St James' Park

[Arknor]

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 May 11 by Arknor

[Ben]

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 ? 

[bobbydazzla]

23 hours ago, HalloNUFC said:

What is the issue with Leazes terrace ?

The issue is that it’s called Leazers terrace 

[TheBrownBottle]

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. 

[Doc]

35 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

The issue is that it’s called Leazers terrace 

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

[Pancrate1892]

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 

[OpenC]

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 May 12 by OpenC

[OpenC]

Will also stop non match goers from worrying about The Font

[Kid Icarus]

Imagine my shock

 

[Kid Icarus]

...and in anticipation of the 'that'll be because they're all/mostly season ticket holders' argument:

 

 

 

[Keegans Export]

31 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Imagine my shock

 

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.

[TRon]

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.

[Kid Icarus]

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 May 14 by Kid Icarus

[Kid Icarus]

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. 

[whiteline]

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?

[TRon]

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.

[Miggys First Goal]

Should have given them options A, B, and C to choose from.

[Keegans Export]

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? 

[whiteline]

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. 

[Keegans Export]

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. 

[TheBrownBottle]

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. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

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 

[cubaricho]

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 

 

This 1000%

[Whitley mag]

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 

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.

[Miggys First Goal]

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 

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