Thetownend.com

http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10341~1808252,00.html (http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10341~1808252,00.html)

Interesting last sentence crept in here. Looks like it's lifted straight from the Bristol bid document, but it's presented like a fait accompli. More details please Mr F.

Agreed. But it's all hypothetical though isn't it.

It's an reasonably interesting quote but I doubt we'll get much more quotes from it.

Interesting and good to see that we're trying to get in on Bristol's 2018 bid. I didn't know this before that article.

The lease at the CG runs out in March 2013, so things will have to be decided well before then.

I believe there has been discussions about redevelopment between the club and the council, but how far that as gone I do not know. Maybe a question can be asked at the forthcoming AGM.

Capacity to be increased to 25,000 ..........

Has a date been set for the meeting?

Just what we need - more empty seats.

which is what the Elm Park 4000 must have said. All depends what other income-raising plans go alongside it. The discussions must be pretty advanced if they're aiming to have the redevelopment in place by 2013. Unless of course this is promotional hot air to support the Bristol bid...

Other clubs have shown that just about any ground development does bring a benefit in terms of attendances - so I would not be too concerned about empty seats if we went to 25,000 capacity (although, yes, there would be a few.)

I, for one, would be genuinely excited by the prospect of a smart, redeveloped and extended ground on the current site.  Many clubs have gone down the redevelopment route but few have been able to remain in a town centre location.  Imagine a ground on roughly the scale of the Madejski - and with the same visual impact - but within walking distance of town (ie near pubs, not DIY superstores).  That would be fantastic.

To go slightly off topic, i note the other day that the strange looking Franchise chairman wants to increase his stadium to 43,000 for the world cup so they can host matches...

Re-development has been talked about so many times that I just dont believe a word of it anymore.

I think I'll believe it when I'm sitting in it.

 may be being over-cynical or negative, but I do worry about whether the town can now really support a side capable of filling a larger ground, even in the long-term.  There has seemed to me, over the past decade or so, a very strong apathy in the town towards the team.  Of course there are those of us who love the club, but can the area really support a big football club?  On the flip side, this may be as a result of the team's performance over that period. 

It may be a case of if you build it, they will come.  If it happens, I will be hoping that our story mirrors that of Reading, not (different story, I know) Darlington.

You're absolutely right - but think about what has been going on off the field during the last decade.  This was the decade during which the club was mismanaged to a shocking degree.  This filtered through to the support which was, pretty much, whittled away to its hard core.

Can the town support something better than this?  Emphatically yes.  Stability off the field and a little investment will reap impressive rewards in the medium term.

how many of the floaters, part timers, stay away fans - whatever you want to call them will have a single clue about what was going on off the field?

at a guess I'd say most of them knew very little.

the reason they no longer go to games or stopped going was because the team was shit and falling down the leagues.

we can change the board, the players, the stadium, the hotdogs, the ticket prices - the only way to get more fans in is on pitch success.

It has, but I cannot remember the date (I think it's a Thursday night). It was in the Colchester programme.

http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10341~1799692,00.html

Tuesday 20th October at 6.30pm in the Legends Lounge.

Does anyone know if the share consolodation happened (10 for 1). I don't know if I can attend as I own(ed) a solitary share, and so would not be eligable if it has.
------------
Doore, I think it is spot on to be cautious. On one hand we have Swansea, Reading, Hull, etc. On the other hand we have Bradford, Darlington, etc.

BUT

It isn't just the match day revenue/filling empty seats. It's about 7 days a week revenue. If a redevelopment means more money coming into the club from outside of match day then great! Even if we have lots of space on a mtch day for a while :)

It will be interesting to see if the Councils attitude to the club has changed as a result of the new owners and better management at the club (especially on the financial side). I know in the past they've said they wouldn't do the club any favours as its a business but maybe the tide has turned, plus there is a very strong argument for helping the club due to the benefits a successful club gives to a town.

If they are planning to increase the capacity to 25k, that sounds like re-building the Stratton Bank and Town End and filling in the corners - all of which would add up to about 25k. I still think the best (and cheapest) option is to move the pitch 10-20 yards over the Town End which will give more than enough space for all the work.

The last I heard (about 2 months ago) was that they were in discussions with the council about buying the whole site (including the cricket ground and athletics track).  They seemed to be quite hopeful because they could get get a development going quite quickly while all of the other redevelopments in the town centre have stalled.
It was interesting to hear that the boundary at the cricket club it too small to host 1st class matches, and the athletics track doesn't have enough lanes for it to host any meetings!

I thought the cricket ground was owned privately? Maybe Steve Slattery? Wasn't he trying to push through a re-development a few years back to build houses there and a new cricket ground out of town?

If I remember correctly the Swindon Athletics team was doing pretty well a few years back and they got promoted to a higher division, but couldn't host any meetings at home due to the joke of an athletics track.

Moving the cricket and athletics wouldn't be a big deal and should give them far better facilities so I doubt there would be any objections from them.

I have to say it seems that attendances have gone up at clubs that have developed a brand new stadium, as opposed to redeveloping which is my only concern. Clearly the town centre location is better though. I wonder if they could start building a new ground on the cricket club so that we dont have to relocate at all?

I wonder if the club will make any comment about this scheduled redevelopment. The best bit about it is that it suggests we will be buying the site, as previously we have said we will not redevelop somebody elses land. Once thats the case and we have assets the board have always said they back the club further financially. Fingers crossed.

you can't do anything to the cricket club, the pavilions a listed building

Maybe it could be incorporated in to the new ground?

Bollocks, I'm working in Bridgend that day, will have to see if I can do an early start/finish. I've only got 4 shares and plan to attend.

As for the ground redevelopment, I'd assume additional facilities would need a larger stand(s) and thus additional seats would come with that. Lets not be overly negative, we may have more empty seats but a ground with greater potential could see further investment on the pitch in order to realise that potential in the Championship.

You missed my point...and that is that it was the off the pitch mismanagement that caused the decline in our performances on it.

Of course no one is going to give up on STFC because they're appalled at the late filing of accounts or that they don't like the state of the club's balance sheet.  However, over a period of years the lack of direction at board level translated to poor performances on the field...which, in turn, led to falling attendances.

Fix the boardroom problem (and there are signs that a lot of progress has been made during the last 2 years) and - eventually - you will see an improvement on the pitch.  It may take time, but it will happen.  Just as some clubs are known for punching above their weight, I strongly believe that the boardroom troubles at STFC have caused us to punch below ours now for some time.  With stability in the boardroom, I really do think regular Championship level football at the County Ground is achievable.

I agree with most of that Ardiles, but I'm not sure we have been punching below our weight.  Perhaps I'm being bit cynical again, but besides the wonderful times of the early 90s (I've just smiled for the first time all day, I wish it was 1993 again) I'd say higher echelons of the third tier is probably punching at our correct weight.  Not that there's anything wrong with ambition.  Although some performances have been poor (and at times, really, really poor) I'd say given the off the pitch troubles the team's performance hasn't been that bad over ten years (relegation aside, and we did bounce straight back).  If we could consolidate as a strong league one side with a stable background over the next couple of years, I'd say that's a job well done.  Being a strong championship side is, at least historically, punching above our weight.  If we develop the club like Reading have done, and the support is there, it could be realistic though.

I agree. This is a medium-term project. Think Preston, Burnley, Swansea, Cardiff. Good backroom work translating into sustainable success.

I think you're thinking of the bowls club hut. And that can be moved if needed

The cricket club house and bowls facility are both at the far end of the land so I don't see why they'd be an issue, they could just be left as they are - it doesn't take that much land away from the total area.

The whole area is owned by the council, and is - I understand - held by them from the same trust that techncally still own the CG.  Slattery has nothing to do with it, but his group did buy the old BR sports grounds (outbidding the then board of STFC who wanted it as a training ground).  The cricket club who were using it were then forced out due to Slattery and co wanting to redevelop the ground - for which permission has not been granted!

 I love the way when ground stuff comes up, as it has been doing on and off for many years, people post the most absurd non factual bollocks.  How difficult can it be to get a few basic facts right?

 DV has it spot on believe it if you see it.

I think it'd be quite quirky to have a cricket pavillion randomly stuck in the corner of a new ground. It'd be a nice little break from the boring single-tiered bowl template, and could be something people associate Swindon with - instead of financial mismanagement, relegation and tractors.

So we're just going to assume that the Board has no plans to redevelop the CG and this is all bollocks? By that I mean a realistic ambition and proposal, which probably is nowhere near finalisation but it's a plan nonetheless.

Also our current owners and Board haven't been in charge for many years.

I think it for the best...until such time as we at least see some planning applications going in.

The same way I wasnt going to believe Theo Robinson was signing for us till I saw him in a Swindon shirt.

Quite, especially after the announcement of a verbal agreement.

I'm pretty sure various STFC types down the years have had discussions with SBC people.

We've even, on occasions, seen them sat down at the same table to outline their verbal agreements.

Interesting quote on the OS indeed. Of course before we all get excited we know nothing about any form of proposals whatsoever so for now i'm going to just assume that this is a plan the board may have in the pipeline that hasn't even got out of first gear yet. Will be interesting to hear what the board are looking to do with the CG though.

Fitton has talked about the redevelopment of the CG before though, I remember him making a comment about the height of the buildings they were planning. I think it was just informal talks with the council at that point.

Have you, Dave and my brother ever considered forming a grumpy man's club?  :)

Reading were getting 11,000 average before they moved.

And the way they are playing at the momentr it won't be long before they are below that figure! :D

Just seen this on the scum forum.
http://www.oxfordshireforums.co.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=99652

"Got an inside track on new builds and i can confirm Scum are at pre-planning stage for a new ground - as follows -

Please note this scheme is in very early preliminary stages.
Scheme Description
Scheme comprises redevelopment of site to provide a mixed development, including construction of a 22,000 seater capacity stadium for Swindon Town Football Club. Associated works include site services, access, infrastructure, enabling works, landscaping and service engineering.
Work is due to start July 2010 how ever funding my be a problem by the sounds of things.
Value of the project £35,000,000

BUNCH OF W*NKERS

WILL KEEP THINGS UPDATE, CANT SEE THEM GETTING THE CASH TOGETHER!
HAVE THE DETAILS OF THEIR CHIEF EX NICK WATKINS IF ANYONE FEELS THE NEED TO CALL HIM AND TELL HIM WHAT A tw*t HE IS!"

Perhaps we could donate the stratton bank to them to replace their garden fence i am sure they would appreciate the red seats.

Ooooo this is exciting!

I'm guessing that we'll build 3 new stands, and keep the current Don Rogers stand.

It would be nice to exploit the fabled 2nd concourse that I have heard so much about.

I can't get on there. What is it all about? Apart from them getting jealous of course.

What's a "very early preliminary stage"?

Mr. Whippys head.

                 
  I can't really see that happening. The Stratton Bank can't be touched so to increase capacity by 10,500 up to 25,000 would be awkard. A new Town End would only account for so many and it surely isn't feasible to alter the Arkells, although the DRS may have some potential. A 25,000 seater stadium would have to be a new build, even if on the same site. And that would necessitate....ground sharing. Aarrgh !

You could easily get to 25k and keep the north and south stands, you just need to move the pitch 10-20 yards over the town end then build new stands behind the goals and fill in the corners.

A new build wouldn't mean ground sharing either, there is plenty of space to put in a new pitch and a couple of new stands before you'd have to start knocking down the current stadium. Dependent on where the new pitch is put of course.

Plus there is the problem of who we would ground share with. Bristol and Oxford won't happen as there'd likely be too much trouble. Cheltenham is too small. Reading already ground share.

Fitton says a development plans are at an advanced stage :

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/swindontown/news/4653561.Chairman_promises_fans_Swindon_Town_stadium_plans_are_on_track/

And I know Fitton and Co. have been given a copy of the Trust plans :

http://www.truststfc.co.uk/CG_main.php

I'm guessing those trust ones are oldish? As they have multi colured seats in the Arkells.

those trust ones were done in about 2006 I think.

At least they were plans, unlike the one's in Mr Whippy's head !!!

If Fitton and the Board pull this off then that's fantastic work. I could see more investment on the pitch as a result too.

In the words of Paul D/The Trust, I cautiously welcome the plans.

Jusr had a read Sie...indeed looks promising...really hope it goes through.

Interesting that Fitton says the development would be gradual and will enable us to carry on playing at the ground, which means they'll be doing it stand by stand. He mentions a 20k capacity as well which again makes me think the north and south stand won't be touched much.

I very much welcome the plans.

I understood that the objections about increasing the size of the Bank were no longer in place as the original complainants (which stopped the stadium increase proposals previously) had either moved out or died, I was told by someone high up at the club that it was merely the objections of 1 or 2 elderly residents that stopped the enlarging and covering of the Stratton Bank back in the 90's.

The site we are currently on can easily accept a stadium with a capacity of 30k+ if needed, there is plenty of surrounding land if they decide to move the location of the ground slightly as well as a few sides have done in the past.

Although I doubt very much that the DRS or the North stand will be relocated or extended (except the North stand possibly going cantilever as the DRS is) but I feel the expansions will be just behind the goals and possibly curving stands in the corners of the ground too.

Although I feel stands behind both goals of a similar height to the North/DRS stand would look awesome and still give the feel of an older stadium not the faceless new build feel that so many have now.

We get 6/7k most games apart from the big games, even on the big games we dont get 15k let alone 25 so i think it would make the atmosphere even worse then it has been at home recently... (apart from Saints)

No it wouldnt...ware heading for the championship...and every away team will bring plenty and our crowds will double...the County Ground will crackle...probably only get 8000 v Millwall but the atmosphere will be good...and in the Championship most matches will be against big clubs(ime confident aint i!)

Couldn't agree more, although I'm not totally against the idea of corners, it just needs to be done a bit differently to the whole "bowl" approach.

I think that problem can be avoided though, by keeping fans together. For example, you could avoid selling tickets in the corners, and only sell tickets from Row A to Row T or something, to avoid everybody being spread out right across the ground.

For those who are concerned that our stadium will be empty and atmosphere-less

I think we can all safely say that this is a long term plan, and Championship football is part of said long term plan. Fitton has said completion by 2012 would be ambitious, thats 3 seasons including this one to achieve promotion.

I genuinely believe we could double our weekly gate (so 14k - 15k) off the back of a single promotion, not only would that finally bring all the stay aways home, but for those Swindonians that think our club is a bit of a joke (think demotions, relegations, administration, L2 and so on) to finally sway them round to a way of thinking that is along the lines of (1969, two play off wins at wembly and add championship football to that)!

Championship Average Attendances for this season so far for perusal

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=eng.2&seasontype=4&cc=5739

Then need not worry, its already empty and atmosphere-less!

Correct me if im wrong, but I'm sure I heard somewhere that putting a roof on the bank was never about planning permission (infact I think at one point the club had planning permission) but couldnt afford to actually put the roof on?

Extending the stand upwards would be a completely different kettle of fish.

Are the trust plans still knocking about somewhere?

Interesting to see that Donny Rovers are averaging 10k in the Championship. Worth remembering they were non-league not that long ago playing in front of crowds of less than 2k.

If there was a problem with adding height to the stratton bank, couldn't they just lower the pitch instead? You could add a tier onto all the grounds then.

They are still knocking about on our web site

http://www.truststfc.co.uk/CG_main.php (http://www.truststfc.co.uk/CG_main.php)

Things have oviously moved on a bit since then, but the basic premise that you make intelligent use of what is already present at the CG to keep costs and disruption to a minimum is perfectly sound in my view.

A lot depends on finances of course. The Trust proposals were intended to be self financing in a similar way to how Orient financed the rebuilding of three sides of Brisbane Road. That was pre credit crunch though so not so simple right now.

Our new owners do have plenty of money themselves though, so they could finance it from their own resources either entirely or in part.

I haven't read it anywhere but I wonder if we will have to leave and play elsewhere while the CG is being redeveloped? Or we will just close 1 stand at a time and keep the others open?

Fitton said the work would be gradual and would enable us to keep playing at the CG.

I think that's the way most fans want it done. If we were able to keep the DRS and Arkells open throughout the work we'd keep a capacity of 11,000 even with the work going on. Obviously the practicalities of this would depend on what the plans were for the existing stands.

and when they went out of the league their gates were sub 1,000. Doncaster deserve respect, they play good football and don't spend above their means. Good management on and off the pitch.

There was an article in one of the papers over the weekend, saying that if they overspend the directors put their own hands in their pockets to cover the deficit.

The Arkells is a relic and needs to be replaced. I'd imagine the only stand to survive would the DRS. They start by taking down the town end, and rebuild that whilst continuing to play, moving it back into the car park and being the new hub for corporate facilities and changing rooms etc, with a tunnel in the corner of the pitch. The idea that the stand would hold 5k. Allowing the arkells fans and functions to be rehoused while play continues, allowing that to be done next. Followed by the Stratton and then anything they need to do to the DRS, in term of filling in corners etc.

I've long said that sustainment in the Championship alongside a well planned and executed ground redevelopment are the height of my ambitions as a fan. In my view, this is a well timed release of information from the board, whether deliberately or by accident on the back of the announcement in support of the Bristol 2018 plan; we're doing well off the pitch and we're (currently) doing OK on the pitch. Publicity like this can only be positive for the club.

Now, specifically, so long as any ground redevelopments meet the following three objectives, I and I'm sure many other fans, will be more than satisfied.

1. Redevelopment MUST take place on the existing County Ground footprint and NOT a new out of town development.
2. Redevelopment, if that is the chosen option, should take into consideration input from supporters groups (e.g. Trust, official supporters club) with regards to the facilities required inside and outside of the ground. The ground needs to be CAPABLE of generating atmosphere. Its then up to us, as fans, to generate that atmosphere.
3. Non matchday revenue streams are maximised as much as possible that benefit the club and Swindon as a whole.

Achieve those three objectives and I'll be a happy camper.

Dave's right about the Stratton Bank, it was a money issue.

As this news progresses I expect to see loads and loads of posts about safe standing which unfortunately I don't think will happen. Imagine the publicity it would generate if we could get it though - first stadium in England to have it and it would be a sure fire way to get the vocal fans all in one place.

Sadly my dreams for a safe standing kop end are just that and to put things into perspective, it doesn't sound like any formal plans have been drawn up yet anyway.

I'd love to see the new Town End a safe standing one. Would be quality.

Obviously corporate boxes will be incorporated into the new stands, the idea I would imagine is to purchase the cricket ground and athletics ground so that land can be used for other non matchday facilities.

I would imagine that the best way of doing it would be to rotate the ground 360 degrees but not sure that can actually be done in situ though.

Ref AGM - Fitton has said previously that he is happy for non shareholders to also attend if they so wish.

Erm, I'm pretty sure that would be even more pointless than rotating it 180 degrees. Unless you just want to make everyone a bit dizzy

I hope we keep the floodlights, the County Ground looks like a proper football ground and would hate for it to lose all of it's character. If we could cover the bank fill in the corners and add some boxes to the DR (it was built with future boxes being installed in mind wasn't it?) i would also leave the Town End pretty much the same, maybe add more rows but keep the roof the same if possible. It keeps the noise in and raises the atmosphere pretty well.

I thought the current roof of the town end hindered the atmosphere since it stops sound escaping...anyway, the whole TE is a rotting relic and needs a complete re build

 See what I mean about the absurd bollocks a thread on the stadium generates...where's Gazza when you need him?

Don't knock it though.  This could be a real talking point.  First, the rotating bar at the Brunel Rooms; now the only club in the Football League with a rotating pitch.  This is an idea that could fly.

Depends how powerful the motor was. I'd imagine it would have to be really fucking powerful to generate the kind of lift you'd need to get the pitch to rise like a helicopter.

  ???  Wouldn't that leave the pitch about the size of a basketball court?

:) I've always liked the idea of putting the whole ground on hydraulic stilts so halfway through the game we could lift it up at one end and tip the away fans out the back of the Stratton Bank into a specially constructed puddle.

This is all bollocks (not your post, the going overboard of this thread) but it would make much more sense to redo the bank first, put the TE STs in it and then re-do the TE.

i always thought the roof on the bank idea being scrapped,was due to residents complaining about the light a roof would cut out from their gardens?

why anyone would want to keep the townend and arkells i'll never know?
those fucking posts alone are good reason to see them knocked down.
as it will be a bit at a time job, i'm pretty sure it will be a square type ground with the drs remaining, and similar stands created on the other three sides.

planning on building a new ground, when we are supposedly having to flog players to pay the bills is an odd one imo.

I don't know what the details would be, but I'd rather the board put money towards us to make us more self sufficient, thus able to spend more year on year, than paying for 3 seasons worth of football and realising it can't continue.

Not if you made the new bottom levels of the stands steep enough.

Vertical?  :D

i think that they need to add more rows into the town end. not soo many that its like the DRS but just 7-8more rows to add a bit more height and that would also enable noise to escape the town end stand and add to a atmosphere. it would also help if all the singing fans moved into the town end so that we could re-create that hostile atmosphere so teams would feel intimidated by the fans. the Arkells also needs revamping, make it look like the DRS so it looks modern and similar.

I like the town end, but feel that we could do with a bigger "home end" to be honest......it does look a little lost between the two stands either side of it. It would be nice to see a steeper and deeper single tier stand behind the goal. I think we would get a great atmosphere in a redeveloped town end; I'm sure there are many people (I'm one of them) that would go back there for the atmosphere, and improved view.

there's nothing wrong with the acoustics in the Town End, just see some of the video's on you tube taken from other parts of the ground.  Also, compare it to the home end at Bristol City, a modern stand with really shit acoustics.

it would be the easiest stand to get started on.it's pretty shit really isn't it?
seats bolted onto a terrace to close together,and two massive posts in the way.
a nice new home end would be great in its place

I think that talk of replacing the Arkell's stand is somewhat extravagant, the Town End and Stratton Bank are the prime candidates for reconstruction and expansion. The Arkell's may offer scope for modernisation but even in it's present form is capable of serving it's purpose well into the future.

Exeter's ground is fucking terrible...... Apart from their home end, which makes the TE look like a shitty little shed. Which it is.

Axs's proposal seems the most logical, do the bank first, move the Townenders once it's finished then do the Town End.

I think the arkells is ok to,I wonder in this day and age if those posts could be removed and if the roof can be supported another way if they could do that and reverse the way the doors open it would be sufficent in my book.

The cost of doing it surely would't out weigh a building of a new stand,but like the above posts the TE and stratton bank are a priority,sorry i cant call it the adkins family stand or whatever it's called these days.

They'll definitly do somthing to the Arkells,im certain executive boxes are high on Fittons wish list.

Any talk of demolishing the North Stand is just bollocks, I can see them doing major work on it but starting from scratch would just be wasting money. It might be a bit old but its still got a long life ahead of it - there are plenty of clubs that would kill for a stand like that.

we should send it to Africa.

It would be nice to keep the Arkells if only for a bit of character.

They should definitely encase it within a brand new giant brick wall though.

To provide an illusion that its a new stadium?

i 100% disagree with all of your post.
why redevelop a ground and leave the north stand?
its a shitty stand looking tired and drab.i'm sure fitton has plans to knock it down and put a better stand in its place.non matchday income could increase with better main stand facilities.the board will be looking at this for sure.
all the talk of keeping stands is daft.the only one that will be kept is the drs.

im with the aribba

spot on

I'm with Arriba, too. The whole point is that they want to create a new stand that will allow them to make more money on non matchdays, as well as offring more benefits to hospitality members. Even with the improvements, the current Arkells doesn't do either. I imagine they'd want exec boxes with glass screens facing the pitch, places they can sell for more money on a matchday and entice businesses to use in the week.

That may well be so, and could be part of the overall plan, but the Town end and Stratton Bank surely must be the priority.

Not if the stadium will be linked all around, would make sense first to build the core of the structure being the larger side stand first and then link the two end stands surely?

Who's shirley? terrible gag...

I'd say the two ends are the priority. If they're looking to keep the ground open while they're doing this, then they'd have to keep the two main stands open, then house the arkells in the new and imporved ends while that's done.

Put a roof on the bank...double the height of the Town End......then join the ground up by having Executive boxes on all four corners.....easy!
The two main stands are structurly  safe and big enough,just need modernising and glamoured up abit.

No stadium will be complete without a statue of Alan Reeves taking a shit whilst give us all a thumbs up sign. I think we can all agree on that.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there is also the possibility that the pitch might rotate through 90 degrees - meaning that the DRS (or most of it) would become an End.  If this did happen, the footprint of the ground would have to move north towards the cricket pitch and the Arkells would have to be demolished.

Looking at the aerial view of the site (link below), I think this option is quite plausible.


Aerial View of the County Ground
 (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sn1&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=18.304449,39.418945&ie=UTF8&ll=51.564586,-1.771116&spn=0.009377,0.019248&t=k&z=16)

unless we just play on a half sized pitch. Might stop us playing the long ball.

Very interesting, Apologies, I've not read the whole thread.

I just think you could do all of that and more to the Arkells stand for less than it would cost to start from scratch. Put a new roof on, put in some executive boxes and gut the insides and replace it with new facilities and it could be as good as new.

so basically rebuild it then?!

A VERY rough mock up shows that the Stratton Bank would be removed to give a buffer between the ground and housing... - The north stand would need to be redeveloped during stage 1 as the pitch would have to be rotated from the start... My guess would be that the Townend would become the new Exec area with conferencing and other facilities taking up more of the car park space than is shown here - the DRS would effectively become the town end...


[url width=900 height=562]http://gallery.me.com/paul.rossiter/100045/CG_1/web.jpg?ver=12543158370001[/url]

If we are going to rebuild whilst playing at the CG, the rotation of 90 degrees is a non starter.

What's more likely to happen, is the Townend/Stratton Bank to be extended at the back and make it bigger, with the houses in Shrivvy Road behind SB, will be bought by the club via a compulsory purchase order.

Good work....keep em coming.

Looking at the map - that would result in the DRS/Stratton back corner encroaching on to the footpath with I think you'll find will either be rejected by the council or result in not having an enclosed stadium.

Phase 1

Knock down the town end and build new corporate stand long enough to take pitch rotation of 90 degrees and attach to right hand side of DRS

Phase 2

Demolish Arkells stand, rotate pitch 90 degrees and build new stand adjoined to new Town end stand and build new Stratton bank adjoined to shorten Right hand side of DRS

Job done... no need to move, all corporate facilities keep going, home owners at Stratton Bank end are 'happy', we have new stadium!

Ha ha ha, the club cannot make a compulsory purchase order!

I assumed he meant the council who may want the development to enhance the town.

Still more likely than the ground rotating 90 degrees  :D

They should give the trust one ofthe corners but other people will sit there.

:D

Ive always liked the rotation idea, and think it's entirely possible. Spurs are doing something similar moving their pitch over a hundred yards or so; their plans are really quite interesting.

Didn't Wolves rotate their pitch? Or is it that they have the design to be ABLE to rotate it?

They just built a stand behind an existing one I think

No, they definitely rotated it - when we played them in a League Cup game way back in the 70s, it was half way through the process. We were put on a terrace facing an empty space, with the match being played 50 yards to our left.
Even worse than that horrible stand at Maine Road!

Reg will probably know

Wolves never rotated their pitch . When they built their new stand in the late 70 s it was built directly behind the previous stand , a bit like what we done when the north stand was built . Their previous stand that was demolished was quite a large stand which is why there was a large expanse of turf from the new stand to the pitch , which was left like that for years until they finished redeveloping Molineux in the 1990 s .

looney is right on this one i think

Loony sure is !!!!

I don't understand why people are so keen to knock down the Arkell's stand.

i dont get why people want to keep it

Rotating the pitch, knocking down the Arkell's stand, uncovering the cunting great mythical concourse that apparently exists within the depths of the Don Rogers stand, puttting a roof on the Bank.... 

A couple of questions for Andrew Fitton and the club board: If you do redevelop the ground, where do all the profits go from non matchday revenue and who ends up owning the redeveloped stadium and the surrounding infrastructure?

The Arkells is out of date , tatty and showing its age , if we are gonna have a redeveloped CG , why keep it ? , it would look out of place ! . It was a good stand in the 70 s and 80 s true , but in this day of modern smart stadia then no way ! , get rid of !! . There are no executive boxes etc either . We need a modern main stand with state of the art facilities , executive boxes , conference facilities etc to generate extra revenue . Knock it down first !!!

I would think that it's entirely reasonable to assume the profits would first go to the people that pumped the money into the redevelopment. As to who would own the ground, surely that would be STFH, as they would presumably be the ones buying it from the council?

Spot on. End of the day football is a business and all business men want to make money.

Looks tatty?
Looks fine to me and has the practical value of seating 6500 spectators. Strange that the Don Rogers stand was built without any state of the art facilities , executive boxes , conference facilities etc to generate extra revenue . Maybe knock it down first .

I think what delta was getting at re where ownership of the ground is vested, where revenue streams initially go etc is trying to avoid the situation Pox had with Kassam. Of course, it's wholly reasonable that ultimate ownership of the redeveloped ground should lie with SFHL and that they should reap a profit on their investment but that can be done via their shareholding in the club, repayment of loans/interest etc. In other words, if the ground is directly owned by the club, then SFHL are still the ultimate owners as they own the club - it's an asset of their asset. Likewise, if revenue streams initially go into the club, hence making the club more profitable, that then means they can recoup their investment via their shareholding and/or repayment of loans/interest on loans etc. But by putting the ownership of both the asset and the revenue streams in the first instance directly in the club, it makes a Kassam-style asset strip (where a future potential predator simply comes in and buys the ground/revenue generating bits and strips them out from under the club) more difficult. Not by any means impossible - such a predator could buy the whole caboodle and then restructure the company to hive off the ground, but it would be more obvious/blatant that they were asset stripping. Likewise, with the revenues, if they go to the club in the first instance and then profits/repayments go from the club to the holding co, that's more transparent as to what's happening with the money than it simply disappearing into a holding co which drip feeds some of it back into the club from time to time.

But I think any redevelopment is likely to result in a complex of facilities at the CG - ie not just the ground itself but associated facilities as part of a sports/leisure complex on the overall site. And if that is the case, it may make sense to have a mix of ownership models (ie club owns the stadium, but holding co directly owns some of the associated facilities).

None of this is an immediate concern with the current board, but it's about putting in a structure that safeguards the club for the future should the current board sell up and we get less benign owners in the future. Or owners with less benign "advisers", for example

I find it hard to believe the sole intent of SFHL is to make a shit load of money out of the club, if it is they must have a really devious plan as what they've done so far doesn't support it. STFC owes them over £7m and has assets which probably don't even cover the yearly losses still being run up - the club doesn't own the ground, the players value is negligible and there isn't much else. They're likely to be in for £10m before the redevelopment even starts.

The only potential future income is from the redevelopment of the ground and surrounding land, something which is far from guaranteed from going ahead and may not even generate enough profits to cover their current investment. If their interest in the club is solely as an investment, its a pretty bad one and we're not talking about stupid people or bad businessmen.

I'm sure they're planning to get their money back but I find it hard to see that involving screwing over the club. I'm not sure the ownership of the land matters than much to them either, as they pretty much own the club anyway.

jonny, I don't think anyone's suggested the current board are looking to screw the club over, as you put it. Personally I think they're looking to make a reasonable return on their investment and achieve that by making the club a profitable concern. Which would be fantastic. Any concern expressed is not over this board, but about ensuring that a ground redevelopment, and the ownership of assets and income streams arising from it do not leave us vulnerable to potential asset strippers/predators in the future.

If you're looking for a model of the potential danger, look down the A420 - they pay substantial rent for the ground, deprived of virtually all non-matchday income and even matchday income they pay extra for hiring the staff/facilities from the landlord, not exactly the model of a redevelopment benefiting and sustaining the club for years to come is it? Coventry have the same problem - the only matchday revenue they get is from ticket and programme sales, everything else even catering goes to the stadium owners. Which severely limits what they can do to improve their finances.

I don't think we're in great danger of that from the current owners, but what happens 5, 10 years down the line? If the current board sell up, and we've left ourselves in a position where it's easy to hive off the ground from under the club, or salt away profits from the extra revenue streams without any of it even reaching the club (and damn difficult to spot), we'll be ripe for being seen as juicy picking by the likes of some John Batchelor. So, if it's not difficult to structure it to avoid that, why wouldn't we?

If this is their plan, and I'd agree its most likely it is (to get them their investment back and hopefully a profit) then I'm not sure asset stripping would be that easy for anyone in the future. If they get to the point where the club has cleared its owings, is making a profit and has assets then the club will have a value to match.

The way they're acting suggests they are in it for the long term and that getting the club stable with a decent future is just as important as (and is an integral part of) getting their money back. Most, if not all, of the clubs that have been asset stripped were on the verge of folding and someone found a clever way of getting money out of them then doing a bunk. Has it ever happened to clubs that were stable and profitable?

Fair points jonny. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious - once bitten, twice shy and all that. But if some level of protection can be built in relatively easily without hampering the business, then why not take it?

Can we rotate the pitch at half time, so we always put the opposing goalkeeper in the sunlight?

Derbyshire County CC, are rotating their pitch, to avoid  good light stopped play during day/night games.  I'm missing the cricket season already.

Yeh, it's a bummer when that sun comes out

icc and champions leauge coming up, still loads of cricket.....

There is also an ODI series against South Africa.

Though it could be argued that, as with the 7 match series against Australia, this one is irrelevant now that England have beaten them when it really mattered.

And the test series against SA also.

 Indeed plenty of cricket from the Empire, but you can't beat the thwack of willow on leather from some sylvan corner of England...OK and Wales for the PC brigade.