New ground or redevelopment ?

[PadihamThickNeck]

After reading the toilet talk thread many people agree with the fact that Turf Moor is way out dated and has nowhere near good enough facilities for a Premierleague team in this day and age. It’s falling to bits and makes us look tin pot.

I love the Turf and history of it and Iv never been one to want a new ground but my views are turning and I think it would be a lot easier than to redevelop.

One thing I wouldn’t want to lose is the location as I love where it is but there’s nowhere else we could play whilst it got knocked down and built again (Like Tottenham did on the same site)

If we did find a good site still within the town and not off the motorway somewhere I would hope it would be different from the rest of the bowls.

Or we could redevelop and make the Bob Lord like the newer stand at Preston and the CFS a modern kop version of the current stand.

Let’s face it

CFS - Falling to bits, accident waiting to happen with the concourse, awful stand for this day and age.

Bob Lord - Once again awful for this day and age.

Even the JM & JH are massively outdated now and awful stands, terrible views from most places, get soaked in the lower tiers, concourses are so small and dull. They look dirty and old.

Time for a new ground as sad as it will be we need to go forward as a club and this is holding us back massively just look at what it’s done for Brighton. We could attract much better players.

[gawthorpe_view]

Won't happen.

[Rowls]

There's nothing wrong with the Bob Lord. It could do with a new roof and for additional hospitality capacity but it's a great stand.

Agreed the Cricketfield Stand needs replacing and that is something much trickier. Brighton aren't attracting players more easily than us because they've got a swanky new ground; they're flashing a bit more cash than us.

If Burnley FC are ever stupid enough to relocate outside of the town it will rip the soul of the club and the town apart.

[claptrappers_union]

I was told by an architect that it'll cost £200m before even putting a spade in the ground if Burnley wanted a new stadium.

Stadium redevelopment is on the cards though

[summitclaret]

We can barely afford the players we need to stay up.

[martin_p]

Terrible view from most places in the JM and JH? Pretty much every seat in the upper tiers of both stands have fantastic views!

[beddie]

Tempt the cricket club with an offer they can’t refuse to sell and redevelop.

[FeedTheArf]

Went in the Bob Lord for the Rochdale game for a change. Haven't been in there for donkeys years but was shocked how much better the concourse looked. So much brighter and the coverage from the new office blocks above was great as you used to get soaked waiting for a pie. The Business HUB looked good too.

[Boss Hogg]

I personally like the ground. Think it has a lot of character. Give me this over a Reading,Bolton, Huddersfield type stadium any day. How are you planning to fund the new stadium ? Not a top priority for me.

[Quickenthetempo]

Lets be honest, most people who want the CF or BL knocking down are people who don't actually sit in there. It's their view you are spoiling.

Wanting stands like Preston is fine, but their ground has lost it's soul for home supporters, it used to be a lively place to go with a decent atmosphere.

New facilities cost more money, which cost more money, which in turn attracts more middle class fans and loses atmosphere.
The Turf at the minute has the right balance, cheap tickets behind the goals and better seating/stands at the sides for those that want to pay more.

Is it worth building a new stadium for less than 25k with the high costs? I wouldn't think so.

[box_of_frogs]

Thank chuff this threads not been done before….

[GodIsADeeJay81]

A new ground wouldn't attract better players, just fans.

The training facilities, manager, the PL and wages on offer are the key points when it comes to getting players in.

Getting wet at a football game, oh no....
Views are fine in JM and JH.

CFS keeps passing safety inspections, not sure why it's an accident waiting to happen
I've only ever say in the BL once, didn't really have an issue with it.

Maybe it isn't the ground that's the issue....

[gawthorpe_view]

For me, The Bob Lord Stand is the best at Turf Moor.
The covered 'atrium' at the Jimmy Mac end of the Stand, mentioned above by Feedthearf, is excellent.
The corporate areas have been refurbished recently and are very much fit for purpose.

[NewClaret]

Have to say, it does frustrate me that the majority of PL clubs have a better stadium than we do. Not to say I don't lobe TM, it's history and more traditional look, just that its facilities need massive modernisation.

Absolute priority at this stage needs to be supporting development of the first team though. If we can do that, improve the performances and results, we can start to worry about the stadium.

In the meantime though, we do need a much better fan zone. The marquee is an embarrassment for a PL club.

[NewClaret]

Have to say, it does frustrate me that the majority of PL clubs have a better stadium than we do.

* Championship clubs.

[bfcjg]

The location of the Tuef is brilliant and almost unique near to town centre, lots of pub,clubs,cafes etc within easy reach,bus station,train stations etc IMHO it is ideal for a stadium. New CFS required though.

[BurnleyFC]

We could knock down and rebuild the Turf at its current location and relocate to Ewood Park whilst it’s being done.

I’m sure the Venkys would appreciate the extra income.

[Dark Cloud]

It HAS to be redevelopment all day long for me. It's not easy to sort out given the requirements of a modern ground and the site that the Turf is on with the cricket club and Harry Potts way being major hurdles, but moving out of town would be utterly disastrous imo and as others have said, would simply ruin our brilliant match day experience. Two points to think about: 1. Could the "footprint" of the Turf be moved so that it uses more of the space behind the JH and JM stands and moved slightly further away from the constraints of the cricket ground and Harry Potts way. If you'd were already considering completely moving and rebuilding from scratch out of town, surely this COULD be a better alternative. (Spurs did similar at WHL) 2. Whatever you do you have to be confident the team will be playing at a level to warrant the effort and costs and year on year that's always in the balance, meaning it would be a very, very brave (or extremely rich!) board who would sanction any major redevelopment whatsoever. (It needs it, but it ain't going to happen!)

[ClaretTony]

I once read that the life expectancy of a football stand is around 30 years.

Ours are

Jimmy Mac - 25 years and 2 months
Longside - 25 years and 5 months
Bob Lord - 47 years and 8 months
Cricket Field - 52 years and 2 months

[fidelcastro]

I once read that the life expectancy of a football stand is around 30 years.

Ours are

Jimmy Mac - 25 years and 2 months
Longside - 25 years and 5 months
Bob Lord - 47 years and 8 months
Cricket Field - 52 years and 2 months

Are there any older than the CFS at this level?

[bf2k]

I don't agree that a new stadium means you'll lose the atmosphere. Look at Brentford as an example on how that's not true. However, when you allow an architect to have free rein on a design that then has to fit into a small budget you end up with some curvy roofed pile of crap like the Reebox/Macron/University of Bolt Stadium (or whatever it goes by these days).

The issues with our stands are either age related (BL & CFS) or poor design in the first place (JM & JH uppers). However, without too much imagination these issues could be resolved. As CT has said above, the BL & CFS are way beyond their lifespans and need replacing at some point. I'd imagine the CFS would be easier to replace than the BL purely from a facilities point of view. However, if these 2 stands were to hold more fans than they do now then the capacity in the JM & JH upper could be reduced to allow the roof heights to meet any new stands at the BL & CF (plus the 2 disabled corners), This would allow a better designed roof for atmosphere and reduce the number of people reliant on the very small concourse space.

[bf2k]

Are there any older than the CFS at this level?

I would have thought the the stand next to the railway at Old Trafford is older?
Goodison Park in its entirety

[Quickenthetempo]

I don't agree that a new stadium means you'll lose the atmosphere. Look at Brentford as an example on how that's not true. However, when you allow an architect to have free rein on a design that then has to fit into a small budget you end up with some curvy roofed pile of crap like the Reebox/Macron/University of Bolt Stadium (or whatever it goes by these days).

The issues with our stands are either age related (BL & CFS) or poor design in the first place (JM & JH uppers). However, without too much imagination these issues could be resolved. As CT has said above, the BL & CFS are way beyond their lifespans and need replacing at some point. I'd imagine the CFS would be easier to replace than the BL purely from a facilities point of view. However, if these 2 stands were to hold more fans than they do now then the capacity in the JM & JH upper could be reduced to allow the roof heights to meet any new stands at the BL & CF (plus the 2 disabled corners), This would allow a better designed roof for atmosphere and reduce the number of people reliant on the very small concourse space.

Hardly fair to compare a new ground, with fans that are on cloud 9 with reaching the Premier league for the first time, to others.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Are there any older than the CFS at this level?

Everton I would think maybe?

Sorry missed the above.

[ClaretTony]

Are there any older than the CFS at this level?

Two at Everton & two at Palace for definite

Leeds, Man U.

[bf2k]

Hardly fair to compare a new ground, with fans that are on cloud 9 with reaching the Premier league for the first time, to others.

Hmm, possibly. However, as a stadium I think it's quite well thought out.

I forgot to add to my original post that regardless of what I posted it won't happen as it'll cost a fortune. A fortune we don't have.

[JohnMac]

The views from the Longside Upper are stunning, even Blocks at the edges have a decent view. I'm not overly fussed for the clamour of 'better facilities' as I go to watch the game.

Don't see the need to have an expensive 'Fan Zone' either aside from maybe buying a bigger marquee. Don't like the wet and cold? Go to a pub instead

[Quickenthetempo]

Hmm, possibly. However, as a stadium I think it's quite well thought out.

I forgot to add to my original post that regardless of what I posted it won't happen as it'll cost a fortune. A fortune we don't have.

I'm looking forward to going this season if I get chance, but I can't say I know too much about it from the TV.

A lovely plot of Land is available in Padiham next to the training ground at the minute. A big field and then an old factory took down for 350 houses that don't seem to get planning permission.
Would need more infrastructure putting in like.

[Spike]

I wouldn’t want us to move look at the disasters like Coventry and Bolton
We need a stronger team and to fill what we’ve got first

[Claretforever]

The cricket club don’t need to move if money is available. What you do is go to them with a proposal to build a large, swanky, brand new pavilion into a new Cricket Field stand.

There is about 10-15 metres, maybe more?, behind that stand that is currently used for practice nets etc. A new pavilion, the back end of which could double as a permanent fan zone, would surely be an option? That’s then be a more attractive venue for functions, making the Cricket Club more money in the long term too. They’d have to give away a few metres of land as part of the deal though.

[Woodleyclaret]

Neither any cash needs to go on upgrading our playing staff.
It's pointless having the best ground in a lower league

[RMutt]

You could have a new cricket field stand, complete with corporate facilities that double up as a pavilion, that swivels round depending whether its cricket or football. Not sure what happens when the seasons overlap though? Toss a coin for who gets it?

[fatboy47]

I see a handful of games per season.

If you brought back the old longside I'd move back up north and be there every game.

I think all the crap about concourses and seats etc is just a lot of fanny.

[JohnMac]

I'm looking forward to going this season if I get chance, but I can't say I know too much about it from the TV.

A lovely plot of Land is available in Padiham next to the training ground at the minute. A big field and then an old factory took down for 350 houses that don't seem to get planning permission.
Would need more infrastructure putting in like.

The troublesome puddle outside the CFS would have nothing on a raging River Calder in spate

[elwaclaret]

Not now not ever should Burnley Football club move from the Turf.

Other premier clubs redeveloped while playing at the stadium, I don’t see why it would be much of a problem.

[bf2k]

I think all the crap about concourses and seats etc is just a lot of fanny.

It's not. The concourses in the upper tiers are, well, sh*t when the stands are full.

[elwaclaret]

It's not. The concourses in the upper tiers are, well, sh*t when the stands are full.

Not sure why people want fancy concourses, if they are that bad surely two hours are not that long to go without food or a pint. I suppose I’m just a generation that prefer looking at the pitch than standing around in a concrete alley.

[Quickenthetempo]

The troublesome puddle outside the CFS would have nothing on a raging River Calder in spate

They easily managed the Calder at the training ground. Just built the mound higher for the banking.

[Bosscat]

It's not. The concourses in the upper tiers are, well, sh*t when the stands are full.

Have not been to any other ground ... All concourses are sh*t when a ground is full, having to fight your way through crowds to the toilets at 1/2 time isn't fun at anytime regardless of decor ... a lick of paint makes no bloody difference ... what matters to me is what the view from my seat is like and the state of the pitch etc etc ... also if they are sh*t when full are they less sh*t when 1/2 empty

[Rowls]

I once read that the life expectancy of a football stand is around 30 years.

Ours are

Jimmy Mac - 25 years and 2 months
Longside - 25 years and 5 months
Bob Lord - 47 years and 8 months
Cricket Field - 52 years and 2 months

I am genuinely baffled as to why they would have "lifespans" like this. I could understand it if they were supported by wires that weakened over time but to give them arbitrary "life expectancy" is just plain silly.

Here's a stadium that is still hosting events 2090 years after it was built:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_of_N%C3%AEmes

[Bosscat]

Have you not been to any other ground ... All concourses are sh*t when a ground is full, having to fight your way through crowds to the toilets at 1/2 time isn't fun at anytime regardless of decor ... a lick of paint makes no bloody difference ... what matters to me is what the view from my seat is like and the state of the pitch etc etc ... also if they are sh*t when full are they less sh*t when 1/2 empty

Edit

[Hipper]

A few observations.

I bet when you look at some of the structural details of our older stands you will find rust and other weaknesses which become more and more costly to maintain.

Weren't the Jimmy Mac and James Hargreaves stands built with large grants. The building of the Bob Lord and CF stands nearly broke us (Bob Lord/Martin Dobson stand!).

Spurs and Arsenal could justify the investment of a new ground as they could increase capacities AND fill them, generating more income. I doubt we could do that.

Many away fans say they like the character of our ground don't they?

[bf2k]

... also if they are sh*t when full are they less sh*t when 1/2 empty

Well.......yes they are because there is enough room for people to move

[bf2k]

Not sure why people want fancy concourses, if they are that bad surely two hours are not that long to go without food or a pint. I suppose I’m just a generation that prefer looking at the pitch than standing around in a concrete alley.

Don't want fancy concourses, I want to be able to move in the concourse without being felt up by other people moving around the concourse. The lower tiers are fine, good actually.

[Bosscat]

Well.......yes they are because there is enough room for people to move

Well then no matter how fancy any stadium is ... they are all sh*t too when full

[evensteadiereddie]

The CF concourse could be extended as far as the turnstiles relatively cheaply, I'd imagine. Covered, of course. The smokers will have to gasp for 90 odd minutes.

[Claretforever]

The club were talking about developing the Cricket Field Stand 21 years ago. So two decades ago they felt it needed upgrading, and 7 seasons in the Premier League, 11 years of Sky money and we’ve painted the seats.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... cket-club/

[Spijed]

The CF concourse could be extended as far as the turnstiles relatively cheaply, I'd imagine. Covered, of course. The smokers will have to gasp for 90 odd minutes.

As you say, there's no reason why they couldn't cover the outside bit of the Cricket field stand as it would provide far more space.

The concourse near the club shop in the Bob Lord stand is far better for being covered, especially as you can watch a prior match on the TV's before our game.

Shame they haven't done the other end of the stand in that respect.

[Spijed]

Don't want fancy concourses, I want to be able to move in the concourse without being felt up by other people moving around the concourse. The lower tiers are fine, good actually.

Be thankful it's not like Loftus road.

[ChrisG]

I am genuinely baffled as to why they would have "lifespans" like this. I could understand it if they were supported by wires that weakened over time but to give them arbitrary "life expectancy" is just plain silly.

Here's a stadium that is still hosting events 2090 years after it was built:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_of_N%C3%AEmes

A lot of new buildings generally has a life cycle cost plan developed during the planning/feasibility cycle which looks at the component parts of said building. Each component is given a capital cost, a maintenance cost, and a lifespan in terms of duration before replacement.

Items such as the cladding will need replacing more regularly that the internal concrete and steel, as they are less durable materials, and suffer from UV degradation, and also exposure to the elements (particularly in maritime environments).

The idea of a lifespan comes where the cost to replace and refurbish the more expensive and or difficult components, such as the steel frame or sub-structure, in line with the relevant building regulations either becomes more expensive than replacing the entire thing, or the building is no longer useful in its current format.

It's not set in stone, however more of a guide for the customer when they are looking to develop a new building and want an idea of not only the up front cost, but the cost of the building throughout its lifespan.

I've done a few in my time as a QS.