats had been sold to Oxford fans, the club would have made an additional £25,092 profit from the fixture. Enough for an extra loan player to the end of the season.

Also loss of car parking would have been a significant issue.
Are there not massive insurance considerations for erecting a temp stand in a potentially volatile local derby too. Wouldn't want the stand collapsing with all those inbreds in it, would we now... (he he)
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:If the capacity would exceed 14,000, then the capacity of the temporary stand would be just over 1,500.

At a cost of £17.74 || VAT per seat, that works out at a minimum cost of £31,932 to have a 4th stand for this fixture.

That cost would be partially repaid by 1,500 tickets sold at £11.94 || VAT per seat = £21,492, leaving a deficit of £10,440 to be paid for by additional seats sold in the North Stand to OUFC supporters.

The tickets in the North Stand would need to be priced at the same level as those who have already paid to avoid inequity i.e. £18.00 per ticket.

Therefore the club would have to sell an additional 580 tickets (at adult prices) out of the 1,974 that would be available to make the 4th stand pay for itself.

The club's argument is that there are only 165 fans who have registered an interest in buying tickets, and so the 580 tickets necessary would not be sold.

Personally, I think the club has done a great job in publishing the figures for this and I really welcome that openness.

What I find a little bizarre is that the club could at this point have said, we need another 415 fans to register their interest to make this project viable. They could even have taken the ticket money now and refunded it later if demand were not there. Relying purely on those who have registered an interest so far may not be a very accurate way of assessing demand.

Part of the problem is that the calculations appear to have been left quite late, so there may be insufficient time to organise this properly. And another part of the problem is that Swinedown fans have to be given an opportunity to buy tickets in advance, but the club could have allocated them with 1,252 tickets pro tem, without an allocated stand or seat on the ticket. And then issued the additional 248 tickets if there was sufficient demand from Oxford fans.

Had these calcs been done before Christmas, this process would have been that much easier.

I applaud the openness, which is great. I'm not sure they've reached the right conclusion though as there was a way they could have tested the market.

The stuff about traffic is flim flam to add weight to the argument, but is not a reason to change the conclusion that should be reached.

Edit: One factor I did not mention is that if all 1,974 additional seats had been sold to Oxford fans, the club would have made an additional £25,092 profit from the fixture. Enough for an extra loan player to the end of the season.

Also loss of car parking would have been a significant issue.
Are there not massive insurance considerations for erecting a temp stand in a potentially volatile local derby too. Wouldn't want the stand collapsing with all those inbreds in it, would we now... (he he)
Yes there probably is, but that cost would have been taken into account in the club's combined cost figure.

I'm a little disappointed by the decision, but not remotely surprised by it.
theox
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Broncos

Re:

Post by theox »

&quotHog&quot wrote:
&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:There was never, ever, ever, going to be a temporary stand for the Scum game. Did anyone seriously believe that there would be? The security issues (and the reputational damage from the inevitable security failure) overwhelmed any commercial issues. A prime FA cup home game against a docile premiersh!t side, maybe, but never the Scum game.
Nail. Head. Well and truly hit!
Then its another PR mishap from the Club to suggest it in the first place and lead to this debate.
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re:

Post by Kernow Yellow »

&quottheox&quot wrote:
&quotHog&quot wrote:
&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:There was never, ever, ever, going to be a temporary stand for the Scum game. Did anyone seriously believe that there would be? The security issues (and the reputational damage from the inevitable security failure) overwhelmed any commercial issues. A prime FA cup home game against a docile premiersh!t side, maybe, but never the Scum game.
Nail. Head. Well and truly hit!
Then its another PR mishap from the Club to suggest it in the first place and lead to this debate.
At risk of repeating myself, the club didn't suggest a temporary stand for the Slumdon game. As I recall, it was suggested by fans and put to the club by OxVox. The club said they would look into it. They have looked into it and decided against it.

Jesus, some people want to bash the club at every opportunity don't they? This decision doesn't affect any of us (possibly the 165 people who didn't get tickets, but they had plenty of time to get them), so I really don't see what the problem is at all. Some people from down the A420 are upset? Well there's a massive shame.
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re:

Post by Snake »

&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:
&quottheox&quot wrote:
&quotHog&quot wrote: Nail. Head. Well and truly hit!
Then its another PR mishap from the Club to suggest it in the first place and lead to this debate.
At risk of repeating myself, the club didn't suggest a temporary stand for the s*****n game. As I recall, it was suggested by fans and put to the club by OxVox. The club said they would look into it. They have looked into it and decided against it.

Jesus, some people want to bash the club at every opportunity don't they? This decision doesn't affect any of us (possibly the 165 people who didn't get tickets, but they had plenty of time to get them), so I really don't see what the problem is at all. Some people from down the A420 are upset? Well there's a massive shame.
At the risk of repeating myself as well this shows a lack of ambition. In the end OUFC may have lost a couple of thousand quid in shoving the Scum into crap uncovered accommodation with non-league toilet and catering facilities but this is a big one.
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re:

Post by Kernow Yellow »

&quotSnake&quot wrote:At the risk of repeating myself as well this shows a lack of ambition.
Ambition to do what exactly? Give our friends from Wiltshire a few more tickets while making little or no money out of it? Why is this something to aspire to?
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re:

Post by Snake »

&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:
&quotSnake&quot wrote:At the risk of repeating myself as well this shows a lack of ambition.
Ambition to do what exactly? Give our friends from Wiltshire a few more tickets while making little or no money out of it? Why is this something to aspire to?
An ambition to shove Them onto a bit of scaffolding like at Gillingham or Hereford with equally crap facilities.

An ambition for a record crowd at the Kassam, unless you include the excellently organised Elton John concert.

An ambition that just maybe we may have to play them at least three more times this season and given that the last home game is against Southend and then a temporary stand may come in handy for both sets of supporters.

An ambition that the club may just risk a few thousand quid on this gamble and leave it up for the rest of the season in the hope that it can be used more than once, which is what is missing from the official club statement/calculations on the matter.

If Jim Smith can screw a quarter of a million quid from one of his old mates with no guarantees of pay back (allegedly) then I don’t see why Ian can’t gamble a few bob on this one.
Post Reply