In light of this weeks promotion and a return to the Premiership, will Alan Pace and our Board of Directors be considering whether now is the time to finally explore the development of Turf Moor. We have all made comments over the last ten years on the Cricket Field Stand, enlarging the Bob Lord stand, etc. Interesting that reports are showing Aston Villa increasing their ground capacity without having to close any part of their existing ground, I have always thought personally, that extending the Bob Lord was the sensible option and look to increase our capacity to 25,000. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts and ideas were, striking the right balance between squad investment and ground development always generates an interesting discussion.

Interesting that in the piece about Checkets and those American money men, stadium development was one of the things listed as being an investment opportunity. I acknowledge that the article was spuriously titled as other than Checkets being a Burnley board member, it wasn't essentially about Burnley at all.

I’ve long considered 25,000 to be about the right ceiling for a capacity for Burnley. Ensure there are 3,000 away tickets and it means we can get 22,000 Clarets in for the big games. I know sometimes demand would outstrip that, but it’d be fine in the main.

A new Cricket Field for 5-6,000 and a back extension to the Bob Lord with a cantilever or goalpost supported roof would be a decent solution, even a wrap around roof covering an L shaped Bob Lord/Cricket Field.

The problem is when you do it? When we’re in the Premier League we can’t afford to lose capacity. When we’re in the Championship we can’t afford to do it.

Claretforever wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:03 pm

The problem is when you do it? When we’re in the Premier League we can’t afford to lose capacity. When we’re in the Championship we can’t afford to do it.

Spot on.

Sadly development would probably focus on increasing corporate areas for the PL.

Definitely agree that anything above 25,000 would be utterly daft. Another 2,500/3,000 in something looking like it wasn't built during the war would be absolutely fine.

Another tier in the bob lord solely for corporate guests with a more modern shell seems like a good idea, possibly wrapping round to the cricket field as well. Maybe expanding by about 1500 in the meantime would be about right.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:06 pm

Spot on.

Sadly development would probably focus on increasing corporate areas for the PL.

I think I read somewhere that the new Everton stadium has the same number of non-hospitality tickets as Goodison despite it being considerably larger.

I’d offer the Cricket Club above market value to allow them to build a ground on Towneley, with council consent. Build another tier behind existing and still have room for a large CP or retail/housing.
Alternatively take the BL back to kerb edge.on Harry Potts Way.
I would like to see the CFS home fans only. Put the travellers down one wing or the other, Longside lower obviously.

Tricky Trevor wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:30 pm

I’d offer the Cricket Club above market value to allow them to build a ground on Towneley, with council consent. Build another tier behind existing and still have room for a large CP or retail/housing.
Alternatively take the BL back to kerb edge.on Harry Potts Way.
I would like to see the CFS home fans only. Put the travellers down one wing or the other, Longside lower obviously.

The market value of the Cricket Club isn’t the issue
It’s what they would lose on match day sales that is the problem

I wonder what the comparison is to a new cricket field stand that holds an additional 2000-4000. To a new stand that holds an additional 5000-10000 fans.
I guess a double tier?

But I wonder if the base line cost for a new stand is X let's call it 20m. Maybe a double tier costs you an additional 5m.
Suddenly you've added an 5000 seats rather than 2000 for 25m.
So for an additional 5m you can house 3000 extra than you could for your original 20m.

Suddenly the cost looks cheaper and maybe more worth it. But only if you fill it. And we couldn't fill that.
So we'd either pay the 20m for 2000. And that just might not be worth it. Or pay a marginally bigger fee but have additional capacity in the stand that's half full most weeks.

Maybe the size we want to increase it by is part of the problem. If the club is ambitious enough and we progress we don't want to have to revisit the same stand in 5-10 years time either, looking for a few more thousand capacity. And having to pay 20m again for new stand rather than 5 right now to cover it would sting.

Who would be a chairman eh.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:34 pm

The market value of the Cricket Club isn’t the issue
It’s what they would lose on match day sales that is the problem

Fair point.

Tbf to the board, balancing ground development against money for players, whilst also factoring in the lost revenue during development assuming certain areas are unusable is a really difficult conundrum (at any club) Having said that I desperately hope they never come to the conclusion that a move is the best option, because whatever happens, it really isn't.

As long as we don't move to an industrial estate next to a motorway junction, I'll be happy.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:34 pm

The market value of the Cricket Club isn’t the issue
It’s what they would lose on match day sales that is the problem

There's no need for the cricket club to move anywhere. I bigger stand could be built on the footprint of the CFS

I’d say our capacity is near enough perfect for where we are at the moment, bouncing between the Premier League and Championship.

I think if we want to genuinely become an established Premier League club we need to put some proper effort in to growing the fanbase and also expanding the Turf.

For me this is more of a debate around infrastructure investment vs. first team investment and I’ll always be one that would happily sacrifice a few first team signings to see positive off-field improvements.

Before expansion I’d like to see:

- Concourses and kiosks in all stands properly refurbished and modernised.

- Longside and Jimmy Mc re-clad from corrugated steel to something more modern/less cheap looking, especially the yellowing side panels, with the rusting steel supports cleaned or sprayed. Put simply, the look of our two main stands is not Premier League and not the image an aspirational Premier League team would want to give.

- Further investment in Gawthorpe, particularly Academy facilities, to maintain them being world class (U21s currently do recovery at Burnley College for example).

- Ideally a small Academy and women’s team ‘stadium’ at Gawthorpe that could also be used for the tournaments we host.

But at some point it’s unavoidable that the CFS and Bob Lord will have to be replaced. They’re end of life and were a few decades ago.

Away fans aren’t going to be entering the ground from anywhere other than the current location. It’s the only place where the coaches can park as close to the ground. For that reason it would be the CFS to be redeveloped and I don’t think the capacity needs to be increased by much, trying to shift 2 spares for Monday was hard work. Cost of going to football plus easier access to watch at home means crowds won’t dramatically increase. An upgraded or new CFS should do.

If the club finds itself in the Championship again and the current Sky package is in place there will be a lot empty seats if the capacity is increased. Attendances for the midweek games will still be low during the cold months.

Wouldn't flattening the turf and using the ground space be better than adding parts or replacing 1 stand.
Plenty of local teams we could ground share with for a season or 2

The Council and planning appeals panels have made it clear that they oppose both a move for BCC or even the sale of more land to BFC even if the financial implications could be sorted out. The income from 19 or 23 football days are a massive reason for BCC's continued successes in the Lancashire League.

cockneyclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:00 pm

Wouldn't flattening the turf and using the ground space be better than adding parts or replacing 1 stand.
Plenty of local teams we could ground share with for a season or 2

I have often thought along similar lines. The actual positioning of the ground could have been on a slightly different footprint and still fall within the boundaries of what at present constitutes the club's land. The siting of the ground doesn't make the best use of the land available, especially being right up against Harry Potts Way.

cockneyclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:00 pm

Wouldn't flattening the turf and using the ground space be better than adding parts or replacing 1 stand.
Plenty of local teams we could ground share with for a season or 2

Might cost a few quid that option and it just wouldn’t feel right.

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:59 pm

There's no need for the cricket club to move anywhere. I bigger stand could be built on the footprint of the CFS

My vague memory of this is that actually building the stand isn't the issue, it's the access and in particular the emergency access/exits that are restricted if the cricket club is there.

I believe they are making another third of the CFS seats safe standing over the summer. This will probably will be the biggest development, but the entire CFS needs replacing really.

aggi wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:09 pm

My vague memory of this is that actually building the stand isn't the issue, it's the access and in particular the emergency access/exits that are restricted if the cricket club is there.

This could be true, I’m not sure, but pretty sure TFC’s statement is also correct - the CFS is not far off being as deep as the Longside.

I also think there’s lots of opportunity to move the pitch closer to the Jimmy Mc and Longside to create some room for Bob Lord expansion.

My main criteria in any ground redevelopment would be to get the fans as close to the pitch as possible.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:05 pm

The Council and planning appeals panels have made it clear that they oppose both a move for BCC or even the sale of more land to BFC even if the financial implications could be sorted out. The income from 19 or 23 football days are a massive reason for BCC's continued successes in the Lancashire League.

Out of interest, where have you heard this. I’m not sure the Council or their planning department has any jurisdiction over private party land sales.

Not that I want to see the CC moved. That should remain and there’s plenty of space for a tightly packed but expanded ground. I think it’s only a few meters of land they need to redevelop the CFS anyway.

Tricky Trevor wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:30 pm

I’d offer the Cricket Club above market value to allow them to build a ground on Towneley, with council consent. Build another tier behind existing and still have room for a large CP or retail/housing.
Alternatively take the BL back to kerb edge.on Harry Potts Way.
I would like to see the CFS home fans only. Put the travellers down one wing or the other, Longside lower obviously.

There would be a huge amount of people contesting the plans if a cricket club at towneley was proposed. There's already issues with the traffic going through there at the moment which has been raised numerous times and there are discussions being had on how best to control it. Adding a cricket club in there as well would only make things worse on top of the recently agreed camping facilities

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:34 pm

The market value of the Cricket Club isn’t the issue
It’s what they would lose on match day sales that is the problem

That can be solved by gifting them a large sum to be invested, with the interest etc. generating an annual income in perpetuity.

aggi wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:09 pm

My vague memory of this is that actually building the stand isn't the issue, it's the access and in particular the emergency access/exits that are restricted if the cricket club is there.

I've always thought that the depth of the cfs would take a bigger capacity, ie 2nd tier of 1500-2000, but also wondered about access and exits etc, but I would have thought it could somehow be doable.
Similarly with the bls, as has been mentioned a cantilever style 2nd tier over and wrapping round to join on to the cfs which could provide better access maybe from the corner as a quadrant type ie more turnstiles. All this giving us 3/4,000 extra capacity which imo would be about right. For instance going off demand we could probably have had 25/26,000 on for Mondays game, so should we sustain a stay in the Premier league and become re-established we'd probably be comfortable with that figure.

I'm not really arsed about the development of the ground. I quite like people saying it's shite, it shouldn't be a welcoming place for people to come.

There's a few bits that could do with sprucing up but mainly just cosmetic rather than increasing or decreasing capacity. Maybe update the cladding all around the ground which now looks very grubby, and perhaps cantilever roofs for the cricket field and fishwick.

I would much rather the club and council worked together to do something about the surrounding area. The work under the culvert and what's been done to the center looks nice but something now needs to be done from the prinny royal to the Belvedere road junction. It looks like Damascus once Putin and Isis had finished up with it.

I did a bit of fag packet costing last time this came up:

viewtopic.php?p=2266887#p2266887

I can never understand the weird obssesion with potentially having empty seats, there are people on here who would be happy with a 10k ground as long as it was full.

The club needs to sort the two new stands out first and foremost. The legroom is terrible, no protection from the elements. If we're going to have a longside then have a longside, 15k stand down the side, give 5k to away fans which they access via the ginnel.

Capacity upto 30k, lets start having a little ambition.

alwaysaclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:27 pm

All this giving us 3/4,000 extra capacity which imo would be about right. For instance going off demand we could probably have had 25/26,000 on for Mondays game, so should we sustain a stay in the Premier league and become re-established we'd probably be comfortable with that figure.

I agree and I think we need to be challenging the Fulham, Palace capacities if we really want to ‘belong’ there.

I think we could if we established ourselves and importantly ultimately played an exciting brand of football.

Goliath wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:21 pm

There would be a huge amount of people contesting the plans if a cricket club at towneley was proposed.

I’d be one of them too, and nothing to do with parking.

Having the CC next Turf Moor is part of our heritage. There’s plenty of room and no need to move it.

It’s an issue that needs sorting sooner rather than later. We’ve been kicking this can down the road for a couple of decades now since a redevelopment was first mooted.

We can’t keep spending millions titivating. I dread to think how how much we’ve spent continually doing up the BL and CFS.

There needs to be some proper long term thinking with this.

summitclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:21 pm

That can be solved by gifting them a large sum to be invested, with the interest etc. generating an annual income in perpetuity.

Why should they move? Its their home just as much is the Turf is the Football clubs.

They were there first weren't they?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:39 pm

I agree and I think we need to be challenging the Fulham, Palace capacities if we really want to ‘belong’ there.

I think we could if we established ourselves and importantly ultimately played an exciting brand of football.

It's not really about capacity though. Bog standard matchday income, particularly at the prices most Burnley fans would bear, is peanuts compared to the tv money.

All the recent new grounds/stands have primarily been to up the hospitality seating, that's where the money is.

getbennyon wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:38 pm

I can never understand the weird obssesion with potentially having empty seats, there are people on here who would be happy with a 10k ground as long as it was full.

The club needs to sort the two new stands out first and foremost. The legroom is terrible, no protection from the elements. If we're going to have a longside then have a longside, 15k stand down the side, give 5k to away fans which they access via the ginnel.

Capacity upto 30k, lets start having a little ambition.

Ambition is fine. Living in dreamland is another. When has the club ever looked like selling 25k home tickets, apart from very rare one-offs?

Just take a look 12 miles down the M65 for what we'd end up with.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:39 pm

I agree and I think we need to be challenging the Fulham, Palace capacities if we really want to ‘belong’ there.

I think we could if we established ourselves and importantly ultimately played an exciting brand of football.

What's your thinking behind that? Palace AVG 25k. Call it £500 for 4,000 extra ST's and that's 2 million a season extra in the kitty. Obviously won't be exactly like that but you get the jist. Practically negligible when considering the sums on offer in the PL so presume youre thinking of some other benefit I'm not grasping?

The cricket club won’t allow us to buy them out. They’ve been there longer than the turf has been there and make far too much money on match days . The only feasible outcome would be to build a stand with a pavilion facing the cricket ground at the back of the new stand and allow them to keep The profits from match days.

Another issue would be the access to build a new stand , they’d not allow diggers and bulldozers on the cricket pitch for a couple of years.

blatherwickstattoos wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:49 pm

The cricket club won’t allow us to buy them out. They’ve been there longer than the turf has been there and make far too much money on match days . The only feasible outcome would be to build a stand with a pavilion facing the cricket ground at the back of the new stand and allow them to keep The profits from match days.

Another issue would be the access to build a new stand , they’d not allow diggers and bulldozers on the cricket pitch for a couple of years.

Couldn't Burnley Cricket Club just move in as tenants of Lowerhouse?

They all seem on get on very well judging by the various Lancashire league threads...

Transpennine wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:47 pm

Ambition is fine. Living in dreamland is another. When has the club ever looked like selling 25k home tickets, apart from very rare one-offs?

Just take a look 12 miles down the M65 for what we'd end up with.

The club is experiences the highest demand for ticket since the 1960s.

Again, i ask, why are you afraid on potentially empty seats?

alwaysaclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:27 pm

. All this giving us 3/4,000 extra capacity which imo would be about right. For instance going off demand we could probably have had 25/26,000 on for Mondays game, so should we sustain a stay in the Premier league and become re-established we'd probably be comfortable with that figure.

I had 2 spares for Monday, it wasn’t easy to shift them and didn’t get face value not that I was bothered. That level of demand isn’t there.

JohnDearyMe wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:53 pm

Couldn't Burnley Cricket Club just move in as tenants of Lowerhouse?

They all seem on get on very well judging by the various Lancashire league threads...

I think lowerhouses third team get more crowds on then Burnley’s first so they’d be losing money

NL Claret wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:57 pm

I had 2 spares for Monday, it wasn’t easy to shift them and didn’t get face value not that I was bothered. That level of demand isn’t there.

I had about 15 people asking me for tickets haha. If you’d have put them on Facebook on a public thread they’d have gone in minutes

I can only think that the club's recent baulking at the cost of a functioning PA is because they're planning on redevelopment of at least one of the stands

You could rebuild the cricket field stand incorporate a new cricket club house we a sweetener, needs replacing anyway. Could do it in exchange for a bit more space at the rear.

I'd imagine we won't entertain moving the away fans to another stand, that would be away fans only.

Just assumptions

getbennyon wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:54 pm

The club is experiences the highest demand for ticket since the 1960s.

Again, i ask, why are you afraid on potentially empty seats?

I don't think there's any evidence that the highest demand since the 60's shows that we'd regularly sell 25k home tickets.

Empty seats:
1. Ruin the atmosphere
2. End up filled by away fans.

We rarely sell out now

Turf has barely been full this season despite our success. On Sky etc the Jimmy Mac lower looks shocking when it’s always half full. I’d definitely prefer a tighter ground, lower capacity and obv with that generate a better atmosphere. Brentford built a new stadium and knew their limit at 19,000. Full every game and looks great.

Conroy92 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:38 pm

I wonder what the comparison is to a new cricket field stand that holds an additional 2000-4000. To a new stand that holds an additional 5000-10000 fans.
I guess a double tier?

But I wonder if the base line cost for a new stand is X let's call it 20m. Maybe a double tier costs you an additional 5m.
Suddenly you've added an 5000 seats rather than 2000 for 25m.
So for an additional 5m you can house 3000 extra than you could for your original 20m.

Suddenly the cost looks cheaper and maybe more worth it. But only if you fill it. And we couldn't fill that.
So we'd either pay the 20m for 2000. And that just might not be worth it. Or pay a marginally bigger fee but have additional capacity in the stand that's half full most weeks.

Maybe the size we want to increase it by is part of the problem. If the club is ambitious enough and we progress we don't want to have to revisit the same stand in 5-10 years time either, looking for a few more thousand capacity. And having to pay 20m again for new stand rather than 5 right now to cover it would sting.

Who would be a chairman eh.

You know what I’ve thought, beyond the 25,000 comment I made, that wouldn’t it be great if you had a ground where you could hide seats.

I mean the back section of stands with backboard, maybe metal, that come down on some sort of hydraulic system the make it appear the stand back was lower than it actually was. So maybe covering the back 5,000 seats across two stand, should they not be needed. Of course they’d have to be saleable on a match by match basis, and I’m probably going out of my mind.

It would stop the ground looking as empty like Ewood does when they have 12-14,000 on.

Nothing more than maintenance and a lick of paint here and there,leave well alone.