|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Jan 28, 2004 21:44:51 GMT 1
"It's not going to happen folks. " your defeatism is almost sickening. why don't people stand up for what they want for a change instead of accepting what's offered? we've all campaigned for the new meadow, touch wood things are looking up with regards to its eventual construction. surely now is the time to redirect this campaigning spirit into another channel. if i started a poll called 'who prefers sitting to standing' (without any reflection on it being at NM or whatever) i think the responses would be firmly in favour of standing. so campaign for it. type "safe standing" into google and see how many other clubs have groups supporting this idea, what puts us in a better position than many of them is that we already have an unconstructed stadium rather than an all-seater. I'm not being a defeatist plans have been drawn to specification and that is the way it will stay Alaska may not agree to changes this could take extra time and extra planning , if as supporters we want our club to move forward as regards progress in stadia and cost the all seater stadia it is, as regards loss of atmosphere there will be no loss Northwich proved that when they attended GM, and to those that travel to away games will note no loss of atmosphere at sc***horpe/Wrexham.Its up to the crowd to create the atmosphere standing or sitting.
|
|
|
Post by harkaboy3 on Jan 28, 2004 21:50:56 GMT 1
plans were drawn up for the gay meadow(see a large scotch-15 i think) things can change if we act before anything is set in concrete.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jan 28, 2004 21:52:10 GMT 1
As someone who has studyied planning and spesifically stadium design and planning (along with trasport implications) all i can say is that to chang the plans now is a total non starter and will NEVER happen.
Come lads it us long enough to get this plan accepted so why weould we want to take what is a Massive step backwards because we are worried about the atmosphere at the new ground - the justification is just no where nere enough
I stand on the riverside and belive with the help of B and A the shroppy star and all the fans groups we can organise an atmosphere better than any other all seater stadium in the Uk - all of as can congrigate in one area and recreate the atmosphere that we have at away games when its all seather - wrexham last year - rushden 2 years ago and tones of other examples from recent time.
This is the campagine we should be concentrating on not some pie in the sky idea about changeing desgin specs.
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Jan 28, 2004 21:56:51 GMT 1
Agreed
|
|
|
Post by Southern Fried Afro on Jan 28, 2004 22:39:53 GMT 1
Have a 10,000 all seater stadium and then.. wait for this........STAND UP. Everyone wins.
|
|
Lauren
Youth Mod
Come on salop! [H:3]
Posts: 1,148
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 28, 2004 23:08:47 GMT 1
sittin or standin!!!
standin is so much better the atmosphere is better and i think the new stadiums plans should have the sittin for who eva wants to sit n the standin for those who want to stand!!!
|
|
|
Post by Georgie Blue on Jan 28, 2004 23:19:02 GMT 1
Few questions,
How many sides did Bournemouths ground have?
Where has this figure of 500, come from (those nice people at Alaska? who have the best interests of the club at heart?
Do you believe everything you are told?
What makes you think that we are any different to any other group of fans? 2500 fans spread over a 10,000 seats = no atmosphere
What has the results of a traffic impact study got to do with whether i stand up at a football match?
Is it not more important that we get a ground that the fans actually want?
Do you not think that grounds like Rochdale have a decent atmosphere,? (except when they are getting thumped by town!) and thats because they let their fans stand behind the goal, and have nice pies!
How can you say that Sc***horpe have a good ground?its the most poorly designed ground, with the exception of the Bescot.
|
|
|
Post by Geogie Blue on Jan 28, 2004 23:23:52 GMT 1
Sc***horpe.
Just testing, never notice what was between the S, & H before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2004 23:29:46 GMT 1
1. Who said Sc***horpe have a nice ground?
2. Rochdale have a nice new all seated stand which creates plenty of noise.
3. Will try and find out the definite regarding the figures for the ground...why don't you believe the club regarding the figures?
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jan 28, 2004 23:38:50 GMT 1
still resonabley pointless as it will not change untll the planning aplication run out - 5 or 10 years depending on the case. And i did not say he transort implication had any bareing on the stadium issue its just my background to looking at this (i did my final year uni project on the New medow and the planning aplication)
And its not a case of beliveing the club or the developers - just look into the taylor report - fa and league regulations and all the other guidance - to get tearrcing would proably make us lose the grant from the football foundation and then render the whole project unviable anyway!!!
|
|
|
Post by Georgie Blue on Jan 28, 2004 23:44:07 GMT 1
1. Telford Shrew. See above. i know he didnt actually say it was a good ground, just thought he used a poor example.
2. Rochdale when i visited them, i thought their terrace was excellent idea, maybe it could be suggested that the last time we visited them, they were up for the game, after the previous season, but it was packed and vocal, just think that if there is even a small chance we could have a bit of that then its worth it.
3. Will get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Jan 28, 2004 23:57:22 GMT 1
I prefer to stand but for cost (surely plastic seats are cheaper than steel terrace divisions, nevermind the grant issues?), convenience and with an eye to higher a division in the future I think the new ground should be all seats. One thing I think they should do is put boxes in the main stand. Is that in the plans?
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 28, 2004 23:59:25 GMT 1
One thing I think they should do is put boxes in the main stand. Is that in the plans? No it isn't, but if definitely should be in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by Geogie Blue on Jan 29, 2004 0:43:31 GMT 1
In terms of planning, is it true that it is not possible to develop the existing meadow site, because of the emergency access?
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 29, 2004 0:49:40 GMT 1
Yes, emergency access for vehicles, less so for pedestrians, is one of the major reasons why it's not feasible
|
|
|
Post by Geogie Blue on Jan 29, 2004 0:53:27 GMT 1
No theatre then, on the same grounds?
|
|
|
Post by bobbyc on Jan 29, 2004 1:00:44 GMT 1
i expect the theatre would not have anything like a 10000 capacity, more like 500, so i dont think the site is an obstacle. also the owners of the abbey gardens would be much less likely to object to gentle theatre-goers using their land as an extra exit rather than nasty football hooligan thugs like us this is pure conjecture by the way, i aint no expert!
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Jan 29, 2004 1:03:57 GMT 1
The planned theatre (£19 million?) will cater for 700 max I think so access won't be as critical maybe......
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 29, 2004 1:08:40 GMT 1
on the current site you cannot fit a football ground with access to all four sides
now to get to tha far end of the riverside as an ambulance crew is very very difficult
even a new ground wouldn't help this
a little theatre tucked up by the river would have no such trouble
and their use of this argument goes to show just how utterly deperate SARA are
|
|
|
Post by GeorgieBlue on Jan 29, 2004 1:13:28 GMT 1
Just would be nice to think that every avenue has been PROPERLY investigated before the move to the New Meadow has been pushed through.
Thought i read in the original planning apllication that was submitted a couple of years ago, that emergency access and development on the existing site wasnt unworkable with alittle effort.
Let us not forget what we have here, a town centre site, next to the river, its a lovely little bargain for a developer.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 29, 2004 1:23:46 GMT 1
I think it's safe to say that all avenues have been properly investigated, staying at Gay Meadow is (unfortunately) a complete non starter
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jan 29, 2004 21:37:40 GMT 1
as the players are all on a £10,000 bonus for promotion,if we werent to go up(oops forgot we are supposed to be too arrogant to consider this) could we use the money to pay for a terraced end?
|
|
|
Post by ginboomerang on Jan 29, 2004 21:46:34 GMT 1
I'd prefer a refund to the supporters.
|
|
|
Post by Reverend on Jan 29, 2004 22:37:38 GMT 1
The planning for the NM is finalized, it would mean starting again, even the building material has had to been agreed, source, the Architect, so it would involve a new application!! The re-build on the GM failed on the first hurdle which was the destruction of the riverside river bank to take the concrete pillars needed to support the cantilever (spelling?) stand, then on access, as wonderful as us supporters are we can't walk on water. 10.000 seats an absolute must, you will get used to sitting, unless you are like JP of course then you will be able to use his 'yo yo' technique. With all seated ground we will be able to go up the leagues (hopefully) and also get all grants available.
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on Jan 29, 2004 23:31:17 GMT 1
How the hell do you get to vote on the polls?
Got to keep up the support for some standing room - might be set in stone but it ain't started yet, and won't be for at least a while yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2004 23:48:25 GMT 1
You have to be a registered messageboard user to vote in polls...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2004 23:48:39 GMT 1
you need to be registered to vote on one of the polls
|
|
|
Post by tim gallon on Jan 30, 2004 0:51:02 GMT 1
to vary the design of the new meadow would be very easy indeed, just slap in a variaition of conditon planning application for £110, and bobs your uncle you can change the design of the stadium to incorporate terracing.
i think this issue has alot further to run fellas.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 30, 2004 0:53:56 GMT 1
to vary the design of the new meadow would be very easy indeed, just slap in a variaition of conditon planning application for £110, and bobs your uncle you can change the design of the stadium to incorporate terracing. i think this issue has alot further to run fellas. surely that's for a conservatory not the section 106 stuff?
|
|
|
Post by tim gallon on Jan 30, 2004 0:58:12 GMT 1
i would imagine that the design of the stadium is stipulated by a planning condtion rather than the legal agreement which was more to do about transport and liasion groups.
i cant see any reason why it design would be covered by the legal agreement
|
|