Turf Moor Comparisons

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:38 pm

The entire project would be a logistical nightmare.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:46 pm

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

It has to be done at some stage so whether this generation of fans is upset about giving up their slightly restricted view seat now for a better view and facilities or the next generation there is no way round it (other than moving or ground sharing).

The one thing that is for certain is the outcome will be far superior while we have money rather than when we don't. The monstrosities built in 1995/96 are testament to that.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:46 pm

Rileybobs wrote:The entire project would be a logistical nightmare.

Crikey, I'm glad Brunel didn't have your attitude.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:52 pm

Goody1975 wrote:It has to be done at some stage so whether this generation of fans is upset about giving up their slightly restricted view seat now for a better view and facilities or the next generation there is no way round it (other than moving or ground sharing).

The one thing that is for certain is the outcome will be far superior while we have money rather than when we don't. The monstrosities built in 1995/96 are testament to that.

Would you be happy to give up your season ticket seat and not be able to attend for a season?

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:57 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Would you be happy to give up your season ticket seat and not be able to attend for a season?

Why on earth would they not be able to attend for a season?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:57 pm

bfcwest wrote:Crikey, I'm glad Brunel didn't have your attitude.

What’s my attitude? Realistic? It would be a logistical nightmare. I’m not saying that it isn’t possible, of course it is. But there are so many factors to consider. So many stakeholders at play. Relocating various parties at various times, and phasing the construction in such a way to minimise disturbance and maintain H&S.

There are so many issues at play that contractors would charge through the nose for unknowns - so the figure of £8m is quite frankly laughable. There is also a huge risk of a project like this taking much longer than anticipated which again increases the risk of displaced and disgruntled fans.

If we’re being honest, the ground could do with a face lift but it certainly isn’t a necessity. Particularly not whilst we’re almost filling the stadium on a weekly basis and have a packed out away end most weeks.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:01 pm

How much did the Jimmy Mac and James Hargreaves cost for comparison?

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:02 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:How much did the Jimmy Mac and James Hargreaves cost for comparison?

£6 million I think. (In 1996)

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:02 pm

Goody1975 wrote:Why on earth would they not be able to attend for a season?

I don’t have the figures for how many season ticket holders we have but is it not possible that there wouldn’t be enough capacity to relocate them all elsewhere around the ground? And even if they could would each party be able to relocate together or would families be separated/people left sat alone? And I can’t imagine many people sat in the central area of the BLS be happy sitting at the corner flag in the JML.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:03 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:How much did the Jimmy Mac and James Hargreaves cost for comparison?

In total including the redevelopment of the gymnasium the cost was about £6.5 Million. We got about £2.5 Million in grants if my memory is correct.

The Stadium of Light with an initial capacity of 42,000 cost about £24 Million and the Brittania Stadium (capacity of 28,000) was about £15 Million.

Construction costs are conservatively four times what they were then, probably more, the Amex was pushing £100 Million to build in 2008!!!

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:03 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:How much did the Jimmy Mac and James Hargreaves cost for comparison?

It’s not a reasonable comparison.

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:05 pm

People might not be too happy about a temporary relocation, but crumbs it IS only temporary and short term and as said, the long term benefits would be great for them. I doubt few would kick up a real fuss.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:07 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:People might not be too happy about a temporary relocation, but crumbs it IS only temporary and short term and as said, the long term benefits would be great for them. I doubt few would kick up a real fuss.

That’s incredibly naive. People kick up a fuss about not having small letters to put onto the back of replica kits.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:09 pm

Rileybobs wrote:That’s incredibly naive. People kick up a fuss about not having small letters to put onto the back of replica kits.

I'd prefer to wait to see their reaction in twenty years when the stand is condemned, that will be a real hoot.

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:11 pm

Rileybobs wrote:That’s incredibly naive. People kick up a fuss about not having small letters to put onto the back of replica kits.

I did kick up a fuss admittedly, but I wouldn’t complain about having to temporarily move seats for development

The question would be is there enough “empty” seats around the ground for everyone to be relocated

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:13 pm

[quote="piston broke"]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.[/quote

Yes and the atmosphere would be more damp. The C.F. still has the best acoustics and a high
Bob Lord is the opposite. Now that stand really does need updating.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:14 pm

Rileybobs wrote:I don’t have the figures for how many season ticket holders we have but is it not possible that there wouldn’t be enough capacity to relocate them all elsewhere around the ground? And even if they could would each party be able to relocate together or would families be separated/people left sat alone? And I can’t imagine many people sat in the central area of the BLS be happy sitting at the corner flag in the JML.

If we did the Bob Lord in the first phase (up to one full season), then all season ticket holders could be accommodated elsewhere. Families should be able to 'sit together', but they might not like the view / getting wet, but that is one of the key reasons we need to do this. We need more 'desirable' seats. Then when we move round to the Cricket Field development, there would be enough additional capacity in the New Bob Lord to accommodate season ticket holders from there whilst that is completed.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:15 pm

wilks_bfc wrote:I did kick up a fuss admittedly, but I wouldn’t complain about having to temporarily move seats for development

The question would be is there enough “empty” seats around the ground for everyone to be relocated

I wasn’t having a dig about the shirt numbers FYI, just pointing out that people get upset about very trivial matters. Moving people who sit with families in prime seats and separating them at different areas of the ground will upset a lot of fans and in some case turn them away entirely.

Again, I’m not saying that redevelopment shouldn’t be considered but I’m not sure it’s worth the risk as things currently stand. After all, the stadium is perfectly fine if not a little dated.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:15 pm

wilks_bfc wrote:I did kick up a fuss admittedly, but I wouldn’t complain about having to temporarily move seats for development

The question would be is there enough “empty” seats around the ground for everyone to be relocated

I'm sure we would have dispensation to reduce away capacity during redevelopment (remember Premier League clubs don't need this cash to survive) and also reduce the number of walk on seat held back. I'm sure the 2,000 season ticket holders in the BLS stand will be accommodated elsewhere, the corporate areas would be an issue for the club but again subsidise the prices for the corporate members and give all affected fans first dibs on seats when the stand reopens.

You would have many people with a slightly restricted view seat in the BLS sat in a prime central location 12 months further on, i'm sure they will be chuffed to bits having overcome the initial disappointment of sitting with the lower classes for a year. Call it national service if you like.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pm

Goody1975 wrote:I'd prefer to wait to see their reaction in twenty years when the stand is condemned, that will be a real hoot.

What makes you think the stand will be condemned in 20 years? If there are signs that the stand is structurally or otherwise unsafe then of course we should be looking to redevelop, although I’m not aware that’s the case.

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Rileybobs wrote:What makes you think the stand will be condemned in 20 years? If there are signs that the stand is structurally or otherwise unsafe then of course we should be looking to redevelop, although I’m not aware that’s the case.

Okay 30 years, 40 years whatever.

The point is the stands need a partial or total rebuild at some stage and we have the cash now but will almost definitely not have it when we HAVE to do the work.

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:21 pm

I didn’t take it as a dig Riley

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:24 pm

Goody1975 wrote:Okay 30 years, 40 years whatever.

The point is the stands need a partial or total rebuild at some stage and we have the cash now but will almost definitely not have it when we HAVE to do the work.

I don’t study the club’s accounts but I imagine we are putting some cash aside for a rainy day and no doubt that will involve updates to the stadium. I just don’t necessarily think that now is the right time to rebuild two of our stands.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:33 pm

The ground is under capacity, has awful facilities and has too many seats with rubbish views. The fans deserve better when we are awash with cash. We are behind nearly ALL of our neighbours in terms of the standard of our stadium, and definitely behind the rest of the Prem. Sort it out.

Get the place re-developed for goodness sake. The only reasons I can see for why the board are not getting on with it whilst we finally have the money are that either they are thinking of selling us and want the accounts to look good so they get top wack, so are happy leaving it to the new owners to pay for the ground upgrade, or they have plans to move to a new location. Who wants either of these outcomes?!!?

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:41 pm

bfcwest wrote:Get the place re-developed for goodness sake. The only reasons I can see for why the board are not getting on with it whilst we finally have the money are that either they are thinking of selling us and want the accounts to look good so they get top wack, so are happy leaving it to the new owners to pay for the ground upgrade, or they have plans to move to a new location. Who wants either of these outcomes?!!?

There is of course a third reason which is by far more plausible than the two you’ve stated which is that the board don’t feel there is currently a need to redevelop the ground.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:46 pm

People think that because our average is 20,700 and the ground holds 21,900 that it’s big enough.

They’re not working out that some seats don’t sell because they have a crap view (below/equal to pitch level), in corners, open to the elements or behind posts.

It’s not way too small, but with more seats we would average at least 1,000 more away fans with the big clubs filling larger allocations, and 1-2,000 more home fans over a season. The demand for the big games is there.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:48 pm

Was it at a London Clarets meeting that a Director stayed that for some larger games we had had up to 32,000 ticket applications?

No, we don’t need a 32,000 seater before anyone says it.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:49 pm

Goodison Park.

Left of the Gladwys St. End, the two tier stand has a similar architectural footprint to our ground from the pitch to Harry Potts Way. The solution is to build a safe standing (for now) terrace that (like Goodison park) stretches all the way back to the road and with a smaller seating top tier Bob Lord Stand sized.

The bloke who did re-did the North Bank at Highbury along similar lines, was apparently a Burnley fan. I'm surprised actually that Burnley did not try and buy that second-hand when Arsenal moved to the Emirates, to put where the Cricket Field Stand is.

The Cricket Field Stand is actually one of the most sophisticated builds of post-war stadiums and anywhere else it might be Grade 2 listed. The reason-being it had an underfloor heating system (perhaps the only one of its kind in the world.) They like to take shots of the wooden seats, do the media to take the ****, but they are very well made and I never had any problems as a season ticket holder there for nine years, fully satisfied at the time with what it was.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:58 pm

Pstotto wrote:Goodison Park.

Left of the Gladwys St. End, the two tier stand has a similar architectural footprint to our ground from the pitch to Harry Potts Way. The solution is to build a safe standing (for now) terrace that (like Goodison park) stretches all the way back to the road and with a smaller seating top tier Bob Lord Stand sized.

The bloke who did re-did the North Bank at Highbury along similar lines, was apparently a Burnley fan. I'm surprised actually that Burnley did not try and buy that second-hand when Arsenal moved to the Emirates, to put where the Cricket Field Stand is.

The Cricket Field Stand is actually one of the most sophisticated builds of post-war stadiums and anywhere else it might be Grade 2 listed. The reason-being it had an underfloor heating system (perhaps the only one of its kind in the world.) They like to take shots of the wooden seats, do the media to take the ****, but they are very well made and I never had any problems as a season ticket holder there for nine years, fully satisfied at the time with what it was.

You don't list a building that looks like a naff garden shed just because it has underfloor heating that was revolutionary.

It's a dump. The only way it would ever be listed is if every other building in the country was destroyed.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:59 pm

You’re spot on there pstotto. The stand was a really high quality build at the time, and the seats are fine. The concourse isn’t fit for the modern fan or segregation though.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:00 pm

Rileybobs wrote:It’s not a reasonable comparison.

Well it is because its the construction of two stands. I wasn't going to say 'well it's going to be £10m with inflation then'.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:02 pm

Rileybobs wrote:There is of course a third reason which is by far more plausible than the two you’ve stated which is that the board don’t feel there is currently a need to redevelop the ground.

Yes, and for one of the two reasons that I have stated. The board are sitting on the cash for a reason.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:05 pm

bfcwest wrote:Yes, and for one of the two reasons that I have stated. The board are sitting on the cash for a reason.

Yeah. But not necessarily for one of the two reasons you’ve listed.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:09 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:Well it is because its the construction of two stands. I wasn't going to say 'well it's going to be £10m with inflation then'.

It's not though is it? The gist of this thread is that those stands are naff and always were. So how is the construction cost of two wholly inadequate stands 22 years ago of any use for a comparison to two top-class stands today?

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:23 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Yeah. But not necessarily for one of the two reasons you’ve listed.

Of course, but I would wager that both of them are a factor.

The board clearly don't appreciate their current customer, and have no understanding of their potential customer. As a result they are stuck in the mud with the tip that is Turf Moor (...of course I need to add that I love Turf Moor, just wish it wasn't such a tip...)

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:44 pm

deanothedino wrote:It's not though is it? The gist of this thread is that those stands are naff and always were. So how is the construction cost of two wholly inadequate stands 22 years ago of any use for a comparison to two top-class stands today?

Do you think we went to a construction company and said 'please can you build us two naff stands'? I'm sure we scoped it out with the best of intentions.

I think we'd need another year of PL money to start considering it.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:54 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:Do you think we went to a construction company and said 'please can you build us two naff stands'? I'm sure we scoped it out with the best of intentions.

I think we'd need another year of PL money to start considering it.

No but do you think two decent ones would have cost the same? Obviously they wouldn't. We bought cheap stands and it shows, does it not?

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:01 pm

The main point of the post was not the CF stand but the re-development of Turf Moor with respect to Goodison Park's stand.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:36 pm

Financially there's little doubt that now is the ideal time to consider any major structural development. The Club accounts at the end of the current season will show net assets approaching £100m, a level which of course is unprecedented in our history and one which is highly unlikely to be sustained. That said any suggestion of providing a new L shaped stand for a cost between £8m and £15m is pure nonsense, Claretforever's estimate of £40m/£60m is much nearer the mark.

To put that in context, the CFS which was opened in 1969 was built at a total cost of £180,000. It was state of the art at the time and, as pstotto points out, included under floor heating to keep 4,500 fans warm in the winter months. At least that was the theory but in practice by the time Edward Heath officially opened the stand in 1973 the oil-fired system had already been turned off by Bob Lord as it proved massively uneconomical.

The new Bob Lord stand then followed and opened in 1974 at a cost of £450,000.

claret wizard · Post by **claret wizard** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:47 pm

Burnley1989 wrote:Positioning of Brighton’s grounds not ideal but it’s s great ground

No it’s not. Stands pitch behind the goals are to shallow. First few rows are below the pitch level. The home fans upper tiers are too far away because of the lower tier spread. Why only 26rows behind the goals? I was on the back row and it was still a poor view.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:00 pm

Not really sure what it is about modern stadia that people like.

They 'sound' ok for atmosphere due to their design, when in reality they aren't any better than TM.

More than a few resort to noise assistance like drummers, clappers or using the stadium speakers and mic's to spread the noise.

Is it the shiny toilets people like?

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:00 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Not really sure what it is about modern stadia that people like.

They 'sound' ok for atmosphere due to their design, when in reality they aren't any better than TM.

More than a few resort to noise assistance like drummers, clappers or using the stadium speakers and mic's to spread the noise.

Is it the shiny toilets people like?

Burnley need a 21st century stadium and a loud speaker that works.and a crush free concourse under the CFE.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:13 pm

yorkyclaret · Post by **yorkyclaret** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:55 am

Sick of people who sit on cheap nasty faded plastic seats whinging about the great Bob Lord Stand, just jealousy that's all.

Claretforever · Post by **Claretforever** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:08 am

Wooden seats can last 100 years - see Liverpool as an example, who’s seats similar to ours were in place from 1908 - 2016 in their main stand.

Plastic seats have a 15-20 life and then need replacing. It’s a cheaper alternative than looks better when first fitted. People are sheep and want to fit in, that’s all.

So we keep the seats and replace the stand?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:54 am

Claretforever wrote: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.

Start doing that and you end up with a stadium where spectators are so far away from the edge of the pitch.

Aside from Wembley and the London stadium is there another ground where fans are that far from the edge of the pitch?

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:28 pm

Spijed wrote:Start doing that and you end up with a stadium where spectators are so far away from the edge of the pitch.

Aside from Wembley and the London stadium is there another ground where fans are that far from the edge of the pitch?

The seats with fans in would actually be closer to the pitch. You’ve not read the post properly. The suggestion is we move the pitch closer to the longside and beehole to allow more room for the development of the BL and CF. Taking the often empty front rows out will allow the pitch to move even further. At the moment it is not in the right place.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:40 pm

Goody1975 wrote:In total including the redevelopment of the gymnasium the cost was about £6.5 Million. We got about £2.5 Million in grants if my memory is correct.

The Stadium of Light with an initial capacity of 42,000 cost about £24 Million and the Brittania Stadium (capacity of 28,000) was about £15 Million.

Construction costs are conservatively four times what they were then, probably more, the Amex was pushing £100 Million to build in 2008!!!

Brighton didn't pay for theirs so it didn't matter for them.

AlwaysClaret · Post by **AlwaysClaret** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:00 pm

Do enjoy these ground redevelopment threads, some good idea's put forward, some maybe not so good

.

I for one would hate us to relocate, love Turf Moor where it is, know lots of Bolton fans who hate trekking out to the Macron or whatever it's called these days.

My idea would look at things from a more commercial perspective, something that could be sustained should we suffer relegation. It's purely hypothetical as it would require us to acquire the Cricket Club. (that's a whole different thread)

There would be great potential to develop a multifunction stand, hotel, and conference centre.

Burnley certainly needs a decent hotel close to the centre, and a large conference hall/exhibition space/concert venue. There is nothing similar in the area for larger events. The potential partners in the venture could certainly fund most of the cost of that part of the project. We could even possibly get the stand part of the project at no cost to the club if the right deal with commercial partners could be done.

Something like a huge empty area on the ground level for exhibitions and concert etc plus changing rooms, gym for players, second and third-floor hotel rooms, bars and restaurants with lots of hospitality areas facing out to pitch with the roof level with plenty of parking to solve that issue.

All this would provide both matchday and non-matchday income and allow us to greatly improve the hospitality offerings on matchdays.

This would give the club additional income streams if we did get relegated and would not saddles us with huge costs.

It would not only benefit the club but become a major asset to the town as well so getting the council and big businesses interested should not be too hard.

I have no idea how feasible something like this would be just brainstorming.

UTC

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:15 pm

Another price comparison is the almost total rebuild of Ashton Gate for around £45 Million.

This all while they still played their games there.

There are a lot of unknowns with replacing the two stands and this could affect cost but i would be disappointed is we couldn't replace both for a maximum of £40 Million and hopefully less, especially as doing two together would surely be cheaper than individually.

I would like to think this is a point of discussion at board level now, with thoughts of putting plans in place if we stay up this season and firm action at the end of the following season, again if we retain our Premier League status.

This will only happen is we continue to be successful.

Its a win win, really.