billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, Watson said: Why do you automatically assume that an authentic looking stadium with character has to be inefficient? How many do you know? I dont know for certain, but i would argue that all grounds built in the last 20 or 30 years or more efficient than hillsboro. I would also argue that they arent built to look authentic for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birley Owl 1867 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Plonk said: Why do you think a new stadium will be low cost high yield? He's contradicted himself ridiculously in this thread including in that same post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hillsborough Mole Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Birley Owl 1867 said: But you've just said it's a venue for football? So that should be at the forefront of the stadium? Not how many out of football events it can hold in a year clearly. That's all what it is. It's a football stadium. fizz owt else. OK, you've still missed it. I'll help you out here generates the maximum annual revenue for the club to re-invest in the team on the pitch to keep us competing at the right end of the Premier League Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hillsborough Mole Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Birley Owl 1867 said: He's contradicted himself ridiculously in this thread including in that same post And you've now demonstrated twice that your comprehension is that of a 4 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said: Nail on the head. So why do you want us to make it available for uses other than football? Isnt our national home of football built on that basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, sw1867 said: Redevolpment of the North stand would be far more economical than building a new stand. You make huge savings on groundwork’s, structural steel & concrete which are amongst the most expensive works packages. By redevelopment of the North you retain an iconic structure in the process whilst protecting our heritage. Knockng the Kop down and starting again obviously has a bigger cost than building new taking into account the demolition costs. Possibly but the whole ground is knackered. Not just the north stand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, sw1867 said: Redevelop for much less than a new stadium and then it will no longer be knackered or coasting a fortune to run. in doing so you retain a proper football ground. Win win Redevelop for much less....... interesting concept. How real is something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, sw1867 said: No it’s not. The North and to a lesser extent are fine to redevelop. The Lep needs knocking down and starting again. Probably the Kop as well but we can put something in their place to retain the feel if Hillsborough. Lets not forget that the physical ground isn’t the only thing we lose by moving. It is also the community we have lived and and supported for 120 years. A feeling of belonging that no matter how many food outlets, padded seats and orchestrated flag waving you have can replicate. It looks what it is, old, tired, neglected and some parts barely serviceable. Some parts worse than others, not better than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 6 hours ago, dnhc said: i live within 500m of a floodplain, and people relocating from down south have that included in their property searches, and have been known to duck out of buying because of that fact. the laughable part is it's 25m below us as we're on the top of a hill. I lived in a similar area. I was at the top of a hill probably 120ft above level of Thames. There was a flood and numerous homes were flooded and although within 200 yards of my home i was never in any danger of being flooded. When insurance came following year my premium went up about 70%. i had not claimed and rang and asked if a mistake they said no and were coy about huge hike. i rang round other insurers and got a flat refusals from 3 in row.. the 4th evenrually told me my home was in a designated flood zone. I explained situation but it made no difference. All those who lived near had same problem. We all had to pay excess premiums for a year but after lobbying and one guy who was well connected in Insurance industry eventually got it sorted for all of us impacted. several housing schemes have been quashed because on flood plains and I assumed that it was now impossible to build on one without showing how problems alleviated. Not certain how Businesses are impacted but as they are all insured you would have thought similar requirements would apply. therefore can understand quite easily why overheads are high especially after flood and semi final incident. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 23 minutes ago, sw1867 said: And cost the FA one billion pounds for the pleasure. And yet redeveloping on the same site is cheaper apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, sw1867 said: I agree, it is old tired and neglected and as I said the Lep is unserviceable and wants knocking down. The Kop may be the same. The South is fit for purpose (currently) and just needs some cosmetic work. More intrusive work could be done much later if we are in that position. The North structurally is in great shape. It could be redeveloped to great effect as @Hillsborough Mole has already detailed earlier. Putting the above to one side, you conveniently ignored the largest paragraph of my post; lets not forget that the physical ground isn’t the only thing we lose by moving. It is also the community we have lived and and supported for 120 years. A feeling of belonging that no matter how many food outlets, padded seats and orchestrated flag waving you have can replicate. Havent ignored, just didnt have time for full response. Agree the community would lose something, cant get away from that. Padded seats.... no idea what that means. Dont see many of them around. Flag waving... thats just opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, sw1867 said: Wembley was flattened to the ground and a completely new ground built in its place. How any one could class Wembley as the same redevelopment that we are talking about for Hillsborough is beyond comprehension. Quite. So why mention the billion figure. It was irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkskaphil Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 It's interesting that people keep bringing up the new Spurs stadium as an example of an amazing new build. It will be an absolutely fantastic sports arena, but it's looking like costing the best part of a billion pounds, it's having all sorts of trouble in getting completed, and I'm a bit confused as to how it's going to generate income outside of matchdays. It's in literally the worst part of London (I know, I live there), it's not easily accessible by public transport (in comparison with other London venues), and anything that businesses might need (i.e. conference facilities, hotels, etc) you can get much, much better in virtually every other part of London. Maybe it'll be used for local community stuff, but I can't see that being much of an income generator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 30 minutes ago, sw1867 said: No interesting concept. Having worked in the construction industry for the last 20+ years then redevelopment is less. In my last post I didn’t mention the saving of land cost and transport infrastructure to get there either. What you omit are the other possible development opportunities as well. Land cost, fair enough, though i cant see brown belt in sheffield and surrounds being that dear. You also get the revenue from the sale of the old ground which you didnt mention. Getting to the ground, hardly a picnic as is. Parking is poo with vandalism and parking tickets everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, punkskaphil said: It's interesting that people keep bringing up the new Spurs stadium as an example of an amazing new build. It will be an absolutely fantastic sports arena, but it's looking like costing the best part of a billion pounds, it's having all sorts of trouble in getting completed, and I'm a bit confused as to how it's going to generate income outside of matchdays. It's in literally the worst part of London (I know, I live there), it's not easily accessible by public transport (in comparison with other London venues), and anything that businesses might need (i.e. conference facilities, hotels, etc) you can get much, much better in virtually every other part of London. Maybe it'll be used for local community stuff, but I can't see that being much of an income generator. I dont know mr levy personally but business wise i would say hes pretty shrewd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hookowl Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 43 minutes ago, sw1867 said: Redevolpment of the North stand would be far more economical than building a new stand. You make huge savings on groundwork’s, structural steel & concrete which are amongst the most expensive works packages. By redevelopment of the North you retain an iconic structure in the process whilst protecting our heritage. Knockng the Kop down and starting again obviously has a bigger cost than building new taking into account the demolition costs. To redevelop may seem at first glance cheaper but with building regulations constantly changing you could find that when applying for planning to redevelop it may be necessary to bring the whole stadium up to the latest standards. Not saying it would but this may mean having to virtually rebuild all stands. If this is the case the costs would rise dramatically. As I say I don't know if this would be the case with Hillsborough but if so it would need to be factored in with the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkskaphil Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, billyblack said: I dont know mr levy personally but business wise i would say hes pretty shrewd I'd have agreed...until I saw the absolute clusterf*ck that's going on at WHL at the moment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, sw1867 said: It’s not just the community losing us, it’s us losing the community. Yep agreed. Cant argue that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, sw1867 said: This is becoming hard work. You used Wembley as an example of generating new non match day revenue. I pointed out that it cost them a lot of money to achieve it. You then went on to try and use Wembley as an example of redevelopment of the sane site as costing a fortune implying that I said the staying at the sane site was cheaper. You’re getting yourself in a bit of a muddle here mate. Dont think so mate. Yes it cost them money. Having been to both their is no comparison between the two. New one is head and shoulders above the first by a country mile. Isnt wembley close to breaking even now hence the recent offer from a buyer? You were the one moaning about the cost and then saying redeveloping was cheaper. The FA had their pants down and in my opinion it should have been built in the midlands. Redeveloping in sheffield would be cheaper, so would buying land as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, sw1867 said: Im not omitting anything. Other developments is a benefit if a new ground which is far outweighed by the things already discussed. Getting to Hillsborough is fine. Free Parking is plentiful if you can walk 10 minutes to the ground. Vandalism isn’t Hillsborough’s fault, it can happen anywhere. Getting to a new location may be easier. Parking would be closer, no tickets, vandalism would likely decrease. You havent mentioned the sale of the ground or how developing may be constrained by the actual site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now