|
Post by Benny on Apr 27, 2018 7:39:40 GMT
MGGS and MN playing fields serve two very busy schools who might not want to give up valuable real estate. I would rather see a link up with K Sports who already have 3G, lots of space for further facilities and already duplicate many club sponsors.
|
|
|
Post by Benny on Apr 27, 2018 7:45:34 GMT
I hope we don't go down the modular route again; they're crap. A case of buy now, pay again later to do it properly, as shown by the Elvis End. It was fine for the Ryman Leagues, but these days we build quality to last more than a handful of years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 10:00:15 GMT
I think we've almost reached the point when the 3G pitch, and the directors' determination to persevere with it as the basis for a financial model, is as much of a hindrance to the progress of this club than it is a help. Whenever Mr Ash publicly discusses the costs associated with digging it up, he neglects to mention the additional TV revenues that EFL clubs are presently guaranteed. Sutton United for example would in theory be entitled to a minimum of close on £1 million including parachute payments over a total of three years, even if they were relegated from League Two at the end of only one season. They're admittedly in a far better position than Maidstone United regarding additional neighbouring land that can enable them to continue most of their existing initiatives as a successful community-based club. But a modern hybrid pitch, relatively expensive as it is to install, still can be used a lot more often for a variety of activities than a typical 1970's lower league mud-heap and is cheaper to maintain providing the site drainage is fundamentally adequate. Sutton United appear to have grasped that principle and are not stubbornly committed to 3G and prepared to sacrifice a golden chance of promotion because of it.
It's fair enough and perfectly understandable for loyal, long-standing supporters to be content with three or four years of standing still in one division with no realistic prospect of going any higher, but to be brutally honest, that is not a recipe likely to appeal to large hordes of new fans and it won't attract too many ambitious and talented young footballers either. I've had a season ticket for only two seasons, but have been a football follower for nearly fifty years and this present standard and style of football does not encourage me to wait around for things to get markedly better. I hope nonetheless the club continues to make gradual progress on and off the field and feel the most likely way of speeding things up on both counts would be to obtain new investment from other backers. Best of luck to the current directors with that.
|
|
|
Post by Benny on Apr 27, 2018 11:20:14 GMT
I would praise the 3G model as it has worked for us; having all our teams, community work and training in one place has been a massive asset. But long term it appears to be a dead end, and I have never believed the £500,000 a year figure. It is frustrating the area does not have a millionaire willing to pump in the money required for EFL ground improvements, in return for a third share of the club. There must be someone in this wealthy corner of the country.
|
|
|
Post by royalstone on Apr 27, 2018 11:43:31 GMT
Could one possible solution for more investment be for Oliver and Terry to sell a small percentage of the club in shares to supporters? Not sure how much this could raise but surely worth some cosideration?
|
|
|
Post by rockstar on Apr 27, 2018 12:21:00 GMT
So the FA may sell Wembley and then spend the money on grassroots football and build 4G pitches. What is the point in the FA doing that when you can’t even play on them in the football leagues. Waste of money until it’s accepted.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Apr 27, 2018 14:14:55 GMT
Could one possible solution for more investment be for Oliver and Terry to sell a small percentage of the club in shares to supporters? Not sure how much this could raise but surely worth some cosideration? Possible short term benefit.
But supporter shareholders/ownership has worked so well elsewhere, not.
(I'm sure someone will point out where there are/have been some 'successes' but the overall history, I would suggest, has been of failure.)
|
|
|
Post by royalstone on Apr 27, 2018 14:35:50 GMT
Could one possible solution for more investment be for Oliver and Terry to sell a small percentage of the club in shares to supporters? Not sure how much this could raise but surely worth some cosideration? Possible short term benefit.
But supporter shareholders/ownership has worked so well elsewhere, not.
(I'm sure someone will point out where there are/have been some 'successes' but the overall history, I would suggest, has been of failure.)
I agree that supporter ownership hasn't generally been historically successful. This is why my original suggestion was that they only sell a small percentage of the club in shares. This way could they not generate a cash injection but still retain their controlling share so not to impede future decision making?
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Apr 27, 2018 15:22:37 GMT
Possible short term benefit.
But supporter shareholders/ownership has worked so well elsewhere, not.
(I'm sure someone will point out where there are/have been some 'successes' but the overall history, I would suggest, has been of failure.)
I agree that supporter ownership hasn't generally been historically successful. This is why my original suggestion was that they only sell a small percentage of the club in shares. This way could they not generate a cash injection but still retain their controlling share so not to impede future decision making? "selling" part ownership becomes tricky when new funds need to be found.
Talking generalities - as opposed to what I'm oft accused of normally spouting - a club's supporters are relatively keen to purchase, to feel a sense of ownership, but are reluctant to pay more later when additional investments are required. And its additional investment that owners appear to be most criticised for not providing.
But maybe there's a solution to that issue.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 28, 2018 0:47:03 GMT
The problem with selling shares to supporters is that it rarely raises anything like the money required. We (generally) just don't have the sort of money needed. So, it's a lot of hassle for very little gain. Take, for instance, the supporter funding for the EE stand, which only raised a small fraction of the cost. True, we didn't get any shares for our money, but I doubt if that much more would have been raised if it had been a share issue - certainly not enough to pay for the stand.
A few clubs have managed to raise enough money from selling shares to supporters, but I assume that's because a few of those supporters have paid large sums of money - effectively being the fabled 'investors' wanted by so many clubs, in all but name. So, the problem is basically the same - whether it's attracting 'investors' or selling shares to fans, it won't raise enough money unless there are one or more individuals out there prepared to risk very substantial sums of money to help the club.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Apr 28, 2018 6:47:19 GMT
I think we've almost reached the point when the 3G pitch, and the directors' determination to persevere with it as the basis for a financial model, is as much of a hindrance to the progress of this club than it is a help. Whenever Mr Ash publicly discusses the costs associated with digging it up, he neglects to mention the additional TV revenues that EFL clubs are presently guaranteed. Sutton United for example would in theory be entitled to a minimum of close on £1 million including parachute payments over a total of three years, even if they were relegated from League Two at the end of only one season. They're admittedly in a far better position than Maidstone United regarding additional neighbouring land that can enable them to continue most of their existing initiatives as a successful community-based club. But a modern hybrid pitch, relatively expensive as it is to install, still can be used a lot more often for a variety of activities than a typical 1970's lower league mud-heap and is cheaper to maintain providing the site drainage is fundamentally adequate. Sutton United appear to have grasped that principle and are not stubbornly committed to 3G and prepared to sacrifice a golden chance of promotion because of it. It's fair enough and perfectly understandable for loyal, long-standing supporters to be content with three or four years of standing still in one division with no realistic prospect of going any higher, but to be brutally honest, that is not a recipe likely to appeal to large hordes of new fans and it won't attract too many ambitious and talented young footballers either. I've had a season ticket for only two seasons, but have been a football follower for nearly fifty years and this present standard and style of football does not encourage me to wait around for things to get markedly better. I hope nonetheless the club continues to make gradual progress on and off the field and feel the most likely way of speeding things up on both counts would be to obtain new investment from other backers. Best of luck to the current directors with that. It's always good to hear a well-written viewpoint that wouldn't necessarily agree with my own. I don't think longer-standing supporters are necessarily content with standing still, it's just that we have been through some pretty tough times to ensure there is a club in Maidstone. I, personally, shudder at the idea of any idea of going hell for leather to get the EFL status if we cannot afford it. I don't really want to find ourselves in a position where we are back playing dog and duck league and those that appeared late to the party and moaned for premium drinks have cluttered off to another one because this one went flat, leaving a few of us to spend a long time clearing up. Having said that, a well-thought out way of improving is always welcome.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Apr 28, 2018 7:38:16 GMT
Both arguments do indeed have merit, however, while there is nothing wrong with ambition, it also needs a dose of reality - the Rome wasn't built in a day type of thing. The KM reports that we are five years ahead of our ten year plan and many would grudgingly admit we went up to the NL too soon. £bbsfleet have already shown they are far better equipped to do well at this level. At times, it seems there is no limit to ambition, with small clubs like Burton, Fleetwood, Wigan, even Bournemouth and Burnley achieving higher than might be expected. But for every one of these, there is a big city club floundering in the lower levels - Portsmouth, Coventry, Bradford etc. Being in a league where only two go up, but four go down limits ambition a bit too - nevermind all the other parameters around ground standards. I think it is inevitable that, if we do progress beyond League 2, the Gallagher may not prove good enough. However, long term support from a couple of billionaires notwithstanding, that ain't going to happen any time soon and I for one like our little stadium and the atmosphere it generates on a good day. I don't do much in terms of away games, but get the impression that there are a fair few grounds in this league that are not up to much, including several clubs with interest in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 28, 2018 20:18:26 GMT
The Football Ground Guide gives the capacity of the Main Stand at 750 - anyone know if this is correct? I've just counted the seats on the best photo I can find, and I get around 550 maximum - do the boxes/lounges count as 200?? If I'm right and the MS is 550 seats, a 600 seat stand on the other side would be a big beastie - especially if limited to 4 rows (the MS is 5 deep). Very roughly, a 4 deep, 600 seat stand would be about 35% longer than the MS (maybe more, depending on how the seats are laid out). The MS is a little over half the length of the pitch, so the new riverside stand would be about 70% of the pitch length. For comparison, the stand in Rob's photo (above) contains just under 300 seats, so the new stand will be twice that length. It may not add much to our capacity (although it will be a big step towards EFL requirements), but it will look very impressive! (Usual caveats apply re my maths...) Ha! Even more bollocks than my usual maths! First, the MS has 6 rows of seats, not 5 (I got confused by the letters starting at the top and not the bottom...), AND I completely forgot about the two rows above the normal seats!! End result - you can easily fit 750 seats in the main stand... But at least none of that affects my comments on the size of the riverside stand - it will still be pretty impressive. And, looking at the MS today, the new stand will have to be raised, otherwise the first couple of rows won't see anything. So, it should end up looking more like a cut-down version of the MS than a 'TE' shed with seats. Only problem is that three sides of our ground are going to look so cool that the TE is going to seem like the shed that time forgot...
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Apr 28, 2018 20:22:58 GMT
The Football Ground Guide gives the capacity of the Main Stand at 750 - anyone know if this is correct? I've just counted the seats on the best photo I can find, and I get around 550 maximum - do the boxes/lounges count as 200?? If I'm right and the MS is 550 seats, a 600 seat stand on the other side would be a big beastie - especially if limited to 4 rows (the MS is 5 deep). Very roughly, a 4 deep, 600 seat stand would be about 35% longer than the MS (maybe more, depending on how the seats are laid out). The MS is a little over half the length of the pitch, so the new riverside stand would be about 70% of the pitch length. For comparison, the stand in Rob's photo (above) contains just under 300 seats, so the new stand will be twice that length. It may not add much to our capacity (although it will be a big step towards EFL requirements), but it will look very impressive! (Usual caveats apply re my maths...) Ha! Even more bollocks than my usual maths! First, the MS has 6 rows of seats, not 5 (I got confused by the letters starting at the top and not the bottom...), AND I completely forgot about the two rows above the normal seats!! End result - you can easily fit 750 seats in the main stand... But at least none of that affects my comments on the size of the riverside stand - it will still be pretty impressive. And, looking at the MS today, the new stand will have to be raised, otherwise the first couple of rows won't see anything. So, it should end up looking more like a cut-down version of the MS than a 'TE' shed with seats. Only problem is that three sides of our ground are going to look so cool that the TE is going to seem like the shed that time forgot... The town end will have to be developed before we can get oromoted. Hard standing doesn't count towards capacity in the Football league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2018 22:06:38 GMT
One of the most bizarre threads I read for a while! Everyone's turned into a businessman. Lol. The 3G business plan works and still does as we are no where near ready to be promoted so no need to change to grass. The brutal reality that a lot of people will sooner or later have to accept is that we ve reached our natural level. We ve got maybe one more promotion at a push but without a Saudi businessman that ll be it. Some of these odd suggestions of moving the 3G pitch are laughable and a result of people getting slightly carried away with the panic of not being promoted in for the last 2 seasons after having unprecedented success that most teams will never get.
|
|