Accounts Released

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.