|
Post by jdl on Apr 25, 2018 21:52:23 GMT
There is a second picture which shows the stand on a raised platform possibly a metre which would achieve better sight lines and give space for advertising boards And cost more... Looks a lot better though - proper stand. It will be interesting to see what design they pick. I can see the logic of putting up a 'TE with seats', but I would hope we'd go for something rather more interesting. So far the new stands/extensions have enhanced the look of the ground as well as adding capacity, I'd hope that T&O will manage the same thing again on the river side. Personally I'd go for the little stand - real retro-non-league!. Should keep the progress deniers like nws happy...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 21:56:23 GMT
I think the purse strings this time will be more minimalist. Theres a clear need for more seats due to demand and league requirements going forward but yes Id love to see something with twice that number of rows and the footpath for access under neath like the genco just longer and half as high
|
|
|
Post by MadeofStone on Apr 25, 2018 21:56:28 GMT
Why couldn't we simply do what Sutton will/might? We should be talking to the council now about a site where we could install our current pitch/ a new one if need be, so the renting out of the pitch cash stream doesn't end should we go up. Maybe a training facility could accommodate this. Then put down a hybrid pitch at the Gallagher so we can also continue to rent that out as well. More money coming in and the EFL pitch issue solved. This is what we need to be saying as opposed to we dont want to go up or down. As I said back in Jan this attitude kills all upwards momentum. We went from a club on the up to a club stagnating slowly downwards after what was said and the failure to replace 2 key players in the Pig and Hines. So from last season we should know we need a far more positive approach regarding league objectives. Thought provoking post. How come no one's thought of this before?! Unfortunately, I think this would only work if the training/community pitch was on the same 'campus', so that all the club facilities could be shared. And given the tiny piece of land, hemmed in on three sides, that we are squeezed into, this is unlikely. It would require purchase of the 'newt' land next to us (paper mill, ex-paper mill?), which I suspect is probably intended for housing one day, so will be expensive. This idea does rather highlight the one big problem with JWW though - the limitations of the site. For an Isthmian League club, with gates of 1,000+, this was an ideal site, but if we ever do grow beyond L2, it is going to pose all sorts of problems - perhaps even at L2 level as well. What we've done at Maidstone is interesting historically, as we've effectively gone 'backwards' - done the reverse of just about every other club in the country. Most football clubs started with grounds in the centre of towns or urban areas, but have invariably moved out of town, as the value of their original homes have allowed them to cash in and build something bigger and better on an out of town site. Some newer clubs (FGR, Fylde) have even started their modern existence deliberately located out of town, where land is cheap, and the assumption is that fans will drive to see their football, not walk. We have done the exact opposite. I can't be arsed to check the facts, but I'm pretty sure that we are the only club which is now closer to the centre of town than we used to be! Personally, I think this was a masterstroke, in terms of gates and connection with the town, and will be the making of the club. But it also means we are stuck with a site that will restrict our development beyond non-league/lower League, and not allow us to expand our facilities and commercial opportunities in the way the OP suggested. Hence the critical importance of the 3G 'debate' to us. For Sutton, Bromley, etc, it's a pain to have to replace their 3G, for us it's effectively out of the question. Agreed it would be handy to have it all at one site but for reasons you stated this is not possible. This for me is the answer to our current problems regarding the pitch bar re-turfing.- non starter £ wise. Maybe the council in this day and age would I hope see the benefit of having the club back in the Town and offer some proper assistance on this. I think it can be split over 2 sites with some careful planning. Then over time move all academic operations away from The Gallagher to the training ground as its facilities get built up. Agreed to begin with this may pose serious logistical headaches but I cant think of another option.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Apr 26, 2018 8:22:59 GMT
There is a second picture which shows the stand on a raised platform possibly a metre which would achieve better sight lines and give space for advertising boards And cost more... Looks a lot better though - proper stand. It will be interesting to see what design they pick. I can see the logic of putting up a 'TE with seats', but I would hope we'd go for something rather more interesting. So far the new stands/extensions have enhanced the look of the ground as well as adding capacity, I'd hope that T&O will manage the same thing again on the river side. Personally I'd go for the little stand - real retro-non-league!. Should keep the progress deniers like nws happy... The progress denier that asked the question about the ground development. I supported progress through the nineties and noughties when you denied you even had a club. Still 'thick and thin' and all.
|
|
|
Post by yorkshirestone on Apr 26, 2018 8:25:53 GMT
Now that social media is an integral part of our society, the councillors are likely to be less dismissive of the club should it want to expand (or dare I say move) in the future. Football supporters too have changed in the interim and are not always seen as the malevolent thugs that the denizens of Hollingbourne believed us to be.
|
|
|
Post by pigbag on Apr 26, 2018 9:13:26 GMT
If you have any illusions about Maidstone BC looking kindly on the club then I would refer you to the on going negotiations about the purchase of a strip of scrub land that would enable development of the river side stand and the amount they are demanding for it.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 26, 2018 9:16:44 GMT
How much are the Council wanting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 9:40:00 GMT
And cost more... Looks a lot better though - proper stand. It will be interesting to see what design they pick. I can see the logic of putting up a 'TE with seats', but I would hope we'd go for something rather more interesting. So far the new stands/extensions have enhanced the look of the ground as well as adding capacity, I'd hope that T&O will manage the same thing again on the river side. Personally I'd go for the little stand - real retro-non-league!. Should keep the progress deniers like nws happy... The progress denier that asked the question about the ground development. I supported progress through the nineties and noughties when you denied you even had a club. Still 'thick and thin' and all. Who says you're thick and thin, Adrian? They're half right...
|
|
|
Post by nws on Apr 26, 2018 9:54:49 GMT
The progress denier that asked the question about the ground development. I supported progress through the nineties and noughties when you denied you even had a club. Still 'thick and thin' and all. Who says you're thick and thin, Adrian? They're half right... The 'thick and thin' comment was of course one that is copied from JDL who recently told people to eff off if they weren't prepared to follow the club through thick and thin. A spectacular hypocrisy, I'm sure you'll agree However, your implied rudeness is noted
|
|
|
Post by nws on Apr 26, 2018 9:58:01 GMT
Now that social media is an integral part of our society, the councillors are likely to be less dismissive of the club should it want to expand (or dare I say move) in the future. Football supporters too have changed in the interim and are not always seen as the malevolent thugs that the denizens of Hollingbourne believed us to be. You obviously haven't seen Tim destroying advertising hoardings or Trolley baiting players
|
|
|
Post by pieman1982 on Apr 26, 2018 9:59:23 GMT
I sent the picture linked above by Rob to Oliver Ash several weeks ago after the land sale was agreed. I asked if the 600 seats stacked 4 deep would look like that, he said he hadn’t even discussed it or seen any drawings yet so who knows! Pretty sure the dugouts would move in front of the main stand and we would lose the white barriers down that side to be replaced by much lower barriers with advertising space on them and possibly above the seats maybe. The good thing about the pods of seats in that picture is they can be crained in and bolted in place like the town end stand and moved or sold at a later date should we need to grow further
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 10:51:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 27, 2018 0:08:30 GMT
The Football Ground Guide gives the capacity of the Main Stand at 750 - anyone know if this is correct?
I've just counted the seats on the best photo I can find, and I get around 550 maximum - do the boxes/lounges count as 200??
If I'm right and the MS is 550 seats, a 600 seat stand on the other side would be a big beastie - especially if limited to 4 rows (the MS is 5 deep). Very roughly, a 4 deep, 600 seat stand would be about 35% longer than the MS (maybe more, depending on how the seats are laid out). The MS is a little over half the length of the pitch, so the new riverside stand would be about 70% of the pitch length.
For comparison, the stand in Rob's photo (above) contains just under 300 seats, so the new stand will be twice that length. It may not add much to our capacity (although it will be a big step towards EFL requirements), but it will look very impressive!
(Usual caveats apply re my maths...)
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Apr 27, 2018 0:21:17 GMT
How much are the Council wanting? 20k was the figure Terry mentioned awhile back.
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Apr 27, 2018 6:44:41 GMT
Thought provoking post. How come no one's thought of this before?! Unfortunately, I think this would only work if the training/community pitch was on the same 'campus', so that all the club facilities could be shared. And given the tiny piece of land, hemmed in on three sides, that we are squeezed into, this is unlikely. It would require purchase of the 'newt' land next to us (paper mill, ex-paper mill?), which I suspect is probably intended for housing one day, so will be expensive. This idea does rather highlight the one big problem with JWW though - the limitations of the site. For an Isthmian League club, with gates of 1,000+, this was an ideal site, but if we ever do grow beyond L2, it is going to pose all sorts of problems - perhaps even at L2 level as well. What we've done at Maidstone is interesting historically, as we've effectively gone 'backwards' - done the reverse of just about every other club in the country. Most football clubs started with grounds in the centre of towns or urban areas, but have invariably moved out of town, as the value of their original homes have allowed them to cash in and build something bigger and better on an out of town site. Some newer clubs (FGR, Fylde) have even started their modern existence deliberately located out of town, where land is cheap, and the assumption is that fans will drive to see their football, not walk. We have done the exact opposite. I can't be arsed to check the facts, but I'm pretty sure that we are the only club which is now closer to the centre of town than we used to be! Personally, I think this was a masterstroke, in terms of gates and connection with the town, and will be the making of the club. But it also means we are stuck with a site that will restrict our development beyond non-league/lower League, and not allow us to expand our facilities and commercial opportunities in the way the OP suggested. Hence the critical importance of the 3G 'debate' to us. For Sutton, Bromley, etc, it's a pain to have to replace their 3G, for us it's effectively out of the question. Agreed it would be handy to have it all at one site but for reasons you stated this is not possible. This for me is the answer to our current problems regarding the pitch bar re-turfing.- non starter £ wise. Maybe the council in this day and age would I hope see the benefit of having the club back in the Town and offer some proper assistance on this. I think it can be split over 2 sites with some careful planning. Then over time move all academic operations away from The Gallagher to the training ground as its facilities get built up. Agreed to begin with this may pose serious logistical headaches but I cant think of another option. If the stadium was forced to put grass down why not put a training pitch over at the Girls Grammer/Maplesdon Noakes playing fields. No need for new infrastructure and a short 400m warm up jog before training? (might need a tunnel under the railway though).
|
|