Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:21 am  

It's easy to forget but this battle over the stadium is just that a battle to get what we were promised.

It isn't a campaign against Rodney Walker and especially not Box and WMDC. If you want rid of them vote Tory it's that simple.

It's great that we are digging in and fighting however we shouldn't overlook the art of compromise and offering ways out for people, so long as we get what we were promised eventually. So with that in mind I have a few ideas, not sure how viable they are but here goes.

1. A 10,000 seater stadium is not really needed by us just yet, the ability to host 10,000 spectators is.

2. The approx cost for a full stadium is ten million I'm told, a lot for any developer to find in one go not just Yorkcourt who I hope will be gone soon.

3. So instead of a single trigger point why not offer a double trigger (with loads of condition to protect us).

4. Build phase one with a full facility 4000 seater main stand on one side and a 3000 basic covered standing terrace on the other. Add car park, floodlights and security fencing. Thats all possible imho for 6-7 million - quite a saving and far easier to sell to any developer who takes over the development.

5. To satisfy the RFL we just need to prove we can add 3000 extra seats at the ends of the ground to get 10000 capacity should we need it. It's then a pure commercial decision for the club as to when they need them. The RFL could help out by giving us Leeds and Cas over a two week period as these are the ones most likely to need 10k. Others may need jus a few extra seats but not the full 3k.

6. Then when the second trigger is hit (and there must be a time limit before it's mandatory that they do it, the developer adds the two ends bringing the capacity up to roughly 10k plus.

I know it's not perfect and I see the pitfalls but it's a start. The club would be viable with a permanent 7k plus facilities and 3k temporary. The RFL would be happy. The Council will have managed a half arsed job which would be a huge step up.

For me sometimes regardless of your moral claim sometimes you need to chuck the dog a bone.

If Daddycool I'm missing some basic economics then all you need to do is tell me, I'll accept what you say so no need for heavy bants thanks.

Ditto the Trust, if I'm talking b*llocks then fine just tell me gently and we'll move on

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:48 am  

7000 doesn't meet minimum standards and hiring temporary seating costs a fortune

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:50 am  

That thread had a quick finish.

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:24 am  

Daddycool wrote:

7000 doesn't meet minimum standards and hiring temporary seating costs a fortune

Thought so, what is the minimum?

Also is there a stipulation on seats v standing

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:30 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

That thread had a quick finish.

Not really it's a starting point from where we can perhaps find compromise. I know people want to get tough but that often ends with a punch in the mouth. Usually the long suffering fans mouth.

That said I totally understand the clubs and the trusts attitude being reluctant to do deals after recent events.

Tricky one but worth exploring imho.

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:39 am  

8500 minimum capacity, 3000 covered seats

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:18 am  

Something here that could be food for thought, though maybe some way off at the moment.

Didnt we get over 11,000 in for the game against Cas in 2006?

It has been said before, that 2 things could improve our gates. 1 is a new stadium and 2 is on field success.

If our steady improvement both on and off the field improves, and with good marketing campaigns, then our gates could improve significantly. Added to this the following of some other super league clubs, as well as the continued improvements too of our near and dear neighbours from across the common.

If we are to have new developers and a different site, should we be looking at something with a little more capacity. I do realise though that if that were the case, costs and planning would be higher.

I know some grounds are built these days too that improvements can be made to increase capacity when applicable.

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:41 am  

Daddycool wrote:

8500 minimum capacity, 3000 covered seats

Could you get by on 8,500 two sided ground, for at least say five years?

Know strictly speaking it's the trust I assume who decide what and how the stadium is planned but the clubs input has to be large,

It's hypothetical but what isn't at the moment but could you work with that.

I'm not sure but isn't that pretty much what Cas are going to do or at least that was the original idea, two sides to start with.

That said according the their fans New Wembley wouldn't be big enough any more

Re: Lets play percentages : Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:55 am  

vastman wrote:

Could you get by on 8,500 two sided ground, for at least say five years?

Know strictly speaking it's the trust I assume who decide what and how the stadium is planned but the clubs input has to be large,

It's hypothetical but what isn't at the moment but could you work with that.

I'm not sure but isn't that pretty much what Cas are going to do or at least that was the original idea, two sides to start with.

That said according the their fans New Wembley wouldn't be big enough any more

Trouble is the other stands never get built, 3 stands one being for away fans may work with the last completed at a later date.
Up the Trin