Wandy

7 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Nah I meant like Total Sport and the Sports section of the Chronicle. Obviously if we were to relocate then the general public's opinion has to come into it like.

The general public will have their say, and there will undoubtedly be NIMBY killjoys who oppose it, but this isnt the debate. The only question that we are asking is whether the fans would want the move.

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Those polls would be open to those locked out (just as I am btw)

 

Second part wasn't brought up, I'm not sure what you mean. All of those polls would be for Newcastle fans.

When you mentioned Chronicle readers and Radio Newcastle listeners etc I assumed you were refering to the general public rather than NUFC supporters.

31 minutes ago, UncleBingo said:

If money really was no object, I'd like to see them put a temporary stadium (apparently some of the stadia from Qatar can be used) in Castle Leazes, flatten the current SJP and then build the best ground in the world in its place. 

I honestly think that with the ambition the owners have, 60k will be nowhere near big enough and we need to be looking at 70k+.

70k is definitely the sweet spot. As long as the club always shows the ambition to punch its weight, we'd always fill a stadium of that size for league games.

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

The point was really only that that 3/10 people within the fanbase being against it is more than a peep.

 

The poll on here has gone just about as I expected. Would be interesting to see what a combination of NUST members, season ticket holders, Chronicle readers, BBC Radio Newcastle listeners and Toon Polls votes would look like. My money would be on option 2 winning by a landslide.

Disagree with that I'm afraid. Season ticket holders, yes. The other sizeable portion of the support who are now locked out may have a different view on it IMO.

I don't really give a monkey's what anyone outside of the fanbase thinks about it anyway. Their opinion is irrelevant, it's all about what the support wants that counts here.

11 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

A Chronicle poll of Newcastle supporters at the time. I can't find the original, but they themselves and The Athletic reference it. Obviously remember that it didn't go ahead because 36,000 people signed a petition opposing it for their own non-football reasons as well.

 

Just one example.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/imagine-70000-capacity-newcastle-united-12772276

 

I think the circumstances were different. We didn't know the potential opposition there would be and the years of hoop jumping that would be needed to relocate to Leazes Park then, but we do now. 

These polls are always dubious but even that one shows that more than twice as many people were in approval than those who were opposed.

I think the club caved in far too easily back then. If anything now though, the "friends of the park" lot have been more receptive to the move, providing that the club do their bit in bringing the park back to it's former glory.

7 minutes ago, TheGuv said:

Not sure why this is even a debate.

 

Mehrdad has said they’d never leave. We will be able to expand the Gallowgate (we were going to do it under Shepherd and I’m sure technology has improved in the last 15-20 years). 
 

We clearly will be able to do something with the East Stand. 
 

It will happen, I’m sure of it. They’ve already started dripping that East Stand info into the public domain - so there must be something in it.

I think Mehrdad may regret saying that. Anyway my own interpretation of what he said was that the stadium will never leave the city centre.

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

  31% of the fanbase (not even counting non-football fans) opposing it at the time doesn't line up with 'not a peep of opposition' like. Totally different circumstances then as well. 

Did they? First I've ever heard of that mind. Got a link? I will happily stand corrected if so.

The circumstances aren't particularly different either. If anything the club was higher in profile back then that it is right now.

For those who weren't around in the 90s, I'd also point out that when John Hall put forward his proposal for the new stadium on Castle Leazes there wasn't a peep of opposition from the fanbase. So if anyone is expecting a surge of protest, if a new super-stadium is proposed, they might get a surprise.

7 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Oh right.

 

If we were to canvass the global fanbase I doubt it would be clear cut in favour of moving. I think there's a lot of evidence out there which indicates that a massive part of the appeal of these institutions is their history and culture; the stadium obviously being a significant part of that.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full agreement that the majority of the fanbase at large will pick option 2. I just think that the study will show that the current SJP will never allow the club to reach it's potential and therefore keep up with the other footballing elite.

I don't think people realise how big the game might be about to become. The PL is now the unofficial Super League and the top clubs within it could become "Super Clubs". If we want to be one of them, then there may need to be some compromises accepted by the fanbase.

1 hour ago, bigfella said:

I think they'll look at every conceivable option to remain at SJP, but will ultimately decide to move into Leazes Park.

I think what may make the owners change their minds about moving, will be the limited scope to add significant amounts of new corporate facilities if we stay.

I'd be surprised if they could increase the overall capacity by more than five thousand or so, if the hospitality stuff is as important to them as I think it will be.

I'd be in favour of either option, but a move anywhere else is out of the question, indeed I've never heard anyone mention they'd be in favour of that. Don't know why it comes up so often from those who are adamantly against moving, to be honest 

Exactly. People keep coming out with this overly-emotional stuff about moving away from the city centre. It's simply never going to happen. The owners know that the club's primary & unique power lies in the fact that it has a stadium in the heart of the city. They are not going to wreck that.

2 minutes ago, midds said:

Mentioned it last night but an upgraded, expanded SJP is my plan A and always will be. I'm not however going to boycotting a brand spanking, state of the art 70k arena that's built 100m up the road. It's a situation whereby if we want to be as good and as big as we all want to be we may need to up sticks at some point. 

This is basically it. I will grudgingly accept an expanded SJP that allows an expansion of at least 13k. But in reality we could do so much better with an all-new stadium that is more-or-less on the same site.

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

 

Not a lot, I hope.  A glance at who's voted indicates that that clearly isn't the case. 

I'm talking about the fanbase in general. Not a tiny selection on a football forum.

I could have went with option 2 or 3...but went with 3, because I have a feeling that the feasibility study will show that there are simply too many barriers to making the current SJP into a world class stadium with a significant increase in capacity.

I have to say, it's exasperating reading the same old stuff about "losing the matchday experience", even with a move to Leazes Park. It's like people aren't engaging their brain before writing the words. We'd lose NOTHING. You'd use the same transport & route to get to the stadium area,  drink in the same pre-match & post-match bars, and have the same walk up to the stadium, albeit with a further 200 yard walk up Barrack Road.

I'd bet money that those who want to stay at all costs, already have season tickets.

11 minutes ago, madras said:

Tynemouth is streets ahead of the other 3 there like.

For the scenery & general ambience I agree, But the actual beaches at Whitley & South Shields are as good. South Shields in particular has a superb beach.

Exactly. Don't get me wrong, Seaburn is nice. But Tynemouth, Whitley Bay & South Shields are equally as nice and would be the first port of call for anyone from Tyneside before going there.

The funniest thing about that thread is they seem to think the people in B&W tops are people from Newcastle visiting Sunderland.  The thought that it actually might be locals hasn't dawned on them, it seems. 

11 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

All I can say about all of those points you make is "who writes your stuff"?

 

Honestly, your thought processes must be very odd, to produce such a collection of comments, particularly the last one.

 

You almost sound like you come from Sunderland !!

I'm a realist bud. Unlike you, who wears black and white goggles when it comes to literally anything to do with NUFC or the city in general.

46 minutes ago, bhoywhonder said:

 

 

It does, anyone wanting the same for SJP want's their bumps checked. Our stadium, the sheer scale and city centre location is unique in European - no World - football, it needs protecting, expanding and improving, but never demolished and relocated. Ever.

Why is moving to Leazes Park a "relocation"? It's literally shifting a stadium a couple of hundred yards north. Nothing, absolutely nothing, about the matchday experience would change.

1 hour ago, manorpark said:

 

I have put two sections of your post (Wandy) in bold.

 

First section - just simply not true ("vast majority" !!!!) just not true at all.

 

Second section - not relevant to the point under discussion.

Disagree I'm afraid, I think it is true.

The 2nd point is very relevant too. It could quite easily come to a point where the owners come to the fanbase and say "we want to build a super-stadium, with amazing views, hospitality, facilities & accoustics but simply cannot do it on this site.. However just up the road..............."

At that point, the support will have a choice to make. And if they turn it down, it's not inconceivable that this could be the point at which the Saudis plot their exit.

2 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

It's an amazing piece of infrastructure particularly in respect to the folding pitch but I think it looks utterly shit from the outside. The Nou Camp renovation is going to look absolutely identical too. Once two of the most distinctive stadiums in the world that you will now struggle to tell apart.

I was thinking more of the new infrastructure that they have fitted to it. It would be easy to fit a completely different facade to SJP but have it structurally similar to the Bernabeu. 

42 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

I'm actually not opposed in theory to Castle Leazes/Leazes Park build. If done well it could be the best outcome for the setting of the listed buildings while also expanding the park into the city centre and making it a real amenity feature of the city as well as a usable thoroughfare on matchdays.

 

I just think modern new build stadiums are shit. If you let any of the current mainstream stadium architects get a hold of it it will be a giant spaceship/bowl with no character. Every new stadium and redevelopment at the moment has exactly the same fundament design with variations to the exoskeletal facade. 

 

A football stadium, especially in England, should have four clearly recognisable stands from inside and out. I have no idea why this stopped being the case but it did, sometime after around 2006. 

 

Just don't understand why anybody would want a copy of the Spurs stadium or any of the rubbish from the Qatar World Cup. 

 

The all-new Bernabeu is anything but shit. That would be my template for a new stadium.

14 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

Fair, I hadn't watched the video admittedly.

 

St James Terrace is the more immediate barrier just because of how close it is. I know for a fact the club have already suggested informally the option of moving it brick by brick. 

 

However I still think even with that obstacle moved you would be struggling to significantly expand the East Stand because of Leazes Terrace. Maybe a couple of thousand extra seats by going vertically. But to significantly increase the size of that stand you need a much bigger footprint.

The report in The Times said that the club are looking to extend capacity to 62k. People have taken this to mean building a new East Stand which achieves this capacity on its own, but I think the club are including the Gallowgate expansion in this too. There's no way that the East Stand land area will allow a stand which provides around a 200% increase in it's own capacity. 

I'm sure the authorities would allow St James Terrace to be sacrificed and the East Stand footprint to move closer to Leazes Terrace if the light issue can be resolved.

The real problem for me is that 62k simply isnt enough seats, and at that point the club truly will be locked in at that site.

2 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

It doesn't matter what the owner says, you cannot demolish Grade I listed buildings. It's simply not going to happen.

St James' Terrace is Grade II.

7 minutes ago, duo said:

As much as I love football - it's be a crime to knock down those buildings. Just wiping more history from the City.

A crime. 

It's a small and inconsequential building in a part of town that nobody visits. Even the guy who owns it is willing to see it go. Just knock the fucker down.

Honestly, the way some people talk about these buildings you'd think that that it was Grey Street that was under threat.

1 minute ago, Joey said:

Nah, there's no way on gods earth i'd want us to destroy leazes park for a football stadium, especially if we don't give the land SJP is on to be made into a new green space.

We'll find a way to get some more seats out of it.

It wouldnt be destroyed. The vast majority of the new stadium would be on the land just behind the park. The park could then be extended, by converting the existing SJP land into parkland.