Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Classic Threads › Town's 5-Year Goal To Net New Stadium
Moderators: Moderator
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

Town's 5-Year Goal To Net New Stadium

  This thread currently has 17,782 views. Print
11 Pages Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next All Recommend Thread
barralad
November 16, 2014, 11:13am Report to Moderator
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 13,253
Posts Per Day: 2.88
Reputation: 81.07%
Rep Score: +82 / -19
Approval: +6,783
Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY
Does land transfer mean : transfer of use or transfer of deeds!?!?!?

And for those that want BP updated, would the council (sic) allow the already decrepit main and osmand stands to be bulldozed and redeveloped? I think the majority of fans would prefer our "home" to be brought up to scratch but as JF has pointed out, the extra revenue streams would not be available and doing so may not be cost effective.


And therein lies the problem for me. Whilst I take a lot of notice of posters like RRFCs concerns re:- the Peaks Parkway development, there are at least as many problems associated with any upgrade of B.P.
Any redevelopment of the Osmond and Main stands would almost certainly require extra land behind both. That land is populated with domestic dwellings which the owners would be under no obligation to sell.
There may be grants for upgrades available but those are nothing like 100% of the cost. Where is the other money going to come from? As it stands Mr Fenty is doing a good job of propping up the club from the season to season running point of view would he be expected to finance the necessary improvements as well?
If the crowd facilities could be improved where is the room to make the community facilities that would earn GTFC the same level of extra income it is hoped the Parkway development will provide?


I have an inferiority complex-It's not a very good one though.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 70 - 108
barralad
November 16, 2014, 11:14am Report to Moderator
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 13,253
Posts Per Day: 2.88
Reputation: 81.07%
Rep Score: +82 / -19
Approval: +6,783
Quoted from jimgtfc


Yes I would. I get what your saying, but did you really expect them to start laying foundations tomorrow? It's gonna take time but hopefully worth the wait. Is BP that bad at this level in the short term? Certainly worse grounds in this league and even the ones above.

To be fair to the club they have attempted to do small improvements to BP over the last few years like the scoreboard and tannoy system, but crucially these are things that could be transferred to a new stadium. To spend money structurally on BP would be counter productive at the moment.


Really good points for me....


I have an inferiority complex-It's not a very good one though.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 71 - 108
rancido
November 16, 2014, 11:48am Report to Moderator

Vodka Drinker
Posts: 6,101
Posts Per Day: 1.32
Reputation: 78.28%
Rep Score: +39 / -11
Approval: +3,543
[quote=2757]As a matter of interest Jim, what sort of percentage of clubs outside of the prem and top Championship clubs have the sort
.of facilities you describe? Most i would suggest survive  by relevant success in  their respective leagues, cup runs   a
good marketing plan, or a combination of the three, even though i am sure all aspire for such facilities - lets be sensible we are still
a non league club and no-one knows how long this will be the case.
As others have posted, this 'plan' will take a MINIMUM of 5 years - can you imagine the state of BP by then ?Its 50/50 we will still have
4 workable stands ffs!
I am not a Peakes Parkway area nimby, i would love to see GTFC in a nice new stadium as much as anyone else, but all we have seen
for 20 fecking years is delay after delay and IMO this state of total inertia shouldn't be allowed to continue, even if it means taking all
the grants available to improve BP, after all i am sure 5000 can find a place to park when in the past 15-20000 have managed to do it.[/quote]


But that still means on-road parking obstructing the legitimate parking for house occupants. It also adds to the congestion down all the adjoining side streets which were never designed for the present levels of car ownership. I'm sure that you would object to a development in your area that allowed parking on your house front meaning you had to park somewhere else. Yes, we have had crowds of that magnitude in the past but car ownership has increased greatly since then. I would imagine if we presently had the capacity for 20,000 and we entertained Manure in a cup match then the surrounding area would be traffic gridlocked for a hours before and after the game. By not addressing the parking issues, either at BP or any other location, we are then playing into the NIMBY's hands.  


The Future is Black & White.
"The commonest thing on this planet is not water , as some people believe, but stupidity ". Frank Zappa
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 72 - 108
WOZOFGRIMSBY
November 16, 2014, 12:31pm Report to Moderator

Special Brew Drinker
Posts: 9,236
Posts Per Day: 2.86
Reputation: 77.87%
Rep Score: +59 / -17
Location: glarster
Approval: +3,198
Agree rancido that there has to be ways to make Plans for the traffic infrastructure within the ground and schematics. Tram systems seem to be all the rage once again and this could link areas such as Waltham, scartho/hospital, college/nunsthorpe town. Is there space adjacent/parallel with peakes parkway to allow a scheme?



“To put it in gentleman’s terms if you’ve been out for a night and you’re looking for a young lady and you pull one, some weeks they’re good looking and some weeks they’re not the best. Our performance today would have been not the best looking bird but at least we got her in the taxi. She weren’t the best looking lady we ended up taking home but she was very pleasant and very nice, so thanks very much, let’s have a coffee”
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 73 - 108
MarinerWY
November 16, 2014, 12:38pm Report to Moderator

Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 856
Posts Per Day: 0.19
Reputation: 69.11%
Rep Score: +8 / -5
Approval: +1,013


Plan B could be the most sensible short/medium term alternative regardless of parking issues and JF's talk about the state of BP. One reason why it is in such a state is that the prolonged new ground saga has led to neglect and the notion of just doing enough repairs to pass H&S inspection. The other point of course is that crowds of 5000+ are unlikely on a regular basis even if the club gets back in the league. A new stadium won't alter that. Moving with the times? This might be the times we move with!

It would be relatively simple to alter BP with replacement stands if need be and still have plenty of capacity.

Redeveloping what can be redeveloped at BP still needs cash though, and this is why JF is so keen on a new ground, it involves far less financial input from the club (or him). I think that is the real reason why BP will never be his favoured option.


With you on this one. The propsed Peaks Parkway development seems to have too many holes in it, or too many conditional factors. I feel like we're chasing geese somewhat. Is it really that unrealistic to redevelop BP?  Can we see projected budgets of this? What would the council view be? With current crowds we could certainly close one stand at a time whilst we redevelop. We also have temporary seating if need be. If at all feasible we should just go for it, I get the feeling we'll still be talking about a proposed new ground in 10-15 years time.

Logged
Private Message
Reply: 74 - 108
TheRonRaffertyFanClub
November 16, 2014, 1:00pm Report to Moderator
Vodka Drinker
Posts: 6,836
Posts Per Day: 1.58
Reputation: 79.65%
Rep Score: +43 / -11
Location: Norfolk
Approval: +7,369
Admittedly BP's best days are behind it in its present form. The days of parking your bike for a tanner in somebody's front garden have gone. So have the football special buses unfortunately. However there is a difference in the parking issues there and at a new site because the residents around BP bought or rented houses there knowing about the problem. That's a bit different to suddenly having the problem foisted on your quiet street by a new ground. Even a 2000 space car park will still lead to on street parking.

But what bothers me most is the fallacy that a new ground and all the stuff that goes with it is a guaranteed boost for the town's economy and image. That is simply not true under the plans that JF is putting forward. The only way it could ever be true is if the model followed Hull and Rotherham in investment and design or if there was a particular development investment directly linked to it like the leisure complex at Scunthorpe. That is not going to happen.

JF does not have the same money as the owner of Rotherham. The council hasn't got a telephone company to sell off and no local or national leisure company wants to invest that amount of money on a new project. The Grimsby plans are el cheapo and depend entirely on giving away land and planning permission in the future in order to build a new ground now.

Therefore my humble opinion for what it's worth is that it is not in Grimsby's interests, the design of the stadium will not be iconic either. Any other sports facilities that it offers will be in a competing market as well. So the best worst option is still to repair/redevelop BP.

People may think I am siding with the NIMBYs but I'm not. I do think the club needs to move forward but schemes like the Parkway are just not the way to do it for a club that has yet to prove good enough to escape the Conference. To me, a revamp at BP would be the best compromise whatever JF says about its suitability. It might even be worth the club's while to pay for a park and ride scheme.


"Ah but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.” Bob Dylan, My Back Pages
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 75 - 108
barralad
November 16, 2014, 6:11pm Report to Moderator
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 13,253
Posts Per Day: 2.88
Reputation: 81.07%
Rep Score: +82 / -19
Approval: +6,783
Admittedly BP's best days are behind it in its present form. The days of parking your bike for a tanner in somebody's front garden have gone. So have the football special buses unfortunately. However there is a difference in the parking issues there and at a new site because the residents around BP bought or rented houses there knowing about the problem. That's a bit different to suddenly having the problem foisted on your quiet street by a new ground. Even a 2000 space car park will still lead to on street parking.

But what bothers me most is the fallacy that a new ground and all the stuff that goes with it is a guaranteed boost for the town's economy and image. That is simply not true under the plans that JF is putting forward. The only way it could ever be true is if the model followed Hull and Rotherham in investment and design or if there was a particular development investment directly linked to it like the leisure complex at Scunthorpe. That is not going to happen.

JF does not have the same money as the owner of Rotherham. The council hasn't got a telephone company to sell off and no local or national leisure company wants to invest that amount of money on a new project. The Grimsby plans are el cheapo and depend entirely on giving away land and planning permission in the future in order to build a new ground now.

Therefore my humble opinion for what it's worth is that it is not in Grimsby's interests, the design of the stadium will not be iconic either. Any other sports facilities that it offers will be in a competing market as well. So the best worst option is still to repair/redevelop BP.

People may think I am siding with the NIMBYs but I'm not. I do think the club needs to move forward but schemes like the Parkway are just not the way to do it for a club that has yet to prove good enough to escape the Conference. To me, a revamp at BP would be the best compromise whatever JF says about its suitability. It might even be worth the club's while to pay for a park and ride scheme.


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.


I have an inferiority complex-It's not a very good one though.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 76 - 108
grimsby pete
November 16, 2014, 6:17pm Report to Moderator

Exile
Posts: 46,842
Posts Per Day: 10.82
Reputation: 81.87%
Rep Score: +123 / -27
Location: Suffolk
Approval: +12,917
Quoted from barralad


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.


Well put Ian


                           Over 33 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner.
                           65 Years following the Town
                            Ian Holloway's  Black and White Army.
                                                UTMM

 
                            
Logged Online
Private Message
Reply: 77 - 108
TheRonRaffertyFanClub
November 16, 2014, 6:27pm Report to Moderator
Vodka Drinker
Posts: 6,836
Posts Per Day: 1.58
Reputation: 79.65%
Rep Score: +43 / -11
Location: Norfolk
Approval: +7,369
Quoted from barralad


There are no plans-at least not on paper. It is your opinion and you are quite entitled to hold it but it remains that-an opinion that has to be based entirely on supposition at the moment.
The residents may have known about the existence of a football club when they purchased their properties but as regards the redevelopment of B.P. they would have at least equal grounds for complaint with the extra traffic, noise etc. involved in any building work and whilst this would be an extended temporary inconvenience the residents would have to live with the results. Far more people would be affected by that redevelopment than by any development along Peaks Parkway which would increase the chances of planning permission not being given.
Does your opinion stretch to considering how revamping B.P. would give the club the 7 day use that J.F. hopes for with the Parkway development?
I suspect that whatever we say about Blundell Park's suitability that J.F. will have a big say in it seeing as the proponents of a scheme for upgrading B.P. tacitly appear to expect him to foot what remains of the bill after allowing for any grants. Grants which, incidentally could be available for Parkway...
That is my opinion. I suspect we won't know which of us is "right" until proper plans are published.


You could be right with your opinion too Barra!

I've said before that I don't know the answers but there are a lot of unanswered questions and even more misleading statements from all over the place. There may not be detailed published plans but I'm old enough and cynical enough to think that nobody goes to all this trouble without having done considerable confidential groundwork with other people behind the scenes.

As to the 7 day use of BP, I don't know exactly what could be done about that either. There is already McMenemys of course. The rest depends on what kind of revamp it was given.

You are correct though, what I say is just my opinion. I'm only interested in trying to give some balance to the debate that seems to swing between doom & gloom and euphoria!



"Ah but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.” Bob Dylan, My Back Pages
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 78 - 108
barralad
November 16, 2014, 6:38pm Report to Moderator
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 13,253
Posts Per Day: 2.88
Reputation: 81.07%
Rep Score: +82 / -19
Approval: +6,783


You could be right with your opinion too Barra!

I've said before that I don't know the answers but there are a lot of unanswered questions and even more misleading statements from all over the place. There may not be detailed published plans but I'm old enough and cynical enough to think that nobody goes to all this trouble without having done considerable confidential groundwork with other people behind the scenes.

As to the 7 day use of BP, I don't know exactly what could be done about that either. There is already McMenemys of course. The rest depends on what kind of revamp it was given.

You are correct though, what I say is just my opinion. I'm only interested in trying to give some balance to the debate that seems to swing between doom & gloom and euphoria! :)



And long may it continue. This particular juggernaut has a long distance yet to travel....


I have an inferiority complex-It's not a very good one though.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 79 - 108
11 Pages Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next All Recommend Thread
Print

Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Classic Threads › Town's 5-Year Goal To Net New Stadium

Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread
 

Back to top of page

This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.