Mike Garlick says we have £24m in bank

[Rileybobs]

Loving the idea that we can muster up loads of extra seats with better views using the same space.

[Chester Perry]

Loving the idea that we can muster up loads of extra seats with better views using the same space.

and for £24m

[Claretforever]

The last thing we need are two more stands which look like the Linpave ones. If we did both the Bob Lord and CFS together then it wouldn’t matter the design differences, but I echo Crosspool in terms of comfort and acoustics. If we could have a wrap around stand for those two sides, a roof which angles down and covers to the front of the seats, that would be a good looking stand.

Right, now onto why we won’t increase capacity.

The club have no immediate plans to replace the asbestos roof on the Bob Lord stand. Yes it is asbestos. Yes it gets checked annually, but it needs replacing. No plans.

The club have just spent/spending £5m on two disabled corner stands for 75 people, and even with those we are still short of the 154 we need by 13 places. An increase in capacity could mean the requirement number goes up.

The Cricket Field stand has no rear access. I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that a new build would need rear access for safe exit of fans? We have no space if that’s the case.

[bfcwest]

Loving the idea that we can muster up loads of extra seats with better views using the same space.

Well you're loving an idea that hasn't been raised then. The idea is to build a BIGGER Bob Lord stand (say 6000 seats), that could maybe wrap around the corner (2500 seats for away fans, with ability to increase this amount) and keep going on to replace the Cricket Field (say another 4000 seats, one day). At the same time, we would take out the front few rows of the bottom tiers of the Linpave stands and move the pitch closer to them to create room for the new wrap around stand that would gradually replace the Bob Lord and Cricket field. This extra space would also allow for access behind the Cricket Field. Overall we would maybe lose around 3000 rubbish seats but gain 12000 much better ones, so capacity would become about 26000. (don't pick at the figures, I am just raising the concept, the details can follow...!)

End result is a sensible increase in capacity, and more importantly a massive increase in seats that are more desirable (like the ones that ARE currently sold out for every game). Plus we get a ground with a better atmosphere, better facilities that we can walk all the way round which would hugely increase accessibility and other commercial opportunities.

[summitclaret]

But we can't afford a single extra essential midfielder. Stop wasting your time.

[Steve1956]

I can remember not so long ago when we had bugger all in the bank...24 million sounds good to me ....we should leave the running of the club to the club and let them get on with it,I think we are in safe hands with Garlick...long may it continue.

[Rileybobs]

Well you're loving an idea that hasn't been raised then. The idea is to build a BIGGER Bob Lord stand (say 6000 seats), that could maybe wrap around the corner (2500 seats for away fans, with ability to increase this amount) and keep going on to replace the Cricket Field (say another 4000 seats, one day). At the same time, we would take out the front few rows of the bottom tiers of the Linpave stands and move the pitch closer to them to create room for the new wrap around stand that would gradually replace the Bob Lord and Cricket field. This extra space would also allow for access behind the Cricket Field. Overall we would maybe lose around 3000 rubbish seats but gain 12000 much better ones, so capacity would become about 26000. (don't pick at the figures, I am just raising the concept, the details can follow...!)

End result is a sensible increase in capacity, and more importantly a massive increase in seats that are more desirable (like the ones that ARE currently sold out for every game). Plus we get a ground with a better atmosphere, better facilities that we can walk all the way round which would hugely increase accessibility and other commercial opportunities.

Sounds like a lot of work to gain a few extra seats to satisfy a demand that doesn't really exist.

The simplest and most efficient way to increase capacity would be to replace all the wooden seats with plastic. At a guess I would say that for every 3 wooden seats we could accommodate 4 plastic ones. If we replaced the entire BLS and CFS with plastic seats we would increase the capacity by around 2500.

[Spijed]

Well you're loving an idea that hasn't been raised then. The idea is to build a BIGGER Bob Lord stand (say 6000 seats), that could maybe wrap around the corner (2500 seats for away fans, with ability to increase this amount) and keep going on to replace the Cricket Field (say another 4000 seats, one day). At the same time, we would take out the front few rows of the bottom tiers of the Linpave stands and move the pitch closer to them to create room for the new wrap around stand that would gradually replace the Bob Lord and Cricket field. This extra space would also allow for access behind the Cricket Field. Overall we would maybe lose around 3000 rubbish seats but gain 12000 much better ones, so capacity would become about 26000. (don't pick at the figures, I am just raising the concept, the details can follow...!)

End result is a sensible increase in capacity, and more importantly a massive increase in seats that are more desirable (like the ones that ARE currently sold out for every game). Plus we get a ground with a better atmosphere, better facilities that we can walk all the way round which would hugely increase accessibility and other commercial opportunities.

Better atmosphere like at those great new stadiums such as the Emirates?

As for selling out games, we had thousands of seats left for our European matches. Considering we hadn't played in Europe for fifty years we struggled to shift seats.

We may get bigger gates for the top sides but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think we would get a few extra thousand to watch us play the likes of Watford or Bournemouth when we struggle to get 19k for those games currently.

[NottsClaret]

I can't think if any other top two division teams that have NOT increased capacity in the last 25 years. Teams like Stoke, Norwich, Swansea, Derby, Preston, West Brom, Bolton....

The top 11 teams in the current Championship table are averaging MORE than our current capacity.

Not sure listing average Championship sides is the best way of showing what we should be aiming for. The idea seems to be 'build it and they will come'. I can't see it. Burnley simply isn't big enough a place.

All the internet squabbles about being a 'big club' has infected fans' thinking. It doesn't matter. Having 30,000 shiny plastic seats and fanzones with big TVs isn't what our club should be aspiring to. Being the most successful team on the pitch we can be and giving the vast majority of fans a reasonably priced seat when they want one is the goal, and for the last 10 years that's what we have been doing.

[CrosspoolClarets]

5000 extra seats earning, say, £40 per game including refreshments and programmes, selling for maybe 8 games per season, the big 6 plus Boxing Day etc.

That is just over £1.5m per annum.

These days, if the two smaller stands cost £100m (guess) to rebuild, the numbers cannot add up on a purely accountancy level. But that applies to most Premier League clubs, the TV income is so great it makes the ticket income immaterial. The downside of that is that we seem no longer important, but that’s an illusion.

The reason to do it is because it would be an investment to secure the future of the club, and to a degree the town, by keeping us up there as a leading club with a great training ground and quality, atmospheric stadium. It is the right thing to do. It isn’t hard to take a 20 year view and see disaster otherwise - and I’m an optimist

A bank loan could allow it to be spread so it doesn’t affect the playing side too much, but we would only get such a loan when in the PL with parachutes to follow, structured so the bank would be guaranteed their return.

I can’t see this Board doing it though. They run a tight ship, but don’t seem keen on making it a comfy one.

[Turfytop]

Why are some posters, dead against redeveloping the ground

[bfcwest]

Better atmosphere like at those great new stadiums such as the Emirates?

As for selling out games, we had thousands of seats left for our European matches. Considering we hadn't played in Europe for fifty years we struggled to shift seats.

We may get bigger gates for the top sides but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think we would get a few extra thousand to watch us play the likes of Watford or Bournemouth when we struggle to get 19k for those games currently.

You are so negative Spijed. The atmosphere would be BETTER because there would be more fans CLOSER TO THE PITCH, and we would attract higher attendances. Plus we could have a proper behind the goal single tier of home fans unlike today. My proposal has no relation to stadiums like Emirates, so I don't know why you have said that. Did you not really read what I wrote?

[TsarBomba]

Why are some posters, dead against redeveloping the ground

I don’t get it either.

We’re talking a partial redevelopment of the BL and a new CFS at most.

It needs to happen, and if we don’t do it now, then when are we? We’ll be kicking ourselves in 5/10 years if we haven’t redeveloped, and we’re financially not able to again.

It will still be the Turf, but we might finally have a ground fit for 2019 and befitting of a PL club.

[Spijed]

You are so negative Spijed. The atmosphere would be BETTER because there would be more fans CLOSER TO THE PITCH, and we would attract higher attendances. Plus we could have a proper behind the goal single tier of home fans unlike today. My proposal has no relation to stadiums like Emirates, so I don't know why you have said that. Did you not really read what I wrote?

Can you name a brand new stadium that has good atmosphere?

[bfcwest]

Can you name a brand new stadium that has good atmosphere?

I am not suggesting a brand new stadium, so why are you asking me that?

[Dyched]

The BL and Cricket field need replacing asap whilst we can.

I’d personally put the changing rooms in a new BL stand and rebuild the Cricket field end. Doing that we won’t need and extra room from the cricket club. There’s also plenty of space behind and at the corner of the BL/Cricket field to build the offices players entrance. There’s already a car park that can be used for the players and away team.

[Spijed]

I am not suggesting a brand new stadium, so why are you asking me that?

Ok then, have you got any evidence that building a new stand and bringing the pitch closer will improve the atmosphere?

[Quickenthetempo]

Ok then, have you got any evidence that building a new stand and bringing the pitch closer will improve the atmosphere?

Atmosphere is nothing to do with stands, it's about the people in them.

[bfcwest]

Ok then, have you got any evidence that building a new stand and bringing the pitch closer will improve the atmosphere?

Just take the extremes of stadiums where the fans are further from the pitch compared to stadiums where fans are closer to the pitch. The Withdean, London Stadium, grounds with running tracks, generally the atmosphere is worse than stadiums where the fans are banked right up to the pitch. Plus, in general, larger crowds improve atmosphere (but not always, I am just generalising). At the moment we have the closest seats to the pitch often left empty because they are too low down or at risk of getting soaked.

And anyway, I am not sure why I am bothering debating with you Spijed, because everytime I pick you up on something you say that is irrelevent (which suggests you don't actually read or understand what has been posted) then you just change what you are saying. You don't like change but do like to argue?

[summitclaret]

Why are some posters, dead against redeveloping the ground

Because we apparently can't afford or more rather won't risk investing in the team in a crucial area. That smacks of not wanting to stay up enough. Why would anyone need a bigger capacity in such circumstances?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Not like summit to post stupid drivel

[bfcwest]

Not sure listing average Championship sides is the best way of showing what we should be aiming for. The idea seems to be 'build it and they will come'. I can't see it. Burnley simply isn't big enough a place.

All the internet squabbles about being a 'big club' has infected fans' thinking. It doesn't matter. Having 30,000 shiny plastic seats and fanzones with big TVs isn't what our club should be aspiring to. Being the most successful team on the pitch we can be and giving the vast majority of fans a reasonably priced seat when they want one is the goal, and for the last 10 years that's what we have been doing.

I don't think we are offering enough quality seats, that is the point. We have too many rubbish seats, and these don't always sell out. But the more expensive seats DO sell out. That tells me we have the ratios wrong, and that if we had a better balance of good to bad seats then we would get higher average attendances.

The clubs in the Championship can only average higher than us because they increased capacity. The gap in ground quality and capacity has been growing between Burnley and nearly all top two division sides for 20 years. It needs sorting.

[summitclaret]

Not like summit to post stupid drivel

Did you see us without Westwood the other night? Drivel my arse.

[bfcwest]

Atmosphere is nothing to do with stands, it's about the people in them.

Rubbish!! It is not JUST about the people. Turn the stands round so they face away from the pitch and see what the atmosphere is like! Of course the stands make a difference.

[Royboyclaret]

Have to say that bfcwest puts forward a very powerful argument (and not for the first time on this subject), that additional quality seating will attract additional people to the Turf. It makes sense and, in principle, he's certainly convinced me it's the way forward particularly whilst the finances are in place.

The idea of the wrap around Stand between Brunshaw Road and the CFS at the same height level as the two Linpave stands is very appealing.

bfcwest has clearly thought this through and only one outstanding question from me would be total cost of such a project. I'd be interested to know if he's considered the potential outlay involved and what kind of figure that might be ?

[TVC15]

Compare the atmosphere at West Ham in the new stadium to their old ground. Same people attending but very different and quieter atmosphere at new ground.

Improving the ground is important but not at a silly cost which means we don’t spend what we need to on players. We could do with losing half a dozen players this summer and we are need of a pretty significant rebuild of the team / squad.
If we stay up this year I think we have enough capacity to spend a net amount of £20m on new players (we could recoup £20m at least if we are forced to sell Pope and want to get rid of the likes of Wells, Vydra etc). That should mean we still have capacity to spend £10m to £15m on the ground developing / rebuilding one of the stands.

[keith1879]

Have to say that bfcwest puts forward a very powerful argument (and not for the first time on this subject), that additional quality seating will attract additional people to the Turf. It makes sense and, in principle, he's certainly convinced me it's the way forward particularly whilst the finances are in place.

The idea of the wrap around Stand between Brunshaw Road and the CFS at the same height level as the two Linpave stands is very appealing.

bfcwest has clearly thought this through and only one outstanding question from me would be total cost of such a project. I'd be interested to know if he's considered the potential outlay involved and what kind of figure that might be ?

I too like the sound of what is proposed ....but before the club commits millions to such a project I would expect them to do some research to establish that there really are significant numbers of people who currently do not attend the matches because the seats aren't good enough. Personally I don't believe that this is the case - but a bit of market research might convince me.

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't have a problem with building new stands.

I do have a problem with the idea that there are more Burnley fans just waiting for the extra room.

[Murger]

If the board won't part with any money when we needed players, then they certainly won't part with any for a new stand.

[Turfytop]

Because we apparently can't afford or more rather won't risk investing in the team in a crucial area. That smacks of not wanting to stay up enough. Why would anyone need a bigger capacity in such circumstances?

And why do posters always say bigger capacity when redevelopment is mentioned, it’s about improving the facilities/stands that’s fit for purpose and the premier league

[dsr]

Why are some posters, dead against redeveloping the ground

I wouldn't say I am dead against it, but the reasons why I am against it include:

1. The Bob Lord is among the best stands in the league - comfortable wide seats, shelter from the wind and rain. I can live with grotty toilets.

2. The Cricket Field Stand should IMO be replaced with a safe standing terrace. We can't do it this year; and there's no point building a new stand now, only to knock it down again next year or a year or three later.

[bfcwest]

The costs are full of variables and it depends how far the club would want to take it. I think the whole project could be brought in for between £25 and £40m. I appreciate that many of you will be shocked at those figures and will say "We should be spending it on players..."

But there are a few key factors here:

We have to do something at some stage. The ground is so out of touch as it is, and unattractive to those that are not currently sat in the middle of the stand with their season ticket in back pocket. Most of our rivals have already massively upgraded and increased their grounds. Clubs that have not invested in their ground for as long as we have are in the process of investing now. We are already having to spend millions every year just to patch things up. This is a waste and is not helping us attract fans.

Fulham are looking to go to 30k, Palace to 34k, Sheff U to 40k, Wolves to 46k, Watford to 30k.
Norwich are at 27k and Stoke at 31k in the Championship and averaging over 25k. If they had left their grounds at under 25k then they would now be averaging nearer 20k and not be equipped to take advantage when they one day get promoted back to the Prem. Even Brentford are moving to over 17k. There is no way we should have fallen so far behind ALL these clubs in relative terms when it comes to ground capacity and average attendance. Why should we? Football is more popular than ever, Burnley has great history, and we are within 30 miles of over 5 million people. Why should we be shrinking in relative terms?

The stadium is becoming less and less appealing by the year as we fall further behind our rivals. If we don't really invest now then when will we? Now is the time when we are in the limelight, now is the time to speculate so we create a legacy that helps keep us on the global footballing map.

Have to say that bfcwest puts forward a very powerful argument (and not for the first time on this subject), that additional quality seating will attract additional people to the Turf. It makes sense and, in principle, he's certainly convinced me it's the way forward particularly whilst the finances are in place.

The idea of the wrap around Stand between Brunshaw Road and the CFS at the same height level as the two Linpave stands is very appealing.

bfcwest has clearly thought this through and only one outstanding question from me would be total cost of such a project. I'd be interested to know if he's considered the potential outlay involved and what kind of figure that might be ?

[Spike]

We don't need extra capacity except for the handful of games when more away fans would come .But why help them create a better atmosphere.

We haven't room to build a bigger Cricket Field Stand. bob Lord backs onto the road.

We need to strengthen the team but sensibly. Having said that we should have added at least one more in January for my liking

[bfcwest]

You haven't read what's been written Spike, the idea is to create space for a bigger CF and BL stand by moving the pitch towards the Linpave stands by removing the first maybe 10 rows to create space (the seats that are not very desirable). And you are wrong about the Bob Lord and the road anyway. The stand could be double the size where it is and still not reach the road. The offices are against the road, the stand part doesn't get anywhere near it.

We don't need extra capacity except for the handful of games when more away fans would come .But why help them create a better atmosphere.

We haven't room to build a bigger Cricket Field Stand. bob Lord backs onto the road.

We need to strengthen the team but sensibly. Having said that we should have added at least one more in January for my liking

[AndyClaret]

The first requirement surely is to finish the other end of the Bob Lord Stand to make everything covered inside the ground and match the other end.

FAO spike, the Bob Lord is miles from the road.

[Sausage]

The Cricket Field Stand should IMO be replaced with a safe standing terrace. We can't do it this year; and there's no point building a new stand now, only to knock it down again next year or a year or three later.

Actually, you can build a safe standing terrace now. Tottenham have done exactly that in their new stadium. The only caveat is that until the thick-as-mince idiots at the DCMS agree to safe standing in the Premier League and Championship, the rail seats will have to stay in their locked-down position.

[elwaclaret]

Fulham are looking to go to 30k, Palaf they had left their grounds at under 25k then they would now be averaging nearer 20k and not be equipped to take advantage when they one day get promoted back to the Prem. Even Brentford are moving to over 17k. There is no way we should have fallen so far behind ALL these clubs ice to 34k, Sheff U to 40k, Wolves to 46k, Watford to 30k.
Norwich are at 27k and Stoke at 31k in the Championship and averaging over 25k. In relative terms when it comes to ground capacity and average attendance. Why should we? Football is more popular than ever, Burnley has great history, and we are within 30 miles of over 5 million people. Why should we be shrinking in relative terms?

All the clubs listed are based in big cities, with massively larger doorstep catchment areas and wealthier populations. Even given the number of other city clubs in London and Birmingham and ignoring that City, Manure, Liverpool and Everton are less than an hour away they are at a massive advantage.

I'm not opposed to re-development as such but I'm another who sees a little plastic bucket as less appealing than a wood one with legroom, having tried both I'm not surprised people call the Bob Lord, but I know which offers more comfort.

While a agree we need to make hay while the sun shines, I see no rush with new legislation likely in the next couple of years regarding safe standing and God only knows what else in the pipeline, a time of national instability and change hardly to make this the right time.

I'm happy to lead those who are standing at the end of the pipeline decide when is best to stand in front of the spout. It is them that has to deal with the consequences of getting it wrong.

[Rileybobs]

I'm not sure that many people are against redevelopment per se. The improvement of facilities is a great thing and that is what we're currently doing with the disabled stands. But is the demand for more quality seats really worth the investment? Personally I don't think so.

I've only ever heard of one person say they don't attend because the available seats don't have a good enough view, and that is on this thread. Adding a couple of thousand extra 'prime seats' would only move people into slightly better seats and the remaining spare seats would still be in the bottom corners of the stands. I doubt that it would increase the club's revenue substantially at all, and certainly not if we drop down a division which is almost certainly going to happen at some point in the near future.

As I mentioned above, the quickest and easiest fix would be to replace the wooden seats to plastic which would increase capacity and in turn lead to more seats in 'prime locations'. It would probably upset a lot of the Bob Lorders though who I imagine appreciate the extra legroom.

[bfcwest]

Your argument doesn't explain why they are ALL increasing capacity and improving their grounds, yet Burnley are not.They are all still in the same places geographically. What has changed is that football has become more popular and average crowds have been increasing everywhere. Bournmouth, Brighton, Luton, Milton Keynes, Forest Green Rovers, Liverpool, Man U, Plymouth, Bristol City...........They have ALL developed, increased or are increasing. So why not Burnley?

I think many of you are against development of the ground because you just want to protect your big wooden seat. It's a case of "I'm alright Jack..." Loads of you have said the Bob Lord is great as it is, but you are already in it. Problem is it is too small and there is no room at the Inn for people who also want to sit in a decent position with their families. The next best seat is sat at home watching a live stream.......

All the clubs listed are based in big cities, with massively larger doorstep catchment areas and wealthier populations. Even given the number of other city clubs in London and Birmingham and ignoring that City, Manure, Liverpool and Everton are less than an hour away they are at a massive advantage.

I'm not opposed to re-development as such but I'm another who sees a little plastic bucket as less appealing than a wood one with legroom, having tried both I'm not surprised people call the Bob Lord, but I know which offers more comfort.

While a agree we need to make hay while the sun shines, I see no rush with new legislation likely in the next couple of years regarding safe standing and God only knows what else in the pipeline, a time of national instability and change hardly to make this the right time.

I'm happy to lead those who are standing at the end of the pipeline decide when is best to stand in front of the spout. It is them that has to deal with the consequences of getting it wrong.

[arise_sir_charge]

I think a lot of people of missing the point here.

It's not a case of vanity in replacing the stands, the simple fact is we will need to at some point and as suggested now is as good a time as any.

Also, extra seats is something that's irrelevant to the argument/discussion. If we are building new stands we may as well add a few extra seats as the costs of doing so at that point will be negligible. The cost of a 5,000 seat stand as opposed to a 4,000 seat stand won't be poles apart and the £1.5m per annum quoted above would be covering the additional cost as opposed to the whole cost.

The cost of replacing them will also be spread. We wont take it directly out of working capital in one big lump.

There is an argument that the Bob Lord could be redeveloped without necessarily impacting upon the current stand, in a similar way to which Liverpool built their new stand. They built the new structure around the old one and then pieced it all together.

Finally, big seats, little seats......some of the new stadiums I have been to have great seats and plenty of leg room.

[Quickenthetempo]

I'm not sure that many people are against redevelopment per se. The improvement of facilities is a great thing and that is what we're currently doing with the disabled stands. But is the demand for more quality seats really worth the investment? Personally I don't think so.

I've only ever heard of one person say they don't attend because the available seats don't have a good enough view, and that is on this thread. Adding a couple of thousand extra 'prime seats' would only move people into slightly better seats and the remaining spare seats would still be in the bottom corners of the stands. I doubt that it would increase the club's revenue substantially at all, and certainly not if we drop down a division which is almost certainly going to happen at some point in the near future.

As I mentioned above, the quickest and easiest fix would be to replace the wooden seats to plastic which would increase capacity and in turn lead to more seats in 'prime locations'. It would probably upset a lot of the Bob Lorders though who I imagine appreciate the extra legroom.

I'm sure you're only on the wind up but replacing wooden seats with smaller plastic ones would only increase leg room.

[Spijed]

Had we qualified for the group stages of the Europa league we would have been forced to replace the wooden seats anyway.

[Corky]

I have had a quick look at what is being said with regard to improving the ground/increasing capacity and the question of facilities seems to be being ignored.

We will at some point need to replace the CFS either that or it will fall down, cost too much to keep repairing or be condemned! Ideally when it is rebuilt whether that is with or without safe standing it should have modern facilities that can be used on a daily basis rather than bi-weekly. The idea of an income stream roughly evert two weeks is a bit old hat now and the club should look to maximise the grounds use on non match days.

[elwaclaret]

Your argument doesn't explain why they are ALL increasing capacity and improving their grounds, yet Burnley are not.They are all still in the same places geographically. What has changed is that football has become more popular and average crowds have been increasing everywhere. Bournmouth, Brighton, Luton, Milton Keynes, Forest Green Rovers, Liverpool, Man U, Plymouth, Bristol City...........They have ALL developed, increased or are increasing. So why not Burnley?

I think many of you are against development of the ground because you just want to protect your big wooden seat. It's a case of "I'm alright Jack..." Loads of you have said the Bob Lord is great as it is, but you are already in it. Problem is it is too small and there is no room at the Inn for people who also want to sit in a decent position with their families. The next best seat is sat at home watching a live stream.......

Not a matter of I'm alright Jack. But when so many people are calling for "improvements" a lot see that as replacing the most comfortable seating in the stadium?

When the new stands went up there was nearly a fever for tearing down the older stands. Twenty years on a lot of people are underwhelmed with the new stands and have returned to the Bob Lord or Cricketfield. If nothing else that should be enough to make one think; act in haste repent at leisure. Major investment can be a mill-stone for years, so if the attitude is when its right we'll do it... if I were in the board meetings I'd feel I had the right to question the boards priorties because I would be in possession of all the available facts, as I'm not I cannot agree we should be doing it (whatever it is) now.

While others may be doing work now, the vast majority will be carrying out work due to the necessity for safety certificates, not do to demand or financial gain.

[Wokingclaret]

Good job the bread bin stand wasn't built, it was only going to hold 2,500

[Quickenthetempo]

Good job the bread bin stand wasn't built, it was only going to hold 2,500

Yes but 9m Asian weddings would of put our club to the top of the earnings pile.

[bfcwest]

We can learn from what is wrong with the Linpave stands and what I’m suggesting will actually enhance them as well as improve the whole ground. The club has been doing stuff on the cheap for years and is paying for it now. The times come to aim a bit higher and develop something to be proud of.

And the vast majority are not increasing their ground capacity and facilities because of ‘Safety Certificates’ (no idea why you said that?!), they are doing it to help grow and develop for the long term.

Not a matter of I'm alright Jack. But when so many people are calling for "improvements" a lot see that as replacing the most comfortable seating in the stadium?

When the new stands went up there was nearly a fever for tearing down the older stands. Twenty years on a lot of people are underwhelmed with the new stands and have returned to the Bob Lord or Cricketfield. If nothing else that should be enough to make one think; act in haste repent at leisure. Major investment can be a mill-stone for years, so if the attitude is when its right we'll do it... if I were in the board meetings I'd feel I had the right to question the boards priorties because I would be in possession of all the available facts, as I'm not I cannot agree we should be doing it (whatever it is) now.

While others may be doing work now, the vast majority will be carrying out work due to the necessity for safety certificates, not do to demand or financial gain.

[Rileybobs]

I'm sure you're only on the wind up but replacing wooden seats with smaller plastic ones would only increase leg room.

How would it? Standard plastic seats seen at grounds up and down the country are far smaller than the wooden ones in the BLS and CFS. Tearing the wooden seats out of these stands and replacing them with plastic seats would increase capacity but reduce leg room.

[Quickenthetempo]

How would it? Standard plastic seats seen at grounds up and down the country are far smaller than the wooden ones in the BLS and CFS. Tearing the wooden seats out of these stands and replacing them with plastic seats would increase capacity but reduce leg room.

Leg room is from seat to seat in front.
If smaller seats then bigger area becomes available.

[LeadBelly]

If there was to be more seats than there were in the same sized stand then there must be less space per person after the changes. Possibly the same space for your legs and less for your arse with smaller actual seats but still less in total per person.