Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:53 am View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1044
Team Supported: Darlington
Were these earlier plans and comments re a FL standard ground before the water pipe problem was discovered?


Also, no one seems to have explained how come the water pipes can seemingly be built over in towns but somehow is a barrier to development​by a sports club but not too commercial development company

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
Nothing anyone has said on there has been proven not to be possible though? Honestly you two clearly ain't going to be convinced until it is delivered which ain't going to be for 5-10years. This is probably going to get boring long before then.


No I'll be convinced when I see evidence... It's why I don't believe in ghosts... No evidence... If we are launching a fundraising initiative on Friday then I would expect to see plans for a 5k capacity ground with 2k seats that have been approved by the rugby club and all interested stakeholders... If not then I don't see how, given what's happened last week, the club can expect the fans to raise 150k of their own money to fund something that may never work. Now if that makes me negative or a glass half empty guy then yeah I am...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Posts: 439
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
H1987 wrote:
I've been doodling again (because i've been bored) :mrgreen:

Image

I guess you might be able to get 5000:2000 in this way? Building deeper seating behind the goal? I honestly don't know how we can even get 1,000 seats in the ground in any other way, let alone 2,000, if we make behind the goal a terrace? It'd obviously boost capacity short term, but the other little spaces in corners, i think you'd have to make terracing? So where are you going to put the seats we need?

It also makes sense to put seats there because there is no floodlights that need moving. Remember, a third of behind the goal would remain hard standing and you could put a small terrace in that corner, which presumably could be an away end. You could also allocate away fans a small number of seats (which you are required to at FL level?)

The only other possibility *might* be if we're allowed to install rail seating if the rules change in this country, as they have in Scotland. Giving us a higher capacity if the end is used as terracing, or a smaller capacity but with more seats if needed. Maybe, in future, that might be possible.

I don't think the Arena is a realistic possibility, we are here now, we have to make it work. I also don't ever want to see us play there again.



Not sure how accurate that water piper area is, take a look at the architect's plans I posted in the link above, we only have approx half of the undeveloped end available. Trouble with putting small terraces in the corners is that they are already used for toilets, exits, and refreshments and I believe we need to have access to the playing area in at least one corner to allow emergency vehicles in etc. Plus, remember where the touchline is, you'd be putting a lot of seats in a poor viewing location.


You're right it's more or less exactly half that we are left with.


Nah, obviously it's only a rough estimate, but that's the closest i could take a straight line without it going under the existing stand. I thought, from the plans, it went sort of under where near to the edge of the box? It's worth remembering that stand is set quite a bit back from the pitch too, which helps a little. (The angle on the side stand makes it worse though, by the looks of it.

Yeah, you'd have to move concessions and toilets back to do it, but seriously, i'm not sure how else you get the numbers in.

We can take the Barnet approach to the clubhouse side *IF* the rugby club were amenable, but i doubt they'd agree to losing the windows to the bar, which doesn't leave an awful lot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:32 am
Posts: 2171
spen666 wrote:
Were these earlier plans and comments re a FL standard ground before the water pipe problem was discovered?


Also, no one seems to have explained how come the water pipes can seemingly be built over in towns but somehow is a barrier to development​by a sports club but not too commercial development company


The club have known about the water pipe for some time, during design phase. Apparently the rugby club did not realise its location at the time though.

Two things in regards to your comment about the pipe.

1, this pipe is of considerable size and strategic importance. It isn't your normal pipe.

2, nobody can build over a water main no matter what size it is. Can you inform me of a location where this has legally happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5408
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
loan_star wrote:
The rugby club know the situation. If they had any doubt about a development then they won't have entered into the agreement. They will have seen the plans already and agreed to them. Suggest you have another look at both grounds on google earth too and realise there is plenty of room by reducing the pitch perimeter.


What plans? There are no plans to reduce the pitch perimeter as far as I know, so what have the rugby club agreed to? Also, the 250 stand is concreted in position, it can't be moved backwards away from the pitch.


You don't have to move the new stand to reduce the pitch perimeter. You said that there was no room to build a stand on the club house side and said the Falcons had more space. Just by a simple case of looking at the playing area you can see the Falcons pitch does not have as much room down the sides as Blackwell does. Therefore move the marked playing area over a metre and reduce the empty space down each side and you gain a few metres that can make all the difference.
As for what the rugby club agreed to, only the powers that be know that. However they did know the end result would be a football league standard ground so they will have been more than aware that development needs to take place on all sides of the ground.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 461
Team Supported: Darlington
loan_star wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
loan_star wrote:
The rugby club know the situation. If they had any doubt about a development then they won't have entered into the agreement. They will have seen the plans already and agreed to them. Suggest you have another look at both grounds on google earth too and realise there is plenty of room by reducing the pitch perimeter.


What plans? There are no plans to reduce the pitch perimeter as far as I know, so what have the rugby club agreed to? Also, the 250 stand is concreted in position, it can't be moved backwards away from the pitch.


You don't have to move the new stand to reduce the pitch perimeter. You said that there was no room to build a stand on the club house side and said the Falcons had more space. Just by a simple case of looking at the playing area you can see the Falcons pitch does not have as much room down the sides as Blackwell does. Therefore move the marked playing area over a metre and reduce the empty space down each side and you gain a few metres that can make all the difference.
As for what the rugby club agreed to, only the powers that be know that. However they did know the end result would be a football league standard ground so they will have been more than aware that development needs to take place on all sides of the ground.


Sorry not me, I didn't say anything about the Falcons.

The end result is NOT a football league standard ground. As far as we know it is a Category A ground with a 5000 capacity. That gets you into the FL but it is not enough to keep you there. Those plans we have yet to see.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5408
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:

The end result is NOT a football league standard ground. As far as we know it is a Category A ground with a 5000 capacity. That gets you into the FL but it is not enough to keep you there. Those plans we have yet to see.


Sorry it was swans who said about the Falcons.
We haven't seen any plans other than what we have had built already, plus the extra seats to make it 500. We know that both clubs are aware of the requirements for football league standard (at least we know that there are no daft clauses to worry about yet) so if the rugby club has entered in to an agreement where their ground will be made up to category A minimum, then they will also have a idea of what works have been planned. Just because Joe Public haven't seen the plans doesn't mean that they haven't been done or initial drafts made.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
loan_star wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:

The end result is NOT a football league standard ground. As far as we know it is a Category A ground with a 5000 capacity. That gets you into the FL but it is not enough to keep you there. Those plans we have yet to see.


Sorry it was swans who said about the Falcons.
We haven't seen any plans other than what we have had built already, plus the extra seats to make it 500. We know that both clubs are aware of the requirements for football league standard (at least we know that there are no daft clauses to worry about yet) so if the rugby club has entered in to an agreement where their ground will be made up to category A minimum, then they will also have a idea of what works have been planned. Just because Joe Public haven't seen the plans doesn't mean that they haven't been done or initial drafts made.


Don't think I mentioned the Falcons

Do you mean what I said about BM not having the space in front of the club?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Darli ... at8sN_HhaM:

Actually you probably could get a stand in that space.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5408
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
loan_star wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:

The end result is NOT a football league standard ground. As far as we know it is a Category A ground with a 5000 capacity. That gets you into the FL but it is not enough to keep you there. Those plans we have yet to see.


Sorry it was swans who said about the Falcons.
We haven't seen any plans other than what we have had built already, plus the extra seats to make it 500. We know that both clubs are aware of the requirements for football league standard (at least we know that there are no daft clauses to worry about yet) so if the rugby club has entered in to an agreement where their ground will be made up to category A minimum, then they will also have a idea of what works have been planned. Just because Joe Public haven't seen the plans doesn't mean that they haven't been done or initial drafts made.


Don't think I mentioned the Falcons

Do you mean what I said about BM not having the space in front of the club?


Yes I mentioned the Falcons and you said it couldn't be done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
loan_star wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
loan_star wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:

The end result is NOT a football league standard ground. As far as we know it is a Category A ground with a 5000 capacity. That gets you into the FL but it is not enough to keep you there. Those plans we have yet to see.


Sorry it was swans who said about the Falcons.
We haven't seen any plans other than what we have had built already, plus the extra seats to make it 500. We know that both clubs are aware of the requirements for football league standard (at least we know that there are no daft clauses to worry about yet) so if the rugby club has entered in to an agreement where their ground will be made up to category A minimum, then they will also have a idea of what works have been planned. Just because Joe Public haven't seen the plans doesn't mean that they haven't been done or initial drafts made.


Don't think I mentioned the Falcons

Do you mean what I said about BM not having the space in front of the club?


Yes I mentioned the Falcons and you said it couldn't be done.


Looking at the photo I pasted above it could be done. It would block the windows of the club and be costly no doubt but it could be done. Whatever these plans are we need to see them and the approval of them before the next round of investment starts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 443
Team Supported: Darlington
As Quakerz alludes to on another thread the key is going to be to build deeper stands. We can't afford to build anymore 5 deep stands to avoid having to replace them in the future. Given the restrictive nature of the water pipe and the clubhouse we have to fit our FL standard into about half the ground perimeter so 5 deep doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. The idea of fitting lots of little stands into every available crevice doesn't work because there are limits to the number of stands that count towards capacity e.g. for promotion/playoffs in NLN 500 over two stands. We have to be going for deeper stands now (regardless of the extra cost) so we don't have to knock down existing structures to build new ones - remember knocking down and carting away old stands is a cost in itself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Posts: 1431
Team Supported: Darlington
It is possible to build a 5000 capacity ground with 2k seats on the current site, without moving the existing structures, or the pipe...just. Be it with seats in front of the club house (issues would be around Constructing the roof. But it's certainly possible). Or with seats behind the present open end. Both require a bit of jiggery pokery. And the chances are that these discussions aren't that far progressed.

It is certainly possible to dismantle the tin shed, and re-erect it in segments elsewhere on the plot.

You can't build back on existing structures withouth dimantling the roofs. And you can't go forwards without digging down. Sadly physics control us.

There are lots and lots of other requirements than capacity for FL admission and the membership. And these will all need to be factored in.

I think there is a lot of rash replies coming left right and centre at present. Possibly understandably. And this is leading to people who haven't reviewed the rules making confusing/damagin statements. There is also more than just the ground grading guide to factor in.

The original plans drawn up did permit for a FL standard ground, quite easily. The pipe meant things there thrown up in the air and in my opinion the redesign was panicked. There are people looking at this now. And the next design will certainly make things clearer, when it is ever ready. But a master plan is needed. And this could take a while as many parties need to be considered and then brought inside.

For the next round of funding, I.e. the pitch and the additional seats, even though they will be olincluded in the bigger picture, no master plan is needed just yet. The seats will be placed next to the existing stand making one larger, wider structure.

After that point, yes it will need to be worked within the the bigger picture, but crucially it gives qualified people a chance to do the hard work, design and then budget accurately.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
dfcdfcdfc wrote:
As Quakerz alludes to on another thread the key is going to be to build deeper stands. We can't afford to build anymore 5 deep stands to avoid having to replace them in the future. Given the restrictive nature of the water pipe and the clubhouse we have to fit our FL standard into about half the ground perimeter so 5 deep doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. The idea of fitting lots of little stands into every available crevice doesn't work because there are limits to the number of stands that count towards capacity e.g. for promotion/playoffs in NLN 500 over two stands. We have to be going for deeper stands now (regardless of the extra cost) so we don't have to knock down existing structures to build new ones - remember knocking down and carting away old stands is a cost in itself.


I don't think this was an option. If you look at Google earth it's clear that if we build the seated stand deeper then it takes out at least one if not two rugby pitches behind. The clubhouse side is our best and most expensive option. Until I see detailed approved plans with costings on Friday I'll remain very sceptical


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
dickdarlington wrote:
It is possible to build a 5000 capacity ground with 2k seats on the current site, without moving the existing structures, or the pipe...just. Be it with seats in front of the club house (issues would be around Constructing the roof. But it's certainly possible). Or with seats behind the present open end. Both require a bit of jiggery pokery. And the chances are that these discussions aren't that far progressed.

It is certainly possible to dismantle the tin shed, and re-erect it in segments elsewhere on the plot.

You can't build back on existing structures withouth dimantling the roofs. And you can't go forwards without digging down. Sadly physics control us.

There are lots and lots of other requirements than capacity for FL admission and the membership. And these will all need to be factored in.

I think there is a lot of rash replies coming left right and centre at present. Possibly understandably. And this is leading to people who haven't reviewed the rules making confusing/damagin statements. There is also more than just the ground grading guide to factor in.

The original plans drawn up did permit for a FL standard ground, quite easily. The pipe meant things there thrown up in the air and in my opinion the redesign was panicked. There are people looking at this now. And the next design will certainly make things clearer, when it is ever ready. But a master plan is needed. And this could take a while as many parties need to be considered and then brought inside.

For the next round of funding, I.e. the pitch and the additional seats, even though they will be olincluded in the bigger picture, no master plan is needed just yet. The seats will be placed next to the existing stand making one larger, wider structure.

After that point, yes it will need to be worked within the the bigger picture, but crucially it gives qualified people a chance to do the hard work, design and then budget accurately.


For me, the issue with this is that given the cock up followed by a further cock up in the statement about the May16 revision which is not true, without details of how the 5k and 2k can be achieved I don't see how the club can ask fans to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds only to potentially turn round in future and say it was all a waste of money we can't put a FL ground on this site


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:11 pm
Posts: 51
Team Supported: Darlington
If the new owners of the Arena are flexible, is there any mileage in seeing whether they would lease the 6000+ capacity east stand to the football club? Would solve most of the infrastructure issues and must be cheaper and quicker than some of the plans being debated on here. Each code would have their own sphere of influence in a joint use stadium. Might require some investment in changing rooms etc.

There would be limited opportunities for non match-day income for the football club (same as BM).

Would obviously need an agreement on match scheduling but Stockport/Sale managed it for a couple of years.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 815
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
dfcdfcdfc wrote:
As Quakerz alludes to on another thread the key is going to be to build deeper stands. We can't afford to build anymore 5 deep stands to avoid having to replace them in the future. Given the restrictive nature of the water pipe and the clubhouse we have to fit our FL standard into about half the ground perimeter so 5 deep doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. The idea of fitting lots of little stands into every available crevice doesn't work because there are limits to the number of stands that count towards capacity e.g. for promotion/playoffs in NLN 500 over two stands. We have to be going for deeper stands now (regardless of the extra cost) so we don't have to knock down existing structures to build new ones - remember knocking down and carting away old stands is a cost in itself.


I don't think this was an option. If you look at Google earth it's clear that if we build the seated stand deeper then it takes out at least one if not two rugby pitches behind. The clubhouse side is our best and most expensive option. Until I see detailed approved plans with costings on Friday I'll remain very sceptical


My thought was that if you build backwards on to rugby pitches then you just redraw the lines, move the rugby posts and change the angle of the pitches.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Vodka_Vic wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
dfcdfcdfc wrote:
As Quakerz alludes to on another thread the key is going to be to build deeper stands. We can't afford to build anymore 5 deep stands to avoid having to replace them in the future. Given the restrictive nature of the water pipe and the clubhouse we have to fit our FL standard into about half the ground perimeter so 5 deep doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. The idea of fitting lots of little stands into every available crevice doesn't work because there are limits to the number of stands that count towards capacity e.g. for promotion/playoffs in NLN 500 over two stands. We have to be going for deeper stands now (regardless of the extra cost) so we don't have to knock down existing structures to build new ones - remember knocking down and carting away old stands is a cost in itself.


I don't think this was an option. If you look at Google earth it's clear that if we build the seated stand deeper then it takes out at least one if not two rugby pitches behind. The clubhouse side is our best and most expensive option. Until I see detailed approved plans with costings on Friday I'll remain very sceptical


My thought was that if you build backwards on to rugby pitches then you just redraw the lines, move the rugby posts and change the angle of the pitches.


Looking at it again only one pitch would be lost. The other isn't in any danger because it's more behind the pipe. How do you post pics on here?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 3296
Location: Gruzia
Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
How do you post pics on here?


You can only post links to pics hosted somewhere else on the web. Any one of those free sites where you can paste an image will do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
http://pasteboard.co/5k6uCgZ1m.png

It would barely take out either pitch actually. There's also space to make the tin shed progressively wider as it goes away from the club house side adding more steps as you go. Loads of room behind the goal and if you set it back from the pitch you may get a few more feet out of it given the angle of the pipe. Makes me wonder why on earth they didn't build the seated structure deeper.

Having said that, I still think a FL ground would be dependent on developing the clubhouse. If not I can't see it working.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Posts: 439
Team Supported: Darlington
The obvious place we could build deep is the undeveloped end behind the goal. No pitches there. Again though, I don't think terracing is the most sensible option. It's the place we could put the most seats without coming into problems with the rugby club.

Off to the game (or more specifically, the pub)

UTQ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 461
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
http://pasteboard.co/5k6uCgZ1m.png

It would barely take out either pitch actually. There's also space to make the tin shed progressively wider as it goes away from the club house side adding more steps as you go. Loads of room behind the goal and if you set it back from the pitch you may get a few more feet out of it given the angle of the pipe. Makes me wonder why on earth they didn't build the seated structure deeper.

Having said that, I still think a FL ground would be dependent on developing the clubhouse. If not I can't see it working.


The seated stand wasn't built deeper because we couldn't afford it, essentially we did the minimum we had to in order to get up to standard for NLN. If the next stage of fundraising involves an additional 250 seats next to the first then we know we have no plan to get the ground up to FL standard without knocking down what has already been built. To put a penny more into development that has to be knocked down is madness. The water pipe is a huge problem and I'm corncerned that we only have the shortest or short-term plans. The main plan appears to be hoping for a miracle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Fylde only have one stand with seats? Can anyone confirm how they meet the 2 stands with 500 seats between them?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 461
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
Fylde only have one stand with seats? Can anyone confirm how they meet the 2 stands with 500 seats between them?


They have 2000 seats. It is not compulsory for there to be two stands.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 91
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
We have plans to Category A we took more than 150k I believe as we were eligible because of promotion but didn't hit the 250k limit for Step B.

We may not have league plans as yet, I guess the 5 year plan would need to start looking at this although priority would be to get us to category A which an idea is another 350k after we have paid 150k for the seated stand.

The club plans will hopefully advise on this, after the last 5 years if our biggest worry is how do we get the ground ready for FL then we have done something seriously right these last few years.


Hi Les

Hope you're well , out of curiosity where do these figures of £150 k for a seated stand come from , one could be purchased / built for a fraction of the cost ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 10930
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
Fylde only have one stand with seats? Can anyone confirm how they meet the 2 stands with 500 seats between them?

They can't be split across more than 2 stands, but they can be in 1 or 2 stands i believe.

Or you could have 600 in 3 stands as long as 1 of them had 100 or less seats.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
footie fan wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
We have plans to Category A we took more than 150k I believe as we were eligible because of promotion but didn't hit the 250k limit for Step B.

We may not have league plans as yet, I guess the 5 year plan would need to start looking at this although priority would be to get us to category A which an idea is another 350k after we have paid 150k for the seated stand.

The club plans will hopefully advise on this, after the last 5 years if our biggest worry is how do we get the ground ready for FL then we have done something seriously right these last few years.


Hi Les

Hope you're well , out of curiosity where do these figures of £150 k for a seated stand come from , one could be purchased / built for a fraction of the cost ?


It was in the board's statement


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Luton
Team Supported: Newcastle united
Forest green only have 1 seated stand but it houses all the boxes, club house, changeing rooms etc as well as 2000 seats. Theree covered terraces behind each goal and opposite dugouts a open terrace. Quite a tidy compact ground. If darlo knocked down pavillion a massive all seater stand could be put there and house everything, terraceing behing each goal, job done. maybe this is in the long term plan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Posts: 979
Team Supported: Darlington
And how much would that cost?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 173
Team Supported: Darlington
I don't understand people saying you cannot remove the roof of the current seats and extend them with more rows. Surely this is only what most Premier League clubs do - Man Utd, Liverpool, Man City - all added tiers and new roofs to existed seating stands?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group