Dave Wayne wrote:The problem with putting in standing is that is actually counter productive in terms of income. We are far from filling the current capacity, and building a new standing area isnt suddenly going to attract a large number of new fans. We would have to charge less to stand than to sit, so all that would happen is people would migrate from the seats to the terracing. If the price was £2 less and 500 people moved over, that is £1k per match in lost income. 23 league matches and a couple of cup matches and we have lost £25k in a season. It doesn't make any financial sense to spend money on demolition and rebuilding in order to reduce income.
I expect the Bishop Street side to be redeveloped at some point in the future, but not while we are playing to a half empty stadium in L2.
Dave Wayne wrote:Fair comment Rob, but most of the people asking for terracing are talking home fans, not away fans.
If the plan was to demolish the current stand and replace with away terracing then yes I would agree with that.
Torrystag wrote:Simple solution ,demolish the wooden structure ,when its down to base errect a temporary marquee type roof covering most of bishop street ,but with a proviso that it can only be used for sold out games ,or for away fans overspill
Torrystag wrote:Simple solution ,demolish the wooden structure ,when its down to base errect a temporary marquee type roof covering most of bishop street ,but with a proviso that it can only be used for sold out games ,or for away fans overspill
1966Stag wrote:Vice President wrote:
Indeed! It was ridiculous that when they redeveloped Field Mill, they built it around the Bishop st. stand, with hardly any future development potential on that side. As others have mentioned before - why on earth didn't they build the 3 new stands a few yards to the west?
It can't have been a cost cutting exercise, as the land was already part of the 'estate' and it wouldn't have reduced any significant income potential. It was just plain stupidity/short-sightedness. (And all that talk about buying some of the houses on Bishop st. was ludicrous - it wouldn't/shouldn't have been necessary if they had built the stands in the 'right' place).
There is a sewer running down the back of the west stand which would need to be moved (at the developers cost) if they had moved the stand back. Moving the sewer would probably have cost more than buying properties on bishop street, it was simple cost cutting.
STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:Torrystag wrote:Simple solution ,demolish the wooden structure ,when its down to base errect a temporary marquee type roof covering most of bishop street ,but with a proviso that it can only be used for sold out games ,or for away fans overspill
Unfortunately though Torry the terracing currently there is not of a high enough standard to do that. You would have to renew it all and install crush barriers of some type so big outlay with little return if you only use it when capacity is reached.
Torrystag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:Torrystag wrote:Simple solution ,demolish the wooden structure ,when its down to base errect a temporary marquee type roof covering most of bishop street ,but with a proviso that it can only be used for sold out games ,or for away fans overspill
Unfortunately though Torry the terracing currently there is not of a high enough standard to do that. You would have to renew it all and install crush barriers of some type so big outlay with little return if you only use it when capacity is reached.
But if you think ahead ,we would only be paying for part of the stand ,if and when we need it the basic structure will already be in place
Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:Torrystag wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:Torrystag wrote:Simple solution ,demolish the wooden structure ,when its down to base errect a temporary marquee type roof covering most of bishop street ,but with a proviso that it can only be used for sold out games ,or for away fans overspill
Unfortunately though Torry the terracing currently there is not of a high enough standard to do that. You would have to renew it all and install crush barriers of some type so big outlay with little return if you only use it when capacity is reached.
But if you think ahead ,we would only be paying for part of the stand ,if and when we need it the basic structure will already be in place
Thats what im saying spbs getbthe basic infrastucture in ie terracing then cover with a marquee type roof ,works well for enough clubs
If it fit the future plan and was suitable, yes. I think it more likely it would have to be ripped up though.
Vice President wrote:STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
This would be fine . I wonder how much this would cost? Perhaps Steve Hymas' building contractors could help build this at 'mates rates' and he could have the stand named after him.
Rob wrote:Dave Wayne wrote:The problem with putting in standing is that is actually counter productive in terms of income. We are far from filling the current capacity, and building a new standing area isnt suddenly going to attract a large number of new fans. We would have to charge less to stand than to sit, so all that would happen is people would migrate from the seats to the terracing. If the price was £2 less and 500 people moved over, that is £1k per match in lost income. 23 league matches and a couple of cup matches and we have lost £25k in a season. It doesn't make any financial sense to spend money on demolition and rebuilding in order to reduce income.
I expect the Bishop Street side to be redeveloped at some point in the future, but not while we are playing to a half empty stadium in L2.
When building a new ground almost all clubs build way above the normal attendances so they can maximise revenue for the bigger games or games that attract higher away followings. Even Haslam built a ground for 9,200 fans when our average attendance is generally between 2.5 and 5k. At the moment our ground can accommodate a maximum of 1,800 away supporters, now given where County and Direites are right now it isn't likely we will need more than that many times this season, but if we go up we most certainly will and therefore will be losing revenue, potentially 25k for the big games. So aside from the aesthetics, it does make sense to renovate that side of the ground right now and not wait until next season when, if we do go up, we would attract bigger gates with much larger away attendances. If your argument is to wait until the ground is full every game then the club will be losing not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands a season. Lincoln looked at expanding their ground a couple of seasons ago, they didn't and ended up selling out almost every week prior to lockdown, it is estimated to have cost them approx 500k in lost revenue had they been able to accommodate all who wanted to attend. They still have not started work at Sincil Bank so are certain to continue to lose potential revenue this season, though they plan on extending the Stacey West (away end) by 1500 in time for the start of 22/23 season.
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/spor ... st-5592852
As for the seating argument, what the club have done with the QLE could easily be replicated in the Bishop if they decide to terrace it, so they charge the same but offer a discount scheme.
Vice President wrote:The One wrote:Vice President wrote:chip63 wrote:How many seats would we get in there though? I can't remember its capacity when it was open.
We can't go higher or further back because of bishop street, it would need emergency exits somewhere for each block.
We'd get a really good grant if it was for disabled fans only.
I think the club comissioned some architect drawings for a new stand a couple of years ago - has anyone seen them/can post them?
If the houses remain in place, the stand might be able to have up to 10 rows max (perhaps with moving the pitch over towards the west stand by a couple of yards). I've seen a few other similarly sized stands elsewhere (Hartlepool? and some other grounds). I think Burton's stand only has about 10 rows, but it has exec boxes at the back and a tall roof making it look bigger.
Crawley have some strange, almost temporary-like structure on one side - clearly a cheaper option, but it does the job.
Even a small stand with 8-10 rows would dramatically improve the look of the ground.
But you need to factor in toilet, carering facilities and space is in short supply.
Indeed! It was ridiculous that when they redeveloped Field Mill, they built it around the Bishop st. stand, with hardly any future development potential on that side. As others have mentioned before - why on earth didn't they build the 3 new stands a few yards to the west?
It can't have been a cost cutting exercise, as the land was already part of the 'estate' and it wouldn't have reduced any significant income potential. It was just plain stupidity/short-sightedness. (And all that talk about buying some of the houses on Bishop st. was ludicrous - it wouldn't/shouldn't have been necessary if they had built the stands in the 'right' place).
Vice President wrote:STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
This would be fine . I wonder how much this would cost? Perhaps Steve Hymas' building contractors could help build this at 'mates rates' and he could have the stand named after him.
Spiritater wrote:Vice President wrote:STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
This would be fine . I wonder how much this would cost? Perhaps Steve Hymas' building contractors could help build this at 'mates rates' and he could have the stand named after him.
It's very non league isn't it
STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::lol: another 2999 and a shelter please Jobs a goodun
chip63 wrote:Vice President wrote:STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
This would be fine . I wonder how much this would cost? Perhaps Steve Hymas' building contractors could help build this at 'mates rates' and he could have the stand named after him.
As much as I admire and Respect what Steve as done for the stags and continues to do so, I wouldn't want a stand named after him, maybe a certain door that was allegedly kicked in would be OK.
gazza1988 wrote:chip63 wrote:Vice President wrote:STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
This would be fine . I wonder how much this would cost? Perhaps Steve Hymas' building contractors could help build this at 'mates rates' and he could have the stand named after him.
As much as I admire and Respect what Steve as done for the stags and continues to do so, I wouldn't want a stand named after him, maybe a certain door that was allegedly kicked in would be OK.
The training ground has his name on it.
Sneag wrote:Spiritater wrote:Vice President wrote:STAGS FOR LIFE wrote::) I think it should be all standing , but a stand like this with amber and blue seats would be good
This would be fine . I wonder how much this would cost? Perhaps Steve Hymas' building contractors could help build this at 'mates rates' and he could have the stand named after him.
It's very non league isn't it
Not as non league as the current pile of rubble, with its 2 broken scoreboards & shanty town TV gantry.
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 195 guests