Kop redevelopment back on?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

MobileBlade said:
They are actually. Well at least all the existing boxes are.
Click to expand...
I'm not on about boxes though. There are no plans for more boxes are there? It was conferencing and banqueting that was going to pay for the demolition and rebuild of a new stand, as suggested by BTL.

If it's an obvious money spinner, what would be your thoughts as to why it's not in the current plans?

UTB
 

alcoblade said:
I'm not on about boxes though. There are no plans for more boxes are there? It was conferencing and banqueting that was going to pay for the demolition and rebuild of a new stand, as suggested by BTL.

If it's an obvious money spinner, what would be your thoughts as to why it's not in the current plans?

UTB
Click to expand...
Boxes were supposed to be going in the current kop corner and I think that's sill the plan.

The 2nd phase was developing the South stand with a line of boxes separating the two tiers. Doubt we'll see that unless a gypsy lifts the curse and we have a long period of sustained success and trophy winning.

A capacity of about 35-37k would be about right for our club. We're at a low ebb now so it's hard to imagine us needing a capacity of that size but it's only 8 years ago when we did.
 
FATTYFOULKE said:
Boxes were supposed to be going in the current kop corner and I think that's sill the plan.

The 2nd phase was developing the South stand with a line of boxes separating the two tiers. Doubt we'll see that unless a gypsy lifts the curse and we have a long period of sustained success and trophy winning.

A capacity of about 35-37k would be about right for our club. We're at a low ebb now so it's hard to imagine us needing a capacity of that size but it's only 8 years ago when we did.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but again that's a different point to the specific that I'm picking up on.

BTL says they should knock down the existing structure, remove the hill from under it and rebuild the stand from scratch. The extra square footage under the stand would apparently pay for this rebuild.
Despite lots of side issues being raised, it doesn't look like anyone can make a viable sounding case for it, as is my point. What's more the point, if it was viable, why aren't they doing it now?

UTB
 
Mal brannigan told me in April that the sell-out match v Spurs highlighted how inadequate the kop and its(lack of) facilities were,and that it needed sorting,sooner,rather than later
So there you go
tbh,you do wonder how safe that walkway is at the back of the kop when a few thousand fans are on it
 
Ecco1889 said:
Mal brannigan told me in April that the sell-out match v Spurs highlighted how inadequate the kop and its(lack of) facilities were,and that it needed sorting,sooner,rather than later
So there you go
tbh,you do wonder how safe that walkway is at the back of the kop when a few thousand fans are on it
Click to expand...

Well I didn't until now.

Thanks for that. :(
 
Ecco1889 said:
Mal brannigan told me in April that the sell-out match v Spurs highlighted how inadequate the kop and its(lack of) facilities were,and that it needed sorting,sooner,rather than later
So there you go
tbh,you do wonder how safe that walkway is at the back of the kop when a few thousand fans are on it
Click to expand...
Was the Spurs match I was thinking this fucking thing is gonna collapse beneath us if we get a third!
 
Ecco1889 said:
Mal brannigan told me in April that the sell-out match v Spurs highlighted how inadequate the kop and its(lack of) facilities were,and that it needed sorting,sooner,rather than later
So there you go
tbh,you do wonder how safe that walkway is at the back of the kop when a few thousand fans are on it
Click to expand...
That part is undeniable. Building behind it and creating a concourse seems sensible to me.

UTB
 
alcoblade said:
Fair enough, but again that's a different point to the specific that I'm picking up on.

BTL says they should knock down the existing structure, remove the hill from under it and rebuild the stand from scratch. The extra square footage under the stand would apparently pay for this rebuild.
Despite lots of side issues being raised, it doesn't look like anyone can make a viable sounding case for it, as is my point. What's more the point, if it was viable, why aren't they doing it now?

UTB
Click to expand...
I base my opinion on how Villa viewed it
they removed a kop like our on a mound with a cheap roof and built a double deck stand with a load of facilities in an 8 month time scale. the biggesr single stand in the country
Cant see why we cant replace an archaic rubble hill and make the most of the space there, no smelly outdoor loos , no standing in the rain to get a pie
joining the 21st century
here in Spain both reals and barcas grounds are sunk into the floor so the stadiums are 2 flloors less high, they removed 4 times the earth to do that
 
Phipps just spoke about it on Sheffield Live (aka the most community of community stations): "Routine filings that retain the plans – I don't think you're going to see a League 1 side commit resources into a stadium we aren't filling at the minute. Focus is on the pitch"
 
LoughboroBlade said:
Phipps just spoke about it on Sheffield Live (aka the most community of community stations): "Routine filings that retain the plans – I don't think you're going to see a League 1 side commit resources into a stadium we aren't filling at the minute. Focus is on the pitch"
Click to expand...

Hate Phipps.

Could have let us dream a bit longer this club actually had a bit of drive and purpose.

Twat.
 
blade too long said:
villa had no trouble removing their massive mound, the Holt end mound was bigger than ours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Park

it wont be 6 navvies with wheel barrows moving it

villa view was
The Holte End was the only remaining stand that did not meet the Taylor Report requirements and a structural survey revealed that putting seats onto the existing terracing would be uneconomical. Instead the decision was taken to build a new stand consisting of two tiers, just four years after construction of the new roof.[28] The demolition of the stand began on the last day of the 1994 season. Its replacement began to open in August 1994 with 3,000 seats in the lower tier occupied for the first seating-only game at Villa Park. By December the same year it was fully operational and had a capacity of 13,501 seats, bringing the Villa Park capacity to 40,310. Upon completion, the Holte was the largest single end stand in Britain.[29]
Click to expand...
Now that is the way to do it, the Holte end is superb it could only be better if it was a single tier like it was before seating was made compulsary.
 
alcoblade said:
Fair enough, but again that's a different point to the specific that I'm picking up on.

BTL says they should knock down the existing structure, remove the hill from under it and rebuild the stand from scratch. The extra square footage under the stand would apparently pay for this rebuild.
Despite lots of side issues being raised, it doesn't look like anyone can make a viable sounding case for it, as is my point. What's more the point, if it was viable, why aren't they doing it now?

UTB
Click to expand...
Simples, it is United we always take the cheap option which ends up costing us in the long run, I don't think BTL said utilising space under the stand would pay for it but it would certainly bring in a better ROI than a few student flats and an enterprise centre aren't there enough empty offices dotted around Sheffield already ?
 
metalblade said:
Simples, it is United we always take the cheap option which ends up costing us in the long run, I don't think BTL said utilising space under the stand would pay for it but it would certainly bring in a better ROI than a few student flats and an enterprise centre aren't there enough empty offices dotted around Sheffield already ?
Click to expand...
Can you answer this seriously - what do you think you know about this that the professional developers don't know?

UTB
 
alcoblade said:
Can you answer this seriously - what do you think you know about this that the professional developers don't know?

UTB
Click to expand...
I know those plans are doing it on the cheap like Brearley did when the seats went in, in 15 - 20 years it will need re-building again ;)

p.s you do know the bit with no muck under it has sunk a few inches which makes the view even worse in the top corner ?
 

blade too long said:
again , Iturn to how Villa viewed it
they saw it as the most cost effective option , to stop penny pinching and do it right
Click to expand...
In the Villa case, it was probably felt to be more cost effective as they'd already decided they had to replace the entire stand to comply with the Taylor Report and provide seating. In our case, we already have the seating in-situ, and have had for many years. While I agree that in a perfect world you'd flatten it all and start again, and liberate all the space under the stand for facilities, practically it's probably easier to build out into the large empty space instead. If the entire stand needed to come out for other reasons, as per the Holte End, then it'd be a different story.

Also, that CMP on the website from GMI is complete boiler plate, means nothing, has clearly been lifted from a previous job and a few words changed. For a start, there's no such thing as a 'CDM Coordinator' anymore since the CDM(2015) Regs came out earlier this year...
 
CMP and GMI dont really enter the argument
Clubs like Villa realised the long term gains for utilising the square footage under the stand outweighed the viability of just giving 4 inch more leg room on the cheap
Atletico Madrid here have worked out moving to a new stadium works out cheaper than upgrading their vincente calderon stadium, purely on financial basis , they get more room a criteria meeting spec stadium and more fans in, ,
We need to do whats best not for the next 10 years but the next 50 years, or more,
spend 25 million for a 50 year plan so 2 m a year and get it all right
or 10 mill for 10 year at 1m a year but needing to start again in a decade, like with the current shitty roof
 
blade too long said:
CMP and GMI dont really enter the argument
Clubs like Villa realised the long term gains for utilising the square footage under the stand outweighed the viability of just giving 4 inch more leg room on the cheap
Atletico Madrid here have worked out moving to a new stadium works out cheaper than upgrading their vincente calderon stadium, purely on financial basis , they get more room a criteria meeting spec stadium and more fans in, ,
We need to do whats best not for the next 10 years but the next 50 years, or more,
spend 25 million for a 50 year plan so 2 m a year and get it all right
or 10 mill for 10 year at 1m a year but needing to start again in a decade, like with the current shitty roof
Click to expand...
Still not answering the point about what you've unearthed that the property developers haven't.

UTB
 
FATTYFOULKE said:
The 2nd phase was developing the South stand with a line of boxes separating the two tiers. Doubt we'll see that unless a gypsy lifts the curse and we have a long period of sustained success and trophy winning.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Lord Hawke who made the premise that should cricket be turfed out at the Lane, then Sheff United are fucked, or words to that effect... and we have done sod all since 1973
 
Silent Blade said:
Lord Hawke wasnt a Yorkshireman
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire and was the one who brought in the Yorkshiremen only rule for Yorks CCC. Although, what he meant was Yorkshiremen only if they were professionals, however if they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth sod the Yorkshire only rule!
 
alcoblade said:
Still not answering the point about what you've unearthed that the property developers haven't.

UTB
Click to expand...
Come on stop acting thick because you are not that dumb, the property developers will have given options say a £10m rebuild which will last 10 years or a £20m rebuild which will be good for 50 years and we all know McCabe will go for the cheap option because that is how we roll.
 
metalblade said:
Come on stop acting thick because you are not that dumb, the property developers will have given options say a £10m rebuild which will last 10 years or a £20m rebuild which will be good for 50 years and we all know McCabe will go for the cheap option because that is how we roll.
Click to expand...
Well. If history repeats itself, I'll agree with some things the club does and disagree with others. You'll disagree with absolutely everything the club does, no matter what - you can of course point me to some evidence that this isn't correct, but forgive me for believing this is just another instance of this.

So, I'll stick with my belief that they are probably correct, that a complete rebuild of the kop based on utilising the floor space under it, is not financially viable.

UTB
 
SUFC Handsworth said:
Wasn't it Lord Hawke who made the premise that should cricket be turfed out at the Lane, then Sheff United are fucked, or words to that effect... and we have done sod all since 1973
Click to expand...

To be fair, we weren't exactly a football powerhouse between 1925 and 1973! Yes we have got worse, but I would say we're in the shit cause of shit chairman, managers and players not what some Lord said in the 70s.
 
YES Blade said:
To be fair, we weren't exactly a football powerhouse between 1925 and 1973! Yes we have got worse, but I would say we're in the shit cause of shit chairman, managers and players not what some Lord said in the 70s.
Click to expand...
Didn't that Lord Hawke die before WWII?
 

YES Blade said:
To be fair, we weren't exactly a football powerhouse between 1925 and 1973! Yes we have got worse, but I would say we're in the shit cause of shit chairman, managers and players not what some Lord said in the 70s.
Click to expand...

True but infinitely better than what we have been in the years since!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom