[Student21]

Hi Chesterfield fans,

I hope you remember me! Around eight months ago I arrived on here asking for your help in my academic research project, on the impacts of relocation in English football. The response from you was superb, and it was heartening to read all of your messages of good luck.

I am happy to say that I submitted the finished article a few weeks ago. I have had other assignments on since then, as well as one or two things to take care of away from university, so I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

I would just like to supply you with a few of my main findings. If any of you wish, I can send you an electronic copy of the dissertation itself (it’s 230 pages long, mind you!) A couple of you were in touch about that quite some time ago – apologies again that you haven’t received it yet, but you will do over the weekend.

If you remember, you were one of two case studies, the other being Shrewsbury Town. Some general conclusions, first…

- Largely, Chesterfield supporters have warmed to their new surroundings far quicker. In part, this is attributable to the ease at which some form of matchday routine may carry over, owing to the Proact Stadium’s proximity to local amenities, including pubs, shops and takeaway outlets.
- As a group of supporters generally, you appeared more welcoming of the prospect of relocation in the first place.
- At both clubs, a significant proportion of supporters believe the loss of terracing has impacted negatively upon their matchday experience.
- Though of extreme importance, neither Gay Meadow (the traditional home ground of Shrewsbury Town) nor Saltergate was perceived to be the most important factor in club identity.
- Neither new stadium was adjudged to be of as much importance in the creation of club identity, as traditional stadia. Given their age, this is unsurprising, but their lacking in distinctive qualities has proven a cause for concern among followers of both clubs. With rationalisation of the stadium environment, comes lessened room for idiosyncratic quality, leaving supporters little with which to identify.
- This has been of greater complaint at Shrewsbury Town, where the stadium, generally, was regarded as being of greater importance to club identity. Gay Meadow itself appeared to be synonymous with the club, in a way that Saltergate was not, with yourselves. (Given the long history of the ground, I personally found that quite surprising!)

To elaborate a little…

- 35% of you believe relocation to have proven beneficial to the (individual) matchday routine. At Shrewsbury Town, that figure stood at 8%.
- Location of respective new stadia is pivotal here – although 81% less of you are visiting the town centre on matchday, numbers visiting a pub, or a shop, have barely altered. At Shrewsbury, 39% fewer are visiting a pub, 48% fewer visiting a shop. Although you have moved further from the middle of town, you certainly have not moved out of town– and that is the key difference here.
- 34% of you believe the loss of terracing has impacted negatively upon your matchday experience.
- 53% of you believe terracing to be conducive to the creation of an active matchday atmosphere. However, more of you actually think that there has been some improvement in atmosphere post-relocation, than think not. It seems widely accepted that your first-season success made a huge difference in this regard.

- It was found that 56% of you thought Saltergate to be, in some way, important in the forging of club identity. At Shrewsbury, 73% believed their traditional home ground – Gay Meadow – to be in some way important.
- Only 5% of you believe club identity to have been damaged as a result of the move. That figure stood at a whopping 38% at Shrewsbury.
- 28% of you actually said club identity had been improved, a large number deeming the club more esteemed, sanitised and welcoming post-relocation. 26% believe the club identity to be less distinctivenow, however.
- As aforementioned, Chesterfield supporters have, on the whole, been more willing to embrace the concept of relocation. Only 46% of you were in any way upset to depart Saltergate (compared to 67% at Shrewsbury, and Gay Meadow), whilst just 19% believed maintaining a sense of history was more important than having a new ground. At Shrewsbury, that figure stood at 42%.

On the whole then, the relocation process has gone a whole lot smoother at Chesterfield, than at Shrewsbury. Even to take your move in isolation, an awful lot appears to have gone right so far. Clearly not everybody is satisfied, and early success on the pitch has evidently helped, but, it is probably fair to say that the club have got more right than they have got wrong. Bearing in mind that the Proact is all-seater, and considering it has been constructed with cost-efficiency in mind, the majority of you seem reasonably content.

Never underestimate the importance of location. This study really does showcase how crucial it is, to select the right site. Some clubs may be unfortunate in this regard, depending on the nature of the town/city, and how much space is actually available. Although many of you recognise the flaws of the Proact’s straightforward design, a lot seem happy to let this go, as the club remain located within a reasonably built-up area. Almost 70% of you say it is at least agreeable to partake in some kind of matchday activity aside from the game – the new ground’s location is crucial in allowing you to continue doing so. In terms of club identity, there has not been a great deal of complaint. Although Saltergate was found, unsurprisingly, to be of greater importance than the Proact Stadium in this regard, a fair number of you appeared quite relaxed at having to leave it behind. The stadium, as an entity in general, was found to be of less importance to club identity to you, compared to supporters of Shrewsbury Town.

I would say the word 'contrast' is quite suitable here - both inside the ground and out, there has been more of a contrast at Shrewsbury, than at Chesterfield. At the former, the old ground's riverside location, nearby several historical buildings, could hardly be much different from that of the new ground - a greenfield site beyond the urban environment. Pound for pound, the build is better at Chesterfield as well. Though there was clearly not money to burn when designing/constructing the Proact, the environment is not quite so sterile as at the New Meadow. Without delving into too much detail, the new ground at Shrewsbury almost seems to stand for all that supporters dislike about their club.

I'll leave it at that for now. I'm happy to go into more detail on here, if you like. If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. If you would indeed like a copy of the work in full, then send me an email at [email protected]. And you'll have the PDF.

Thanks once more for all of your help. Each response made a difference - the good folk of 'Bob's Board' are acknowledged at the beginning of the work!

All the best for next season,
Rory.

[Spire-Heights]

Top work Rory.

[Eastander]

Excellent read and very thought-provoking ! Some quite unexpected and surprising facts!

[Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip]

Student21, on 01 June 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Hi Chesterfield fans,

I hope you remember me! Around eight months ago I arrived on here asking for your help in my academic research project, on the impacts of relocation in English football. The response from you was superb, and it was heartening to read all of your messages of good luck.

I am happy to say that I submitted the finished article a few weeks ago. I have had other assignments on since then, as well as one or two things to take care of away from university, so I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

I would just like to supply you with a few of my main findings. If any of you wish, I can send you an electronic copy of the dissertation itself (it’s 230 pages long, mind you!) A couple of you were in touch about that quite some time ago – apologies again that you haven’t received it yet, but you will do over the weekend.

If you remember, you were one of two case studies, the other being Shrewsbury Town. Some general conclusions, first…

- Largely, Chesterfield supporters have warmed to their new surroundings far quicker. In part, this is attributable to the ease at which some form of matchday routine may carry over, owing to the Proact Stadium’s proximity to local amenities, including pubs, shops and takeaway outlets.
- As a group of supporters generally, you appeared more welcoming of the prospect of relocation in the first place.
- At both clubs, a significant proportion of supporters believe the loss of terracing has impacted negatively upon their matchday experience.
- Though of extreme importance, neither Gay Meadow (the traditional home ground of Shrewsbury Town) nor Saltergate was perceived to be the most important factor in club identity.
- Neither new stadium was adjudged to be of as much importance in the creation of club identity, as traditional stadia. Given their age, this is unsurprising, but their lacking in distinctive qualities has proven a cause for concern among followers of both clubs. With rationalisation of the stadium environment, comes lessened room for idiosyncratic quality, leaving supporters little with which to identify.
- This has been of greater complaint at Shrewsbury Town, where the stadium, generally, was regarded as being of greater importance to club identity. Gay Meadow itself appeared to be synonymous with the club, in a way that Saltergate was not, with yourselves. (Given the long history of the ground, I personally found that quite surprising!)

To elaborate a little…

- 35% of you believe relocation to have proven beneficial to the (individual) matchday routine. At Shrewsbury Town, that figure stood at 8%.
- Location of respective new stadia is pivotal here – although 81% less of you are visiting the town centre on matchday, numbers visiting a pub, or a shop, have barely altered. At Shrewsbury, 39% fewer are visiting a pub, 48% fewer visiting a shop. Although you have moved further from the middle of town, you certainly have not moved out of town– and that is the key difference here.
- 34% of you believe the loss of terracing has impacted negatively upon your matchday experience.
- 53% of you believe terracing to be conducive to the creation of an active matchday atmosphere. However, more of you actually think that there has been some improvement in atmosphere post-relocation, than think not. It seems widely accepted that your first-season success made a huge difference in this regard.

- It was found that 56% of you thought Saltergate to be, in some way, important in the forging of club identity. At Shrewsbury, 73% believed their traditional home ground – Gay Meadow – to be in some way important.
- Only 5% of you believe club identity to have been damaged as a result of the move. That figure stood at a whopping 38% at Shrewsbury.
- 28% of you actually said club identity had been improved, a large number deeming the club more esteemed, sanitised and welcoming post-relocation. 26% believe the club identity to be less distinctivenow, however.
- As aforementioned, Chesterfield supporters have, on the whole, been more willing to embrace the concept of relocation. Only 46% of you were in any way upset to depart Saltergate (compared to 67% at Shrewsbury, and Gay Meadow), whilst just 19% believed maintaining a sense of history was more important than having a new ground. At Shrewsbury, that figure stood at 42%.

On the whole then, the relocation process has gone a whole lot smoother at Chesterfield, than at Shrewsbury. Even to take your move in isolation, an awful lot appears to have gone right so far. Clearly not everybody is satisfied, and early success on the pitch has evidently helped, but, it is probably fair to say that the club have got more right than they have got wrong. Bearing in mind that the Proact is all-seater, and considering it has been constructed with cost-efficiency in mind, the majority of you seem reasonably content.

Never underestimate the importance of location. This study really does showcase how crucial it is, to select the right site. Some clubs may be unfortunate in this regard, depending on the nature of the town/city, and how much space is actually available. Although many of you recognise the flaws of the Proact’s straightforward design, a lot seem happy to let this go, as the club remain located within a reasonably built-up area. Almost 70% of you say it is at least agreeable to partake in some kind of matchday activity aside from the game – the new ground’s location is crucial in allowing you to continue doing so. In terms of club identity, there has not been a great deal of complaint. Although Saltergate was found, unsurprisingly, to be of greater importance than the Proact Stadium in this regard, a fair number of you appeared quite relaxed at having to leave it behind. The stadium, as an entity in general, was found to be of less importance to club identity to you, compared to supporters of Shrewsbury Town.

I would say the word 'contrast' is quite suitable here - both inside the ground and out, there has been more of a contrast at Shrewsbury, than at Chesterfield. At the former, the old ground's riverside location, nearby several historical buildings, could hardly be much different from that of the new ground - a greenfield site beyond the urban environment. Pound for pound, the build is better at Chesterfield as well. Though there was clearly not money to burn when designing/constructing the Proact, the environment is not quite so sterile as at the New Meadow. Without delving into too much detail, the new ground at Shrewsbury almost seems to stand for all that supporters dislike about their club.

I'll leave it at that for now. I'm happy to go into more detail on here, if you like. If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. If you would indeed like a copy of the work in full, then send me an email at [email protected]. And you'll have the PDF.

Thanks once more for all of your help. Each response made a difference - the good folk of 'Bob's Board' are acknowledged at the beginning of the work!

All the best for next season,
Rory.

Good stuff Rory. Sent you an E mail mate.

[Tylerdurdencfc]

Student21, on 01 June 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Hi Chesterfield fans,

I hope you remember me! Around eight months ago I arrived on here asking for your help in my academic research project, on the impacts of relocation in English football. The response from you was superb, and it was heartening to read all of your messages of good luck.

I am happy to say that I submitted the finished article a few weeks ago. I have had other assignments on since then, as well as one or two things to take care of away from university, so I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

I would just like to supply you with a few of my main findings. If any of you wish, I can send you an electronic copy of the dissertation itself (it’s 230 pages long, mind you!) A couple of you were in touch about that quite some time ago – apologies again that you haven’t received it yet, but you will do over the weekend.

If you remember, you were one of two case studies, the other being Shrewsbury Town. Some general conclusions, first…

- Largely, Chesterfield supporters have warmed to their new surroundings far quicker. In part, this is attributable to the ease at which some form of matchday routine may carry over, owing to the Proact Stadium’s proximity to local amenities, including pubs, shops and takeaway outlets.
- As a group of supporters generally, you appeared more welcoming of the prospect of relocation in the first place.
- At both clubs, a significant proportion of supporters believe the loss of terracing has impacted negatively upon their matchday experience.
- Though of extreme importance, neither Gay Meadow (the traditional home ground of Shrewsbury Town) nor Saltergate was perceived to be the most important factor in club identity.
- Neither new stadium was adjudged to be of as much importance in the creation of club identity, as traditional stadia. Given their age, this is unsurprising, but their lacking in distinctive qualities has proven a cause for concern among followers of both clubs. With rationalisation of the stadium environment, comes lessened room for idiosyncratic quality, leaving supporters little with which to identify.
- This has been of greater complaint at Shrewsbury Town, where the stadium, generally, was regarded as being of greater importance to club identity. Gay Meadow itself appeared to be synonymous with the club, in a way that Saltergate was not, with yourselves. (Given the long history of the ground, I personally found that quite surprising!)

To elaborate a little…

- 35% of you believe relocation to have proven beneficial to the (individual) matchday routine. At Shrewsbury Town, that figure stood at 8%.
- Location of respective new stadia is pivotal here – although 81% less of you are visiting the town centre on matchday, numbers visiting a pub, or a shop, have barely altered. At Shrewsbury, 39% fewer are visiting a pub, 48% fewer visiting a shop. Although you have moved further from the middle of town, you certainly have not moved out of town– and that is the key difference here.
- 34% of you believe the loss of terracing has impacted negatively upon your matchday experience.
- 53% of you believe terracing to be conducive to the creation of an active matchday atmosphere. However, more of you actually think that there has been some improvement in atmosphere post-relocation, than think not. It seems widely accepted that your first-season success made a huge difference in this regard.

- It was found that 56% of you thought Saltergate to be, in some way, important in the forging of club identity. At Shrewsbury, 73% believed their traditional home ground – Gay Meadow – to be in some way important.
- Only 5% of you believe club identity to have been damaged as a result of the move. That figure stood at a whopping 38% at Shrewsbury.
- 28% of you actually said club identity had been improved, a large number deeming the club more esteemed, sanitised and welcoming post-relocation. 26% believe the club identity to be less distinctivenow, however.
- As aforementioned, Chesterfield supporters have, on the whole, been more willing to embrace the concept of relocation. Only 46% of you were in any way upset to depart Saltergate (compared to 67% at Shrewsbury, and Gay Meadow), whilst just 19% believed maintaining a sense of history was more important than having a new ground. At Shrewsbury, that figure stood at 42%.

On the whole then, the relocation process has gone a whole lot smoother at Chesterfield, than at Shrewsbury. Even to take your move in isolation, an awful lot appears to have gone right so far. Clearly not everybody is satisfied, and early success on the pitch has evidently helped, but, it is probably fair to say that the club have got more right than they have got wrong. Bearing in mind that the Proact is all-seater, and considering it has been constructed with cost-efficiency in mind, the majority of you seem reasonably content.

Never underestimate the importance of location. This study really does showcase how crucial it is, to select the right site. Some clubs may be unfortunate in this regard, depending on the nature of the town/city, and how much space is actually available. Although many of you recognise the flaws of the Proact’s straightforward design, a lot seem happy to let this go, as the club remain located within a reasonably built-up area. Almost 70% of you say it is at least agreeable to partake in some kind of matchday activity aside from the game – the new ground’s location is crucial in allowing you to continue doing so. In terms of club identity, there has not been a great deal of complaint. Although Saltergate was found, unsurprisingly, to be of greater importance than the Proact Stadium in this regard, a fair number of you appeared quite relaxed at having to leave it behind. The stadium, as an entity in general, was found to be of less importance to club identity to you, compared to supporters of Shrewsbury Town.

I would say the word 'contrast' is quite suitable here - both inside the ground and out, there has been more of a contrast at Shrewsbury, than at Chesterfield. At the former, the old ground's riverside location, nearby several historical buildings, could hardly be much different from that of the new ground - a greenfield site beyond the urban environment. Pound for pound, the build is better at Chesterfield as well. Though there was clearly not money to burn when designing/constructing the Proact, the environment is not quite so sterile as at the New Meadow. Without delving into too much detail, the new ground at Shrewsbury almost seems to stand for all that supporters dislike about their club.

I'll leave it at that for now. I'm happy to go into more detail on here, if you like. If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. If you would indeed like a copy of the work in full, then send me an email at [email protected]. And you'll have the PDF.

Thanks once more for all of your help. Each response made a difference - the good folk of 'Bob's Board' are acknowledged at the beginning of the work!

All the best for next season,
Rory.

Not sure which university but I went to Sheffield Hallam Uni and wrote a dissertation on whether Chesterfield FC should relocate or redevelop in the urban environment. This was written in 2003 and the results were very different.

[CFC91]

Congrats on finishing the dissertation, feel your relief having finished this year also. Interesting read too, well done.

[TOWNOWL]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 01 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Not sure which university but I went to Sheffield Hallam Uni and wrote a dissertation on whether Chesterfield FC should relocate or redevelop in the urban environment. This was written in 2003 and the results were very different.

WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE 2 'RESULTS' SIDE BY SIDE FOR COMPARISON

[60s 70s Spireite]

Tylerdurdencfc, on 01 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Not sure which university but I went to Sheffield Hallam Uni and wrote a dissertation on whether Chesterfield FC should relocate or redevelop in the urban environment. This was written in 2003 and the results were very different.

Probably confirms that it's not 'change' we fear, but the 'fear of change'