More money worries

[father Ted]

AGREE . 1st League game v Bournmouth had gate of under 3000 I think . .V dissapointing . .

[Shodfried]

I'd say there are 10 or a dozen more clubs in the conference at least better supported than us, so thats a bit of a crass statement Patrick......

http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/attcomp.htm

Based on last season there's about 15 Conference sides better supported than us, to me that makes us lower mid table fodder.

[Richie..p]

Under 3000?  The attendance was over 4100!  There are clubs in League 2 even this season with gates far less than we ever averaged.  With the right marketing and our current owners behind us rather than the previous lot there is no reason why we couldn't get gates of 2,800 in the Football League.  Which is more than enough if other clubs are to go by.  I don't know why we put ourselves down so much in Boston.  Although we are really a Conference club we would be one of the bigger ones and there is no reason we couldn't challenge for a place in the Football League just like all the other clubs.  We have good support.

Just to add on what patrick has said. Accrington get a few hundred more on their gate than ours and they get atleast 200-300 away fans in that amount. We average just fine until people found out the real Steve Evans, which for most it was within 9 months of his return.

[Carol Voce]

And in all honesty why do we need anything other than a Conference standard ground?

Lets be honest, the local populous never came out and supported the club when we were a league side, compare and contrast with Yeovil who are in a similar location to us but who drew an average of 6000 for their 1st few league seasons......we struggled to get much past 2500 after that 1st couple of seasons.

As long as we don't end up with a new build horror like Chester,Aylesbury,Kingstonian,Witton eta al I'm of the train of thought that says a Conference standard ground will be more than satisfactory for us for the long term. Talk of a Rushden style ground is folly, The Chestnuts budget won't allow for such a grandiose scheme.

It's ridiculous to compare Boston and Yeovil. Yeovil has the whole of the county of Somerset to draw on for support and precious few league clubs within any kind of driving distance. Boston has to compete with Lincoln, Peterborough, Grimsby, 2 teams in Nottingham, even the likes of Leicester, Derby, Hull and Leeds are not that far away. Now add to the mix, Grantham, Gainsborough, King's Lynn, Cambridge all competing at a similar and higher level.

[Shodfried]

The year we 'won' the Conference we averaged a bit over 2300, the year before about 1700. Not nearly enough to go full time and not even close to the top 8 best supported sides in that league.

I stand by what I say, Boston would, as a steady Conference side attract no more than 15-1800 as an average.

[woad_pilgrim]

I think we may all have to lower our standards including myself. Slating grounds like Chester etc. when I don't think we'll be able to afford anything like the standard of Chester.

Have done a bit of digging and the results of how much a new stadium will cost is frightening. Sleaford Town's new ground cost 1.5M, see HERE. Nantwich Town's cost 3.75M and is basically the same as Sleaford with a main stand, see at the the end of THIS wiki article.

As I said before 1 main stand and 3 open sides is going to be the best bet and even that is costing the best part of 4M if Nantwich is to go by. Building something like what is being bandied around here is going to at least double that and I really cannot see where we are going to get the money from.

[woad_pilgrim]

The year we 'won' the Conference we averaged a bit over 2300, the year before about 1700. Not nearly enough to go full time and not even close to the top 8 best supported sides in that league.

I stand by what I say, Boston would, as a steady Conference side attract no more than 15-1800 as an average.

True 1500-1800 is not enough to go part time but there are a lot of sides in the Conference who are full-time on a lot lower averages than that. This is why there's so many clubs going to the wall or in financial trouble. Personally I think we'd probably average 2K if/when we get back to the conf nat as we'd have had some successful seasons in the league below which always builds the fan base. Whether we could keep that average is another thing. You've also got to look at the amount of away fans, Oxford, Wimbledon, Cambridge, Mansfield and Luton etc. would all bring large numbers. Realistically I would say we'd sit in the top 10 supported sides which is enough to challenge the top 5 as sides like Burton, Accrington, D&R etc. have proved.

[Adam]

The year we 'won' the Conference we averaged a bit over 2300, the year before about 1700. Not nearly enough to go full time and not even close to the top 8 best supported sides in that league.

I stand by what I say, Boston would, as a steady Conference side attract no more than 15-1800 as an average.

True 1500-1800 is not enough to go part time but there are a lot of sides in the Conference who are full-time on a lot lower averages than that. This is why there's so many clubs going to the wall or in financial trouble. Personally I think we'd probably average 2K if/when we get back to the conf nat as we'd have had some successful seasons in the league below which always builds the fan base. Whether we could keep that average is another thing. You've also got to look at the amount of away fans, Oxford, Wimbledon, Cambridge, Mansfield and Luton etc. would all bring large numbers. Realistically I would say we'd sit in the top 10 supported sides which is enough to challenge the top 5 as sides like Burton, Accrington, D&R etc. have proved.

Indeed. If by then we were free of previous financial burdens and could set a budget truer to our gates, then all it ever takes is one good manager and a bit of luck in the play-offs... It's a fair way away for now though.

[Carol Voce]

Er, what would need to be done to, say, Town's ground to get it up to Conference standards?

[Shodfried]

You'd need to do relatively little to bring it up to Conference North Standard though, probably add another turnstile block and tea bar/toilets, a new stand on the far side and possibly upgrade the lights a bit.

Having said that it'd still be a good few hundred thousand pounds for remedial work.

Whatever, its safe to say we'll get nothing like York St so those of you who like standing on the Town End should make the most of the next few years, and those who like their elevated view from the seats should again make the most of the next few seasons. If there's any part of a new ground higher than The Spayne Rd terrace I'll be amazed.

It'll be an out of town ground with very few aesthetically pleasing features.......a bit like a Chestnut Home really, functional and up to standard but unlikely to win too many design awards.

[cappo]

Credit to the Malkies they have backed the club for many years, there does not always have to be a scapegoat, their past contribution should be applauded and we should be focused on supporting the current Chairman.

im not sure wether you missed this bit monty but i think you might find we are supporting the chairman,100%

[cappo]

Bulldoze it and build a Conference standard ground, I think. 

ground shair anyone

[green hats mate]

Maccy have sustained life in the FL for10 years including 1 year in Div 1 , Daggers , Barnet, Accrington are making a decent impact at the moment so it can be done. With the income from League sponsors and T V rights etc it is as viable to run a full=time team in the FL on gates of 1800 as it is to run a part=time BSP TEAM.  The main ingredient being a fit and proper team of directors which we now have.

[father Ted]

 I 'll get optimistic then .  ghm ..

[Mr Tickle]

A ground share might be the option that pleases most.

New shared ground for BUFC and BTFC is more financially viable
Malkies get their cash
Boston Woods get their land
and who knows Boston Borough Council might even back it

Just a thought