Accounts Released

Looks as though we made a loss of £931,000 over the year. To be expected given the investment and the change at the club.

Others better placed will give better insight but we seem to have a lot more assets than previously and we paid 1.1m in loans, although there seems to be 400k still outstanding on those.

A certain poster has been waiting for this for months. Currently probably going through them with a fine eye I imagine, in the need to pick up on anything to have a dig and try to fixate a situation in which anyone else will believe the club were better off with the ex owner than present occupiers.

Bless.

Reminder that this covers 2021/22, ie. the promotion season. Anything that occurred after 31 May 2022 (like paying off Fenty) will be covered in next year's accounts.

Key info:

• Turnover: £4.4m (26% increase)
  
• Wages: £3.1m (10% increase)
  
• Wages as a percentage of income: 70% (10% decrease)
  
• Debt: £1.9m (84% increase)
  
• Transfer fees: £0 (there was compensation paid for John McAtee but this doesn't appear to have been included)
  
• Player trading profit: £437K (sale of Ben Grist and sell-on fee from Siriki Dembele's transfer to Bournemouth)
  

Key point about debt:
"The new owners invested £1.5 million of loans into the company during the year. Some of this
funding was used to repay debt in the form of loans from previous principal shareholder and the
balance was used to fund improving operations and infrastructure of the club."

Sounds like Fenty's loans have been replaced with a loan to 1878 Partners. Some of this has been used to improve infrastructure.

Turnover breakdown:
Matchday: £1.5m (119% increase) [highest for a decade]
Central distribution: £725K (52% decrease)
Commercial: £1.3m (122% increase) [the way this is calculated has changed so it can't be accurately compared to other years]
Academy grant: £516K (7% increase)
"Football fortune": £437K (70% increase)

Worth noting that the Promotion Final was on 5th June so isn’t included in this accounting period.

As pointed out previously when others criticised owner funded/bankrolled clubs, the club are £1.5m in debt to the new owners. I’m sure it’s a benign loan though!

Since 31st May Fenty had received his final payment of £400,000.

The only worry is those loans from the owners, I can’t remember that being stated as part of the plan. Although no doubt you can’t just magic up 1.5m to pay Fenty back out of thin air

Quoted from GollyGTFC

As pointed out previously when others criticised owner funded/bankrolled clubs, the club are £1.5m in debt to the new owners. I’m sure it’s a benign loan though!

I might be wrong but I thought in a very early interview, if the current owners were to sell the club they would be looking at having any loans repaid?

Quoted from pontoonlew

The only worry is those loans from the owners, I can’t remember that being stated as part of the plan. Although no doubt you can’t just magic up 1.5m to pay Fenty back out of thin air

Where did people think the operating losses they were open about when purchasing the club would appear in the accounts?

Quoted from arryarryarry

I might be wrong but I thought in a very early interview, if the current owners were to sell the club they would be looking at having any loans repaid?

I think they actually said they’d look to recoup any money invested (loaned) by increasing the value of their shareholdings.
i.e. get GTFC to L1 or even the Championship and their 63.1% of the business would be worth more than the £1.5m or so they spent buying up Fenty and other shareholders.

Bit confused and would welcome some correction on what is no doubt the interpretation of my non-financial mind please.

I previously thought that a repayment plan had been agreed with Fenty for his 'benign' loans whereby it would be repaid within an agreed schedule, although any such income such as transfers. would allow this to be paid off earlier.

If, as appears the case from above, the loans were paid back to Fenty by 1878 who in turn transferred them into their own loans to the club, why was the repayment line previously stated and also what has happened to the Pollock, Dembele, Grist etc. money?

Not a criticism of anything, just can't get my head round it.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Bit confused and would welcome some correction on what is no doubt the interpretation of my non-financial mind please.

I previously thought that a repayment plan had been agreed with Fenty for his 'benign' loans whereby it would be repaid within an agreed schedule, although any such income such as transfers. would allow this to be paid off earlier.

If, as appears the case from above, the loans were paid back to Fenty by 1878 who in turn transferred them into their own loans to the club, why was the repayment line previously stated and also what has happened to the Pollock, Dembele, Grist etc. money?

Not a criticism of anything, just can't get my head round it.

We made a profit of just over £400K in player sales last year, which may have been used to clear the last £400K of loans (we won't know until we see next year's accounts). It sounds like 1878 decided to clear the other £1m early so they can start afresh.

Didn’t the Grist, Pollock and McAtee money go to paying fenty off early.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Bit confused and would welcome some correction on what is no doubt the interpretation of my non-financial mind please.

I previously thought that a repayment plan had been agreed with Fenty for his 'benign' loans whereby it would be repaid within an agreed schedule, although any such income such as transfers. would allow this to be paid off earlier.

If, as appears the case from above, the loans were paid back to Fenty by 1878 who in turn transferred them into their own loans to the club, why was the repayment line previously stated and also what has happened to the Pollock, Dembele, Grist etc. money?

Not a criticism of anything, just can't get my head round it.

Fenty was repaid via an agreed repayment plan. My understanding is that he was “owed” £1.5m when the club was bought and they paid around £375,000 almost immediately with 3 further payments of £375,000 due in December 2021, 2022 & 2023 unless the club received a windfall that allowed earlier repayment. Which we did.

The accounts indicate on 31st May he was still owed in the region of £400,000. Fenty would have been due £375,000 in December 2022 anyhow as per the original repayment plan, but since 31st May we’ve had the promotion final, been promoted with the huge increase in TV and solidarity money that brings and got a decent fee for McAtee.

I think AP said at the fans forum that Fenty has now been repaid in full which backs that up.

It is worth noting that we owed 1878 £1.5m on 31st May 2022 and I seem to remember them saying we’d make another loss this season so that figure is probably already significantly higher.

Thanks Golly and MarinerDevil.

So the Fenty repayment plan happened as intended.  The loan from 1878 partly went into the initial payment to Fenty and then towards infrastructure/improvements?

Analysis thread from Kieran...

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1630160924894961665

I dont know how much of a reality it is that we can be self sustainable and succesful with the game is now and these accounts show it , how much would the lads have to had  forked out if we had ,had a mediocre season ? It pretty much all went our way and still 900k down.
I think their hope is that once the infrastructure is improved losses will be a lot less ,but the way its going they will have to either raise a lot more or put more in if they want to take the club through to league 1 and and compete which Jason has definitely said he wants to numerous times -that league is on a different level to league two and would take millions more (look at lincoln )

Would love to see the accounts of Wrexham , Notts County, Gillingham ,Colchester etc they must be insane the level of spend ,especially the teams who get 3 or 4k who blow us out the water for players .

Thats the Only thing that irks me when jason says 'we cant fill BP aatm ' because if we did go through to league 1 there would be 10 teams probably capable of bringing 3k+ on a good , so if we evwn dis go through now the lack of capacity would inhibit potentially quite a lot of income,irrelevant how many home fans we manage to get in  .

Quoted from Mappers

I dont know how much of a reality it is that we can be self sustainable and succesful with the game is now and these accounts show it , how much would the lads have to had  forked out if we had ,had a mediocre season ? It pretty much all went our way and still 900k down.
I think their hope is that once the infrastructure is improved losses will be a lot less ,but the way its going they will have to either raise a lot more or put more in if they want to take the club through to league 1 and and compete which Jason has definitely said he wants to numerous times -that league is on a different level to league two and would take millions more (look at lincoln )

Would love to see the accounts of Wrexham , Notts County, Gillingham ,Colchester etc they must be insane the level of spend ,especially the teams who get 3 or 4k who blow us out the water for players .

The football side is already sustainable. The owners are not bankrolling players' wages, as our wage bill is 70-77% of total income (depending on what you count as income). The losses were down to a combination of improvements at Blundell Park (pitch improvements, sprinkler system and glass barrier in the Upper), improvements at Cheapside (irrigation, new gym) and some increased overheads due to the academy resuming full operations after Covid (along with some other investments in that area). These are "good" losses as they are investments in the future. I suspect other clubs like Wrexham and Stockport will have wage bills far exceeding ours.

I'm not that worried about these accounts, the owners know what they're doing, have the best interests of the club in hand and I've no reason not to trust them.

Quoted from Mappers

Thats the Only thing that irks me when jason says 'we cant fill BP aatm ' because if we did go through to league 1 there would be 10 teams probably capable of bringing 3k+ on a good , so if we evwn dis go through now the lack of capacity would inhibit potentially quite a lot of income,irrelevant how many home fans we manage to get in  .

If we were to be in League One, there's definitely more clubs likely to be able to sell out the away end or come close to it.  I reckon 8 as a minimum based on the current clubs in there. Not sure I agree on the 8 clubs bringing 3,000 though.  Sheff Wed, Derby, maybe Barnsley? If we're in that league you would hope that's more of our fans wanting to watch it too.  

It's a bit chicken and egg isn't it?  You don't build it until there is actual concrete demand for it but you can't build it overnight and when you get round to it you've lost a lot of potential income and there's the risk that some of that demand has gone.

I submitted a question for the fans forum asking how feasible it is to fill in the corners as a short-to-medium term option but it didn't get read out.  Listening to other things that were said about the ground (both at the forum and elsewhere) there's still this view that we don't need to increase our capacity because we're not filling the ground.  I've voiced my disagreement on this before as I think it's a flawed argument against it, but the bigger issue is that there's hopefully going to be an increase in demand for seats all round the ground, sooner rather than later.  

Down the A46 Lincoln are having to rely on significant investment just to plod along in League One, largely because they can't generate enough money through their turnstiles.  I don't think we'll go down that route of having money just pumped into us, but that leaves us very reliant on ticket money to develop and grow.  

Equally so it wouldn't surprise me if plans are firmly afoot to have some sort of solution in place before we know it...

Quoted from diehardmariner

If we were to be in League One, there's definitely more clubs likely to be able to sell out the away end or come close to it.  I reckon 8 as a minimum based on the current clubs in there. Not sure I agree on the 8 clubs bringing 3,000 though.  Sheff Wed, Derby, maybe Barnsley? If we're in that league you would hope that's more of our fans wanting to watch it too.  

It's a bit chicken and egg isn't it?  You don't build it until there is actual concrete demand for it but you can't build it overnight and when you get round to it you've lost a lot of potential income and there's the risk that some of that demand has gone.

I submitted a question for the fans forum asking how feasible it is to fill in the corners as a short-to-medium term option but it didn't get read out.  Listening to other things that were said about the ground (both at the forum and elsewhere) there's still this view that we don't need to increase our capacity because we're not filling the ground.  I've voiced my disagreement on this before as I think it's a flawed argument against it, but the bigger issue is that there's hopefully going to be an increase in demand for seats all round the ground, sooner rather than later.  

Down the A46 Lincoln are having to rely on significant investment just to plod along in League One, largely because they can't generate enough money through their turnstiles.  I don't think we'll go down that route of having money just pumped into us, but that leaves us very reliant on ticket money to develop and grow.  

Equally so it wouldn't surprise me if plans are firmly afoot to have some sort of solution in place before we know it...

Like you I submitted a question that never got asked which is simply how does JS get this 8,500 gate figure, given away allocations & tarps on seats. To me, we are running 2 sets of figures which are the match attendance figure and the ST paid for seats plus match day walk-ins.  I think the latter is probably greater and the figure that JS should talk about.

The orient gate was 6283 including 499 away fans which leaves 5784 home fans, less 5500+ ST's which gives us about 250 walk-ins. I find 250+ walk-ins hard to believe.

That said, and as the thread is about the Accounts, I have complete faith in what 1878 are trying to do. After all we have 2 multi-millionaire businessmen who want to put the club in good standing, make it an asset for the community and be self financing. Let's face it they could have watched the club go down the pan and bought it for far less than they did if they were in in for the money.

The only other club in last season's National League to release their accounts is Notts County. They've released abbreviated accounts which don't include a profit/loss breakdown, so it's difficult to compare them directly to ours.

However, for those interested:

                             Grimsby Town         Notts County
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. attendance      5,704                     7,027
No. of employees    256                        245
Transfer fees (£)      0 (excl. McAtee)     227,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall loss (£)        930,000                 1,700,000

Given the larger overall loss, despite having higher matchday income, I think it's safe to assume that Notts County's playing budget was higher than ours in 2021/22.

Quoted from MarinerDevil

The only other club in last season's National League to release their accounts is Notts County. They've released abbreviated accounts which don't include a profit/loss breakdown, so it's difficult to compare them directly to ours.

However, for those interested:

                             Grimsby Town         Notts County
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. attendance      5,704                     7,027
No. of employees    256                        245
Transfer fees (£)      0 (excl. McAtee)     227,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall loss (£)        930,000                 1,700,000

Given the larger overall loss, despite having higher matchday income, I think it's safe to assume that Notts County's playing budget was higher than ours in 2021/22.

Don't think it can be overstated at quite how important it was we got out of that league. Despite the emotion of it, we got away with one. With the money flying around down there, it's safe to say we'd struggled to have matched the top two in terms of points output again and once again, you're in a playoff lottery.

Interesting seeing the gate revenue. I recently read that Arsenal Women took 500k in gate receipts last season, but their wage bill is £4.4m!! And of that, Leah Williamson gets 200k! Madness. Football completely unsustainable in the WSL. My regular slagging of the women’s game is justified then…..

There’s no alarm bells being rung in my head looking at our accounts, and definitely not when taken into context against the likes of Preston and Bristol City.

Brilliant, I'm going to go through these with a fine tooth comb ............. Ffs , years ago you wouldn't of been able to see these easily so all you'd ever be concerned about are results on the pitch .

The accounts are really well presented and are clearly for public consumption.

That’s fairly unusual at this level as most clubs make the bare minimum available. It’s a big tick in the box for transparency.

Quoted from It Bites

Brilliant, I'm going to go through these with a fine tooth comb ............. Ffs , years ago you wouldn't of been able to see these easily so all you'd ever be concerned about are results on the pitch .

We were a Plc previously so the accounts were easily accessible and had to be transparent. This regime have made us a Ltd company and are providing us with a lot more detail than they need to.

Have we had McAtee's money from Luton yet ?

I am no accountant so do not read towns accounts,

BUT

I have every faith in Jason and Andrew  and I think they know what they are doing in fact I know they do.

So relax we are in safe hands and all things are on the up.

After all the penny pinching over the years we will make steady progress in all directions.

Quoted from grimsby pete

I am no accountant so do not read towns accounts,

BUT

I have every faith in Jason and Anthony and I think they know what they are doing in fact I know they do.

So relax we are in safe hands and all things are on the up.

After all the penny pinching over the years we will make steady progress in all directions.

Anthony?  

Quoted from DB

Like you I submitted a question that never got asked which is simply how does JS get this 8,500 gate figure, given away allocations & tarps on seats. To me, we are running 2 sets of figures which are the match attendance figure and the ST paid for seats plus match day walk-ins.  I think the latter is probably greater and the figure that JS should talk about.

The orient gate was 6283 including 499 away fans which leaves 5784 home fans, less 5500+ ST's which gives us about 250 walk-ins. I find 250+ walk-ins hard to believe.

That said, and as the thread is about the Accounts, I have complete faith in what 1878 are trying to do. After all we have 2 multi-millionaire businessmen who want to put the club in good standing, make it an asset for the community and be self financing. Let's face it they could have watched the club go down the pan and bought it for far less than they did if they were in in for the money.

There were fewer than 300 seats left for the Os game. We sold about 1,100 walk ups and no show STHs were about the same number

Quoted from TheultimateMariner

Anthony?  

You have to forgive me I am nearly 75 and losing my marbles .

It's Andrew I knew that  

Quoted from TheultimateMariner

Anthony?  

I think he means Archibald.

BP capacity is 9,000 (or thereabouts).

Our average attendance this season is 6,500-ish, but rather than talking about the attendance we should be talking about number of tickets sold, as I suspect this will be averaging over 7,000.

On average, up to 10% of people don't turn up despite paying for their seat because of illnesses, birthdays, weddings, stag dos, hen dos, holidays, shift work, etc.

Therefore a crowd of around 8,200 would be a sell-out at BP these days. It's possible 9,000 tickets are sold, but only 8,200 turn up.

Basically, the capacity of the home end is about 7,000, minus 10% of no-showers takes it down to 6,300. Take away the restricted view seats, and that brings it below 6,000.

We sold over 5,500 season tickets, which leaves just a few hundred seats available each game, and these are not together. They're dotted around the place, making it impossible for friends and families to attend together as a group.

If we filled in corners to increase the capacity to something like 11,000 then we would consistently get attendances higher than 6,500 because we'd be creating room for friends and families to sit together, and not be relying on individuals plugging random holes in the seating plan.

Not sure why people worry about restricted view seat now, surely you can just move to one of the no-show seats. Same with not wanting to be sat apart from friends and family, buy a ticket then move as a group to an area that's empty.
This is assuming the club will allow it.

Quoted from grimsby pete

You have to forgive me I am nearly 75 and losing my marbles .

It's Andrew I knew that  

If the one who red crossed me thinks I am not losing my marbles I can assure you I am. I often forget my puppy dogs name then wonder why she is not coming in when I call her from the garden.
Then I realise I am using the wrong name for her.

Well not an accountant but surely those losses will be easily wiped out this season with mcatee money £980,000 for promotion,at least £400,000 from FA Cup and Papa John's And average more than 6000 attendances .Which should all be in next year's figures

Quoted from grimsby pete

If the one who red crossed me thinks I am not losing my marbles I can assure you I am. I often forget my puppy dogs name then wonder why she is not coming in when I call her from the garden.
Then I realise I am using the wrong name for her.

I do the same thing Patrick

Quoted from RichMariner

BP capacity is 9,000 (or thereabouts).

Our average attendance this season is 6,500-ish, but rather than talking about the attendance we should be talking about number of tickets sold, as I suspect this will be averaging over 7,000.

On average, up to 10% of people don't turn up despite paying for their seat because of illnesses, birthdays, weddings, stag dos, hen dos, holidays, shift work, etc.

Therefore a crowd of around 8,200 would be a sell-out at BP these days. It's possible 9,000 tickets are sold, but only 8,200 turn up.

Basically, the capacity of the home end is about 7,000, minus 10% of no-showers takes it down to 6,300. Take away the restricted view seats, and that brings it below 6,000.

We sold over 5,500 season tickets, which leaves just a few hundred seats available each game, and these are not together. They're dotted around the place, making it impossible for friends and families to attend together as a group.

If we filled in corners to increase the capacity to something like 11,000 then we would consistently get attendances higher than 6,500 because we'd be creating room for friends and families to sit together, and not be relying on individuals plugging random holes in the seating plan.

Great post. Nailed it, especially the final paragraph.

It's nearly 30 years since we took down the open terraces in the corners.  Every single time I see a clip of them I wonder why we knocked them down rather than put seats on them and put a roof over the top.

Quoted from golfer

I do the same thing Patrick

Get your own puppy golfer. Leave Paul’s alone.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Great post. Nailed it, especially the final paragraph.

It's nearly 30 years since we took down the open terraces in the corners.  Every single time I see a clip of them I wonder why we knocked them down rather than put seats on them and put a roof over the top.

I can only assume to bring them in line with post-Taylor report standards would have cost too much money. The Pontoon for instance needed re-profiling to accommodate seats; it wasn’t simply a case of bolting them onto the existing terracing (see photo below).

To do the same, and add a roof to three open corners would have cost a substantial amount of money, which must have been daunting in the face of being forced to make ‘improvements’ which would reduce capacity. A false economy perhaps, but probably a necessary one at the time.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ea3l87SXkAACcfx?format=jpg&name=4096x4096[/img]

I'm no architect or structural engineer, nor will I ever profess to be.  Nor do I claim it would have been a simple task  But I think the less complex nature of the open corners would lend itself to more of the bolting seats on approach.

The difference between your pic of the Pontoon and the one below suggests some changes had already taken place, perhaps in the late 70's/early 80's?

The thought was more a hypothetical type one.  Hindsight is great and at the time, in the second tier, we were getting dross gates so unfair to expect anyone to anticipate what would be happening 28 years later.  Equally so 9 years after making the ground all-seater, we left the level with all seater requirements and haven't since returned...

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-1-mCrWoAA1Y4o?format=jpg&name=large[/img]

Quoted from diehardmariner

I'm no architect or structural engineer, nor will I ever profess to be.  Nor do I claim it would have been a simple task  But I think the less complex nature of the open corners would lend itself to more of the bolting seats on approach.

The difference between your pic of the Pontoon and the one below suggests some changes had already taken place, perhaps in the late 70's/early 80's?

The thought was more a hypothetical type one.  Hindsight is great and at the time, in the second tier, we were getting dross gates so unfair to expect anyone to anticipate what would be happening 28 years later.  Equally so 9 years after making the ground all-seater, we left the level with all seater requirements and haven't since returned...

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-1-mCrWoAA1Y4o?format=jpg&name=large[/img]

And because we were at that level in the mid-nineties we aren't allowed terracing in our current ground or any subsequent new ground.

Quoted from RichMariner

On average, up to 10% of people don't turn up despite paying for their seat because of illnesses, birthdays, weddings, stag dos, hen dos, holidays, shift work, etc.

Sounds like quite a weekend that..

Quoted from RichMariner

BP capacity is 9,000 (or thereabouts).

Our average attendance this season is 6,500-ish, but rather than talking about the attendance we should be talking about number of tickets sold, as I suspect this will be averaging over 7,000.

On average, up to 10% of people don't turn up despite paying for their seat because of illnesses, birthdays, weddings, stag dos, hen dos, holidays, shift work, etc.

It's more than 10% on average, closer to 20%. The Tranmere game with 5100 total attendance must have been around  25%

Quoted from diehardmariner

Great post. Nailed it, especially the final paragraph.

It's nearly 30 years since we took down the open terraces in the corners.  Every single time I see a clip of them I wonder why we knocked them down rather than put seats on them and put a roof over the top.

I presume it was the cheapest short sighted option , maybe a bit easier to get the construction vehicles in .

It kills me watching our games on telly when there are vast open spaces with parked cars in and a hot dog stand .
The owners are chucking money down the drain trying to keep Blundell park match fit.
I’d bite the bullet and knock the Main stand down and building something the full length with some better facility’s in .
If it was done right it would easy hold 4000

Quoted from grimps

I presume it was the cheapest short sighted option , maybe a bit easier to get the construction vehicles in .

It kills me watching our games on telly when there are vast open spaces with parked cars in and a hot dog stand .
The owners are chucking money down the drain trying to keep Blundell park match fit.
I’d bite the bullet and knock the Main stand down and building something the full length with some better facility’s in .
If it was done right it would easy hold 4000

They must be looking at that behind the scenes. Even a new "main stand" the same height but of course with unimpeded views and running the full length would be great, if expensive. A new stadium is surely out of our reach so if that is indeed the case I favour a gradual rebuilding of Blundell Park creating a unique stadium full of character and memories with a capacity we can be happy with.

Quoted from grimps

I presume it was the cheapest short sighted option , maybe a bit easier to get the construction vehicles in .

It kills me watching our games on telly when there are vast open spaces with parked cars in and a hot dog stand .
The owners are chucking money down the drain trying to keep Blundell park match fit.
I’d bite the bullet and knock the Main stand down and building something the full length with some better facility’s in .
If it was done right it would easy hold 4000

We did the stadium tour during half term and a question was asked about that and the guy leading it (apologies I'm not familiar who it was), suggested the Club were looking at extending the main stand.

It could be that I misheard parts and he was offering a personal opinion but it certainly sounded like the Club does have some form of plans to improve on the capacity.

My own personal view, if we're not going to move and they'd prefer to improve on where we are then I'd certainly rebuild the main stand. Moving is my ultimate preference but if not then we need to bring the main stand forward 100 years. Whether that's done in stages, building the 'new face' of it in the open area, then taking down the rest, or done in segments but ultimately delivering a new stand complete with better facilities, changing rooms, vendors, bars etc, I think it's the next best thing.

I can't imagine anyone thinking that building a new and modern main stand isn't a very good idea.

It's the cost that's the problem.

RE the seats/capacity argument, I don't see why we couldn't pay out for temporary corner stands either side of the ponny for 1-2 months and then we'd have real world data to argue over.  If attendances are significantly up then keep them or agree that a new stadium is required, if attendance isn't really affected then the owners can say I told you so and off-hire them.  Either way it would give some clarity to the situation.

I'd imagine that getting planning permission for a new Main Stand would be nigh on impossible. You'd expect that anything new would need to have higher roofing to improve views/capacity and anything which affected the views of houses behind on Harrington Street would surely fail to receive permission.

Looking in the (hopefully much) longer-term, we can't ignore the fact that sea levels are expected to rise significantly in coming decades. BP is the closest ground to the sea in the League and 2 feet above sea level so the potential for flooding is likely to become an even bigger issue unless there is some serious investment in coastal defences. The sea wall is pretty substantial for now, but how much longer will it remain effective when tides are lapping a couple of feet higher?

Quoted from 137

I can't imagine anyone thinking that building a new and modern main stand isn't a very good idea.

It's the cost that's the problem.

Could you renovate its' inhabitants too (me included!)?

My biggest concern with the accounts is the holding companies accounts should have been filed over a month ago.

Quoted from Maringer

I'd imagine that getting planning permission for a new Main Stand would be nigh on impossible. You'd expect that anything new would need to have higher roofing to improve views/capacity and anything which affected the views of houses behind on Harrington Street would surely fail to receive permission.

Looking in the (hopefully much) longer-term, we can't ignore the fact that sea levels are expected to rise significantly in coming decades. BP is the closest ground to the sea in the League and 2 feet above sea level so the potential for flooding is likely to become an even bigger issue unless there is some serious investment in coastal defences. The sea wall is pretty substantial for now, but how much longer will it remain effective when tides are lapping a couple of feet higher?

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?

I would imagine that continuing to get safety certification for the main stand could be problematic.  Several years ago there were concerns over it. Sooner or later it will be condemned I should think. At that point we are forced to either rebuild or move.

So one would hope there are at least some preliminary contingency plans for such an eventuality.

Have there really been no posts on this from our chums Pen & Herve?
There they were , getting their knickers in a twist about the negligent late filing of accounts, and yet over 24 hours later, we are still to hear from them about how 1878 are no better than JSF......

You can't built a garden shed these days without NIBYs crawling out of woodwork. Doubt planning permission would be granted, and any attempt to get planning permission would take years and be very costly

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.

The ice sheets are now melting a great deal faster than they were 60 years ago. Greenland is losing hundreds of billion tons of ice a year and it would only take a couple of the major ice shelves around Antarctica to collapse (and there are signs that this is occurring) for sea levels to rise several metres. I'm know we need to be considering the protection of housing first of all, but any overtopping of the defences would be likely to severely damage the ground and pitch. A move a little bit inland and a ground several feet/metres higher would be a longer-term proposition.

I did a research project into an American and British stadium not so long ago. Large American stadia are typically built to last 30 years - the site of the $2bn Allegiant stadium was sold during construction and leased back for an initial 29 years. Most other countries think longer-term, 50-70 years being the expectation but all current Premier League grounds have either been built during the last 30 years, had significant work or are currently planning to extend, relocate or rebuild. Admittedly, the Taylor Report forced changes to be made but the point still stands that clubs are developing their stadia.

I'm conflicted regarding a Main Stand rebuild because the roof makes for excellent acoustics when it's rocking. But, to maximise views, any replacement roof would probably point up rather than down. Whilst going full length but maintaining the height, what could you feasibly get underneath the seats? Would there be any 7 day income opportunities that could be incorporated into it?

The problem with Annual Accounts is that they're basically a historical document by the time they are published.

Most of the club's good fortune has happened after the year end - basically the play off final, promotion, ST sales, McAtee fee and the cup run will all appear in 12 months' time.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

They must be looking at that behind the scenes. Even a new "main stand" the same height but of course with unimpeded views and running the full length would be great, if expensive. A new stadium is surely out of our reach so if that is indeed the case I favour a gradual rebuilding of Blundell Park creating a unique stadium full of character and memories with a capacity we can be happy with.

I think this would near enough fit the bill. I initially thought a 2 tier stand from 6 yard box to 6 yard box, following the main stand dimensions already there would be near enough ideal. That way, the osmond corner could be demolished and far better utilised.

capacity wise am not sure how many extra seats it could provide, but the fact it could provide better facilities is a major plus. Catering/hospitality, changing rooms, disability etc could all benefit. But, is it a worthwhile project ? Am not sure it would be viewed by 1878 as something that is of upmost importance.

Quoted from mimma

You can't built a garden shed these days without NIBYs crawling out of woodwork. Doubt planning permission would be granted, and any attempt to get planning permission would take years and be very costly

That would apply to a new stadium as well I guess.

Wouldn't the fact there is already an existing structure there help us with planning?

If I was a resident I would prefer a new smart structure than the cobbled together stand as it is now.

It will be fascinating to see what the next few years bring.

Quoted from diehardmariner

Great post. Nailed it, especially the final paragraph.

It's nearly 30 years since we took down the open terraces in the corners.  Every single time I see a clip of them I wonder why we knocked them down rather than put seats on them and put a roof over the top.

Every bit of terracing at BP was demolished in the mid 90s including the terracing in the Pontoon Stand, Lower Findus and Osmond Stand. New terracing specifically designed for seating was installed in all 3 areas.

Quoted from mimma

You can't built a garden shed these days without NIBYs crawling out of woodwork. Doubt planning permission would be granted, and any attempt to get planning permission would take years and be very costly

I don’t know ..
Nearly every Dormer bungalow gets approval over looking peoples houses , the good thing about a football stand is it’s facing the other way to the houses and if done right wouldn’t affect the sunlight in gardens

Quoted from grimps

I don’t know ..
Nearly every Dormer bungalow gets approval over looking peoples houses , the good thing about a football stand is it’s facing the other way to the houses and if done right wouldn’t affect the sunlight in gardens

On the other hand, given the hot summer we've had it could be described as FREE SHADE!

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

That would apply to a new stadium as well I guess.

Wouldn't the fact there is already an existing structure there help us with planning?

If I was a resident I would prefer a new smart structure than the cobbled together stand as it is now.

It will be fascinating to see what the next few years bring.

Looking at that photo we’d only have to buy 4 houses ( 2 at both ends )  either end of the Findus stand and we could extend it the full length and adding 2-3000
A new Main stand woukd add a couple more thousand and that would do us for the next ten or so years

Quoted from grimps

Looking at that photo we’d only have to buy 4 houses ( 2 at both ends )  either end of the Findus stand and we could extend it the full length and adding 2-3000
A new Main stand woukd add a couple more thousand and that would do us for the next ten or so years

Or link the lower to the Osmond by putting seats in the corner. the corner, all of the Osmond, and 3/4 or 1/2 of the Main all become home stands with away fans going in the first block or 2 of the main stand by the PA box.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

The problem with Annual Accounts is that they're basically a historical document by the time they are published.

Most of the club's good fortune has happened after the year end - basically the play off final, promotion, ST sales, McAtee fee and the cup run will all appear in 12 months' time.

The accounts say that if the play off final had taken place by 31 May rather then on 5th June the loss would have been increased by £171k.Presumably because promotion bonuses etc would then have been accrued in these accounts rather then falling into next year.

Quoted from HerveJosse

The accounts say that if the play off final had taken place by 31 May rather then on 5th June the loss would have been increased by £171k.Presumably because promotion bonuses etc would then have been accrued in these accounts rather then falling into next year.

Whilst I take your point, ticket sales etc would have also been factored in then.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Whilst I take your point, ticket sales etc would have also been factored in then.

The wording suggests the £171k extra loss is the net effect ie after reflecting ticket sales. Presumably  the profit from the day itself would be minimal given the stadium costs etc.

Quoted from HerveJosse

The wording suggests the £171k extra loss is the net effect ie after reflecting ticket sales. Presumably  the profit from the day itself would be minimal given the stadium costs etc.

I seem to recall at the time that ticket revenue from all of the play-off games was split across all member clubs in the NL, NLN and NLS. Therefore the financial impact to Notts County of limiting our away support was minimal and probably influenced their decision to try gain an advantage.

I had the ‘pleasure’ of getting a seat at the back of the main stand for the Luton game. Absolutely awful view, like watching footy through a letterbox. I full intended to ask to move into the Osmond but we scored a bit early and didn’t want to tempt fate !

Quoted from MuddyWaters

The problem with Annual Accounts is that they're basically a historical document by the time they are published.

Most of the club's good fortune has happened after the year end - basically the play off final, promotion, ST sales, McAtee fee and the cup run will all appear in 12 months' time.

Exactly that. And with the accounts not following the football season, it is impossible to gather the full picture, though the transparency should be lauded. Football accounts would make for much more lucid reading if they were all submitted for year end 31/05

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

That would apply to a new stadium as well I guess.

Wouldn't the fact there is already an existing structure there help us with planning?

If I was a resident I would prefer a new smart structure than the cobbled together stand as it is now.

It will be fascinating to see what the next few years bring.

There won't be any complaints from residents if a new stadium was built as part of the 3,800 houses planned for Grimsby West.

People should stop wasting their time on Earth fantasising about redeveloping Blundell Park.  It was constructed at a time when most people did not own cars.  The council would now have to consider traffic congestion.

Quoted from White_shorts

There won't be any complaints from residents if a new stadium was built as part of the 3,800 houses planned for Grimsby West.

People should stop wasting their time on Earth fantasising about redeveloping Blundell Park.  It was constructed at a time when most people did not own cars.  The council would now have to consider traffic congestion.

Won't there be traffic congestion at the site of a new stadium? There is traffic congestion at every ground I've been to, new or old. It's once every couple of weeks in the season so not really a problem.

Unless you know something we don't I can't see how we could ever afford a new ground.

BP is a potentially more sustainable location in terms of traffic infrastructure than a brand new stadium at “Grimsby West”. BP is already served by a train station about 15-mins walk away, is located on the A180 and you’d imagine a large proportion of fans live a short walk away from the ground. Increasing capacity by 2-3k would have a lower impact on traffic than a brand new stadium in a residential area, only accessible by car.

Quoted from ska face

BP is a potentially more sustainable location in terms of traffic infrastructure than a brand new stadium at “Grimsby West”. BP is already served by a train station about 15-mins walk away, is located on the A180 and you’d imagine a large proportion of fans live a short walk away from the ground. Increasing capacity by 2-3k would have a lower impact on traffic than a brand new stadium in a residential area, only accessible by car.

You won’t be getting a job in Planning.

Quoted from ska face

BP is a potentially more sustainable location in terms of traffic infrastructure than a brand new stadium at “Grimsby West”. BP is already served by a train station about 15-mins walk away, is located on the A180 and you’d imagine a large proportion of fans live a short walk away from the ground. Increasing capacity by 2-3k would have a lower impact on traffic than a brand new stadium in a residential area, only accessible by car.

Oh intercourse off talking sense…

Quoted from HerveJosse

You won’t be getting a job in Planning.

I’m a professional snowboarder and skateboarder, which should qualify me for a job as a masterplanner with Extreme Leisure Ltd.

Quoted from Maringer

I'd imagine that getting planning permission for a new Main Stand would be nigh on impossible. You'd expect that anything new would need to have higher roofing to improve views/capacity and anything which affected the views of houses behind on Harrington Street would surely fail to receive permission.

Looking in the (hopefully much) longer-term, we can't ignore the fact that sea levels are expected to rise significantly in coming decades. BP is the closest ground to the sea in the League and 2 feet above sea level so the potential for flooding is likely to become an even bigger issue unless there is some serious investment in coastal defences. The sea wall is pretty substantial for now, but how much longer will it remain effective when tides are lapping a couple of feet higher?

I think the opposite. There is a pre-existing structure, so it's more of a redevelopment project than a planning issue.

Quoted from ginnywings

I think the opposite. There is a pre-existing structure, so it's more of a redevelopment project than a planning issue.

Absolutely zero expertise in planning but any extension would be difficult surely? A rebuild of the existing structure would surely be difficult to object to providing the height remained the same. For a start, it would be a much lower fire risk.

I'm working on the assumption that a new stand with increased capacity would need to have a higher roof than the current structure. Potentially substantially higher. That would be the issue with planning permission I'd have thought.

I'd imagine some sort of cantilever or other modern structure would allow a much better view for fans, but at the cost of greater height or not much higher capacity.

It would be nice if we could redevelop BP, but I can't see it being a goer.

I have the impression from 1878 that any new stadium is on the back burner, mainly because of finance. AP did infer at the forum that they were looking at the corners of BP to increase the capacity there.

So in a nutshell 1878 are looking at some form of redevelopment at BP unless they get a partner with deep pockets to invest along their lines of sustainability and BCorp status.

Quoted from Maringer

I'd imagine that getting planning permission for a new Main Stand would be nigh on impossible. You'd expect that anything new would need to have higher roofing to improve views/capacity and anything which affected the views of houses behind on Harrington Street would surely fail to receive permission.

Looking in the (hopefully much) longer-term, we can't ignore the fact that sea levels are expected to rise significantly in coming decades. BP is the closest ground to the sea in the League and 2 feet above sea level so the potential for flooding is likely to become an even bigger issue unless there is some serious investment in coastal defences. The sea wall is pretty substantial for now, but how much longer will it remain effective when tides are lapping a couple of feet higher?

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

There are loads of examples of football clubs redeveloping and expanding their football grounds, and a lot of grounds in this country are in residential areas.

Residents can voice their fears over such developments, but they can't get them stopped unless they have a compelling reason, other than " I don't like it".

All parties are considered in planning applications, but ultimately, I can't see any reason that we couldn't knock down the Main Stand and rebuild it more fit for purpose. It wouldn't have to be any higher than it is either. Just longer and with better use of the space.

The houses at the back of the Main Stand came after the stand was built I reckon. They look like typical 30's Semi's to me.

Quoted from RichMariner

BP capacity is 9,000 (or thereabouts).

Our average attendance this season is 6,500-ish, but rather than talking about the attendance we should be talking about number of tickets sold, as I suspect this will be averaging over 7,000.

On average, up to 10% of people don't turn up despite paying for their seat because of illnesses, birthdays, weddings, stag dos, hen dos, holidays, shift work, etc.

Therefore a crowd of around 8,200 would be a sell-out at BP these days. It's possible 9,000 tickets are sold, but only 8,200 turn up.

Basically, the capacity of the home end is about 7,000, minus 10% of no-showers takes it down to 6,300. Take away the restricted view seats, and that brings it below 6,000.

We sold over 5,500 season tickets, which leaves just a few hundred seats available each game, and these are not together. They're dotted around the place, making it impossible for friends and families to attend together as a group.

If we filled in corners to increase the capacity to something like 11,000 then we would consistently get attendances higher than 6,500 because we'd be creating room for friends and families to sit together, and not be relying on individuals plugging random holes in the seating plan.

Although I agree we should look to increasing capacity if and when possible for the right price. The last 2 home games there was plenty of seats in the osmond available, all together aswell.

Quoted from ginnywings

There are loads of examples of football clubs redeveloping and expanding their football grounds, and a lot of grounds in this country are in residential areas.

Residents can voice their fears over such developments, but they can't get them stopped unless they have a compelling reason, other than " I don't like it".

All parties are considered in planning applications, but ultimately, I can't see any reason that we couldn't knock down the Main Stand and rebuild it more fit for purpose. It wouldn't have to be any higher than it is either. Just longer and with better use of the space.

The houses at the back of the Main Stand came after the stand was built I reckon. They look like typical 30's Semi's to me.

You make a good point here, also most residents will have moved in after the stands were built. So already they have accepted the situation, noise and match day parking and would have little to complain about if the ground is partially or fully developed.

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.

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.

I’d love a new ground and to get maximum potential and revenue we still definitely need one .
The problem is we’ve messed about for 30 years and probably missed our chance of ever being able to finance one .
The only solution for the next 10-20 years is to add 4-5000 to our existing ground somehow

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.