Re: Peter box : Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:29 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

It's more an enabling development road right now and, aside from rush hour on an evening, it's great not having to drive through the bottleneck that is Wakefield city centre. I think the relief part was to relieve the city centre of traffic which I feel it has done.

For me the only suitable location on there is down at the Doncaster Road junction but that looks like is been remediated and prepared for residential purposes with a bit of commercial. Shame as it would've been ideal.

It has to a certain respect but it's also just removed traffic from one side of town to the other. My main point though as I said previously, was to do with future that road will have and one of the reasons it was built being lost in the years to come when it has to service the 1000's of people living and working on it and the bottleneck in the City will eventually be back to where it was. ATEOTD though it's going to improve things around that side of town towards Donny Road when it's all done and hopefully will make a feature of the Canal and nature reserve - they should have just made the road a dual carriageway where possible.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:32 am  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Stands to reason though, why loan the club £3m (Nutjob forum rumour) to buy back the freehold of BV to allow construction of a community stadium when a) there's a plot of land at NM already earmarked for one and b) the council are land rich so should not really be short of options.

I suppose it's because BV already is a sports ground so shouldn't be quite as time consuming as a completely new development coming to fruition.

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.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:10 am  

You appear to be proposing a bit of a rushed makeover rather than a permanent upgrade, Halton Stadium is a good example of a staggered rebuild Featherstone another excellent example and there is no reason why BV could not benefit from the same. A fair bit of BV is badly used the rear of the North Stand has about 10 metres of unused land to the boundary wall, the North West Corner that houses the old office and changing rooms has much wasted space, I assume your reference to reprofiling the East Terrace you mean the West again much wasted space here, similarly the South West corner and the present hospitality block not fit for purpose the Cats Bar and changing rooms again why retain when the space can be used much better. Moving the North Terrace back would allow moving the pitch back and freeing up valuable space for development at the South end. A little less 'Challenge Anneka' and a lot more lets build to last is a better plan. All costs money but papering over the cracks is simply a waste of money.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:30 am  

RickK wrote:

You appear to be proposing a bit of a rushed makeover rather than a permanent upgrade, Halton Stadium is a good example of a staggered rebuild Featherstone another excellent example and there is no reason why BV could not benefit from the same. A fair bit of BV is badly used the rear of the North Stand has about 10 metres of unused land to the boundary wall, the North West Corner that houses the old office and changing rooms has much wasted space, I assume your reference to reprofiling the East Terrace you mean the West again much wasted space here, similarly the South West corner and the present hospitality block not fit for purpose the Cats Bar and changing rooms again why retain when the space can be used much better. Moving the North Terrace back would allow moving the pitch back and freeing up valuable space for development at the South end. A little less 'Challenge Anneka' and a lot more lets build to last is a better plan. All costs money but papering over the cracks is simply a waste of money.

No that's not what I suggested at all. I'm talking about bringing BV up to a decent standard ASAP. I've don so by concentrating on the East and south of the ground. My plan provides a modern if basic main stand not disimilar to the stand Fev built where the ild bullock shed used to be, I have concentrated all the main club and corporate facilities into a greatly enlarged and refurbished Cat Bar/Changing Rooms. That makes two parts of the ground complete and all the expensive stuff sorted.

The west and north of the stadium will be made safe and comfortable. Now lets be serious here many trinity fans would be more than delighted to stay in the north stand so long as the terracing wasn't crumbling and the bogs a llittle better. Why create a new stand there that nobody really wants. MC's fear with the north stand has always been one of safety, that can be fixed for a relatively small output. Ditto the west stand, my plan here is to rebuild the base to which most away fans will be happy as most actually love to stand. The staged bit is to roof it when cash becomes available.

So it's not 'Challenge Anneka' as you put it, it's called being realistic and providing whats needed and actually wanted. Most fans want standing so why force them to sit if you don't have too? We currently have 1,200 seats and in 30 years I've only ever seen them all taken twice. I seriously doubt we will ever really need the 3,000 seats I'm offering. We actually have the chance here to create something unique, a modern stadiun built traditionally which IMO is what fans actuall want but are never asked.

If we could get up to an average of say 2,000 sitting and 6,000 - 7,000 standing with an occasional 11,000 sell out we'd be fairly competitive along with the enhanced corporate - we'd gradually be buying the ground back for no more than we pay to rent it and eventually have an asset - that would do me fine.

People are obsessed with numbers and seats and boxes yet it rarely works - Wigan and Hull have great stadia but they are rarely over half full and I doubt they sell every box for every game. We'd have a smaller, cheaper to run stadium that would run far closer to it's full potential (say 11,000), you do the math as to which one would be more profitable.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:28 pm  

vastman wrote:

No that's not what I suggested at all. I'm talking about bringing BV up to a decent standard ASAP. I've don so by concentrating on the East and south of the ground. My plan provides a modern if basic main stand not disimilar to the stand Fev built where the ild bullock shed used to be, I have concentrated all the main club and corporate facilities into a greatly enlarged and refurbished Cat Bar/Changing Rooms. That makes two parts of the ground complete and all the expensive stuff sorted.

The west and north of the stadium will be made safe and comfortable. Now lets be serious here many trinity fans would be more than delighted to stay in the north stand so long as the terracing wasn't crumbling and the bogs a llittle better. Why create a new stand there that nobody really wants. MC's fear with the north stand has always been one of safety, that can be fixed for a relatively small output. Ditto the west stand, my plan here is to rebuild the base to which most away fans will be happy as most actually love to stand. The staged bit is to roof it when cash becomes available.

So it's not 'Challenge Anneka' as you put it, it's called being realistic and providing whats needed and actually wanted. Most fans want standing so why force them to sit if you don't have too? We currently have 1,200 seats and in 30 years I've only ever seen them all taken twice. I seriously doubt we will ever really need the 3,000 seats I'm offering. We actually have the chance here to create something unique, a modern stadiun built traditionally which IMO is what fans actuall want but are never asked.

If we could get up to an average of say 2,000 sitting and 6,000 - 7,000 standing with an occasional 11,000 sell out we'd be fairly competitive along with the enhanced corporate - we'd gradually be buying the ground back for no more than we pay to rent it and eventually have an asset - that would do me fine.

People are obsessed with numbers and seats and boxes yet it rarely works - Wigan and Hull have great stadia but they are rarely over half full and I doubt they sell every box for every game. We'd have a smaller, cheaper to run stadium that would run far closer to it's full potential (say 11,000), you do the math as to which one would be more profitable.

Like your plan apart from the seats in the North Stand.
As you mentioned in your previous post, you have rightly pointed out, that the seats we have are rarely full, so why put some in the North Stand??
Also would like a roof for the away fans - there's nothing worse than getting rained on! eg at Headingley!!
Although on the other hand.....

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:49 pm  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

Like your plan apart from the seats in the North Stand.
As you mentioned in your previous post, you have rightly pointed out, that the seats we have are rarely full, so why put some in the North Stand??
Also would like a roof for the away fans - there's nothing worse than getting rained on! eg at Headingley!!
Although on the other hand.....

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.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:18 pm  

All hypothetical Vasty but before we could do any of the above we'd need to purchase the stadium.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:53 pm  

RickK wrote:

You appear to be proposing a bit of a rushed makeover rather than a permanent upgrade, Halton Stadium is a good example of a staggered rebuild Featherstone another excellent example and there is no reason why BV could not benefit from the same. A fair bit of BV is badly used the rear of the North Stand has about 10 metres of unused land to the boundary wall, the North West Corner that houses the old office and changing rooms has much wasted space, I assume your reference to reprofiling the East Terrace you mean the West again much wasted space here, similarly the South West corner and the present hospitality block not fit for purpose the Cats Bar and changing rooms again why retain when the space can be used much better. Moving the North Terrace back would allow moving the pitch back and freeing up valuable space for development at the South end. A little less 'Challenge Anneka' and a lot more lets build to last is a better plan. All costs money but papering over the cracks is simply a waste of money.

This is the preferred option in my eyes if the money is available. If we are provided £15m to carry out any works, we need to look at longevity of what we are doing. As you say its pointless covering up the cracks to 'make it work' for the meantime knowing we are looking to spend the next century at Belle Vue. There's also the argument that we were promised a new community stadium and simply settling for a tarted up Belle Vue doesn't quite cut it however I'm sure these conversations would be had. There is wasted space all over the footprint of Belle Vue and I suppose it all depends on how much we given by the Council (if anything at all...)

I agree on the seating, less and less people are wanting to be seated and therefore there's no need to go overboard here.

It's never going to be perfect and as practical as a new ground but there's plenty of options depending on the amount of monies we receive.

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:55 pm  

JINJER wrote:

All hypothetical Vasty but before we could do any of the above we'd need to purchase the stadium.

That's included in the price - there is no re-development without that hyperthetical or otherwise. I'm basing it on the theory knocking about that the Council will lend us the money to both puechace and re-develop BV. All I'm trying to do is give people an idea as to what can be done for the minimum amount to meet minimum requirements.

If you're asking me do I believe the rumour then I'd say noT BY more than 5%, 95% of me things it's another crock

Re: Peter box : Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:05 pm  

vastman wrote:

That's included in the price - there is no re-development without that hyperthetical or otherwise. I'm basing it on the theory knocking about that the Council will lend us the money to both puechace and re-develop BV. All I'm trying to do is give people an idea as to what can be done for the minimum amount to meet minimum requirements.

If you're asking me do I believe the rumour then I'd say noT BY more than 5%, 95% of me things it's another crock

Normally I'd agree with you percentage wise, but, our new director, Michael Carter, (who usually comes over as cynical) and Peter Box have all been saying there have been a few positive meetings. There's something about this that feels that bit different.