PDA

View Full Version : What's the latest blue yonder crack?



HalpinsleftPeg
02-01-2014, 11:04 PM
Mate said on Boxing Day that deal was done to build 8k stadium on the site of the old SMT garage. I'm a huge supporter of a new stadium however only 8K and that site with its traffic problems can't be right?

Piglet_Phoenix
03-01-2014, 10:33 AM
"I'm a huge supporter of bending over with my ar5e in the air, however when Jenkins and his cronies bott me close to death it can't be right."

Sucker.

trout47
03-01-2014, 05:45 PM
will never happen, and was never happening in the first place.
funny how they only conjured it up when season tickets were not selling too good , then after a huge increase in sales due to the new stadium excitement we got the " council wont allow it " or whatever rubbish it was. basicaly it was never going to happen, but it did sell a few tickets...

HalpinsleftPeg
03-01-2014, 07:19 PM
PP. Bet the following clubs are chuffed they didn't listen to their version of you when considering a new stadium development. Wonder where they would be now without increased off field revenue leading to bigger player budgets leading to better players leading to success.

Doncaster Rovers
Wigan
Hull City
Swansea
Sunderland
Middlesbrough
Reading
Huddersfield
Cardiff City
Rotherham United
Arsenal
Southampton
Stoke
Leicester
derby
Millwall
MK Dons
Shrewsbury
Man City.
burton Albion

Can't see many fans of the above crying for their old tips back, or perhaps they just have forward thinking fans? Like we have more history at BP than The likes of Sunderland or Arsenal LOL. Of the 20 clubs mentioned above that have built new stadiums, 14are now playing at least one league higher than they were when they were at their old grounds and the others playing at the same standard but with increased revenues and better facilities positioning themselves for success with some already having a spell

Piglet_Phoenix
03-01-2014, 07:27 PM
At the risk of repeating myself, and to quote you...

"Almost every other* similar sized club that has made a move from their respective slow death has gone onto far better things"

Let's test that assumption. Here's a full list of teams (outside the top tier) who have moved grounds - off the top of my head. Then let's look at how many of them are now playing at a higher level following the move.

1 - Yeovil - Yes
2 - Doncaster Yes
3 - Rotherham Yes
4 - Shrewsbury Yes (just)

1 - S****horpe - No
2 - Northampton - No
3 - Chesterfield - No
4 - Morecambe - No
5 - Colchester No
6 - Oxford No
7 - Walsall No
8 - MK Dons No
9 - Leicester No
10 - Reading No
11 - Wigan No
12 - Bolton No
13 - Middlesbrough No
14 - Millwall - No
15 - Darlington No
16 - Chester City - No

So the facts tell you that moving ground has little or no positive impact on your league position - given that 75% of clubs are playing at the same level (or lower) than when they w

HalpinsleftPeg
03-01-2014, 07:39 PM
PP, why miss out PL clubs like Swansea, Cardiff, Hull etc who were playing in the same league as us before they built new stadiums? Do you really think the likes of these would be in the PL without new stadiums?

Last time I went to Springfield park Wigan they were in the old division 4 ?
MK Dons were in League 2 at the hockey ground, also forgot Brighton who were at the withdean. Bolton Reading, Leicester middlesbroughs new stadiums helped them to the PL, a place where they would not have got to without new stadiums. Taking the above into consideration it alters the success ratio significantly

HalpinsleftPeg
03-01-2014, 08:34 PM
I can also 8 clubs in the top 2 divisions that were previously in the bottom 2 divisions in the last 10 years before building new stadiums. Can you a similar number of clubs that were in the bottom 2 leagues in the last 10 years that are now in one of the 2 top leagues but have not built new stadiums?...Blackpool and Bournemouth? And to be fair, bournemouths was actually a new stadium just on the same site I think.

If you want to progress you have to have a better stadium which usually is only financially viable via a new build. There are bad examples like scunny, Walsall and Chester but that's what you get with in ambitious, cheap, poorly designed developments which is what they all have in common with few facilities that drive off field revenue. Rotherham and Donny are good examples, particularly Rotherham. I have a mate who is a season ticket holder there and says all their boxes are sold out on match day as well as during the week for business's and have at least tripled

Flatcap
03-01-2014, 10:52 PM
One missed of the lists above is Coventry

dancingbear
03-01-2014, 11:13 PM
Barnet maybe?

Piglet_Phoenix
04-01-2014, 09:14 AM
Swansea, Cardiff and Hull all had grounds built for them with larger capacities than they had at their old grounds.

Wigan's ground was moved more central and also had the capacity increased. They've also been bankrolled by a millionaire for a long time now, their "success" was not due to a new ground.

MK Dons had the capacity of their ground increased.

Brighton have not been promoted at their new ground.

It is extremely spurious to claim that building a new ground is an enabler for success - how about Bolton and their ?163m debt?

Anyway, can you me one single club who have moved to a ground with a far smaller capacity than their old ground?

feckwittery
04-01-2014, 10:44 AM
Darlington FC/Darlington (1883) - Darlo Arena 25k/10k to Heritage Park 2k XD

HalpinsleftPeg
04-01-2014, 06:20 PM
Swansea Cardiff and Hull built bigger new stadiums...er ...exactly which has enabled their success.

MK Dons was a brand new stadium, in sustainable at their hockey ground so new stadium helped drive interest revenue and success that hockey ground could not do.

Brighton were building their new stadium whilst in league 1. The projected season ticket sales and off field revenue helped them to finance their way out of league 1 ready to move into in the championship.

Not sure what you mean about your final point. It's obvious one of the benefits of a new build is that you can size the stadium for future success rather than build it to match old ground capacities. If Swansea! Brighton, Hull Rotherham etc had built new stadiums to match their old gates, they would have been another scunny, Chester or Walsall. They had vision and thought the same way as you should when you want to grow a business, give the club the infrastructure and it will grow, don't then die.

SPJ29
04-01-2014, 07:24 PM
Would love to stay at BP but we all know that isnt possible but an 8K stadium would be a huge mistake and way too small the original 14K idea was fine especially as a lot of fans come from outside Cumbria like me.

If it was an 8K ground and we started challenging for promotion then I would have get a season ticket that would be hardly used and therefore denying a more local fan.

Get rid of this backward thinking board and the nonsense trust.

HalpinsleftPeg
09-01-2014, 09:13 PM
Agreed 8k stadium would be a disaster and a clear indication of the level of ambition of the club. 12 to 14k would give us scope to grow as a club and before anyone says we have only had more than 10k in x number times in x number of years - it's not that relevant as a new stadium brings fans that did not come before. Rotherham and Donny are great examples of that. 2-3k at their old stadiums but now getting 10 ish with room for more when the championship clubs bring large support.

glassmaurice
10-01-2014, 09:16 PM
Come on "Halpin" you know that the great Piglet NEVER, NEVER bends statistics to prove his point.
You are bang on with your posts on this topic, but some of our supporters obviously value "history" over good ground conditions for the fans.
BP is well beyond it's sell by date and needs demolished.It's only good feature is the quality of the pitch and I am sure we could replicate that wherever we moved to.