Jackie Broon

Today is a freebie, anything we get out of it would be a bonus, it's not having him for Brentford and Brighton that would be more of a worry.

Architects generally know fuck all about planning, in my extensive experience. And I don't need to get out my BRE Daylight and Sunlight Assessment pack to tell you a 12 storey-ish building within about 11m of residential windows isn't going to be acceptable. Let alone the impact on the setting of a Grade 1 listed building.

Looking at it again it's not going to work, the east stand would be just about up to the lawn at the front of Leazes Terrace at the same height as the Milburn / Leazes stands, that's never going to be acceptable. It would also require the demolition of at least 3 and 4 St. James Street. If that were an option it would be much easier and less impactful to extend the existing east stand back the same distance.

Both lighting / overbearing impact and impact on the setting of the listed building probably. But if not it does seem like an ingenious option.

Yet when they thought they were going to have one of the richest owners in the world: https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/takeover-rumours.1483802/ (and check the first responses when they thought it might be "arabs") There's always a thread.

I trust Eddie to make the right decision but it seems to me that this match would've been the perfect time to give him a start. It's one that we wouldn't expect to win on paper and he could explain benching Willock to him by saying he wants a more defensive player in there for this difficult away game, plus it would be a good idea to have a more defensive player in there for this difficult away game. I am concerned that not starting him and not giving him enough time from the bench to earn his place (albeit due to the enforced subs and concern about Dubravka against Villa) is potentially creating an unnecessary issue and putting more pressure on him to instantly perform when he does get his chance.

It did, I hadn't actually realised how much. Although obviously there was the benefit of the improvements to the setting of Leazes Terrace. IIRC the planning department seem to have been supportive, at least initially, but English Heritage objected and it was withdrawn when John Prescot decided to call the decision in. In my experience Historic England are less likely to intervene nowadays, particularly on stuff involving Grade 2 listings. They don't even need to be consulted on applications affecting Grade 2 listed buildings / parks, although they would here because it would be a major development that impacts on a conservation area.

It is, we had a planning application in for a 55,000 seater that was expandable to 70,000 in the 90s and nothing has fundamentally changed about the site since then.

But is it really the case that thousands will be locked out? It wasn't difficult to get tickets for most games during the Robson era. If anything we got a bit spoilt and demand actually dropped a bit. I don't think demand necessarily increases linearly with success.

Yeah, but the point is having a 52,000 capacity isn't going to affect our ability to compete. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see us have a 60,000+ capacity.

Juventus went from the 67,000 Stadio delle Alpi to their current 41,000 capacity stadium and it didn't do them any harm.

Same, I managed to go to most of the home European games but not a hope of getting into league matches. Although a lad I used to sit next to when I had a season ticket insisted he'd managed to get tickets for most home league game in the 36,000 era without a season ticket, god knows how, if it was true.

Better coach than Howe according to FM22

If the stand were the same depth as the Milburn the back of it would be approximately where the kerb is on the opposite side of Strawberry Place. That would be very close to 'building D' of the Strawberry Place development, which I think would be at least part residential, so could potentially be a showstopper. There's also the issue of the metro station underneath, which might make it unviable.

Moving Leazes Terrace gets brought up virtually every other page in this thread. It's never going to happen. The east stand couldn't just just be built straight up. It's cantilevered and as shallow as it can be right now, even if another tier were built above the structure and infrastructure would have to be further back behind the stand. To get any sort of worthwhile expansion it would have to be both closer to Leazes Terrace and a lot higher. That would be very likely to be considered to have an unacceptable impact on the setting of Leazes Terrace. It would require the demolition of at least part of St James Street. Whether that would also unacceptably impact on light to Leazes Terrace would be a matter for technical assessment but I expect it would. It doesn't matter whether residents object or not, or even support it, the impacts on them are considered in a planning application in the same way whatever.

Technically Historic England wouldn't make the decision, Newcastle City Council would (unless it were called in by the Secretary of State), Historic England would only be consulted. But, yes, never going to happen. Turning it Leazes Terrace into a club museum certainly would outweigh any impact. What's the benefit in heritage or any other terms of it being a museum? Why couldn't a club museum be in any other building?

That's one set of issues, it wouldn't resolve the issues of impact on the listed buildings.

It's not: https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9758916,-1.6206326,3a,75y,346.79h,92.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNOOttltf4rAmmtAYxhytVA!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

It would need a support structure etc. behind the existing stand, there just isn't room for it, there would be columns in the middle of the road at least. The east stand already cantilevers out over the road a bit and is within touching distance of St. James Street (also listed). It would be likely to need at least the end of St. James Street to be demolished, it would almost certainly be considered to have an unacceptable impact on the stetting of Leazes Terrace, even if it doesn't impact on it physically. Then there's the loss of light and overbearing impact on the flats in Leazes Terrace which would probably be unacceptable in planning terms. And there's also possible common law right to light issues (which scuppered Chelsea's stadium plans). It's a non-starter.

Castle Leazes or a Gallowgate extension (if feasible with the metro station underneath) are the only viable options. There's zero chance of extending the east stand, whether Ben is bothered or not.

I'd love to see the 'I don't know what they think he did wrong, he ran the club well' types turn if he actually did take over their club. Although to some degree he probably would be good for them, they could do with an owner that won't pander to them.

That doesn't come from nowhere, I get the feeling a few of our squad did think that at first, possibly including him.

Yeah, Short lost something like £200m on Sunderland, basically gave the club away the when their support called for him to go. Imagine Ashley doing that! Or sacking manager after manager whenever their supporters call for it. They've basically been run on every whim of their supporters for the past decade.

The definition of an associated party in the PL rules is incredibly broad and could potentially be applied to any Saudi business, not just those controlled by PIF. This bit in particular: (b) The Person and the Club are directly or indirectly controlled, jointly controlled, or Materially Influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party;

They can say it's a related party transaction and adjust the amount counted towards the FFP calculation to a fair market value, i.e. 500p.