| Property Meeting 07:14 - Sep 8 with 2579 views | EssexBloo |
I’m a little surprised not much has been mentioned about this following Ashtons comments on Monday. I find it really interesting and the thought of further ground improvements is a potential exciting journey. With GC and Ashton I think the plans could be quite a grand scale.
Are we likely to hear anything about the outcomes soon Phil? |  | | |  |
| Property Meeting on 08:48 - Sep 8 with 2392 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
I can only imagine that most fans with any awareness of our history are pretending that they didn't hear that bit.
Google "Did they really sell Mariner, Wark, Muhren and Thijssen to fund the Pioneer?"
Or "Premier League Manager of the Year and European Football returning, what could possibly go wrong?"
Unless we know that the work is fully funded, rather than putting debt onto the club, older fans will have a touch of anxiety about major redevelopment.
Having said that, Gamechanger's plans in the USA involve turning the ground into the centrepiece of large scale community regeneration. So it is a very different model to the Cobbold or Sheepshanks "Expand the ground with a business plan based on the success we have been seeing, even though it will defund the team and jeopardise that success" approach.
(However, it needs to be said, the Evans "Ignore trees growing from the roof of a stand" approach didn't lead to onfield triumph, either!)
If they can redevelop the ground and keep the team on an upward trajectory at the same time then they will have achieved something beyond our wildest hopes when they took over.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. | | | |
| Property Meeting on 08:49 - Sep 8 with 2384 views | xrayspecs |
I would be very surprised if any significant development work is being planned in the near term. Upgrading the Wi-Fi is currently too expensive, so big infrastructure projects are going to be out of reach.
My read is that the discussions are about longer term plans for the surrounding area and how this could be developed. | | | |
| Property Meeting on 08:54 - Sep 8 with 2352 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
I think you may be reading too much into it. |  |
| |
| Property Meeting on 08:55 - Sep 8 with 2363 views | hype313 |
| Property Meeting on 08:49 - Sep 8 by xrayspecs |
I would be very surprised if any significant development work is being planned in the near term. Upgrading the Wi-Fi is currently too expensive, so big infrastructure projects are going to be out of reach.
My read is that the discussions are about longer term plans for the surrounding area and how this could be developed. |
I've heard whispers of what ideas have been put forward but nothing set in stone.
Regarding Wi-Fi, it will probably be too cost prohibitive, think I read only San Franscisco 49'ers have Wi-Fi currently and City are planning, but eye watering costs for limited returns. |  |
| |
| Property Meeting on 08:57 - Sep 8 with 2325 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Property Meeting on 08:48 - Sep 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I can only imagine that most fans with any awareness of our history are pretending that they didn't hear that bit.
Google "Did they really sell Mariner, Wark, Muhren and Thijssen to fund the Pioneer?"
Or "Premier League Manager of the Year and European Football returning, what could possibly go wrong?"
Unless we know that the work is fully funded, rather than putting debt onto the club, older fans will have a touch of anxiety about major redevelopment.
Having said that, Gamechanger's plans in the USA involve turning the ground into the centrepiece of large scale community regeneration. So it is a very different model to the Cobbold or Sheepshanks "Expand the ground with a business plan based on the success we have been seeing, even though it will defund the team and jeopardise that success" approach.
(However, it needs to be said, the Evans "Ignore trees growing from the roof of a stand" approach didn't lead to onfield triumph, either!)
If they can redevelop the ground and keep the team on an upward trajectory at the same time then they will have achieved something beyond our wildest hopes when they took over.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. |
The development around the ground needs to be done by a separate GC company really, for the reasons you mentioned above.
Also see current issues at Leicester City FC. | |
| |
| Property Meeting on 09:02 - Sep 8 with 2293 views | nodge_blue |
They basically said that they needed to buy the land for now to protect and secure access to the ground. There are no concrete plans for it right now. Im sure they would want to see the team in a higher league before they did anything significant. |  |
| |
| Property Meeting on 09:06 - Sep 8 with 2248 views | FromReuserWithLove |
| Property Meeting on 08:54 - Sep 8 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I think you may be reading too much into it. |
Are you suggesting we're going to get a stadium like the Madejski? OMG, I hope not! |  | | |
| Property Meeting on 09:09 - Sep 8 with 2205 views | MattinLondon |
What with MA making consistent references to the levels of support as well as to the state of the stadium, I think that preliminary discussions have been held about modernising the stadium and bring it up to standard.
If things continue to go well I wouldn’t be surprised if the two older stands are knocked down quite quickly.
As for Wi-Fi is it really that important? For journalists yes, but for the fan probably not. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Property Meeting on 09:18 - Sep 8 with 2138 views | Churchman |
| Property Meeting on 09:02 - Sep 8 by nodge_blue |
They basically said that they needed to buy the land for now to protect and secure access to the ground. There are no concrete plans for it right now. Im sure they would want to see the team in a higher league before they did anything significant. |
Buying a chunk of land like that is an asset even if you let the weeds enjoy it for a few years. It’s a no brainer.
The impression I got was that any plans will be in conjunction with the Council who own the land and looking at the ground, facilities and usage in its entirety. Obviously there will need to be scoping, a business plan and all that stuff to justify it and it doesn’t sound like the piecemeal approach taken by the Cobbolds and DS - thank goodness. It will take time and that’s fine as the ground is adequate for now.
As a point of order, it was never the intention to pay for the Pioneer Stand by selling players. It wasn’t what they did when the East Stand was built in 1971. It happened because circumstances changed. No European football, Robson left and a real killer was ending shared gate receipts. They were left with little choice but to sell players.
That’s my reading of it. They got it wrong, basically. |  | | |
| Property Meeting on 09:27 - Sep 8 with 2109 views | DinDjarin |
| Property Meeting on 09:09 - Sep 8 by MattinLondon |
What with MA making consistent references to the levels of support as well as to the state of the stadium, I think that preliminary discussions have been held about modernising the stadium and bring it up to standard.
If things continue to go well I wouldn’t be surprised if the two older stands are knocked down quite quickly.
As for Wi-Fi is it really that important? For journalists yes, but for the fan probably not. |
There is wifi within the club for staff, in fact 2 different wifi's that I know off so presume there is also another for journo's. |  | | |
| Property Meeting on 09:47 - Sep 8 with 1996 views | HighgateBlue |
| Property Meeting on 08:48 - Sep 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I can only imagine that most fans with any awareness of our history are pretending that they didn't hear that bit.
Google "Did they really sell Mariner, Wark, Muhren and Thijssen to fund the Pioneer?"
Or "Premier League Manager of the Year and European Football returning, what could possibly go wrong?"
Unless we know that the work is fully funded, rather than putting debt onto the club, older fans will have a touch of anxiety about major redevelopment.
Having said that, Gamechanger's plans in the USA involve turning the ground into the centrepiece of large scale community regeneration. So it is a very different model to the Cobbold or Sheepshanks "Expand the ground with a business plan based on the success we have been seeing, even though it will defund the team and jeopardise that success" approach.
(However, it needs to be said, the Evans "Ignore trees growing from the roof of a stand" approach didn't lead to onfield triumph, either!)
If they can redevelop the ground and keep the team on an upward trajectory at the same time then they will have achieved something beyond our wildest hopes when they took over.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. |
I totally agree, given our past, that any substantial ground redevelopment should at least ring a slight alarm bell, financially speaking.
However, you seem to be against funding any such work either by borrowing or by selling players. I can't see how any other means of funding is at all plausible.
Surely anything remotely approaching the scale of the Pioneer build would require borrowing. I wouldn't be against that in principle, but we would have to face the fact that we have an entity owning us who are duty bound to maximise investors' returns. Evans was a one man band, which meant that he could (and did) choose to waive virtually all of the club's huge debt. I can't see how Gamechanger could do that in a similar situation. That's all well and good as long as the fairytale continues. Football fairytales never last forever.
I don't see Gamechanger putting their hands in their pockets and /gifting/ the club tens of millions to improve the ground, especially given that the club only has a lease of the main stadium land which doesn't have that long left to run in the scheme of things. I'm not saying the Council is likely to seek to deny us a new lease and redevelop, but the land asset that the club has is not going to be able to be mortgaged to raise substantial finance. |  | | |
| Property Meeting on 10:23 - Sep 8 with 1861 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Property Meeting on 09:47 - Sep 8 by HighgateBlue |
I totally agree, given our past, that any substantial ground redevelopment should at least ring a slight alarm bell, financially speaking.
However, you seem to be against funding any such work either by borrowing or by selling players. I can't see how any other means of funding is at all plausible.
Surely anything remotely approaching the scale of the Pioneer build would require borrowing. I wouldn't be against that in principle, but we would have to face the fact that we have an entity owning us who are duty bound to maximise investors' returns. Evans was a one man band, which meant that he could (and did) choose to waive virtually all of the club's huge debt. I can't see how Gamechanger could do that in a similar situation. That's all well and good as long as the fairytale continues. Football fairytales never last forever.
I don't see Gamechanger putting their hands in their pockets and /gifting/ the club tens of millions to improve the ground, especially given that the club only has a lease of the main stadium land which doesn't have that long left to run in the scheme of things. I'm not saying the Council is likely to seek to deny us a new lease and redevelop, but the land asset that the club has is not going to be able to be mortgaged to raise substantial finance. |
The model that they are pursuing in the States seems to be large-scale residential, shopping and leisure redevelopment, based around the football club as the focal point for the community.
Our ultimate owners are a pension fund. Pension funds love this kind of bricks and mortar, long term, investment. So I would hope that the funding for this kind of project would come from a combination of them and partners brought in for different aspects of the development.
A shiny stadium and a successful club at the heart of the community are central assets in their plans for each of their clubs in the States. Asset stripping would seem to be the opposite of their approach, and pension funds are cash rich with a focus on long term growth, so there may be a third way here. | | | |
| Property Meeting on 11:01 - Sep 8 with 1751 views | Guthrum |
| Property Meeting on 08:55 - Sep 8 by hype313 |
I've heard whispers of what ideas have been put forward but nothing set in stone.
Regarding Wi-Fi, it will probably be too cost prohibitive, think I read only San Franscisco 49'ers have Wi-Fi currently and City are planning, but eye watering costs for limited returns. |
Thing about wi-fi is you'd need truly enormous bandwidth, to avoid it being uselessly slow, but only required on about 30 occasions per year. |  |
| |
| Property Meeting on 11:09 - Sep 8 with 1716 views | Guthrum |
| Property Meeting on 10:23 - Sep 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
The model that they are pursuing in the States seems to be large-scale residential, shopping and leisure redevelopment, based around the football club as the focal point for the community.
Our ultimate owners are a pension fund. Pension funds love this kind of bricks and mortar, long term, investment. So I would hope that the funding for this kind of project would come from a combination of them and partners brought in for different aspects of the development.
A shiny stadium and a successful club at the heart of the community are central assets in their plans for each of their clubs in the States. Asset stripping would seem to be the opposite of their approach, and pension funds are cash rich with a focus on long term growth, so there may be a third way here. |
From a residential perspective, sites around PR are close to the station, with good links to London, also not far from the A12 and A14. | |
| |
| Property Meeting on 12:27 - Sep 8 with 1522 views | textbackup |
| Property Meeting on 09:27 - Sep 8 by DinDjarin |
There is wifi within the club for staff, in fact 2 different wifi's that I know off so presume there is also another for journo's. |
I fully understand those working on a match day (TWTD, Evening star etc) need wifi… but with football you are there to watch that massive green pitch for 90mins, who the fck even looks at their phone during the game?! |  |
| |
| Property Meeting on 12:28 - Sep 8 with 1523 views | tivo |
| Property Meeting on 11:01 - Sep 8 by Guthrum |
Thing about wi-fi is you'd need truly enormous bandwidth, to avoid it being uselessly slow, but only required on about 30 occasions per year. |
Please don't bring common sense into this. We need it for all of our wonderful podstars!! | | | |
| Property Meeting on 12:35 - Sep 8 with 1507 views | tivo |
As others have mentioned. The Cobbold will most likely be a joint venture with the council and considering the brief discussion of a swimming pool on the carpark site to replace Crown Pools; I expect a form of integrated sports facility with layered parking to replace the loss of ground level parking.
It would be interesting to see if they would move Portman Road Backwards or have the stand go over the road (over the road would be really cool).
Strangely I would love them to keep a two tier design:
Tier 1 Lower: Increased to about 20 rows and deeper
Tier 1 Upper: Full length of pitch accessible section with own entrance.
Row of Boxes: Same design as now - with accessible section in front to stop issues of views being blocked.
Tier 2: Again a deeper more modern and increased volume tier - hanging right over the boxes so no loss of depth.
If you input a pitch length, modern accessible section in the new stand we could then update the SBRL and increase the number of seats there by removing the accessible sections in each corner and the seats they have to cover beside them. | | | |
| Property Meeting on 12:40 - Sep 8 with 1482 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Property Meeting on 08:55 - Sep 8 by hype313 |
I've heard whispers of what ideas have been put forward but nothing set in stone.
Regarding Wi-Fi, it will probably be too cost prohibitive, think I read only San Franscisco 49'ers have Wi-Fi currently and City are planning, but eye watering costs for limited returns. |
The new Spurs stadium has free public WiFi that works, but it was designed in. If no others have followed, that suggests it is very expensive... | | | |
| Property Meeting on 12:53 - Sep 8 with 1450 views | PhilTWTD |
| Property Meeting on 08:48 - Sep 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I can only imagine that most fans with any awareness of our history are pretending that they didn't hear that bit.
Google "Did they really sell Mariner, Wark, Muhren and Thijssen to fund the Pioneer?"
Or "Premier League Manager of the Year and European Football returning, what could possibly go wrong?"
Unless we know that the work is fully funded, rather than putting debt onto the club, older fans will have a touch of anxiety about major redevelopment.
Having said that, Gamechanger's plans in the USA involve turning the ground into the centrepiece of large scale community regeneration. So it is a very different model to the Cobbold or Sheepshanks "Expand the ground with a business plan based on the success we have been seeing, even though it will defund the team and jeopardise that success" approach.
(However, it needs to be said, the Evans "Ignore trees growing from the roof of a stand" approach didn't lead to onfield triumph, either!)
If they can redevelop the ground and keep the team on an upward trajectory at the same time then they will have achieved something beyond our wildest hopes when they took over.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. |
Worth pointing out that the ground developments didn't cause the 2003 administration. Indeed, the bill for that was still hanging over the club until the Marcus Evans takeover. |  | | |
| Property Meeting on 12:55 - Sep 8 with 1446 views | PhilTWTD |
From what MA said, it's all still in its early stages. He has previously said that stand developments would be a long way down the line, certainly not when we're still in this division. | | | |
| Property Meeting on 14:20 - Sep 8 with 1309 views | AlanG296 |
| Property Meeting on 12:35 - Sep 8 by tivo |
As others have mentioned. The Cobbold will most likely be a joint venture with the council and considering the brief discussion of a swimming pool on the carpark site to replace Crown Pools; I expect a form of integrated sports facility with layered parking to replace the loss of ground level parking.
It would be interesting to see if they would move Portman Road Backwards or have the stand go over the road (over the road would be really cool).
Strangely I would love them to keep a two tier design:
Tier 1 Lower: Increased to about 20 rows and deeper
Tier 1 Upper: Full length of pitch accessible section with own entrance.
Row of Boxes: Same design as now - with accessible section in front to stop issues of views being blocked.
Tier 2: Again a deeper more modern and increased volume tier - hanging right over the boxes so no loss of depth.
If you input a pitch length, modern accessible section in the new stand we could then update the SBRL and increase the number of seats there by removing the accessible sections in each corner and the seats they have to cover beside them. |
I think it's crucial that they are engaged with the Council re property at a time when the Council is developing plans for the Portman Road car park. A traditional 4 stand stadium is preferable to the soulless bowl types of recent years, and to increase capacity a new East/Portman/Cobbold stand, with a new Club entrance facing the town centre, Ashton has said the ground has it's back to the town. Land will be needed for a bigger stand and we need the Council to leave the land available in their plans. | | | |
| Property Meeting on 14:49 - Sep 8 with 1239 views | ellaandred |
| Property Meeting on 12:27 - Sep 8 by textbackup |
I fully understand those working on a match day (TWTD, Evening star etc) need wifi… but with football you are there to watch that massive green pitch for 90mins, who the fck even looks at their phone during the game?! |
You'd be surprised.
At the MK Dons game someone spent,nearly, the whole game on his phone.
I couldn't but help notice, he was directly in front of me.
Just a general glance round (while the ball is out of play) and the amount of people on the phone is amazing. |  | | |
| Property Meeting on 16:42 - Sep 8 with 1086 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Property Meeting on 08:48 - Sep 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I can only imagine that most fans with any awareness of our history are pretending that they didn't hear that bit.
Google "Did they really sell Mariner, Wark, Muhren and Thijssen to fund the Pioneer?"
Or "Premier League Manager of the Year and European Football returning, what could possibly go wrong?"
Unless we know that the work is fully funded, rather than putting debt onto the club, older fans will have a touch of anxiety about major redevelopment.
Having said that, Gamechanger's plans in the USA involve turning the ground into the centrepiece of large scale community regeneration. So it is a very different model to the Cobbold or Sheepshanks "Expand the ground with a business plan based on the success we have been seeing, even though it will defund the team and jeopardise that success" approach.
(However, it needs to be said, the Evans "Ignore trees growing from the roof of a stand" approach didn't lead to onfield triumph, either!)
If they can redevelop the ground and keep the team on an upward trajectory at the same time then they will have achieved something beyond our wildest hopes when they took over.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. |
Bit unfair on the many ground developments under the Cobbolds. Churchman’s and the Northstand were both significantly improved more than once and the East Stand was successfully developed in a two stage process as the team improved.
Granted the Pioneer Stand was a disaster - but the casting vote on that one was a certain Bobby Robson. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
