Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:07 pm  

vastman wrote:

Good point just wasn't sure if 3,000 was enough for minimum standards so it's a bit of a contingency.

The west stand roof was the last on my list and one that I thought could come a bit later. With a covered stand of 3000 seats on a bad day we can always offer some of those to away fans and at the end of the day home fans come first. If we could get by with just 3000 seats and manage to get a west stand roof then happy days.

Just need to point out that I'm guessing a lot of this other than the prices, I have no idea what if anything is on offer. It's just my example of what we could do with even a limited amount of cash, other folk will have different ideas. Clearly a full four sided redevelopment would be better though I would prefer to see at least 60-70% remain standing as I think that's what people want - Warrington have gotten close but even they have to many seats for me.

Back in the Glover days, when we were going to have BV up to minimum standarst, there was talk of some seating at the bottom of the flats. Could this b a cheaper option, also allowing an "away" seated area, something similar to the old KR seating ??

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:34 pm  

The west and north stands cannot be made safe or comfortable, repair, reprofile cannot be done the confused layout of the west is the result of several stand alone add-ons losing out on safety and capacity. The north is shrinking beneath the concrete blocks which are also crumbling the number of patched areas can be seen by all. It would have to be fully replaced there is no alternative. Any proposal of tagging on old to new would not be workable and more than likely unacceptable to the planning depart new safety regulations for stadia and also making them accessible to all have to be taken into consideration. Any proposal to tag new to old is 'Challenge Anneka' cheap and doomed not to last. With the exception of the pitch there is nothing worth doing up at the ground for a long term solution.


As a matter of interest Vastman what Stadia have you been involved in?

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:06 pm  

If we did get the investment its a case of starting from scratch. Phasing the works over a couple of seasons with us relocating to another ground. As mentioned above 99% of Belle Vue doesn't meet current building regulations and if any adaptions were make to an existing situation we would be bound to make the remainder safe & legal.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:43 pm  

RickK wrote:

The west and north stands cannot be made safe or comfortable, repair, reprofile cannot be done the confused layout of the west is the result of several stand alone add-ons losing out on safety and capacity. The north is shrinking beneath the concrete blocks which are also crumbling the number of patched areas can be seen by all. It would have to be fully replaced there is no alternative. Any proposal of tagging on old to new would not be workable and more than likely unacceptable to the planning depart new safety regulations for stadia and also making them accessible to all have to be taken into consideration. Any proposal to tag new to old is 'Challenge Anneka' cheap and doomed not to last. With the exception of the pitch there is nothing worth doing up at the ground for a long term solution.


As a matter of interest Vastman what Stadia have you been involved in?

Well we will have to beg to differ won't we. Apart from being a founder member of SWAG and spending four years tramping around the north looking at every stadium going I am also a member of the 92 club, which means I'd visited every football league ground as circa 1998. I was heavily involved in the rebuilding of Featherstones main stand after the 1984 fire. It's a passion that I've read up on and met many experts and picked their brains.

Might I point out that Featherstone have managed to do what I'm suggesting with reasonable success - I can only assume you're not understanding my point.

Seeing as I suspect you have no interest in listening to an alternative idea other than your own I don't see the point in us carrying on a debate - that said, what's your expertise? Mine by the way is or was noted on the SWAG website last time I looked though for all I know it may no longer be on-line.

[PopTart]

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:57 pm  

I'd like to hear more about what could be at Belle Vue.
I tend to believe what Vastman says on stadia and even if he's out by 2-3 million it's still a good deal.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:03 pm  

If we're playing the dream up a revamped Belle Vue game, from the original plans, it seemed that the intention was to put the hospitality along the East Stand, which would make sense as then the hospitality customers can park by the entrance and walk straight in. I would imagine the plan then would be to knock down the flats and build an away terrace similar to Salford, and have the west and north stand as terracing. In fact, I can imagine it looking like Salford, except that the home end behind the sticks would be bigger and the posh stand wouldn't be as high.


And I like the Salford ground. It's just never full enough.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:12 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

If we're playing the dream up a revamped Belle Vue game, from the original plans, it seemed that the intention was to put the hospitality along the East Stand, which would make sense as then the hospitality customers can park by the entrance and walk straight in. I would imagine the plan then would be to knock down the flats and build an away terrace similar to Salford, and have the west and north stand as terracing. In fact, I can imagine it looking like Salford, except that the home end behind the sticks would be bigger and the posh stand wouldn't be as high.


And I like the Salford ground. It's just never full enough.

Makes sense and would work brilliantly, a bit more pricey than mine as basically that's a full re-development.

It's certainly what I'd prefer but despite a certain poster choosing to misunderstand mine was always the cheapest belt and braces version and the least good option. We will just have to wait and see, fun isn't it

PS: I think most of us seem to prefer the mainly standing option.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:26 pm  

Hospitality is very important in the new mordern stadia sure mc has put it on list of must have,s

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:59 pm  

I fully understand what you have written I just don't agree with you and it not belt and braces which suggests making sure everything is covered you clearly state several times of doing parts, adding bits later, which I say is not workable, as for comparing the present situation with the excellent work done at Featherstone they were not adding to a dilapidated stadium they were enhancing an already neat and fit for purpose stadium. The main stand is way better than anything at Belle Vue, the Post Office Road terrace was a bit naff when I last visited when they were putting a bit of the seaside in so they may have dealt with that by now.

The only acceptable building at Belle Vue is Cats Bar but that is too small to offer decent returns in hospitality and bar revenue and the facilities for the players is in need of some help lacking in space for changing, physio, medical staff and other ancillary support staff and it is better replaced by something fit for purpose.

Whether its done as phased build and the club stay at Belle Vue (as Widnes did) or they decamp elsewhere and getting done in one off new build if they are to remain at Belle Vue new all the way through (except the pitch that can stay) is the only answer


My career is Health & Safety not an interest, Worked with two Yorkshire RL clubs, three in Lancashire, one RU club in the North East along with a number of football clubs mainly lower leagues Worked with three SAG teams and planners.


I do not misunderstand what you are saying but you referring several times to doing bits and adding stuff later, claiming that two very dilapidated areas can be made safe and comfortable they can't believe they can't. You are allowed an opinion as am I as it is I disagree with most of your thoughts and I wonder where you get your information claiming that you are correct with costings! Not even out to tender so costs nowhere near being known, maybe you're thinking about a proposed budget. Please accept that others may have different views and if they do try and avoid pointless attempts at belittling others that do not share your view its not 'misunderstanding' it's difference.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:18 pm  

vastman wrote: It’s also the cheapest option. I do have a good knowledge of redeveloping stadia and getting BV to minimum standards would be pretty low. Just an example. Basic new East stand with bars and bogs to hold say 3k at about 1.75 million. Extend cats bar right across the end to house all facilities. Base level changing rooms and offices with maybe 8 boxes on second level and a small terace at the front maybe about 1 million if volunteers did the internals aka Fev. The existing bit holds the restaurant, reception and shop. North stand reprofile terracing maybe 750k again keep existing roof. Maybe put seats on the upper section if it’s plaisible. East terrace reprofile terrace and rebuild back wall and add a propper TV press box. Add a roof at a later date. About 1 million. Add 500k for infrastructure and 3 million for the land. That’s 7.5 million for a much better stadium which is dirts cheap. It can be further improved over time. It will never be the pride and joy of SL but it won’t shame it either. It will be fit for purpose and personally I’ll take that. The club is saved, the council has a community stadium of sorts, RFL happy. That by my estimate is half the cost of a NM stadium and could easily be done in a close seaon if we could stop playing at home in late August and restart mid March (depend on the winter weather) that how I see it. Obviously 15 million would get you the full deal at BV but that seems even less likely to happen imo. on your calculations have you accounted for removal of the nasties that will no doubt be present ie asbestos, I was told even the tarmac behind the flats can't be recycled and he told me he quoted for removal of the flats was 1/2 million just to clear the ground, So lets take this a little further, you can see by this photo of this structure at the Millmoor ground .https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+M ... -1.3702465 the skeleton of the stand, its a basic canter lever stand that then enables the view without stanchions at the front, also it makes its own corridor that fans can make their way to the stand and facilities with in it. now take your quote and imagine setting up your own company with the skills to complete the task in hand, I know where there is possibly a building coming up for rent with overhead crane spot on that could do this, now I might not be up on stadium builds but I do know that the skeleton build for the west stand like the one in the photos wouldn't take much more than a few months to knock together and could you imagine the saving on a self build

vastman wrote: It’s also the cheapest option. I do have a good knowledge of redeveloping stadia and getting BV to minimum standards would be pretty low. Just an example. Basic new East stand with bars and bogs to hold say 3k at about 1.75 million. Extend cats bar right across the end to house all facilities. Base level changing rooms and offices with maybe 8 boxes on second level and a small terace at the front maybe about 1 million if volunteers did the internals aka Fev. The existing bit holds the restaurant, reception and shop. North stand reprofile terracing maybe 750k again keep existing roof. Maybe put seats on the upper section if it’s plaisible. East terrace reprofile terrace and rebuild back wall and add a propper TV press box. Add a roof at a later date. About 1 million. Add 500k for infrastructure and 3 million for the land. That’s 7.5 million for a much better stadium which is dirts cheap. It can be further improved over time. It will never be the pride and joy of SL but it won’t shame it either. It will be fit for purpose and personally I’ll take that. The club is saved, the council has a community stadium of sorts, RFL happy. That by my estimate is half the cost of a NM stadium and could easily be done in a close seaon if we could stop playing at home in late August and restart mid March (depend on the winter weather) that how I see it. Obviously 15 million would get you the full deal at BV but that seems even less likely to happen imo. on your calculations have you accounted for removal of the nasties that will no doubt be present ie asbestos, I was told even the tarmac behind the flats can't be recycled and he told me he quoted for removal of the flats was 1/2 million just to clear the ground, So lets take this a little further, you can see by this photo of this structure at the Millmoor ground .https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+M ... -1.3702465 the skeleton of the stand, its a basic canter lever stand that then enables the view without stanchions at the front, also it makes its own corridor that fans can make their way to the stand and facilities with in it. now take your quote and imagine setting up your own company with the skills to complete the task in hand, I know where there is possibly a building coming up for rent with overhead crane spot on that could do this, now I might not be up on stadium builds but I do know that the skeleton build for the west stand like the one in the photos wouldn't take much more than a few months to knock together and could you imagine the saving on a self build