Jump to content

St James' Park


Delima

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, nufcjb said:

Just ask PIF fo buy the folks in the terraces a new sun for each of them.

its just student housing, I doubt they even care about the light.

The actual owner seems in favour of an expansion or selling to pif and  moving them to beamish

 

 

Edited by Arknor

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Arknor said:

its just student housing, I doubt they even care about the light.

The actual owner seems in favour of an expansion or selling to pif and  moving them to beamish

 

 

 

The Saudi owner ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arknor said:

its just student housing, I doubt they even care about the light.

The actual owner seems in favour of an expansion or selling to pif and  moving them to beamish

 

 

 

Not the owner’s call.  It’s a listed building. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:


The issue is that it’s called Leazers terrace 

No, just no, it’s not to be encouraged. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2024 at 17:13, Bally21 said:

It cannot be beyond PIF to get a suit designed that makes the wearer invisible - everyone in the east stand wears one - job's a goodun. Lets be honest most of the east stand are currently inaudible (i.e. they make no noise), they may as well be invisible too. A flaw in this however is, it is a shit look on TV - it looks like we only have 3 stands?

I was in the east stand yesterday for the first time this season and it wasn't the best like. Nice view and sun tan mind 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

East Stand needs to be made the home of corporate and of the television cameras. It's a great view, and the cameras will be looking at the three other gigantic stands rather than the little one. Posh folk will feel right at home going in from Leazes Terrace

 

 

Edited by OpenC

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Imagine my shock

 

image.thumb.png.668ded6b55bf2127c0660e1d513834ce.png

That's a massive oversimplification in my opinion.

 

I mean, if you asked me which of those three options I'd prefer I'd say "Renovated SJP", but that's based on the hope/assumption that we would be able to build a world-class stadium on the current site. What if we couldn't? What if the limit was another 8k seats on the Gallowgate and that's it? Then I'd probably rather move. 

 

Unless you specify what "Renovated" actually is, it's a really poorly worded question/choice of options. Perhaps that is/was intentional on behalf of the Trust, perhaps not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

That's a massive oversimplification in my opinion.

 

I mean, if you asked me which of those three options I'd prefer I'd say "Renovated SJP", but that's based on the hope/assumption that we would be able to build a world-class stadium on the current site. What if we couldn't? What if the limit was another 8k seats on the Gallowgate and that's it? Then I'd probably rather move. 

 

Unless you specify what "Renovated" actually is, it's a really poorly worded question/choice of options. Perhaps that is/was intentional on behalf of the Trust, perhaps not.

 

Yep. Any solution which means we can't build a stadium which can bring in the same income as the Emirates or Spurs new ground means we'll always be at a permanent disadvantage. I'm just not sure how we can turn St James into a multi-event site such as those given the building restrictions, but if it can be done, happy days. Otherwise we should really move if there is any options out there which can seriously be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

That's a massive oversimplification in my opinion.

 

I mean, if you asked me which of those three options I'd prefer I'd say "Renovated SJP", but that's based on the hope/assumption that we would be able to build a world-class stadium on the current site. What if we couldn't? What if the limit was another 8k seats on the Gallowgate and that's it? Then I'd probably rather move. 

 

Unless you specify what "Renovated" actually is, it's a really poorly worded question/choice of options. Perhaps that is/was intentional on behalf of the Trust, perhaps not.

 

I really don't see how it is tbh, any hope/assumption or any other caveats you want to throw in there is covered by, not excluded by, the definition of preference. And preference is how the question's worded. I agree that there could be extra clarification through an extra 'if we can't do X, Y, and Z, what is your preference?' question, but until we know what X, Y, and Z are they could be any variety of things, hypothetical and would split the vote. 

 

 

Edited by Kid Icarus

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Yep. Any solution which means we can't build a stadium which can bring in the same income as the Emirates or Spurs new ground means we'll always be at a permanent disadvantage. I'm just not sure how we can turn St James into a multi-event site such as those given the building restrictions, but if it can be done, happy days. Otherwise we should really move if there is any options out there which can seriously be considered.

 

This is really a bit of a false premise like. I totally accept the argument about capacity or 'making every penny count' or whatever, but the idea that it's either a permanent disadvantage or a disadvantage that's significant or a true difference maker just doesn't add up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

That's a massive oversimplification in my opinion.

 

I mean, if you asked me which of those three options I'd prefer I'd say "Renovated SJP", but that's based on the hope/assumption that we would be able to build a world-class stadium on the current site. What if we couldn't? What if the limit was another 8k seats on the Gallowgate and that's it? Then I'd probably rather move. 

 

Unless you specify what "Renovated" actually is, it's a really poorly worded question/choice of options. Perhaps that is/was intentional on behalf of the Trust, perhaps not.

It’s a questionnaire to gauge supporters opinion. It isn’t a legal document, it isn’t and could never cover every aspect. It’s taken someone a great deal of time to put this together and to believe there is some sort of misinformation deliberate or otherwise is quite a slight on a group of people who do their (unpaid) best to improve fans experience. 
Maybe join the trust?

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

This is really a bit of a false premise like. I totally accept the argument about capacity or 'making every penny count' or whatever, but the idea that it's either a permanent disadvantage or a disadvantage that's significant or a true difference maker just doesn't add up. 

 

The premise I'm working off is that the more earning power a club has, eventually they can buy the best players and hire the best staff in it's simplest form. If there's an alternative view where we can compete long term without that earning potential I'm keen to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, whiteline said:

It’s a questionnaire to gauge supporters opinion. It isn’t a legal document, it isn’t and could never cover every aspect. It’s taken someone a great deal of time to put this together and to believe there is some sort of misinformation deliberate or otherwise is quite a slight on a group of people who do their (unpaid) best to improve fans experience. 
Maybe join the trust?

I have been a member of the Trust for a number of years, although I'm not sure how that adds more or less value to my opinion? 

 

My point is that you can't really gauge opinion if one of the options isn't really defined. Perhaps once we have a clear picture from the club as to what a renovated SJP would actually be, that would be the time to see what people think? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I have been a member of the Trust for a number of years, although I'm not sure how that adds more or less value to my opinion? 

 

My point is that you can't really gauge opinion if one of the options isn't really defined. Perhaps once we have a clear picture from the club as to what a renovated SJP would actually be, that would be the time to see what people think? 

It doesn’t affect your opinion but as a Trust member you would have had the survey weeks ago. At that stage did you raise a query with the trust? You’re right we are in unknown territory with regard to the stadium but this is an opinion piece and you’re inferring an agenda with your last line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, whiteline said:

It doesn’t affect your opinion but as a Trust member you would have had the survey weeks ago. At that stage did you raise a query with the trust? You’re right we are in unknown territory with regard to the stadium but this is an opinion piece and you’re inferring an agenda with your last line. 

Does an opinion piece not require an agenda by definition? If my opinion was that we should stay at SJP, that's probably how I would word the question and the possible answers I'd offer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference would be to stay at SJP - if SJP could be redeveloped to bring it up to modern standards and could be expanded enough to make it worthwhile.   I’m surprised they didn’t get 100% ‘stay at SJP’ given the way the question was presented.  It’s how I would have voted - and I’m one of those who think that the best option would ultimately be to move. 

 

But the question was disingenuous.  Pollsters and psephologists know that how a question is worded is vital - it’s why they tend to be careful in their phrasing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to help people understand that we're not going to be leaving SJP for a bigger version of The Riverside or St Mary's. It will literally be one of the greatest football stadiums in the world, built with an effectively unlimited budget, potentially invigorating a dead area of the town.

 

Why would you not want that [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

I think we need to help people understand that we're not going to be leaving SJP for a bigger version of The Riverside or St Mary's. It will literally be one of the greatest football stadiums in the world, built with an effectively unlimited budget, potentially invigorating a dead area of the town.

 

Why would you not want that [emoji38]

 

This 1000%

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

I think we need to help people understand that we're not going to be leaving SJP for a bigger version of The Riverside or St Mary's. It will literally be one of the greatest football stadiums in the world, built with an effectively unlimited budget, potentially invigorating a dead area of the town.

 

Why would you not want that [emoji38]

Some folk can’t be arsed to stay and clap players off the pitch, stand up make a noise in a cup final, or make a stand against the worst owner in the clubs recent history, unfortunately expecting them to have the vision and ambition beyond a Greggs and a few pints before the match is a step to far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

I think we need to help people understand that we're not going to be leaving SJP for a bigger version of The Riverside or St Mary's. It will literally be one of the greatest football stadiums in the world, built with an effectively unlimited budget, potentially invigorating a dead area of the town.

 

Why would you not want that [emoji38]


Exactly. It wouldn’t just be some off the shelf identikit stadium. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...