New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

[WuTang]

At home to Derby with us having 1,500 and them 6,000 would be amazing if you have ever wanted to know what life as an MK Dons fan is like, less so for non masochists.

If we're in the Championship we might make even more money. 30k capacity, 5k for home fans 25k away allocation for Leeds

 

[holdsteady]

No chance. Only taken that once for an away game.

Coventry were averaging 10-11k before ground sharing at Northampton. 48 minute drive or direct 30 minute train and still only averaged around 2k there, with most attendances over 2k counting away fans, routinely under 2k home fans there.

Oxford to MK is a longer drive and requires a change on the train. Even with a direct train route by then it's further. I think we'd estimate between 1-2k home fans, the only bonus is being able to give away fans unlimited allocation!

If we had Fleetwood or the like at home on a Tuesday night in January could actually see a sub 1000 crowd, we would lose a considerable amount of money putting a game like that on. Still f**k Kassam and his poxy shithole.

 

[holdsteady]

If we're in the Championship we might make even more money. 30k capacity, 5k for home fans 25k away allocation for Leeds

We could all just stay home and let them have the whole ground, no segregation or stewards needed and pocket the cash.

 

[unification]

No chance. Only taken that once for an away game.

Coventry were averaging 10-11k before ground sharing at Northampton. 48 minute drive or direct 30 minute train and still only averaged around 2k there, with most attendances over 2k counting away fans, routinely under 2k home fans there.

Oxford to MK is a longer drive and requires a change on the train. Even with a direct train route by then it's further. I think we'd estimate between 1-2k home fans, the only bonus is being able to give away fans unlimited allocation!

Brighton and Hove Albion. Look at 1997-1999 and what happened to attendances (that were already struggling due to the Seagulls tumbling through the divisions). One of their lowest attendances was barely above 1,000. Once the 86th most supported club of the 92 are now the 14th highest.

England historical attendance and performance

european-football-statistics.co.uk

Also, as you mention, spot the years that Coventry spent at Sixfields and St Andrews (albeit the latter did cover the COVID-impacted attendances too). It's not tricky.

England historical attendance and performance

european-football-statistics.co.uk

Both of those clubs have historically larger attendances than us. Bigger places and bigger clubs, after all. A groundshare would maybe see 1000 season ticket holders go along to every game and then maybe another 1000 at most occasional fans. 3000 regulars would be wildly optimistic.

Hold your nose and pay Kassam versus a ground share any day of the week, if that option is available.

 

[Scrongo]

Brighton and Hove Albion. Look at 1997-1999 and what happened to attendances (that were already struggling due to the Seagulls tumbling through the divisions). One of their lowest attendances was barely above 1,000. Once the 86th most supported club of the 92 are now the 14th highest.

England historical attendance and performance

european-football-statistics.co.uk

Also, as you mention, spot the years that Coventry spent at Sixfields and St Andrews (albeit the latter did cover the COVID-impacted attendances too). It's not tricky.

England historical attendance and performance

european-football-statistics.co.uk

Both of those clubs have historically larger attendances than us. Bigger places and bigger clubs, after all. A groundshare would maybe see 1000 season ticket holders go along to every game and then maybe another 1000 at most occasional fans. 3000 regulars would be wildly optimistic.

Hold your nose and pay Kassam versus a ground share any day of the week, if that option is available.

I know it hurt's & boy does it, but another year extension, got to be better than crowds of 2000.
The damage has been done by k****m , what's another year Boy oh boy over 20 years of bulls**t p**s take..

 

[MJB]

The other thing to consider with a temporary solution is how that would affect season/regular ticket sales when we do move into a new ground.

You might lose folk who fall out of the pattern/circles of friends of watching football if we play somewhere particularly inconvenient for a season.

That'll be a particular blow given the increasing attendances we've had in recent years.

 

[Common Villager]

It is worth noting that if the Contractual Completion Date for the stadium is set in advance of the 2026/27 Season, and this is not achieved by whichever Contractor is undertaking the build, legitimate costs may be recoverable from said Contractor via LADs (delay damages). There are a number of caveats to this, as the Completion Date will almost certainly be pushed back throughout the course of the project owing to delays for which the Contractor is not at fault (design changes, unforeseen ground conditions etc.). Delay Damages, however, can also include loss of income/rent, so the figure included in the contract (usually expressed as a weekly amount) will be sizable (albeit there is a balance to find as you don't want to set it so high that no Contractors are willing to take on the risk). It's a complicated matter, but I just wanted to point out that the club should be able to recover at least some of the additional costs incurred as a result of any delays to project Completion.

I think this is relevant because the club simply has to weigh up the financial impact of not being able to start the 2026/27 season at the Triangle vs alienating large sections of the fanbase by ground sharing elsewhere. Although Kassam would almost certainly take the opportunity to hike up the charges, the club could protect itself to some extent and would be unlikely shoulder the full burden of the additional cost itself. The same is of course true if the club did opt to groundshare, but the impact of potentially 000s of fans getting out of the habit of going to football cannot be protected against.

IMO, the lesser of two evils option would be to negotiate an agreement with Kassam for a short-term extension to the lease of the Kassam that can be activated when/if it becomes apparent the stadium will not be ready (which I am 100% sure it won't be).

 

[Concretebob]

View attachment 17542

What a lying cow!

 

[Billyox]

Question the community assets that oxvox had on the kassam did it get renewed??

 

[Manorlounger]

It occurred to me that, at one time, the stadium had been listed as an "Asset of Community value". This was renewed in 2018 by @OxVox with @Colin B as chairperson at the time. This will have expired in June 2023 and I cannot recall whether it was renewed again or not. If it was renewed then there may be some leverage to be had from this as it specified a six month moratorium on the sale of the land. (Primarily to allow the community an opportunity to bid on the purchase but, nevertheless a delay in the disposal of the land)
At the same time, I wondered if there was any covenant in existence that prevented the sale so long as OUFC used it for matches. I believe something of that nature existed for the Manor along with the Bowls Club that was located adjacent to the stadium. I can recall that Kassam negotiated that covenant away for a paltry sum paid to the bowls club.

 

[Manorlounger]

Question the community assets that oxvox had on the kassam did it get renewed??

Beat me to it!

 

[Billyox]

Beat me to it!

Reason I ask is this Oxford mail fosb article if kassam can't do anything with the stadium until that has community asset has lapsed it would be the reason as to why he would say yes to us staying.
It run out in 2023 another 5 years takes us to 2028

 

[Wallop]

So they verify that from Firoka but not from the man himself.
They take instructions from above
I would suggest talks at this level would include Mr K••••m being involved somewhere.
From what I know it was the man himself who wanted us out because it suited his needs
If FoSB think that OCC haven’t looked into this in some depth they are fools.
Surely the first thing OCC would need to know is why we need to move, the second would be proof of that

And what have they verified? What question was asked?

If it’s ’would you be open to OUFC staying at the stadium after the licence expires?’, then the obvious answer to that question from Firoka is ‘yes’. If we were to offer £10m per season, they’d welcome us with open arms.

The pertinent question that Victoria needs to answer and evidence is exactly what were Firoka asked and exactly what was the response?

 

[Manorlounger]

And what have they verified? What question was asked?

If it’s ’would you be open to OUFC staying at the stadium after the licence expires?’, then the obvious answer to that question from Firoka is ‘yes’. If we were to offer £10m per season, they’d welcome us with open arms.

The pertinent question that Victoria needs to answer and evidence is exactly what were Firoka asked and exactly what was the response?

Just as pertinent, was the question directed at Firoka or, as FoSB have stated and quoted by Ox Fail, directly to Kassam? (Not that I believe they have spoken to either recently!)

 

[SteMerritt]

It occurred to me that, at one time, the stadium had been listed as an "Asset of Community value". This was renewed in 2018 by @OxVox with @Colin B as chairperson at the time. This will have expired in June 2023 and I cannot recall whether it was renewed again or not. If it was renewed then there may be some leverage to be had from this as it specified a six month moratorium on the sale of the land. (Primarily to allow the community an opportunity to bid on the purchase but, nevertheless a delay in the disposal of the land)
At the same time, I wondered if there was any covenant in existence that prevented the sale so long as OUFC used it for matches. I believe something of that nature existed for the Manor along with the Bowls Club that was located adjacent to the stadium. I can recall that Kassam negotiated that covenant away for a paltry sum paid to the bowls club.

It was from what I know, I emailed OxVox about this halfway through last year and was told it was in progress.

 

[Manorlounger]

It was from what I know, I emailed OxVox about this halfway through last year and was told it was in progress.

Let us hope so. It may not guarantee anything, on the other hand, it may serve as an instrument to delay Kassam from selling the land (as he no doubt will eventually)

 

[Scotchegg]

Scotchers

I applaud your enthusiasm but you cannot go on sticking up for Williams and Ferguson ( when you say club I assume you mean them as they are in charge) when blatantly something is very wrong.

I don’t expect them to have a contingency plan as I have no faith in them whatsoever.

After we got the go ahead from OCC everything was going very well, no hiccups were envisaged until our esteemed CEO talked about the bridge. Since then it is obvious to me that some councillors want this sorted and have come out and said they won’t be closing the road.
That means the ball is back in our court and since it appears Niall Mc Williams is not involved so much,things have turned to s**t.

Anyone can see we are at an impasse and nothing is going to happen any time soon. The talk about amending the stadium plans is just B*****s, that wouldn’t hold up things this much.

I really hope I am wrong and the Williams and Ferguson are just sorting out a few glitches with OCC

But I bet you that nothing will be submitted before March

We don't need contingencies. We want a contingency in the event that we need to have somewhere to start the 2026/7 season in the event that the new stadium is not ready.
Your positivity that this is in place presumably comes from being so informed.
If only the rest of the customers were so fortunate on these and other matters.

If you can kip on a mates couch for a couple of weeks after being kicked out of a house you rent you are still homeless, only the most heartless person (hello Sue) would say otherwise, that's what our contingencies amount to. I would hope the council would see the common sense in the club having plans for if the stadium isn't ready, its not like every thing they do hits the target dates they should understand.

When I posted about contingencies if the stadium isn't ready for August 2026 wasn't about not having plans in place, it was about not disclosing them at this stage.

The reason for the new stadium is because we will be homeless in 2026. We've seen the meltdown this weekend following an alleged conversation between Kassam and FoSB. Imagine how much worse that would be if the club announced that we didn't need to move in 2026 because we'd agreed a years extension? FoSB would argue that if we can stay another year then why not another 5, or 10, or 25!

We've also said that the Triangle is the only option having looked at all other sites in Oxford, and that the club would not be allowed to move substantial out of the city. Could we then say that we've got a deal with MK Dons, Wycombe, Coventry or anywhere mentioned to play there? Would FoSB say that why are we building a huge stadium in Kidlington when there's an even bigger stadium sitting empty 50% of the time in MK?

I understand that we are desperate for information, but some of that being demanded would undermine our bid rather than enhance it.

To pick up on other points, this has nothing to do with "our esteemed CEO talking about a bridge". The bridge was dismissed as unworkable by the architect team and therefore discussions about road closures took place. We presented this information badly at the exhibition stage, and I called the project team out for this as it was always going to be controversial and we should have mitigated against some of this. If, however, public opinion is overwhelmingly against road closures and a bridge is achievable then its absolutely right that we should take that in to consideration. As we should also look at all of the other points raised, predominantly by our supporters, to improve the overall design. I'm not talking about the colour of seats, but the configuration of the stands, where the "safe standing" areas are, height of the roof etc. All of these things take a little time and it's important that we get things are right as we can.

Of course there has been a delay, and that is frustrating. But I will repeat yet again, a delay is infinitely better than a rushed application that is declined.

 

[PottersRightBoot]

Time to have another update from the club.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

Time to have another update from the club.

An actual update, this time.

 

[Sarge]

An actual update, this time.

I'll second that