St James' Park

[madras]

1 hour ago, Groundhog63 said:

Logistics apart, St James is dated af. 

Given that and the fact the land it sits on is prime real estate. 

The fact the owners are unbridled capitalists

The fact football is ruled by money

The fact they're asking if you'd imbibe at the ground 2 hours before ko in expensive seats

£££££££££ on a move. More than likely away from the city centre so they can make more spondoolies 

Alternatively one of the things they stressed time and again what made us such an appealing asset was the city centre location (remember the land isn't theirs to sell) and if the club does well the city centre does well. ..... who has been buying up chunks of the city centre  for a few years ?

[Groundhog63]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

Alternatively one of the things they stressed time and again what made us such an appealing asset was the city centre location (remember the land isn't theirs to sell) and if the club does well the city centre does well. ..... who has been buying up chunks of the city centre  for a few years ?

At this point I'm like Indecisive Dave from the Fast show 😂😂😂

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Groundhog63

[Wandy]

This is the prime location for a Leazes move, and the new stadium would squeeze nicely in. The obstacle of course is swallowing up some of the park. Remedy that by making the current SJP land into new parkland, but maybe try to give it an "aged" look, to give the impression it's been there for decades.

 

 

[Stifler]

No fucking idea why people on Twitter are kicking off saying they are against moving. The questionnaire even says that it would be on the current site of SJP, and then asked you if you would be against it based on various distances from SJP.

It’s possible for you to say that you would like a new ground but stay on the same location.

[madras]

14 minutes ago, Stifler said:

No fucking idea why people on Twitter are kicking off saying they are against moving. The questionnaire even says that it would be on the current site of SJP, and then asked you if you would be against it based on various distances from SJP.

It’s possible for you to say that you would like a new ground but stay on the same location.

New ground on the same location would mean playing elsewhere for at least 2yrs.

[Stifler]

1 minute ago, madras said:

New ground on the same location would mean playing elsewhere for at least 2yrs.

Rather that than at Silverlink for 50.

[madras]

2 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Rather that than at Silverlink for 50.

Bugger.....hadn't realised they were the only choices.

[Kanji]

31 minutes ago, Wandy said:

This is the prime location for a Leazes move, and the new stadium would squeeze nicely in. The obstacle of course is swallowing up some of the park. Remedy that by making the current SJP land into new parkland, but maybe try to give it an "aged" look, to give the impression it's been there for decades.

 

 

 

Having now s een this in the flesh, I do recall it being just another block or two uphill which isn't the worst location and again, not my preference to ever leave our sacred turf location but THAT one would have a likely NON impact to the local businesses, city centre and access. It kills off precious green space, which I'm actually not a fan of these days but if SJP can be "traded" for that. You arguably get the best possible outcome. 

 

Ideally, We'd do some fucking wacky ass shit to expand, rotate, or shut SJP down for a few years. But the alternative are not easy of course. 

 

I 100% understand the corporate need, but I 100% feel there needs to be a sizable investment in more high paying jobs and activity in the region. You don't go and build a super posh stadium and have no real improvement in the way of relocation or expansion of businesses from outside creating new jobs, wealth, etc. 

[Stifler]

25 minutes ago, madras said:

Bugger.....hadn't realised they were the only choices.

Even a refurbishment is likely going to result in us playing away for a period of time, especially if they are doing the Leazes or Milburn stand.

[Optimistic Nut]

4 hours ago, Bellis80 said:

You can have more respect but they’re less loyal. For whatever reason they stopped going.

 

"Collaborateur", as the French would say. 

[LFEE]

2 hours ago, Groundhog63 said:

Logistics apart, St James is dated af. 

Given that and the fact the land it sits on is prime real estate. 

The fact the owners are unbridled capitalists

The fact football is ruled by money

The fact they're asking if you'd imbibe at the ground 2 hours before ko in expensive seats

£££££££££ on a move. More than likely away from the city centre so they can make more spondoolies 

The land SJP sits on is owned by the Freeman of Newcastle not NUFC. The club pay a annual rent for it as part of a lease.

[Stifler]

4 hours ago, Bellis80 said:

You can have more respect but they’re less loyal. For whatever reason they stopped going.

Funny as fuck how some season ticket holders spout this, then pat themselves on the back with the Wor Flags, and other stuff, without realising that many leading members of Wor flags boycotted, and were heavily active in protests outside SJP etc.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Stifler

[Dr. TC]

1 hour ago, Wandy said:

This is the prime location for a Leazes move, and the new stadium would squeeze nicely in. The obstacle of course is swallowing up some of the park. Remedy that by making the current SJP land into new parkland, but maybe try to give it an "aged" look, to give the impression it's been there for decades.

 

 

I don't see how anyone could be against this from a fan experience point of view. Obviously there is the problem of losing public grassland, but I think the overwhelming majority of the city population would think it a worthwhile trade.

[ponsaelius]

I still think it would need to go further north primarily onto Castle Leazes, as per the original 90s plan, with as little encroachment onto the Leazes Park footprint as possible.

 

But I'm still convinced it could be a great solution, particularly bringing Leazes Park more closely into the city and improving the setting of the listed buildings. I'm still surprised it ended up with such resistance in the 90s - but the plan was slightly less convincing because they wanted to retain a smaller SJP in situ.

 

The current site is just so constrained in terms of delivering on the existing footprint.

[Bally21]

1 hour ago, Wandy said:

This is the prime location for a Leazes move, and the new stadium would squeeze nicely in. The obstacle of course is swallowing up some of the park. Remedy that by making the current SJP land into new parkland, but maybe try to give it an "aged" look, to give the impression it's been there for decades.

 

 

Other than it actually not being SJP it is perfect for me - the city centre pre-match vibe would feel exactly the same, we get more capacity, it could be built whilst still using SJP, then SJP becomes park land to compensate for lost park land in Leazes park.

 

Is literally the next best option to staying at SJP, and realistically expanding SJP is extremely difficult.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Bally21

[Wandy]

Just now, Bally21 said:

Other than it actually not being SJP it is perfect for me - the city centre pre-match vibe would feel exactly the same, we get more capacity, it could be built whilst still using SJP, then SJP becomes park land to compensate for lost park land in Leazes park.

 

Yep, it's truly the perfect solution. If there wasn't the headache of the park being listed I've no doubt that the owners would be driving this forward quickly. I just hope the relevant authorities can come to a compromise.

 

The new stadium could easily still be called SJP. It would literally be "moving" it 100 yards up.

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

I still think it would need to go further north primarily onto Castle Leazes, as per the original 90s plan, with as little encroachment onto the Leazes Park footprint as possible.

 

But I'm still convinced it could be a great solution, particularly bringing Leazes Park more closely into the city and improving the setting of the listed buildings. I'm still surprised it ended up with such resistance in the 90s - but the plan was slightly less convincing because they wanted to retain a smaller SJP in situ.

 

The current site is just so constrained in terms of delivering on the existing footprint.

 

I was surprised there was so much opposition back then as well, and even more surprised when the resistance won. I just think there will be a huge stink kicked up again, there's a very determined preservation of green space movement in Newcastle - as there should be - but as a football fan I'd love to see a compromise.

[Checko]

Leazes Park Lake looks like it would make a pretty epic jacuzzi as well.

[Wandy]

13 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

I still think it would need to go further north primarily onto Castle Leazes, as per the original 90s plan, with as little encroachment onto the Leazes Park footprint as possible.

 

But I'm still convinced it could be a great solution, particularly bringing Leazes Park more closely into the city and improving the setting of the listed buildings. I'm still surprised it ended up with such resistance in the 90s - but the plan was slightly less convincing because they wanted to retain a smaller SJP in situ.

 

The current site is just so constrained in terms of delivering on the existing footprint.

 

I always thought it was hard to believe that the stadium proposed in 1997 would actually be able to hold 70,000 people. The footprint of it looked way too small. Whatever the new owners come up with would be a much better design than this IMO.

 

[Yorkie]

If the land on which the stadium currently sits was turned into a truly exceptional piece of open space that: A, remained part of the matchday experience/journey; B, had genuine and well-considered reflections or nods to SJP and C, improved the setting of the listed buildings that rightly stand in the way of developing the existing site... I could probably just about get behind shifting the playing surface a couple hundred yards.

 

Of course there's the additional caveat that the new stadium would have to be something remarkable too, with genuine architectural flair externally and not a boring symmetrical bowl internally, with its spaces delineated by something other than solely advertising space, a la Spurs.

[madras]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

Even a refurbishment is likely going to result in us playing away for a period of time, especially if they are doing the Leazes or Milburn stand.

Why ? Anfield stayed open. If anything, redevelopment of the Gallowgate would be easier than the East stand.

 

Can't see any capacity extension of the Leazes yet, stretching it further back for more corporate space and concourses maybe.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by madras

[Hudson]

7 minutes ago, madras said:

Why ? Anfield stayed open.

Completely different scenario.

 

They knocked down hundreds of houses, so many that it was roads around the stadium. Giving them loads of space to work in without major disruption to the city.
 

This allowed them to slowly upgrade Anfield, but parts were still closed at the start of the season.

 

We have no space in any direction and the city centre would struggle to cope with the work needed.

[TheBrownBottle]

45 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

I still think it would need to go further north primarily onto Castle Leazes, as per the original 90s plan, with as little encroachment onto the Leazes Park footprint as possible.

 

But I'm still convinced it could be a great solution, particularly bringing Leazes Park more closely into the city and improving the setting of the listed buildings. I'm still surprised it ended up with such resistance in the 90s - but the plan was slightly less convincing because they wanted to retain a smaller SJP in situ.

 

The current site is just so constrained in terms of delivering on the existing footprint.

That resistance was NIMBYs and Mackems.   Leazes Park remains a perfect solution, for exactly the reasons you’ve outlined.  Perhaps in the days of social media it’ll be harder for those fuckers to stand on Sunderland high street asking for signatures to block it (they were still vastly outnumbered despite those tactics)

[madras]

7 minutes ago, Hudson said:

Completely different scenario.

 

They knocked down hundreds of houses, so many that it was roads around the stadium. Giving them loads of space to work in without major disruption to the city.
 

This allowed them to slowly upgrade Anfield, but parts were still closed at the start of the season.

 

We have no space in any direction and the city centre would struggle to cope with the work needed.

It would mean Strawberry place being shut temporarily. This has already been discussed regularly from SJH's time.

 

Even back then it was possible but not financially feasible.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by madras

[Orphanage]

Reason to move Number 1 . Wasn't SJP cursed by gypsies ? 

 

Move slightly north to Castle Leazes - lose the curse .