Turf Moor Comparisons

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
houseboy
Posts: 7364
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1720 times
Location: Baxenden

Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by houseboy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:12 pm

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?

elwaclaret
Posts: 9569
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 2203 times
Has Liked: 3102 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by elwaclaret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:18 pm

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.
This user liked this post: evensteadiereddie

Bacchus
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 701 times
Has Liked: 181 times
Contact:

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Bacchus » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:20 pm

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.
This user liked this post: Siddo

SalisburyClaret
Posts: 4077
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:32 pm
Been Liked: 1104 times
Has Liked: 709 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by SalisburyClaret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:33 pm

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.
These 2 users liked this post: evensteadiereddie ontario claret

Dyched
Posts: 6500
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:34 am
Been Liked: 2037 times
Has Liked: 466 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Dyched » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:39 pm

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

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:40 pm

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.

houseboy
Posts: 7364
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1720 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by houseboy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:42 pm

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.
Last edited by houseboy on Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These 4 users liked this post: tim_noone Juan Tanamera Volvoclaret Stayingup

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:42 pm

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.

houseboy
Posts: 7364
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1720 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by houseboy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:46 pm

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.

Corky
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 549 times
Has Liked: 416 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Corky » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:47 pm

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.
These 4 users liked this post: houseboy Juan Tanamera moaninclaret Dark Cloud

houseboy
Posts: 7364
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1720 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by houseboy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:05 pm

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.

chekhov
Posts: 3318
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:54 am
Been Liked: 876 times
Has Liked: 1674 times
Location: France

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by chekhov » Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:40 pm

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".
This user liked this post: houseboy

bf2k
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:52 pm
Been Liked: 337 times
Has Liked: 1519 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by bf2k » Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:55 pm

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.

houseboy
Posts: 7364
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1720 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by houseboy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:19 pm

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.

scouseclaret
Posts: 2674
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
Been Liked: 897 times
Has Liked: 270 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by scouseclaret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:39 pm

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.

piston broke
Posts: 5548
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1448 times
Has Liked: 1229 times
Location: Ferkham Hall

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by piston broke » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:43 pm

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.
These 2 users liked this post: andysisson If it be your will

elwaclaret
Posts: 9569
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 2203 times
Has Liked: 3102 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by elwaclaret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:46 pm

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.

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Pstotto » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:48 pm

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.

houseboy
Posts: 7364
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1720 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by houseboy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:55 pm

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.

jlup1980
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:01 pm
Been Liked: 1015 times
Has Liked: 626 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by jlup1980 » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:46 pm

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.

ashtonlongsider
Posts: 1802
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 507 times
Has Liked: 173 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by ashtonlongsider » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:05 pm

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.
This user liked this post: tim_noone

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:14 pm

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

NottsClaret
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
Been Liked: 2900 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by NottsClaret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:26 pm

It's the best ground in the league is Turf Moor.
This user liked this post: Quickenthetempo

jrgbfc
Posts: 9711
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:30 pm
Been Liked: 2349 times
Has Liked: 351 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by jrgbfc » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:53 pm

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!

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:57 pm

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.

MACCA
Posts: 15627
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:10 am
Been Liked: 4376 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by MACCA » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:21 pm

[/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!
This user liked this post: evensteadiereddie

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:29 pm

MACCA wrote:[/url]

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

A disaster waiting to happen if you ask me!
My thoughts exactly.

Siddo
Posts: 958
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:48 am
Been Liked: 374 times
Has Liked: 1860 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Siddo » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:41 pm

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.
This user liked this post: Silkyskills1

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:54 pm

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.

ElectroClaret
Posts: 20415
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 4516 times
Has Liked: 2032 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by ElectroClaret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:33 pm

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

UTC
This user liked this post: ontario claret

ontario claret
Posts: 5459
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 697 times
Has Liked: 1725 times
Location: Brooklin

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by ontario claret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:28 pm

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.

ontario claret
Posts: 5459
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 697 times
Has Liked: 1725 times
Location: Brooklin

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by ontario claret » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:34 pm

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.

Claretforever
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1091 times
Has Liked: 554 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Claretforever » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:04 pm

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)
This user liked this post: bfcwest

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 2961
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 880 times
Has Liked: 1659 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:23 pm

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.

Steve1956
Posts: 17884
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
Been Liked: 6634 times
Has Liked: 3069 times
Location: Fife

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Steve1956 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:53 am

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
This user liked this post: ontario claret

HieronymousBoschHobs
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:26 pm
Been Liked: 140 times
Has Liked: 58 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by HieronymousBoschHobs » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:06 am

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!

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3459
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1218 times
Has Liked: 319 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by RammyClaret61 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:15 am

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.
This user liked this post: bfcwest

Burnley1989
Posts: 8515
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
Been Liked: 2662 times
Has Liked: 2357 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Burnley1989 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:29 am

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
This user liked this post: deanothedino

Claretforever
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1091 times
Has Liked: 554 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Claretforever » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:53 am

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.

wilks_bfc
Posts: 13023
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3663 times
Has Liked: 2111 times
Contact:

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by wilks_bfc » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:56 am

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

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4385 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by tim_noone » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:10 am

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?

wilks_bfc
Posts: 13023
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3663 times
Has Liked: 2111 times
Contact:

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by wilks_bfc » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:26 am

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?”
This user liked this post: tim_noone

bfcwest
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 pm
Been Liked: 72 times
Has Liked: 88 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by bfcwest » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:50 pm

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.

Claretmatt4
Posts: 3949
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:31 am
Been Liked: 1049 times
Has Liked: 724 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Claretmatt4 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:59 pm

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.

Rileybobs
Posts: 18550
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 7611 times
Has Liked: 1582 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:12 pm

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.

Claretmatt4
Posts: 3949
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:31 am
Been Liked: 1049 times
Has Liked: 724 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Claretmatt4 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:27 pm

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!

Dark Cloud
Posts: 7536
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 2281 times
Has Liked: 4044 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Dark Cloud » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:28 pm

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.

Rileybobs
Posts: 18550
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 7611 times
Has Liked: 1582 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:31 pm

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.

bfcwest
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 pm
Been Liked: 72 times
Has Liked: 88 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by bfcwest » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:34 pm

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?!)

Claretforever
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 1091 times
Has Liked: 554 times

Re: Turf Moor Comparisons

Post by Claretforever » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:36 pm

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!

Post Reply