[Spired]

I was always of the opinion that we needed a capacity of 12,000 at the new stadium, however this will doubtlessly increase construction costs etc so 10,000 with room to expand should do...to whet the appitite, here is the new Almondvale stadium in Scotland which is a 10,000 capacity stadium for Livingston (i think)



Doesn't look at all bad...perhaps a slightly smaller scale to blackpools...4 sides would be fantastic though all these clubs (including blackpool, oxford, port vale etc) who will probably never finish their stadiums due to a crap idea they'd do it later will be doubtlessly regrettting the same.

This post has been edited by Spired: 02 February 2006 - 01:49 AM

[Town_Fan]

Spired, on Feb 2 2006, 01:45 AM, said:

I was always of the opinion that we needed a capacity of 12,000 at the new stadium, however this will doubtlessly increase construction costs etc so 10,000 with room to expand should do...to whet the appitite, here is the new Almondvale stadium in Scotland which is a 10,000 capacity stadium for Livingston (i think)



Doesn't look at all bad...perhaps a slightly smaller scale to blackpools...4 sides would be fantastic though all these clubs (including blackpool, oxford, port vale etc) who will probably never finish their stadiums due to a crap idea they'd do it later will be doubtlessly regrettting the same.

That ground looks like Glanford park without the posts. I have faith that our architect can come up with the goods but still struggle to see where the funding is coming from.

All the current talk suggests to me the boards still have no idea, they say they are waiting for an idea of how much the land is going to cost surely by now they must have a ball park figure or at the very least a best /worse case scenario.

It madness that they say all we are missing is planning petrmission and the land, yet noone seems to have a clue what the new ground will look like and to me it seems very hazy on what facilities there will be.

Surely by now we should have everything in place if the boards are serious about moving and all that we need is the land / permission.

[carlT]

Town_Fan, on Feb 2 2006, 11:46 AM, said:

That ground looks like Glanford park without the posts. I have faith that our architect can come up with the goods but still struggle to see where the funding is coming from.

All the current talk suggests to me the boards still have no idea, they say they are waiting for an idea of how much the land is going to cost surely by now they must have a ball park figure or at the very least a best /worse case scenario.

It madness that they say all we are missing is planning petrmission and the land, yet noone seems to have a clue what the new ground will look like and to me it seems very hazy on what facilities there will be.

Surely by now we should have everything in place if the boards are serious about moving and all that we need is the land / permission.

from what I see of it all, things are almost in place. We need to find out what the council will let the landowners put on the rest of the site, that will determine what we have to pay for the land. you get the impression that all sides are pulling together to get the best they can for us, so that must be good and from reading the councils response to fast tracking the planning permission through then maybe a 50 week build could be on,

[Town_Fan]

carlT, on Feb 2 2006, 04:11 PM, said:

from what I see of it all, things are almost in place. We need to find out what the council will let the landowners put on the rest of the site, that will determine what we have to pay for the land. you get the impression that all sides are pulling together to get the best they can for us, so that must be good and from reading the councils response to fast tracking the planning permission through then maybe a 50 week build could be on,

If everthing is in place have you any idea what the ground will even look like? Do you know how much it will cost? Do you know what the land will cost us? Do you know how long the planning permission is really going to take?

No you dont and neither do the board, stop pretending its all cut and dried.

[fishini]

It's breaking my heart that the boards are misleading the fans with all their rhetoric about the new ground, after all these years of lying to us the club now expect us all to believe all they tell us, which is very little as far as I can see, but most of the fans want to believe what they are told, but not all of us, some of us are very sceptical and don't have their rosy tinted glasses on and their heads in the clouds. I for one will only believe it when it is being built which IMO will never happen

[Spired]

fishini, on Feb 2 2006, 07:13 PM, said:

It's breaking my heart that the boards are misleading the fans with all their rhetoric about the new ground, after all these years of lying to us the club now expect us all to believe all they tell us, which is very little as far as I can see, but most of the fans want to believe what they are told, but not all of us, some of us are very sceptical and don't have their rosy tinted glasses on and their heads in the clouds. I for one will only believe it when it is being built which IMO will never happen

I hope you'll write a written public apology if you are proved wrong. The current regime are attempting to get us a new stadium for the first time...it was the past regimes who dangled the new ground carrot without any intent of following it up.

[Lorraine]

MP-Spire, on Feb 3 2006, 11:12 AM, said:

Both Mike Warner & Barrie Hubbard were on Norton's board.

With hindsight it was always going to be an uphill battle moving to WM with the protests from the residents and the obvious reluctance of help from the Council. With this new site at Dema there's much more optimism from all involved that it could actually happen. It has to be looked on as a new era from 2001 and forget about the past as far as ground moves are concerned. Just my opinion but I can't see the point in dragging up the past and pointing the finger every two minutes. This isn't directed at you in particular, just in response to your post.

This post has been edited by Lorraine: 03 February 2006 - 12:12 PM

[Lorraine]

MP-Spire, on Feb 3 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

Morning Lorraine,

Under Norton's Board which included Mike & Barrie we didn't get a new stadium, that's a fact. At the time, they could have worked night & day on a move, but it didn't happen.

We all have different views on WM and the farce that it became. I'm just pleased that things look like they will start to happen and I for one can't be bothered to keep dragging up the past and pointing the finger at people. Each to their own though Mike but it's not going to change things one iota.

[Lorraine]

MP-Spire, on Feb 3 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

You've lost me, where have I pointed the finger?

I said in my initial post that it wasn't directed at you, my reply was in response to your post. Anyway, I've said my bit I'll leave it to the 'big boys' to debate (as someone, though I can't recall who, kindly pointed out at some stage).

[fishini]

MP-Spire, on Feb 3 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

Morning Lorraine,

Under Norton's Board which included Mike & Barrie we didn't get a new stadium, that's a fact. At the time, they could have worked night & day on a move, but it didn't happen.

didn't have to work very hard, free land at Ireland Colliery and British Coal to foot the bill for the infrastructure and contribute to wards build costs, this is fact I saw the plans that BC drew up when I worked there, shame because with the imminent J29a on the M1 the position was ideal, another lost opportunity

[Town_Fan]

fishini, on Feb 3 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

didn't have to work very hard, free land at Ireland Colliery and British Coal to foot the bill for the infrastructure and contribute to wards build costs, this is fact I saw the plans that BC drew up when I worked there, shame because with the imminent J29a on the M1 the position was ideal, another lost opportunity

If memory serves people were dead against moving so far out of town at the time. I believe one headline was "Its the pits". At that point in time I think we were right to think it was the wrong decision to move there because we believed taht board could truly build us something as they had the financial backing of Noton Lea. For some reason NL never had the real inclination to move us but he had the cash, now ironically we find ourselves the other way around.

Now of course for the same deal at Poolsbrook we would snap the relevant persons hand off.

[forevablue]

Town_Fan, on Feb 3 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

If memory serves people were dead against moving so far out of town at the time. I believe one headline was "Its the pits". At that point in time I think we were right to think it was the wrong decision to move there because we believed taht board could truly build us something as they had the financial backing of Noton Lea. For some reason NL never had the real inclination to move us but he had the cash, now ironically we find ourselves the other way around.

Now of course for the same deal at Poolsbrook we would snap the relevant persons hand off.

We all have our opinions and I have to disagree. I originate from the Staveley area and if there was a real choice now between the Markham Employment Growth Zone (Junction 29A) and Dema my vote would overwhelmingly be for Dema because of its location within the Borough.

Brief other points, Norton Lea had grand plans for Wheeldon Mill (including a casino I think) that would have brought in a lot of money but in planning terms it was never realistic. That rumbled on for years and then we hit the DB crisis. We have to move on and be positive otherwise what is the point?

If I had the money I would buy the board out and build a spanking ground but in the meantime I will carry on doing what I can and if we achieve our target, including promotion at some point, it will all have been worthwhile.

[Town_Fan]

forevablue, on Feb 3 2006, 09:37 PM, said:

We all have our opinions and I have to disagree. I originate from the Staveley area and if there was a real choice now between the Markham Employment Growth Zone (Junction 29A) and Dema my vote would overwhelmingly be for Dema because of its location within the Borough.

Brief other points, Norton Lea had grand plans for Wheeldon Mill (including a casino I think) that would have brought in a lot of money but in planning terms it was never realistic. That rumbled on for years and then we hit the DB crisis. We have to move on and be positive otherwise what is the point?

If I had the money I would buy the board out and build a spanking ground but in the meantime I will carry on doing what I can and if we achieve our target, including promotion at some point, it will all have been worthwhile.

I agree it would be Dema over Poolsbrook everytime but from a financial POV if we had the same offer now it would be hard for us to turn down.

[Bob]

One thing I hope the club have taken account of is if the capacity is 10,000 they have made allowance for segregation of hame and away support or the police will insist on block off a thousand or so seats.
This would leave the realistic capacity as less than 9,000

Bob

[Bankrobber]

Town_Fan, on Feb 3 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

If memory serves people were dead against moving so far out of town at the time. I believe one headline was "Its the pits". At that point in time I think we were right to think it was the wrong decision to move there because we believed taht board could truly build us something as they had the financial backing of Noton Lea. For some reason NL never had the real inclination to move us but he had the cash, now ironically we find ourselves the other way around.

Now of course for the same deal at Poolsbrook we would snap the relevant persons hand off.

Shame he wasn't willing to use it; why else did he want the associated development at WM if not to fund the move (which as has been pointed out scuppered the whole deal).

[Jets Fan]

Spired, on Feb 3 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

I hope you'll write a written public apology if you are proved wrong. The current regime are attempting to get us a new stadium for the first time...it was the past regimes who dangled the new ground carrot without any intent of following it up.

My dads been watchin town years, there was talk of a new ground then and theres no sign of a new ground yet is there. I think 75k would have secured Clingans future at CFC but we couldnt afford that never mind a 10-12 million quid stadium!

[Mr Brooks]

This would leave the realistic capacity as less than 9,000


Exactly Bob....what a boost a crowd of 5 figures would mean against the likes of Sheffield Wed/Forest, Barnsley etc......really need to be looking towards 12-15,000 I know its unrealistic at this point, but hope they bear in mind segregation.

At last things are looking good.....just hope we can push this through.