I love Turf Moor. We have been there for all our history and that is almost unique. I loved the old Longside and miss it every time I go, even after all these years. But times change and so do people's requirements and many fans now, especially the younger ones, want better and more and I can understand that. With that in mind I just thought I'd ask a question, slightly hypothetical but it must have an answer somewhere.

Why do most clubs seem to have grounds better than us?

I'm not talking about the big city money clubs as such. Examples:
I was in Rotherham for 2-3 days last week and couldn't help but notice the New York stadium there, you can't actually miss it, situated right in the middle of town and it looks the dogs do-dahs. On reading some visiting fan reviews it gets raved about.
Darlington (okay they are done for) has a brilliant stadium also. I realise that was a bit of a folly but it still stands and is aching to have football there.
The Riverside at Middlesboro looks like a space ship has just landed in the area it is that modern looking.
There are many more but you get the gist.

I always look out for the local football ground when I am in a strange place and it is almost inevitable, even with lower league clubs, that they have a nicer looking ground than us. Looking at the Turf after seeing the New York stadium I couldn't help thinking that the old girl is looking a bit tired, even the new bits don't look modern.

Just wondered what other people's views are on this?

We would have had a shiny new ground..... as one of the conditions of ASDA buying the Turf no doubt. Maybe as much as 10k capacity on the edge of town, with all mod cons and room for increasing capacity as needed..... prefer the Turf. Thank God we won on so many levels.

You mean that brand new, purpose built, out of town stadia look more modern than a stadium that has been in situ since the dawn of time? Quelle surprise.

Why do most clubs seem to have grounds better than us?

I'm not sure they do. Many modern stadia are just awful, Reading and Brighton come to mind - and they need to resort to clappers to get any atmosphere.

In an ideal world we would replace the Longside stand with something so the fans were closer to the pitch, fill in the corners and find somewhere uncomfortable for the away fans. Maybe even get sufficient pies warm by half time.

Im not to keen on those types of stadiums myself.

I do however like Deepdale and Ewood. Traditional yet modern and done so much better than our 2 newer stands.

The Darwen end actually opened in 94 and still looks fantastic compared with our cheap shite

Knock down the eyesore boohoo which you can see coming in from accy road Manchester road etc.and build a brand new state of the art 30.000 stadium.

Bacchus wrote:You mean that brand new, purpose built, out of town stadia look more modern than a stadium that has been in situ since the dawn of time? Quelle surprise.

No, I wouldn't want it to move, absolutely not, and I'm not being critical, it's just me wondering why so many clubs have moved with the times and we seem to still be in the 70's at best. I'm not personally bothered about how the ground looks as such, just that we have a ground that, to be fair, is not that impressive and far from comfortable. I can deal with that but many people want more.
I don't want anyone getting all precious and defensive about my post because I was asking a question, not criticising the ground per se. I stood shivering on the Longside many times and would gladly do it again but newer, younger fans often want better. As far as visiting fans are concerned I wonder what they think when they arrive if they haven't been before?
My point is Turf Moor, however you look at it, is not a very impressive looking ground and could that even put off players signing? It may seem a silly question but given the pampered prima donnas that play football now it could be an influencing factor.
The state of a club's ground CAN alter perceptions about the club itself. Take the Turkish club we recently played. I'd never personally heard of them before and I half expected when I checked out their ground to see some kind of old terraced stadium in much need of repair. But when I saw it, even though it was quite small, it was very impressive and it actually changed my view of our opponents to a degree. It's all smoke and mirrors of course but perception is a lot, especially if you are a player thinking about signing for a new club.

SalisburyClaret wrote:Why do most clubs seem to have grounds better than us?

I'm not sure they do. Many modern stadia are just awful, Reading and Brighton come to mind - and they need to resort to clappers to get any atmosphere.

In an ideal world we would replace the Longside stand with something so the fans were closer to the pitch, fill in the corners and find somewhere uncomfortable for the away fans. Maybe even get sufficient pies warm by half time.

As an away fan...I don't want to be uncomfortable.

SalisburyClaret wrote:Why do most clubs seem to have grounds better than us?

I'm not sure they do. Many modern stadia are just awful, Reading and Brighton come to mind - and they need to resort to clappers to get any atmosphere.

In an ideal world we would replace the Longside stand with something so the fans were closer to the pitch, fill in the corners and find somewhere uncomfortable for the away fans. Maybe even get sufficient pies warm by half time.

Filling in the corners would be a very good start, it might replace the atmosphere lost when they knocked down the Longside.

If we manage to stay in the Premier League this season, which given our poor start is far from a given, then I would hope the Chairman & Board of Directors would start looking at plans to update the Turf. This does not necessarily mean increasing capacity but does mean providing facilities more in keeping with the 21st Century.

Just as an aside, and to put the Turf into perspective, check out San Lorenzo's ground in Argentina. For those who may not know San Lorenzo are one of the biggest clubs in the country and one of Argentina's 'big six', on a par with say City or Chelsea here. The ground holds damn near 50k and they get big, regular and quite fanatical crowds. The ground is bloody awful. It looks like a giant has spotted a football pitch and just decided to stick four dreadful 'stands' around it. 3 sides are completely uncovered (and it does rain quite a bit in Buenos Aires) and the fourth main stand has precious little cover. The corners are so horrendously open that it would seem impossible to get an atmosphere going there but somehow they do.
So maybe the Turf ain't so bad at all. Ha ha.

houseboy wrote:Filling in the corners would be a very good start, it might replace the atmosphere lost when they knocked down the Longside.

Well I suppose the good news is they ARE filling two of the corners. Might help the atmosphere a tiny bit by hemming in the "Jimmy Mac roar".

I love the position and history of our stadium. I agree it needs updating (drastically i some areas) but I wouldn't want to move from the location. However, I can imagine the commercial side of Turf Moor is not very viable. If the club announced to move onto the next level they needed to generate more commercially and to do this they'd have to move I'd be upset but could understand why.

bf2k wrote:I love the position and history of our stadium. I agree it needs updating (drastically i some areas) but I wouldn't want to move from the location. However, I can imagine the commercial side of Turf Moor is not very viable. If the club announced to move onto the next level they needed to generate more commercially and to do this they'd have to move I'd be upset but could understand why.

I suppose the logistics are a problem. I must admit I do like the 'spaceship' type stadia but to build one of those I imagine it would have to be done wholesale as opposed to as a 'development' of existing, and thereby hangs the problem. I don't want Turf Moor to move from it's location, it's handy for the town centre without being an intrusion on it, but if the Turf cannot be 'developed' in that way the only alternative is to move location because as long as we are in the PL we have the (nice) problem of being pretty much full for every game, meaning that we cannot afford to close down a side at a time (even if that could be done), and as far as I am aware you can't demolish a football stadium and build a new one in 3 months or less. The sad thing is for us to get a new stadium one of two things would have to happen, we would either have to have a new location or get relegated to reduce attendances, neither of which is a desirable situation. There is a third option, as unpalatable as it may seem, and that would be to ground share for a season. The only grounds within a decent travelling distance are Stanley (obviously nowhere near big enough) or, heaven forfend, Ewood Park (somehow I can't see that one working). You would then be talking Preston, Bolton or even Huddersfield (actually that would possibly be an option for a season given that we have no great rivalry and it isn't too far away).
When you look at it like that it would appear we are stuck with the old lady for the forseeable.

Modern “spaceship” football grounds may be pleasing on the eye but are, with few exceptions (maybe Stoke?) sh!t places to watch football. I give you Arsenal as the most striking, over-hyped, example.

The best stadiums are those traditional grounds that have been thoughtfully updated - Preston has been mentioned, or Anfield.

That ours was done on the cheap is probably a reflection of where we were at at the the time, but shall we spunk all out new found wealth on a lovely new ground? Seem to remember we’ve been down that room as before.

It’s a shame they can’t slope the two new roofs downwards to keep the noise in and the rain out.
Otherwise happy to stay but it is dated.

The new Longside was built so that the pitch could eventually be moved, presumably to aid should the need ever be to redevelop the Bob Lord.

It used to be Leeds Road and now it's Filbert Street in reverse. Whoever designed the new stands must have all-weather gear in the back of his Range Rover at all times. When they demolish the Bob Lord Stand and have it like it was before but with a safe standing enclosure and of course safe standing for the carers of the disabled, a half-time observation tower where the floodlight pylon stood, might be a welcome addition for those who fancy a bit of Crown Point perspective for a bit of mind-expansiveness after the graphic pummelling by electronic Nike.

scouseclaret wrote:Modern “spaceship” football grounds may be pleasing on the eye but are, with few exceptions (maybe Stoke?) sh!t places to watch football. I give you Arsenal as the most striking, over-hyped, example.

The best stadiums are those traditional grounds that have been thoughtfully updated - Preston has been mentioned, or Anfield.

That ours was done on the cheap is probably a reflection of where we were at at the the time, but shall we spunk all out new found wealth on a lovely new ground? Seem to remember we’ve been down that room as before.

You are right of course (the Martin Dobson stand comes to mind). The modern stadium can be got right though it seems. As I said I read the reviews on the New York stadium in Rotherham, mainly from away fans, and the result was a unanimous approval both for atmosphere and seating (apparently there is NO bad place to sit in the ground, because of it's design, every seat has a great view). Obviously it is only small (12k I think) but the basic design could be expanded (indeed there is a facility to do that at Rotherham should they ever need it).
Having said that you say should we spend all our new found wealth on a shiny new stadium, well why not because we sure as hell aren't spending it on players.

We should never even consider leaving our current location. However, if there was a possibility of playing somewhere else for 12 months (like Spurs have) then i wouldn't be against us building something more modern and future proof.

The sooner the CFS is knocked down and a modern replacement is put in its place the better. It looks very dated and is well past it's sell by date.

ashtonlongsider wrote:The sooner the CFS is knocked down and a modern replacement is put in its place the better. It looks very dated and is well past it's sell by date.

And I've never seen terracing so deep at any ground....it's not the norm

It's the best ground in the league is Turf Moor.

We can't even manage to knock up a couple of disabled sections in the corners of the ground, heaven help us when we eventually have to upgrade the rest of the stadium. The two newest stands really are cheap, nasty, badly designed eyesore though. The Hawthornes and Elland Road are great examples of grounds that have been redeveloped but managed to keep their character. Can't stand the new build grounds, the Ricoh at Coventry is one of the most depressing places on Earth!

NottsClaret wrote:It's the best ground in the league is Turf Moor.

Yes I love the half time refreshment area under the cricketfield stand.

[/url]

tim_noone wrote:Yes I love the half time refreshment area under the cricketfield stand.

Its to die for, no, quite literally...

A disaster waiting to happen if you ask me!

MACCA wrote:[/url]

Its to die for, no, quite literally...

A disaster waiting to happen if you ask me!

My thoughts exactly.

Whilst we are trying to survive in the PL we will never have enough money to really invest in the ground. If we go down we will struggle to survive on around £25m turnover.
We are stuck with what we have unless we get outside investment. Being totally pragmatic, who would want to invest millions in us? Enjoy the view guys, because it isn't going to change for years.

Siddo wrote:Whilst we are trying to survive in the PL we will never have enough money to really invest in the ground. If we go down we will struggle to survive on around £25m turnover.
We are stuck with what we have unless we get outside investment. Being totally pragmatic, who would want to invest millions in us? Enjoy the view guys, because it isn't going to change for years.

Give over siddo were competing in the Pl. Not trying to survive.

I like it as it is. It's a dump, but it's OUR dump.

UTC

Knocking down the Turf would be akin to trying to replace Fenway Park or Wrigley Field in baseball. Simply isn't going to happen. They're all icons of their respective sports. Oh, and I can add Lambeau Field in American football to that list.

The reason why Fenway, Wrigley, and Lambeau still exist is because when the great new stadium surge occurred in the '70s and '80s, these teams had been in a perpetual funk for a long time. There was no need to increase capacity. Then people all of a sudden woke up and saw the beauty in the old dumps. Times change. I think eventually all 4 stands at the Turf will be replaced, but not in my lifetime.

An L shaped stand around the Bob Lord and Cricket Field sections, and moving the pitch over towards the Longside so that the goals are in the centre of the Jimmy Mac would help no end.

I’d actually remove about 6 rows of seats from the bottom tiers of the newer stands too to ensure everyone has a decent view, and to aid the moving of the pitch.

The L shaped stand would hold more than the current old stands so would make up for the loss of seats from those bottom tiers.

Final capacity: 25,000 (we don’t need more)

As predicted we have moved onto phase 2 of each season, slightly later than expected and the forum is demanding a new or improved ground.

Nowhere compares to the Turf,imagine playing in a plastic looking bowl every other week like the Reebok,or whatever it's called these days..no thanks

I love the Turf and it's one of my favourite things about being a claret. However, it could be improved. First things first is get the scoreboards up and running. Then in the future, if the government makes it legal, I'd like to see the Jimmy McIlroy lower tier converted to a safe standing area, and extra seats added to the the Bob Lord... somehow. While they're at it, they can also buy the Park View and turn it into something club related like a pub, restaurant, entertainment venue - even a museum!

If it’s to be done, then I think the Bob Lord is ideally the first candidate. It only holds 3,100, I’m sure we can accomodate those elsewhere while it’s extended back to the road, and a new roof of course, so maybe by 3,000 that would increase our capacity to almost 25,000 which is ample for us imo.

SalisburyClaret wrote:Why do most clubs seem to have grounds better than us?

I'm not sure they do. Many modern stadia are just awful, Reading and Brighton come to mind - and they need to resort to clappers to get any atmosphere.

In an ideal world we would replace the Longside stand with something so the fans were closer to the pitch, fill in the corners and find somewhere uncomfortable for the away fans. Maybe even get sufficient pies warm by half time.

Positioning of Brighton’s grounds not ideal but it’s s great ground

I wouldn’t move BFC away from the Turf for anything. It’s in the heart of the community, and so many clubs wish they’d never moved. One of the biggest examples is Coventry, who it has killed.

When times are hard you rely on your local support, and moving to the endges of town give people an extra excuse not to attend.

The fact it’s an annual thing on here suggests that it’s on a lot of people’s minds that we have to update. Hopefully there are plans in place.

Seem to recall many years ago conversations/rumours of building new ground elsewhere.

Pretty sure the land by “Time” in Simonstone was mentioned but I could be mistaken

wilks_bfc wrote:Seem to recall many years ago conversations/rumours of building new ground elsewhere.

Pretty sure the land by “Time” in Simonstone was mentioned but I could be mistaken

I'm sure that was for a racecourse or golf course?

tim_noone wrote:I'm sure that was for a racecourse or golf course?

Yes you’re right. It was a racecourse.

Maybe it was one of those hypothetical discussions I’m thinking of along the lines of “if we were to build a new stadium, where would it be?”

Claretforever wrote:An L shaped stand around the Bob Lord and Cricket Field sections, and moving the pitch over towards the Longside so that the goals are in the centre of the Jimmy Mac would help no end.

I’d actually remove about 6 rows of seats from the bottom tiers of the newer stands too to ensure everyone has a decent view, and to aid the moving of the pitch.

The L shaped stand would hold more than the current old stands so would make up for the loss of seats from those bottom tiers.

Final capacity: 25,000 (we don’t need more)

Been thinking the same thing for years Claretforever. This would really help improve the atmosphere too, and make the ground look better on TV.
By moving the pitch towards the Jimmy Mac and Longside, we could probably create some space BEHIND the new Cricket Field Stand part of the 'L-shape', and this would enable fans to walk all the way round the ground, opening up accessibility which will have other knock on benefits. It would also allow the club to build the new stand essentially in front and over the top of the existing Bob Lord office / lounge / shop facilities, which could stay in place for the time being.

Claretforever wrote:An L shaped stand around the Bob Lord and Cricket Field sections, and moving the pitch over towards the Longside so that the goals are in the centre of the Jimmy Mac would help no end.

I’d actually remove about 6 rows of seats from the bottom tiers of the newer stands too to ensure everyone has a decent view, and to aid the moving of the pitch.

The L shaped stand would hold more than the current old stands so would make up for the loss of seats from those bottom tiers.

Final capacity: 25,000 (we don’t need more)

I said the same thing a year or two ago. It would fix a few problems all at once.

Put away fans in the corner of the stadium which should help quieten them.
Build new dressing rooms inside the new stand where BL once stood and move the tunnel to the halfway line.
Accommodate disabled fans by offering them good seats around the whole 'L'.
Remove all bad views from the stand by having no stanchions in place
Remove the Health and safety risks that the current CFS home section has.

I'd envisage it costing around £8-£15m (finger in the air maths admittedly) and it should be no taller then the CFS stand is currently. 25k is a fair estimate for the new capacity which would be suitable so long as we stay in the premier league.

Claretmatt4 wrote:I said the same thing a year or two ago. It would fix a few problems all at once.

Put away fans in the corner of the stadium which should help quieten them.
Build new dressing rooms inside the new stand where BL once stood and move the tunnel to the halfway line.
Accommodate disabled fans by offering them good seats around the whole 'L'.
Remove all bad views from the stand by having no stanchions in place
Remove the Health and safety risks that the current CFS home section has.

I'd envisage it costing around £8-£15m (finger in the air maths admittedly) and it should be no taller then the CFS stand is currently. 25k is a fair estimate for the new capacity which would be suitable so long as we stay in the premier league.

Whilst not a bad idea in principle, where would you house the fans whilst the work was being carried out? Even if you could do one stand at a time there’s a lot of unhappy people. There’s a lot more to consider as well such as corporate areas and offices.

And for £8m you’re having a giraffe, I can’t imagine £15m would even touch the surface.

Rileybobs wrote:Whilst not a bad idea in principle, where would you house the fans whilst the work was being carried out? Even if you could do one stand at a time there’s a lot of unhappy people. There’s a lot more to consider as well such as corporate areas and offices.

And for £8m you’re having a giraffe, I can’t imagine £15m would even touch the surface.

Its short term pain for long term gain though. The loss of earnings would be worth it.

The issue is the uncertainty of our income. I can't think of another business that would have the potential of such loss of income every year. That's probably why it's been put off for so long.

Fair point on the cost, but surely no more than £20m? I was at Fulham last week and left face it, it's just a load of concrete and plastic!

I'm another who feels we desperately need to do something about the CFS and following that the BL, BUT I also desperately don't want us to move from where we are. Our situation is perfect for a town/club like ours. Plus we don't need to be factoring in any big increase in capacity as somewhere between 22 and 24,000 will always be plenty. It's just a case of modernising what we have. However, I accept the club won't find it at all easy which is why they seem to put it off so often, because developing whilst still using the same site creates a real headache, there's the issue of the VERY close proximity of the cricket club behind the CFS, the close proximity of Harry Potts Way and perhaps most importantly the cost which, as has already been alluded to, has meant that numerous other clubs have found themselves with a couple of lovely shiny new stands, but swathes of empty seats and a massive debt to pay off because they are playing in the lower half of the championship. I feel that's the club's biggest fear.

Claretmatt4 wrote:Its short term pain for long term gain though. The loss of earnings would be worth it.

The issue is the uncertainty of our income. I can't think of another business that would have the potential of such loss of income every year. That's probably why it's been put off for so long.

Fair point on the cost, but surely no more than £20m? I was at Fulham last week and left face it, it's just a load of concrete and plastic!

But it wouldn’t just be a lack of income, it would leave a lot of disgruntled fans who might never return.

There’s a hell of a lot of steelwork required to build half a football stadium.

You'd try to have half of the Bob Lord stand done by Christmas, so only about 1000 fans might need to have moved to 'elsewhere' in the ground until that half is re-opened with enough of a capacity to accommodate 3000 fans, which would suffice whilst the second half of the new Bob Lord is completed.

Alternatively, if it takes a year to build the New Bob Lord section of the L shape, and it holds about 6000, then we would only have to move about 2000 season ticket holders to elsewhere for one season. The capacity would be back to 21000+ whilst they rest of the L shape is completed in front of the cricket field. Directors seats would be the issue!!! (but who cares?!)

Claretmatt4 wrote:I said the same thing a year or two ago. It would fix a few problems all at once.

Put away fans in the corner of the stadium which should help quieten them.
Build new dressing rooms inside the new stand where BL once stood and move the tunnel to the halfway line.
Accommodate disabled fans by offering them good seats around the whole 'L'.
Remove all bad views from the stand by having no stanchions in place
Remove the Health and safety risks that the current CFS home section has.

I'd envisage it costing around £8-£15m (finger in the air maths admittedly) and it should be no taller then the CFS stand is currently. 25k is a fair estimate for the new capacity which would be suitable so long as we stay in the premier league.

I think the cost would be £40-60m in truth because you’re dealing with demolition and the unknown underneath too. I’d also suggest a steeper Cricket Field stand so properly match up with the Bonn Lord rake which is needed to get it above the office. It also creates a wall effect for he team. Right now we can afford it. If we are relegated we cannot and will be stuck with what we have, or do a cheap version...again!