ponsaelius

Genuinely proper gutted about this, mind.

Yeah I'll play

It's in the midlands. But obviously it is significantly south of Newcastle.

Agree with this. Has he ever been played as a number 10 in his time here? I actually think he'd be dangerous there as so many of his best moments for us have been driving through the middle from deeper. I remember him having games up top in a 4-4-2 or 3-5-2 where he was basically a second striker in a hopeless endeavour - but never properly through the middle in a functioning system.

The right to light is an easement law which has nothing to do with planning. It can allow an individual to potentially prevent development which would prevent their receipt of light. Such a law is obviously irrelevant if ownership of both developments is in the same hands. In planning terms considerations of amenity IE light/sunlight/outlook remain material regardless of ownership but are a lot less of an issue if the impact is to a non residential use (office or hotel for example).

Repurposing LT for another use could potentially be a goer (and indeed probably necessary if you ever want East Stand to by higher). Connecting any new development to it is not happening. As pointed out above though it's arguably St James Terrace which is an even bigger issue.

Do tend to agree that the whole thing is possibly not viable from a traditional cost/benefit analysis considering the civil engineering work required for the gain in terms of seating. I suppose it comes down to what they think the long term value of the club would be worth 10-20 years down the line. In that sense all of the sunk costs on infrastructure don't necessarily need to make a return any time soon. We've probably got the only type of ownership that would justify the investment of £250 million for 8k seats.

Don't know if a joke. But definitely not.

Leazes Terrace ain't going anywhere so people really need to forget about that. However there may be ways around it to allow some degree of expansion and increased scale. The main issues why LT is so constrictive (beyond the fact you can't ever demolish it) are: - it is resi use so any increased height would have a detrimental impact on daylight/sunlight as well as outlook from habitable windows. - as well as protecting listed buildings themselves policy requires protection of the 'setting' of listed buildings and conservation areas. So any development immediately adjacent to heritage assets generally needs to be sensitive in terms of scale, massing and townscape value. Obviously there are other considerations in terms of public benefit but the general crux is you can't build a tower block next to Durham Cathedral. To cite an extreme example. The only way to resolve the first issue is to take the west facing resi units out of resi use. If they're offices or even short term accomodation like a hotel there isn't the same standards in terms of daylight/sunlight/outlook so things are far more flexible. In theory this means that if the club owned LT they could apply to change the use of certain parts and convert internally. It would not be straightforward because the original use of LT when built is residential and generally it is expected that a heritage building should be retained/restored to its original use unless there are significant arguments for otherwise. On another note both national and local policy encourages the retention and creation of residential units in city centre locations - particularly in Newcastle's case student accomodation (to move it away from the suburbs and free up family housing stock). Basically it would take a convincing argument but theoretically if it was included within a wider application to extend the East Stand (and thus the developments were intrinsically tied together) then it might become more feasible. Especially if a wider scheme includes replacing lost residential units elsewhere and potentially restoring lost internal historic fabric of Leazes Terrace to offset the loss of residential use. The setting of the listed building is a slightly different issue and more nuanced. But I think it is possibly less a barrier than the residential use issue. Architectural taste and preference comes into it somewhat. Many would argue that the existing brutalist east stand does not compliment the setting of Leases Terrace and that replacing it with a more architecturally sensitive replacement could be an improvement - even if it is larger or closer (not saying I agree with this). Again this is somewhat down to judgement and opinion. It would be unusual (and in my opinion is a bit architecturally disingenuous) but there could be an argument for using a neo-georgian stone facade on the street facing exterior of a larger East Stand that reflects the style of the listed building which could then be argued to improve the setting (even if it is larger it in terms of scale). I don't think there's any guarantee - but I think if the club does want to expand the East Stand they should probably buy Leazes Terrace or at least include it in any theoretical redevelopment proposals because it may open up far more options.

I've seen people making a point about needing to build 'hanging' over Strawberry Place and retain the vehicular road primarily for emergency vehicles getting to the RVI. This has always seemed a non-issue to me. The road is barely accessible on matchdays anyway and has been closed completely on event days in the past - so clearly it isn't hypercritical. You would obviously just create a pedestrian promenade alongside the new Gallowgate on the land gained. It can have retained access for emergency vehicles if required. This actually improves on the current situation as it is a lot easier to get an ambulance through a pedestrianised area at any time than it is one filled with traffic.

It isn't necessarily even required space to extend the Gallowgate from a purely spatial point. Most of an actual extension would be across the existing footprint of the Gallowgate and what is currently Strawberry Place. It's more that any development on that land would basically kibosh being able to extend across Strawberry Place. 1. because there would be resi immediately adjacent to it, and 2. because you'd almost certainly need some structural elements of an extension into that land and development would need full control of any works to the Metro station. Having the land back in ownership solves all those barriers. It also provides the opportunity to develop that entire site with associated club developments.

Mitro referring to himself as a Geordie boy

I'm not sure I buy the 100+ million fee for Rice. The lad hasn't signed a new contract and tberefore is in the same position as many others with a year left in the summer. I don't think West Ham can keep asking for that. edit: forget that - Wham have an option for another year.

It is such a relief this, like. Was like a mental millstone knowing the club didn't have this bloody land.

I heard that was the case but couldn't confirm. It would make sense - even as temporary location for a club shop while work was underway.

Fanzone only really works for away games Id day

The thing is the club could potentially have extended even without the land. It was only ever the proposed development that was a possible barrier - because of the residential element facing out onto Strawberry Place. So it explains why they've been arsing around trying to keep the permission active - all part of bargaining position while negotiations have been ongoing for months to sell the land. Even when you expect that's exactly what's going on it's so brazen and makes a mockery of the system.

Excellent news. My preferred outcome is an extended Gallowgate. The kidology of the developers, though. Fannying around trying to keep their planning consent active for months, even amending the scheme as if it was all for real.

While I don't disagree its brushing over the fundamental point that ultimately neither the council nor the club own the land. They have very limited say in what the developer wants to do with it. The only thing that changes the situation is if the club or the owners themselves buy back the land.

I'm heading down for the weekend, consolation prize since I'm not going to Wembo. On my tod so if anybody fancies a pint with a cantankerous arsehole beforehand then giz a shout.

I don't really have an issue with him other than that he comes across as a bit of a fraud tbh. Talks a good game but plays a poor and actually quite baffling style of football. Shouldn't really have walked into PL job after his failure at Leipzig. Leeds have some weird links to Red Bull (lots of rumoured takeover/shareholder talks in the past) so I can only presume that was part of it (along with since buying a load of players from Red Bull clubs).

For all the negativity regarding our obvious downturn in terms of attacking output it's worth taking stock of the fact that since the resumption we've played 10 games against PL opposition, won 6, drew 4 and lost 0. The hope is that now we're back to 1 game a week, and others are going to go back to two, that we might begin to see things improve in our favour. I do think the Bournemouth game is massive.

2004/2005 was annulled, 05/06 awarded to Inter.

Austria Salzburg have won 10 league titles in a row and have resources which completely outstrip their domestic league. You would struggle to find an easier managerial role in European football. He failed at RB Leipzig - a job he got purely because he is as an RB company man. It's hardly being 'poached' moving between one Red Bull club to another.

Marsch has come across as a total fraud to me from day one, tbh. Not sure what he'd done at all to earn a PL job. A company man who failed in a company-man job handed to him on a plate. Then weirdly walked into another club that has Red Bull links. No league win since 5th November now.