I used Worcester RFC as an example only to show what can be achieved with a wealthy backer committed to his club and city. It is I think a useful example because that club also had a poor ground and lower than desired attendances. Remember when you start number crunching NTFC's customer base should be significantly greater than Worcester's with our population being 230,000 and Worcester's 100,000. I have not even begun to estimate our catchment area. Also a successful football club probably has more pulling power than a rugby club, the more so when you take into account away support. Clearly, the wealthy backer or backers have to put their collateral on the line. I take that as read.
The challenge is that we have owners who need to go and go quickly because they appear to have no intention of progressing our club. There is always the nagging worry of being careful of what you wish for but so be it. We cannot continue as we are with owner after owner failing us. It is also time for fans to become motivated and get behind the move to change the current dismal state of affairs. For those who are simply happy to turn up and watch League 2 football and will be content to do so for years to come in a stadium lacking in investment there is no hope and they will continue to tell us about their no can do approach to supporting the Cobblers.
The Trust is on the case but, like the broader base of supporters, a change of direction and attitude is needed. We await to see what transpires.
I appreciate that Vintage and I’m not having a go I’m really not. What ever the ins and outs Worcester have invested a significant amount of money in the infrastructure because they believe it to be viable. All I am trying to point out is that it is not straight forward and you have to evaluate each case on its merits. The fact is that investment in the infrastructure at NTFC has a place. The decision about what to spend and when needs to be carefully planned but I would be part of the big picture and has a place. As I keep saying the major stumbling block is the capital. Beds would have you believe this an be achieved through increased attendance at the gate, food and beverage sales etc etc. But because we would have had no capital investment this would need to be achieved with Sixfields in its current state. However, he claims that this is the very thing that prevents us from increasing attendance etc. It’s the proverbial chicken and egg and is nothing more than total lunacy. This debate needs a dose of common sense and the bleeding obvious if it is going to gather momentum. Despite appearances I am not having a go at Beds either at the end of the day. I get frustrated because it detracts from what should be a discussion about realistic and viable options to drag the club out of what we universally accept is the endless cycle of being in the doldrums at best.
