Accounts Released

Quoted from aldi_01

I’d argue that redevelopment of the main stand is very much doable, with the right planning and thought out processes. There aren’t many houses behind the stand and there’s the existing footprint the stand sits on. Modern architecture has proved you can get a lot on a small space.

I know people are obsessed with a new ground, May be because the previous incumbent never talked about anything else but for me it’s not really something I worry or think about. I suspect the new owners are the same, it’s a discussion but certainly not a priority.

Personally, should it happen, the last thing I want is a soulless bowl on the edge of town. They lack all the things we care about.

For years I've very much been in the 'we need a new stadium' group. I still am really for a certain amount of reasons, but I am finding myself thinking more about what BP could look like if re-developed. Much as I like the neat and tidiness of modern enclosed football stadia, I do still love an old fashioned ground, ones that have very real character and history.

If redevelopment is the way forward then the Main Stand has to be the one, not least for safety. Like ginny suggested, I don't think we'd need to increase the height so much, maybe a few rows if necessary/desired, building it similar to the pontoon where the walkways behind are all under the seats. Would bring the stand closer to houses (issue but gets an extra 5-6 rows maybe.

Simply extending the length, removing the posts, having a roof that doesn't restrict the view from the back rows and dugouts that are perhaps sat back into the stand will add a sensible number of additional seats for capacity and increase the overall quality of viewing.

If there's one thing I hate about this type of conversation it's that I'm now running in my head what it'll look like, when it will happen, they should let me design it etc etc. Suppose it's a more sane line of thinking than I could be the answer to the #9 problem!

Only time will tell if the club are permitted to develop BP to increase the capacity and provide better facilities. The Main Stand could be developed but I think it highly unlikely that it's height would be allowed to be increased through the planning stage. It's easy to argue that the inhabitants behind the Main Stand knew what they were doing moving into a property behind a football ground. Conversely they, through a half decent lawyer, could argue that with a changed profile/ height to the Main Stand and an increased capacity, then the conditions surrounding the area they bought their home has changed. I would imagine that all the posters who advocate developing BP and/or don't live in the adjoining streets or behind the Main Stand. A more feasible approach would be developing the open corners in being covered and seated. We can all debate what we think could/should happen but until plans are submitted or the Council are formally approached as to altering BP then none of us knows.
The only thing that I do know is that many years ago they Council , at that time, were approached about developing BP and they were more favourable of moving the ground. This was well documented in the GET at the time. Now that approach could have changed but we will only really know when the wheels are set in motion.

Quoted from rancido

Only time will tell if the club are permitted to develop BP to increase the capacity and provide better facilities. The Main Stand could be developed but I think it highly unlikely that it's height would be allowed to be increased through the planning stage. It's easy to argue that the inhabitants behind the Main Stand knew what they were doing moving into a property behind a football ground. Conversely they, through a half decent lawyer, could argue that with a changed profile/ height to the Main Stand and an increased capacity, then the conditions surrounding the area they bought their home has changed. I would imagine that all the posters who advocate developing BP and/or don't live in the adjoining streets or behind the Main Stand. A more feasible approach would be developing the open corners in being covered and seated. We can all debate what we think could/should happen but until plans are submitted or the Council are formally approached as to altering BP then none of us knows.
The only thing that I do know is that many years ago they Council , at that time, were approached about developing BP and they were more favourable of moving the ground. This was well documented in the GET at the time. Now that approach could have changed but we will only really know when the wheels are set in motion.

I think stadiums all over the country have been redeveloped and moved with the times, just like residential properties are changed/enlarged.  We will be working to make the situation better not worse.

I would be astonished if we couldn't convince residents it would be better for them to look out on to a clean stylish revamped stadium. I am not sure there would be anything to object to once the work was completed.

The Barrett stand was demolished and rebuilt so we have a precedent there.

Attendances in all leagues have never been so high , our lack of foresight is definitely leaving us behind

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I would not worry about that. When I was a young lad at school 60 years ago we were told Grimsby would be underwater soon. We were told that in the 50's, 60's 70's 80's etc and it has not materialized. Even if it ever did they would have to protect the coastline which would obviously include the football club.

Good point about planning permission but surely there are ways and means to alleviate any worries from residents?

Boring isn't it.  That's because the people spouting it ignore 2 things - the archimedes principle for the arctic and the fact the antarctic has a net gain in snow and ice of 82 billion tonnes a year which effectively neutralises any rise in water anyway.

Are we able to redevelop the Main Stand, I thought it was a Listed structure and we therefoer can't alter it? Or did I dream that?

Quoted from Bigdog

You gullible fooker. I bet you still think masks work, Pfizer are lifesavers and Covid came from a bat sneezing on a pangolin..

Funnily enough, conspiracy guy, I agree that the first two of those are true because, y'now, the physics of how good quality masks work is undeniable as is the science and data behind the vaccination. If you want to believe otherwise due to some stuff from grifters on the Internet, then that's your choice.

Bats were certainly involved in Covid because it's so similar to SARS. Nobody really sure about the pangolin yet, though natural emergence still seems the most likely.

Quoted from rancido

Only time will tell if the club are permitted to develop BP to increase the capacity and provide better facilities. The Main Stand could be developed but I think it highly unlikely that it's height would be allowed to be increased through the planning stage. It's easy to argue that the inhabitants behind the Main Stand knew what they were doing moving into a property behind a football ground. Conversely they, through a half decent lawyer, could argue that with a changed profile/ height to the Main Stand and an increased capacity, then the conditions surrounding the area they bought their home has changed. I would imagine that all the posters who advocate developing BP and/or don't live in the adjoining streets or behind the Main Stand. A more feasible approach would be developing the open corners in being covered and seated. We can all debate what we think could/should happen but until plans are submitted or the Council are formally approached as to altering BP then none of us knows.
The only thing that I do know is that many years ago they Council , at that time, were approached about developing BP and they were more favourable of moving the ground. This was well documented in the GET at the time. Now that approach could have changed but we will only really know when the wheels are set in motion.

Filling in the corners and roofing them would introduce structures that are not presently there, so I don't see how that is more feasible than redeveloping a structure already in place.

If 1878 want to redevelop the existing structure, the residents can get all the lawyers they want, but unless they come up with something concrete and detrimental to their existence, it won't stop anything.

I remember the campaigns by those living behind the old Winter Gardens, trying to get the new apartments stopped. They succeeded in getting them capped to a certain height, but ultimately, they didn't get the plans overturned as they had no legitimate grounds to do so.

If planned structures got stopped every time residents complained, nothing would ever get built. There would be a consultation period with anyone affected, and maybe a few amendments, but outright rejection would be unlikely in my view.

Planning and building regs are different beasts, dealt with by different departments, and it is the latter that would present more of a headache I would have thought. The current structure is a bulding regs nightmare from a fire and egress point of view. The toilet and catering arrangements are archaic too, not to mention the changing rooms being from the Ark. The club have a very strong case to update the stand and bring it into the 21st century.

This is a stand that has constant checks due to it's age and the materials used in it's construction. Updating it would remove all of those concerns.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I think stadiums all over the country have been redeveloped and moved with the times, just like residential properties are changed/enlarged.  We will be working to make the situation better not worse.

I would be astonished if we couldn't convince residents it would be better for them to look out on to a clean stylish revamped stadium. I am not sure there would be anything to object to once the work was completed.

The Barrett stand was demolished and rebuilt so we have a precedent there.

Fair comments,as regards the local residents, but given the opportunity I bet they would rather have no stadium there at all.
The comparison with the Barratt Stand is ok but how long ago was that? Attitudes change and even tolerances to new developments can alter. I once lived in a local village with plenty of properties with large gardens. With new owners a lot of these became subject to applications for ' in-fill properties' with the gardens being split to accommodate this. After a while, following a change of personnel, the Parish Council , aided by an increasing number of local objections, started to reject all the new ones and it became harder to get them approved. I'm not saying that would happen with BP but even though precedents had been set in my example, new changes were rejected.