How about a small increase in capacity at Turf Moor....

[DCWat]

Firstly - there's absolutely no way that we'd look to redevlop two perfectly fine fit-for-purpose stands (JM & JH) when we have two stands that clearly aren't, by modern standards, fit-for-purpose. The CFS and BL stands would be the first to be replaced and I guess this could be done with a single-tiered stand wrapping around the corner that would give an increased capacity due to the number of additional 'modern' seats that could fit in the same area as the gigantic ancient wooden seas.

Secondly - I'm not sure why people can't get their head around the possibility of the JM and JH stands being joined in the corner. This is perfectly feasible, however as the stands aren't ideally aligned it would lead to one stand, I imagine the JM, being extended around the corner and butting up to the JH stand. This would look neater and add a few thousand onto the capacity but in reality probably isn't worth the money other than for vanity.

Like others though, I agree that an increase in capacity would be a good by-product of general stadium upgrades rather than a purpose venture.

Why cram tiny uncomfortable seats in? Arsenal has spacious plastic seats so no reason why we shouldn't have spacious seats with leg room. If you're above short arse proportions, the JH is not comfortable. Give me the wooden seats any day.

[Rileybobs]

Why cram tiny uncomfortable seats in? Arsenal has spacious plastic seats so no reason why we shouldn't have spacious seats with leg room. If you're above short arse proportions, the JH is not comfortable. Give me the wooden seats any day.

I didn't suggest tiny uncomfortable seats, just that we would increase the capacity fairly substantially by replacing the seats with smaller ones. I'd expect slightly more leg room considering the price you pay for an Arsenal season ticket.

[Vince Fontaine]

Why?

Why not?
UTC

[Vince Fontaine]

Vince Fontaine wrote:
I'd start with the Jimmy Mac
Utc

Why?

Seriously though. You get wet through in the lower tier when it rains, the view from the first 2/3 rows is horrendous and there is absolutely no atmosphere in there even on match days.

Why would you start with the CFS?

UTC

[Vince Fontaine]

Serious question, If were to redevelop the BL & CF and do the BL first where would we put the 3,000 people who sit in there until the work is complete, I don't think it would be as much of an issue with the smaller numbers in the CFS.

Only that then you have to find somewhere to put approx 1800 away fans. Jimmy mac lower maybe? Then where do you put the fans from the jimmy mac lower???????????

Leave the CFS well alone there is nothing wrong with it. It seems that the only people that want to get rid of it are the ones that sit elsewhere in the stadium !!!!!!!
UTC

[Claretforever]

Serious question, If were to redevelop the BL & CF and do the BL first where would we put the 3,000 people who sit in there until the work is complete, I don't think it would be as much of an issue with the smaller numbers in the CFS.

We are averaging over 3,000 in the cricjet Field this season, including the away fans, so where do we put them?

If it was the Bob Lord done first you've build behind it and then remove the front once the back is completed.

Doing the Cricket Field would mean reducing the capacity of the ground by 4,000 for half a season if the work began in say April next year. The Longside took about 7 months to finish didn't it?

[Dyched]

there is absolutely no atmosphere in there even on match days.

There's a cracking atmosphere when it's not match day though

[fidelcastro]

Vince Fontaine wrote:
I'd start with the Jimmy Mac
Utc




Seriously though. You get wet through in the lower tier when it rains, the view from the first 2/3 rows is horrendous and there is absolutely no atmosphere in there even on match days.

Why would you start with the CFS?

UTC

I forgot about the fantastic view in the CFS. That great big post is majestic!

[Let'sChaseTheDragon]

Been saying that for a while. TV is our shop window, we should show the Turf off in its best light.

Agree

[Fretters]

I've just found this posted on the Lancashire Telegraph site by Rob.H2O, hopefully he doesn't mind me posting it on here:

At a function last evening with Clive Holt. He's been a club director since the mid-1980's and he's widely credited or blamed for the development of Turf Moor. I've known Clive since 1996. He's a walking talking library of all things BFC. He explained that the design of the JM and the JH stands was and is less than ideal. They had to work within the confines of a Grant and other financial aid packages back when. The result is that requests for tickets vastly exceed those actually taken up. 2 out of 3 on-line or walk-in enquiries reject a seat in either lower-tier because of the level of the slope and being open to the elements. Others reject seats in the Cricket Field because of the proximity of away fans and the element of "over-passionate" Burnley fans that frequent it. He reckons that for the Utd, City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Everton games, the genuine enquiries for home seats tops 30,000. He sad they also reckoned they could sell more than 7,000 away seats to fans of those clubs and maybe to Villa, Newcastle, Sunderland, Wednesday, Blades, Spurs and Leeds if they were all top-flight too. He says that Burnley's wide spread fan base was a consequence of the areas lack of success in retaining good jobs in sufficient numbers over the years. Burnley fans were spread all over the country and have to be picky what games they attend because of cost. Big games are attractive and special effort made. Standard games attract folk more from locally so demand is smaller. He said that something had to be done about the ground because 10 home games a season in the Prem could see a crowd full house of more than 32,000 if the place was "properly formatted like "Deepdale". He was asked if there were plans. He grinned and said "no comment". He was asked about Crow Wood. He replied, grinning again, "Move from the Turf? That would cause a riot wouldn't it? Have to say though that the footprint and location are not up to the needs of the modern game ......!" Which brings me to Sunday's game. Despite a way greater demand for tickets than those sold, it's a sellout. It'll be bouncing. We are Premier League, I say we are Premier League . What a season! UTC

No idea if this is all true, but it would be strange thing to post in such depth. The "no comment" answer to doing something to the ground is certainly interesting if it's true.

[Spijed]

And what happens if we get relegated?

We'll be playing in a half empty stadium, like Rovers do.

[randomclaret2]

We'll never do anything in that case.

[LoveCurryPies]

Seems to me same people who don't want more capacity are the ones who moan the lack of atmosphere. Too many people don't like change, even if it is for the better. Only a few are visionaries.

If we are to remain a Premier League Club for more than just 2 years, we need larger crowds to help fund the Club. Did anyone see this weeks (Yorkshire) Look North news coverage of Bradford FC and how large numbers of asian families are now a regular and important part of the Club's fanbase? Given Blackburn FC's demise we might try convert a few of their supporters.

There are other problems like parking at the Club and the disabled facilities to address.

[LoveCurryPies]

And what happens if we get relegated?

We'll be playing in a half empty stadium, like Rovers do.

We won't achieve long term success if all you do is plan for failure.

[Spijed]

We won't achieve long term success if all you do is plan for failure.

And too many clubs have built grounds bigger than they need - Charlton & Bradford are prime examples.

[claretandy]

If what Clive holt said is true then we would be mad to not look at increasing capacity by a modest amount. Interesting to hear that people enquire about tickets but then don't go ahead and buy because of the poor view. Kind of dispels the myth that we don't need extra premium seats.

[TsarBomba]

I imagine the vast majority on here wouldn't think twice about buying a ticket in the cheap seats, but there is also a huge market for fair weather fans, and those with only a passing interest in BFC or football.

They are not going to pay good money for a seat in one of the lower tiers, where the view is poor and theres a possibility of getting wet.

We absolutely need more premium seats. I would prefer to stay at the Turf, but lets be honest, we're constrained by the Cricket Club, Harry Potts Way, local housing, and two very badly aligned stands in the JM and JH. If a new stadium is cost effective, then we should look at it.

We shouldn't stop progress based on sentimentality.

[Spijed]

It's certainly true that we could give bigger allocations to the bigger clubs, but why do that?

Wasn't one of the problems of having the tunnel in the middle of the away fans was that it could give opposition players a lift? Why give them an increase in allocation, making their support negate our own? Also, we'd be the only club in the PL to offer an allocation bigger than the 3,000 tickets that other clubs are permitted to do.

I'd be amazed if we could ever get gates of 32,000 on a regular basis considering we never got those in the 60's and it would put us higher than the likes of Leicester & Boro this season. I think Clive Holt is living in cloud cuckoo land in that respect. There is no way in the world we could ever attract bigger gates than the likes of Leicester. It's pure fantasy.

Edit: When Blackburn won the PL their average was 25k despite having a capacity of over 31,000. If they couldn't fill it for a title winning side we are deluding ourselves if we think we can get over 30,000 on a regular basis.

[UpTheBeehole]

Hard pressed to think of a site better than Turf Moor for football though.

It's very close to the town centre, it's easy to get north, south, east and west from there, it's a big site, and buy the cricket club out and it's a huge site.

The changes to infrastructure required to build a new stadium elsewhere would be huge. added to that, there's nowhere the size of the developments surrounding the Macron, Madejski, JD etc geographically available, and the retail pull of Burnley is minuscule, so you'd never get a big partner on board.

We do need to start bumping up the capacity though, and the best place to start is the CFS.

Give the cricket club £10m to clear off, build a new 7,500 capacity CFS which bends round to join the Longside, and then make a start on replacing the Bob Lord with a tightly packed, steep multi tiered stand, as at Valencia, and turn the Turf into a cauldron of noise.

[claretandy]

It's certainly true that we could give bigger allocations to the bigger clubs, but why do that?

Wasn't one of the problems of having the tunnel in the middle of the away fans was that it could give opposition players a lift? Why give them an increase in allocation, making their support negate our own? Also, we'd be the only club in the PL to offer an allocation bigger than the 3,000 tickets that other clubs are permitted to do.

I'd be amazed if we could ever get gates of 32,000 on a regular basis considering we never got those in the 60's and it would put us higher than the likes of Leicester & Boro this season. I think Clive Holt is living in cloud cuckoo land in that respect. There is no way in the world we could ever attract bigger gates than the likes of Leicester. It's pure fantasy.

Edit: When Blackburn won the PL their average was 25k despite having a capacity of over 31,000. If they couldn't fill it for a title winning side we are deluding ourselves if we think we can get over 30,000 on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we need a 32k capacity, 27k tops for me, more premium seats and more away fans, possibly 4k.

[TonbridgeClaret]

Leicester City were a club like Burnley, they were unable to average 20,000 (with a capacity of 22,000) at Filbert Street for their last few seasons there. In 2002 they moved to the Kingpower Stadium and immediately averaged 29,000 in 2002/3 and 31,000 in 2003/4. They were relegated but still averaged between 20,000 and 25,000 over the next 10 years. Since being back in the Premier League, they have averaged around 32,000. No reason Burnley couldn't do the same. Fans will come if they can get decent seats and have decent facilities.

[TsarBomba]

Hard pressed to think of a site better than Turf Moor for football though.

It's very close to the town centre, it's easy to get north, south, east and west from there, it's a big site, and buy the cricket club out and it's a huge site.

The changes to infrastructure required to build a new stadium elsewhere would be huge. added to that, there's nowhere the size of the developments surrounding the Macron, Madejski, JD etc geographically available, and the retail pull of Burnley is minuscule, so you'd never get a big partner on board.

We do need to start bumping up the capacity though, and the best place to start is the CFS.

Give the cricket club £10m to clear off, build a new 7,500 capacity CFS which bends round to join the Longside, and then make a start on replacing the Bob Lord with a tightly packed, steep multi tiered stand, as at Valencia, and turn the Turf into a cauldron of noise.

I do not entirely disagree, but that's two new stands, plus £10 million, which I imagine is not too far from the cost of a new stadium. Not that I particularly want a bowl like a Southampton or Leicester, but they aren't a great deal of money to build.

We need to remember that there were delays and complications in building the new club shop, due to the mine shafts down below. A second tier and new roof may not even be feasible, or cost effective because of this.

I think there are more problems with developing the Turf than people realise, and it's probably not as straight forward as just throwing up a couple of new stands.

[Spijed]

Leicester City were a club like Burnley, they were unable to average 20,000 (with a capacity of 22,000) at Filbert Street for their last few seasons there. In 2002 they moved to the Kingpower Stadium and immediately averaged 29,000 in 2002/3 and 31,000 in 2003/4. They were relegated but still averaged between 20,000 and 25,000 over the next 10 years. Since being back in the Premier League, they have averaged around 32,000. No reason Burnley couldn't do the same. Fans will come if they can get decent seats and have decent facilities.

Ewood park is a decent ground yet they've never got close to averaging 31,000. So no, we have no chance if they can't either!

As I said, they only got a 25,000 average in a season when they could practically outspend anyone else in football!

[tim_noone]

I do not entirely disagree, but that's two new stands, plus £10 million, which I imagine is not too far from the cost of a new stadium. Not that I particularly want a bowl like a Southampton or Leicester, but they aren't a great deal of money to build.

We need to remember that there were delays and complications in building the new club shop, due to the mine shafts down below. A second tier and new roof may not even be feasible, or cost effective because of this.

I think there are more problems with developing the Turf than people realise, and it's probably not as straight forward as just throwing up a couple of new stands.

Good atmosphere at Southampton IMO

[martin_p]

Just to put the gate receipt money aspect into context, we'll probably make more from winning on Sunday (£6-8 million) than we would if our average attendance increased to say 25,000. The additional money really isn't enough to make it worth while in my opinion (and it'd take us a few seasons to break even after investing in increased capacity anyway).

[randomclaret2]

It makes sense to invest in the ground when we are in such a sound financial position. Who knows what lies around the corner in terms of legislation , regarding disabled facilities for example. I remember traipsing around the country watching the Clarets in the 80s , following the Bradford fire and Heysel, and many of the grounds would have whole stands closed or fenced off , as clubs were hit with new regulation and no funds to do anything about it. Its not just about increased capacity.

[jlup1980]

Leicester City were a club like Burnley, they were unable to average 20,000 (with a capacity of 22,000) at Filbert Street for their last few seasons there. In 2002 they moved to the Kingpower Stadium and immediately averaged 29,000 in 2002/3 and 31,000 in 2003/4. They were relegated but still averaged between 20,000 and 25,000 over the next 10 years. Since being back in the Premier League, they have averaged around 32,000. No reason Burnley couldn't do the same. Fans will come if they can get decent seats and have decent facilities.

Although I understand your thought process there's one big difference between Leicester and Burnley; population.

In the 2011 census the population of the City of Leicester was 329,839 making it the most populous municipality in the East Midlands region.

The population of Burnley, according to the ONS Mid Year Population Estimates, in the year 2015 was 87,400.

For us to average anything like 20,000 home fans would be an absolutely incredible effort. We might see a short rise in attendances if we had better facilities but the fact is it wouldn't be anything like the 10,000 or so increase seen at the King Power.

[mdd2]

It makes sense to invest in the ground when we are in such a sound financial position. Who knows what lies around the corner in terms of legislation , regarding disabled facilities for example. I remember traipsing around the country watching the Clarets in the 80s , following the Bradford fire and Heysel, and many of the grounds would have whole stands closed or fenced off , as clubs were hit with new regulation and no funds to do anything about it. Its not just about increased capacity.

Do we really want one or two Martin Dobson stands and certain relegation due to non-investment on the pitch or carry on as we are and perhaps fill in the corners or contemplate another tier if possible on the BL stand.
The "new" CF and BL stands as well as the JH and JMc were I think essential and certainly CF and BL were funded from player sales. None of the changes suggested here are essential are they? If not then keep the money for the manager and the team unless it is possible to be successful and top up the dry powder room(s) at the same time

[Croydon Claret]

Hard pressed to think of a site better than Turf Moor for football though.

It's very close to the town centre, it's easy to get north, south, east and west from there, it's a big site, and buy the cricket club out and it's a huge site.

The changes to infrastructure required to build a new stadium elsewhere would be huge. added to that, there's nowhere the size of the developments surrounding the Macron, Madejski, JD etc geographically available, and the retail pull of Burnley is minuscule, so you'd never get a big partner on board.

We do need to start bumping up the capacity though, and the best place to start is the CFS.

Give the cricket club £10m to clear off, build a new 7,500 capacity CFS which bends round to join the Longside, and then make a start on replacing the Bob Lord with a tightly packed, steep multi tiered stand, as at Valencia, and turn the Turf into a cauldron of noise.

I know somebody who's been involved with the cricket club for many decades

The problem they have with moving is that an enormous percentage of their income comes from bar takings and car park fees when the Clarets are playing. If they move anywhere else then most of their revenue is gone

No idea what they were offered before but it clearly wasn't worth their while. £10 mill would no doubt sway it but can't see us offering that

[Formerbfcmanager]

Any forward looking business would look to increase its customer base at a time like this. There is definitely scope to increase our capacity but I don't think filling in the corners is the solution. The potential extra demand would be for 'premium' seats with the best view and increased hospitality provision. Potentially an increased capacity could lead to cheaper ticket prices as well. Improved disabled access and facilities is also a must. How can a Premier League club be satisfied when there isn't a dry seat or elevated view available for our disabled fans? This should have been a priority 8 years ago really

[tim_noone]

New stadium Move to crowood... Motorway links. In burnley,easy peasy..

[Claretforever]

I don't think anyone suggested we'd average 32,000 fans, just that for big games (5-6) our home enquiries have been around 30,000. Makes sense when you consider the likes of Liverpool in 14/15 selling out 5 weeks before.

Even in the 60's, despite averages similar to now, we had a number of 30,000 (even 40,000) plus gates with sizeable away numbers too.

25K with a bit of modernising would do.