guest3114
|
Yet again you fail to answer the question. You were asked to name the specific seasons. You really do not do yourself any favours do you?
There you go Sing. The follow up was that in the previous 24 years at the County ground we had arguably come less frequently close to the drop with the obvious implications. What all this demonstrates is the reasons why redevelopment is so difficult. It means nothing that these points don’t get answered on here. Out in the real world it means everything, that’s why unfortunately it will probably never happen to the degree we would like. By the way, Peterborough lost 1.4 million in the year ending June 2017. That is unsustainable in division 1, so they will keep having to come up with players like Marriott or die. Whatever the nonsense spouted on here that is not progress.
|
|
|
|
|
guest48
|
No ours were larger. My comments were tongue in cheek
Whooosh
|
|
|
|
guest170
|
The Peterborough that just sold Marriot for £5M and fighting off advances on fion edwards and Maddison? The Peterborough that rents out great swathes of london rd 7 days a week 365... The Peterborough hotly tipped to finish top 7 next season in league 1... the Peterborough that will sell 4000 tickets to several visiting clubs next season that will cover the ground rent they pay to the landlord whoever that is? Not sure what point your making when lumping our sorry arses in with a progressive club?
Have sold several players for millions of pounds but still only a league 1 club. They need £5m players to stay afloat Its a council owned ground so the club get a small % They are every year and never do, their average attendance was less than ours last season The point is they're not a progressive club, ask their fans. Their owner has just sold 50% of the club and is openly looking for a new club to own. Their new co chairman have no football background, and they have a stadium that they don't own, don't make money from and actually lose money from it Did I miss the reply to the 5 times we have nearly been relegated, the rule breaking and intervention?
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
Have sold several players for millions of pounds but still only a league 1 club. They need £5m players to stay afloat Its a council owned ground so the club get a small % They are every year and never do, their average attendance was less than ours last season The point is they're not a progressive club, ask their fans. Their owner has just sold 50% of the club and is openly looking for a new club to own. Their new co chairman have no football background, and they have a stadium that they don't own, don't make money from and actually lose money from it
Did I miss the reply to the 5 times we have nearly been relegated, the rule breaking and intervention?
They have for years played at the level we have for decades, desperately hoped to achieve, nit pick all you like from that fact, yes they will have ups and downs and their support level could be higher but they have been miles ahead of us for long time now. On your last point, we have been lucky on at least dozen occasions in the past 50 years to retain our league status, survival on occasions down to re election, luck, skill, avoiding points deductions, other clubs failing to comply etc. You support the club and must see our obvious short comings that always hold the club back? Possibly in denial? 😉
|
|
|
|
Mathius
|
Add to what has already been said - their training facilities are being improved/ added too - all the time. This has been going on for several years and also supports the view that they are a very progressive club. They also have an U23s which we've never managed to set up, even though the costs are minimal.
|
|
|
|
Another Pedj
|
I dont disagree with a lot of what has been said above as they are well above us in more ways than one and have been for years. What is obvious,however, is that this has nothing to do with ground development and larger crowds.
They dont own their ground. They pay rent. Their crowds are lower than ours. They use a total different business model to that being spouted on this thread.
|
|
|
|
guest170
|
Add to what has already been said - their training facilities are being improved/ added too - all the time. This has been going on for several years and also supports the view that they are a very progressive club. They also have an U23s which we've never managed to set up, even though the costs are minimal.
https://www.ntfc.co.uk/news/2016/june/enhanced-moulton-college-deal-agreed-to-become-clubs-formal-training-base/Yes the ground is still frustrating but I believe we have progressed as a club over the last few years. There will be lots of better examples than p*sh as a progressive club but its very easy to think the grass is greener elsewhere when it isn't always the case
|
|
|
|
guest1269
|
This is frankly a slightly ridiculous argument - as normal the bias views in either direction take it to extremes that go beyond reality.
I actually start to despair sometimes at our ability to have meaningful debate - be it "redevelopment", Brexit, Trump or indeed any other topic - on all issues there are valid points of view and it is rarely black and white - disagreeing, without insults and acknowledging other points of view leads to good debate
Actually on topic - our friends at Peterborough have consistently played at a level one division higher than us, have a slightly better ground which they don't own & get about the same crowds as us - they have raised significantly more money from selling players than us but the money does not seem to have been used to make significant additional progress.
Taken all things into account you might just describe them as a better club than us, but the suggestion they are significantly better than us is not really the case is it?
|
|
|
|
guest3114
|
Would anyone like to have a go at guessing what income Peterborough would have to generate to turn around a 1.4 million loss? At 20% profit thats around 8 million turnover after corporation tax to pay that debt back. Thats if they manage 20% profit which is a big ask for any club outside of the Prem. Comparatively we turn over 4 million with similar gates, get the scale of the issue? Of course they can always sell their best players, thats if they can continually recruit players that they can sell on for that kind of money? Some people on here should try running a company for a few years, they might want to change their opinion about all this? If they don't, I would suggest they wouldn't hang onto that company for very long? If they keep this up Peterborough won't be around too much longer in their current position, you heard it here first.
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
........ Possibly in denial? 😉
You said it - ought to be your motto!
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
No ours were larger. My comments were tongue in cheek
130 more per game
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
clarkeysntfc
|
Their attendances last season must have dwarfed ours!
14 Northampton Town Northampton Town 134.099 23 5.830 15 Peterborough United Peterborough United 130.387 23 5.669 So nearly 4,000 more people watched football at Sixfields last season. Any other Trump-esque "factual statements" you want to make?
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
Those bits you highlight as progress should be seen as the minimum requirement for a professional football club thats forced to survives hand to mouth unable to grow its product or support base. Recently little regulation schemes or general ground repairs and alterations have been overtly heralded as 'progress' and 'growth' of which they're probably nothing but a smoke screen to avoid getting hands dirty at a club they have no long term interest in other than a soon to be profitable sale. This might be completely wrong but nothing I've heard or read in 3 years makes me think differently.
|
|
|
|
guest3114
|
14 Northampton Town Northampton Town 134.099 23 5.830 15 Peterborough United Peterborough United 130.387 23 5.669
So nearly 4,000 more people watched football at Sixfields last season.
Any other Trump-esque "factual statements" you want to make?
But 25 years ago before all the development in 1993, their average attendance was over 8,000. You need to check your figures mate, a more modern attractive ground attracts more supporters, everyone knows that?
|
|
|
|
guest170
|
Those bits you highlight as progress should be seen as the minimum requirement for a professional football club thats forced to survives hand to mouth unable to grow its product or support base. Recently little regulation schemes or general ground repairs and alterations have been overtly heralded as 'progress' and 'growth' of which they're probably nothing but a smoke screen to avoid getting hands dirty at a club they have no long term interest in other than a soon to be profitable sale. This might be completely wrong but nothing I've heard or read in 3 years makes me think differently.
Generally I agree with you, ordinarily moving from using jumpers as goal post on the local field to a professional setup like we have now shouldn't be a huge thing, but it is a huge step forward for us as a club from where we were. I was just trying to point out that under KT we have progressed off the pitch, just not as much as we all would like.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
14 Northampton Town Northampton Town 134.099 23 5.830 15 Peterborough United Peterborough United 130.387 23 5.669
So nearly 4,000 more people watched football at Sixfields last season.
Any other Trump-esque "factual statements" you want to make?
Now this is where we differ as people, I look at that and see that had we an extra 4000 capacity making the stadium more attractive to visit abling more visiting supporters and having professional corperate facilities as seen at nearly everywhere else, including other 7 day revenue raising schemes, we could've had 20,000 plus more supporters than Peterborough and it being us trying to keep hold of Edwards Maddison and marriot or selling for multi millions and plotting a league 1 promotion campaign... Where as you see weakness and failure in other teams as a reson to give thanks for small mercies and praise those keeping us subjected to water treading without a future plan.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
Generally I agree with you, ordinarily moving from using jumpers as goal post on the local field to a professional setup like we have now shouldn't be a huge thing, but it is a huge step forward for us as a club from where we were. I was just trying to point out that under KT we have progressed off the pitch, just not as much as we all would like.
I saw it as excessively over egging things to hide true intentions and that is do nothing but give the impression.. Well thats how I read it 3 years ago and now have fully convinced myself🤣
|
|
|
|
guest168
|
Totally agree Beds, Uni exactly how and where have we have progressed of the pitch?
We have made a few changes, extra bog door etc but also remember you are following on from DC who spent the last 5 years taking every penny he could out of the club. Off the pitch I would doubt we have spent much more than £50k on improvements
All that might be fine if there was a plan but the only really plan KT has is to make as much money as he can we the smallest risk / investment possible.
|
|
|
|
guest168
|
See you are at again Roger Can you please make a posting that is about NTFC development rather than other clubs? If you can't do it on here can you please do it on the Trust website / facebook. Me and many other fans would really like to know what you and the Trust are thinking / doing Many Thanks Derek
|
|
|
|
|