Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2005 22:43:24 GMT 1
Nothing is ever inevitable, Ant. If supporters pull together to stop this lunacy, we can still stop it. The trouble is too many fans have bought the board's bullsh!t that we have to move. I guess the proof will be in the pudding Steve, you're living in a fantasy World.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 15, 2005 22:48:59 GMT 1
I am not living in a fantasy, Ant, I am living in the real world where the board have conned too many fans that this ridiculous move is the only way we can survive. I know I'm p**sing against the wind in the hope that enough fans will come to their senses to realise they've been conned and start to fight back so we can stop this, but I can but hope.
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 15, 2005 23:32:01 GMT 1
ok steve you are right.
But please explain to me how STFC can afford to
a) knock down Gay meadow (where do we play then?)
b) raise the ground level
c) put other flood defensive measures in place
d) build four new stands within the confines of the old ground.
e) redevelop the riverside walkway, so that it could cope with a couple of hundred/maybe thousand fans coming and going.
f) and then build another access point, be it a bridge, a tunnel whatever?
And to do this we'd have a couple of million pounds in grants, max, and maybe a few hundred K in sponsorship.
Wheres the rest of the money come from???
And lets not forget SABC would be unlikely to give planning permission for new stands, let alone a new access point into town/onto an already congested road.
Its pie in the sky.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 16, 2005 7:39:18 GMT 1
ok steve you are right. But please explain to me how STFC can afford to a) knock down Gay meadow (where do we play then?) You don't need to knock it down. You could redevelop it one stand at a time relatively inexpensive not needed if the grounds been raised you do one stand at a time. The stand that has the most potential for increasing ground capacity is the Station End, because that can be built into the car park and made multi-level. The other stands are more limited with space without a much heavier investment to move the whole ground further back, so I am not suggesting that. So the Riverside and Tech End stands would have to be changed to all seaters, reducing capacity, though the Riverside could be made multi-tier and link to the walkway mentioned below. I agree, that is the biggie and would need doing. However, a commercial partner could be found for this if the plan were to include shops and restaurants along the riverside. another opportunity for a commercial partner if the new access was to include shops and restaurants. I've answered the stuff about money - sponsorship *and* commercial partners. They would if the plans had a bit of imagination as I've said above by including new shops and restaurants to make the whole place look more attractive. It has to be sold to the council as an asset to the town.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2005 7:54:55 GMT 1
Where would these new 'shops and restaurants' be fitted?
There is a lack of space as it stands.
An access tunnel would cost well over £1 million - you'd need a huge 'commercial sponsor' to come up with the money for that.
To bring the ground up to the Taylor report standard would cost between £2-3 million pounds.
Raising the pitch would not be cheap.
You're already looking at a cost of £3-4 million before much of the work is done on the new stands.
Yes, sponsorship would bring in some money but it wouldn't be enough to fund that development
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 16, 2005 8:04:54 GMT 1
We have trouble getting a kit sponser never mind millions to re-develope the GM, the ground would have to be raised above the highest flood level, so how high are the goal posts as I remember the flood nearly covering the station end posts. The other way is to put ballast tanks, like there are in the canal system, costs again massive. The whole thing would be just to conjested, what shops etc are going to share with 4000+ supporters on Saturdays.
|
|
|
Post by Belgravia Court Shrew on May 16, 2005 8:08:38 GMT 1
I worked on the initial designs for the New Meadow, which included a feasibility study of re developing the existing site with a new 10,000 all seat stadium. It does not work….pure and simple!. You could fill the river in or have trains running through the back of the stand however!.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 16, 2005 8:17:00 GMT 1
I like the idea of shop's etc for the NM site however
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 16, 2005 8:29:23 GMT 1
That makes me think, what shop/business is going to want to position itself right on the banks of the riverseven, the same riverseven which usually floods quite heavily for a week or so every year, where insurance is impossible to attain?
You talk about comercial partners a lot. Maybe if we had the opportunity to build some break through design, and werent a p**sing tiny club with 4,000 fans in a backward historical town, stuck in the bottom rung of the league and not even at the right end of that division.
The fact is STFC are like say Torquay United, Camebridge, Sc***horpe, Chester. We're just another nondescript team. Yes we have history, but most teams have history. Bury have won the FA Cup twice (scoring the most amount of goals in a final i think) but they still cant attract commercial partners and some decent gates.
And lets not forget how reactive the board are as well.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on May 16, 2005 8:55:55 GMT 1
no point raising the level of the pitch if every where around the ground is 2 foot deep in water. Are the fans to be ferried in from abbey foregate?
|
|
|
Post by faginy on May 16, 2005 9:06:53 GMT 1
more attention seeking from Rogerson
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 16, 2005 9:27:43 GMT 1
raising the level of the pitch will not make a huge difference
the point is the drainage
what you need is a hugely powerful pumps and storm drains that take the water away from GM
That is what they have done in Belle Vue. We never flooded directly from the river but from the drains behind us. They have not increased the level of the road, just improved the drainage
As for the costings - the cheapest footie ground costs £1000 a seat basically
Hence GM costs 10 million
where do we get £10 miilion from?
No-one genuinely wants to leave the current site, but a new ground is an absolute must and no matter where we move or what we build unless someone wins the lottery then we are going to need to sell GM
there are lots of clubs who have redeveloped stand by stand, and many of them were saddled with unsustainable debts, like Bury and Exeter
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 16, 2005 9:36:21 GMT 1
more attention seeking from Rogerson Did you sit up all night trying to think up this oh-so-witty response?
|
|
|
Post by faginy on May 16, 2005 9:41:54 GMT 1
Did you sit up all night trying to think up this oh-so-witty response? nope?
|
|
|
Post by SkunkieNLI on May 16, 2005 9:52:51 GMT 1
yes the New Meadow will go ahead sometime in the future Three years tops,by which time the club will nearly have folded due to the increasing costs of getting the thing finally underway,all of you with interests in construction Know the longer it is left,the more expensive a project is going to be..take Wembley as an example.If we dont get the number we need to get the money back the fans will be asked to stump up in ticket prices.That may reduce attendances further and reduce the numbers.Heres hopeing we not building a White Elephant the club cant afford.
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on May 16, 2005 9:59:40 GMT 1
me and wrighty went to lincoln v macc town on saturday - wow what a pitch
the meadow is a crumbling mess the pitch is the worst in the league we have the worst floodlights in the league
we are 25 years behind the times. our ground is just about conference level if that
there is a school next to the stadium so we cant redevelop as you cant block light has to enter an educational establishment there is a river, a train line and one one access road and its impossible to get planning permission to the abbey gardens, which is why our capacity has been cut
this is boring
can we please have a proper discussion like what did asa hartford achieve and if peters gets us to one point in the play off next season but season 2006-2007 we get relegated will everyone think he is a tosspot like Ratters
|
|
|
Post by john on May 16, 2005 10:57:12 GMT 1
Great post Matt
|
|
|
Post by Carter on May 16, 2005 11:27:44 GMT 1
Do you remember when we used to take the * out of Walsall for living in a biscuit tin...
|
|
|
Post by tattooshrew on May 16, 2005 11:34:56 GMT 1
Have to agree. Great post Mattsnapper. The Meadow is a disgrace. Its hardly changed since I started going in 1966! I cannot understand why anyone would want to stay rather than moving to a new modern stadium. IMHO modernisation of GM is near enough impossible because of the river, school, railway etc. There are surely safety issues too with only one way in and out of the ground. Take a look at the ground from the english bridge, hardly scenic is it? Lets look forward, all the new people who have come to the club, players and GP included have cited the new stadium (showing us to be a club with ambitions) as a reason to come here. Where ever the team play I will go but I hope its a nice shiny new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsAde on May 16, 2005 11:38:53 GMT 1
Steve, the cost for building a new, all-seated, 10,000 capacity stadium on greenbelt land is £10,000,000. You seriously think that Salop can attract at least that through sponsorship of stands? We're a league two club, not Manchester United. a very poinient statement following today's news!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2005 12:02:02 GMT 1
"Take a look at the ground from the english bridge, hardly scenic is it? "
Er, I thought it was actually. I can't think of a more scenic football ground in the league and it looks great from the English bridge.
But what is likely to draw in the crowds - some nice trees and a river nearby or a ground with a nice bar, good parking, nice toilets etc etc. I wish we didn't have to move but we do.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 16, 2005 12:10:53 GMT 1
But what is likely to draw in the crowds A winning team. We will struggle to keep crowds at the current level wherever we play unless results improve. And poor form at the new ground could see a real slump.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 16, 2005 12:19:29 GMT 1
A winning team. We will struggle to keep crowds at the current level wherever we play unless results improve. And poor form at the new ground could see a real slump. There are many people who will not come to the meadow because its a dump, regardless of whatthe team is doing, I don't know how many times i've heard if i'm going to watch crap on the pitch I least want comfortable surroundings to do it in. Show a player the GM or what we will have at the NM and which do you think they will choose? Smart changing rooms, well kitted treatment room, smart gym or what there is now? If all goes right, when the NM's built and were are playing crap you should be able to go under the stand and by yourself a pint
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2005 12:31:44 GMT 1
A winning team. We will struggle to keep crowds at the current level wherever we play unless results improve. And poor form at the new ground could see a real slump. That's not the point I was getting at. Whether we play crap at the Meadow or the new Meadow then attendances are going to be affected. Better ameneties can be taken for granted however and they are far more likely to attract fans than to put them off.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 16, 2005 12:36:27 GMT 1
There are many people who will not come to the meadow because its a dump, regardless of whatthe team is doing, I don't know how many times i've heard if i'm going to watch cr@p on the pitch I least want comfortable surroundings to do it in. Show a player the GM or what we will have at the NM and which do you think they will choose? Smart changing rooms, well kitted treatment room, smart gym or what there is now? If all goes right, when the NM's built and were are playing cr@p you should be able to go under the stand and by yourself a pint I don't know anyone who does not go now because of the Meadow. I know people who used to go but don't bother now, but that is down to lower league football. Admittedly, some of them came to the Youth cup final and thought the pitch was poor, but we have had no floods this year so I presume that is poor maintenance. Beer inside grounds is overpriced, gassy and tasteless, I don't bother.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 16, 2005 13:16:02 GMT 1
I don't know anyone who does not go now because of the Meadow. I know people who used to go but don't bother now, but that is down to lower league football. Admittedly, some of them came to the Youth cup final and thought the pitch was poor, but we have had no floods this year so I presume that is poor maintenance. Beer inside grounds is overpriced, gassy and tasteless, I don't bother. The pitch is poor because it needs ripping up and new grass laying, money again, start of the season it will look a glossy lawn again, until the river level rises and we have weeks of rain and we go for mud wrestling again. The people who won't come are the premiership gloryhunters, who go to the odd prem game, its quite a come down from say Anfield to the GM, they would rather see 4-5 matches a season rather than come to the GM, we need these people
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on May 16, 2005 13:18:27 GMT 1
The pitch is poor because it needs ripping up and new grass laying, money again, start of the season it will look a glossy lawn again, until the river level rises and we have weeks of rain and we go for mud wrestling again. The people who won't come are the premiership gloryhunters, who go to the odd prem game, its quite a come down from say Anfield to the GM, they would rather see 4-5 matches a season rather than come to the GM, we need these people I thinkthe pitch has missed the floods this year - it was very very dry and hard!!! I bet the sediment that the flood normally leaves keeps the pitch healthy generally
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 16, 2005 13:22:02 GMT 1
I thinkthe pitch has missed the floods this year - it was very very dry and hard!!! I bet the sediment that the flood normally leaves keeps the pitch healthy generally its what happens underneath, compaction+rising water+rain doesnt add up to good root growth, so its ends up getting bobbly because it scuffs up easily
|
|
|
Post by stockportershrew on May 16, 2005 14:35:04 GMT 1
I may have rose tinted glasses but I don't remember the pitch being particularly bad in the 1970s or 80s or many games getting called off. Now it looks dreadful as soon as the first rain falls.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 16, 2005 16:47:11 GMT 1
That's not the point I was getting at. Whether we play cr@p at the Meadow or the new Meadow then attendances are going to be affected. Better ameneties can be taken for granted however and they are far more likely to attract fans than to put them off. Sorry Craig, i did change the point a bit there. I agree with you that the ground is great where it is now, and that the current facilities are not good enough. I am not convinced that those extra facilities will automatically mean a big increase in gates on their own
|
|