St James' Park

[TRon]

4 minutes ago, NUFC91 said:

 

Not being funny but alot of that is nonsense from fans as well, St James park atmosphere is crap now so won't get any worse, same as it man utd build a new ground the atmosphere won't get any worse as it's already crap.

 

Honestly that was my impression as well. I can't really tell the difference between the atmosphere at old grounds and new ones, apart from West Ham since they moved to the London stadium. Upton Park used to generate a louder atmosphere but that was because it was a lot smaller and tighter area I think.

 

 

 

[Scoot]

17 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

 

Thanks for asking the question respectfully

 

 vs 

 

One is a proper football ground and on a good day when the crowd is up for it, it can still give you the chills.  The other one has been made for a bit of football, a bit of NFL, a few gigs. 

 

The new one looks like a spaceship/shopping mall hybrid and the atmosphere/experience is by all accounts very artificial despite us being told for a decade before it would be the one that bucked the trend.

 

I don't care about extra room in the concourse or micro breweries or other gimmicks, I'm there to see the match in a way that is somewhat comparable to how I always have.

 

Nobody's ever answered my question about a new ground that's been built in the UK that generates a decent atmosphere, I assume that's because it doesn't exist. 

 

But no I have no sense for valuing what we'd be giving up and for this.

 

The current ground doesn't create a good atmosphere. Too many people just go and have no intention of singing. So we'll be no worse off in terms of atmosphere if we move.

[LFEE]

36 minutes ago, Superior Acuña said:

Football is all about emotions though, they're a valid factor - it's sensible to take emotions into account.

 

 

 

The debate was over the most sensible decision. Not the best emotional one.

 

Football is emotional and those attached closely to the club. The ground isn’t ultimately. It’s part of it’s history like the players and managers and owners of course but it’s nothing like what it was in 1983 when I started going and I’m sure prior 1983 and my attendance it wasn’t anything like what it was either. Doesn’t stop me feeling emotional about my club just because the ground has evolved. The current seat next to mine has my late dad’s name still on it even though he’s no longer with us to occupy it. That will go I know. Arguing you can’t form new emotions in a new stadium I find ridiculous. Think about the people who can’t get in. Think of the emotions being able to go will create or the emotions of the parents who would have more chance to take their children etc.

 

I get emotions. I wouldn’t have fought so hard for a change of ownership if the club was merely transactional to me. I personally didn’t fight so hard for the takeover to still get left behind. I’ve still got the “We don’t demand a team that wins, we demand a club that tries” banner in my outhouse and stand by every word of it. 

 

Those that know me will know I encourage people with strong views regardless what they are to voice them to the official channels if it really means that much to them. 
 

We are talking about sense though. Which I see is different and usually when you act sensibly you take the sensible decision not the emotional one. That was my point. That and I think the club is trying for us. Which is what I demanded.

 

Anyway… what will be will be. I’ll leave you all to debate it until an official announcement is made. I think I said that last week but sticking to it this time unless I get called names of course  

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

 

I'm pretty sure the people involved know what they're doing. You're just guessing with your ifs and buts. 

 

 

 

The people involved will be guessing too, with more information, but still mostly educated guesswork.

[TwoForJoy]

34 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Needs to be 75k+. Other than that, very happy. Surprised they've not had push back from locals and councils, get the club got them paid off early doors. 

Agreed. Its has to be bigger than 75,118 the Mackem record attendance.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:23 by TwoForJoy

[buzza]

bayern Munich stadium is 75.000 and looks quite cool in my opinion (similar to Athletic Bilbao) and has a great atmosphere (been twice).

Borrusia Dortmund at 85k is an old stadium but top for atmosphere.

 

We would not do badly copying both of them and coming out with a St james Pk Bastardo!

[sushimonster85]

8 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

The current ground doesn't create a good atmosphere. Too many people just go and have no intention of singing. So we'll be no worse off in terms of atmosphere if we move.

 

This. No good blaming the lack of atmosphere on the ground when more and more games at SJP are going by with barely a peep from from crowd. Don't get me wrong, it's not every game, but it's becoming more regular. 

 

The atmosphere will be good if we make it good. Regardless of the ground. In fact if you want to talk acoustics, it (in theory) should be better in a more closed off, bowl type stadium that isn' so drastically different in it's sizes from one half of the ground to the other. 

[Wallsendmag]

4 minutes ago, buzza said:

bayern Munich stadium is 75.000 and looks quite cool in my opinion (similar to Athletic Bilbao) and has a great atmosphere (been twice).

Borrusia Dortmund at 85k is an old stadium but top for atmosphere.

 

We would not do badly copying both of them and coming out with a St james Pk Bastardo!

 

I'd rather have the Dortmund design to the Bayern design tbh. 4 steep sided towering stands just looks much more imposing and does wonders for the noise levels.

[Yorkie]

2 hours ago, LFEE said:

If I was being an arse I’d say why do you care what shape it is when you don’t go to the games even when offered tickets. That would be being an arse. But I didn’t  

 

I'd define that more as being a cunt than being an arse.

[Rich]

[ponsaelius]

20 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

I'm pretty sure the people involved know what they're doing. You're just guessing with your ifs and buts. 

 

It's informed guesswork, the same as what the club will be doing. The planning issues with building in that location are informed by the constraints I know from working with the nightmare that is the UK planning system every day.

 

The construction practicalities I can't comment on quite so much - but common sense suggests to me just from looking at it that we will almost certainly need to play elsewhere for a period of time with that indicative footprint. Or at absolute best need to play with a reduced capacity for a period of time.

 

Experienced developers will progress ahead with development proposals well aware of the pitfalls and potential risks in doing so at each stage. Even when they 'know what they're doing'. If they didn't nothing would ever get built at all.

 

It doesn't mean that it's not possible, anything is possible, but I personally think it's a process that could be fraught with difficulty and more time consuming compared to other options i.e. Gallowgate expansion, Castle Leazes or the Arena site. Obviously if they think it's the best option then it would be worth the wait/effort/disruption - as we only get to do this once.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:27 by ponsaelius

[christ]

12 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

The current ground doesn't create a good atmosphere. Too many people just go and have no intention of singing. So we'll be no worse off in terms of atmosphere if we move.

You’d think it’d make it better by allowing fans who want to make a noise to concentrate in dedicated places.
 

Better than right now when those fans have to work around the po-faced knackers who think anyone trying to generate an atmosphere is an impediment to their 90 minute sponsored silence.

[LFEE]

8 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I'd define that more as being a cunt than being an arse.

Now now… and I still await my answer?

[Superior Acuña]

39 minutes ago, LFEE said:

The debate was over the most sensible decision. Not the best emotional one.

 

Football is emotional and those attached closely to the club. The ground isn’t ultimately. It’s part of it’s history like the players and managers and owners of course but it’s nothing like what it was in 1983 when I started going and I’m sure prior 1983 and my attendance it wasn’t anything like what it was either. Doesn’t stop me feeling emotional about my club just because the ground has evolved. The current seat next to mine has my late dad’s name still on it even though he’s no longer with us to occupy it. That will go I know. Arguing you can’t form new emotions in a new stadium I find ridiculous. Think about the people who can’t get in. Think of the emotions being able to go will create or the emotions of the parents who would have more chance to take their children etc.

 

I get emotions. I wouldn’t have fought so hard for a change of ownership if the club was merely transactional to me. I personally didn’t fight so hard for the takeover to still get left behind. I’ve still got the “We don’t demand a team that wins, we demand a club that tries” banner in my outhouse and stand by every word of it. 

 

Those that know me will know I encourage people with strong views regardless what they are to voice them to the official channels if it really means that much to them. 
 

We are talking about sense though. Which I see is different and usually when you act sensibly you take the sensible decision not the emotional one. That was my point. That and I think the club is trying for us. Which is what I demanded.

 

Anyway… what will be will be. I’ll leave you all to debate it until an official announcement is made. I think I said that last week but sticking to it this time unless I get called names of course  

This is where I fundamentally disagree. Yes it is. And therefore any 'sensible' decision has to take emotions into account, because this is football. It's nothing like deciding where to build a new Tesco's etc. from a business point of view. You may not feel much emotional attachment to the stadium itself, that's fine, I understand your reasoning, but the fact is many do, and that's valid and should be an important part of the calculation. I'm definitely emotionally attached, and I think probably overall I'd support a move on balance - not because I'd removed emotions from the equation though.

 

tl;dr emotions have to be part of any sensible decision, because this is about football and football's largely about emotions.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:50 by Superior Acuña

[TheGuv]

A lot of the atmosphere argument is dependent on what the Club does.

 

I’m locked out and I’m sure many can attest on here that I love to chant and try and sing wherever I am.
 

But there’s no guarantee even with a larger stadium that I and thousands of others who like to create an atmosphere will get in regularly. If on the other hand we were all corporate fans I’m sure we’d have no problem getting in…
 

If a 70,000 seater stadium with fantastic acoustics just means we have an extra 20,000 there who don’t want to make a noise but will improve PSR then I’m really not sure I can be arsed anymore. The club have made zero attempt to improve atmosphere or embrace ‘legacy’ fans since 2022.

 

For those thinking a stadium increase will increase their chances of a ST I think it’s very unlikely. And if they did, imagine if it was done the way the ballot currently is performed? Good luck with that! The release of 1000 STs in 2022 felt incredibly unfair at the time by doing it online. Even then I made the point that it should be done in person. Do you REALLY want a season ticket? Take 2 days off work then and queue up. I and many others will have undoubtedly done that.

 

It would be interesting to see what the opinions of current season ticket holders would be if the club said - the new stadium is a fresh slate - so there’s no season tickets and you’re all on the ballot. Would so many be banging the PSR drum then? I think not.

 

Or an even more likely outcome could be, this brand spanking new stadium needs to generate significant income - your ST is now £2000 a pop. I can probably afford that but can thousands of others? 
 

I’m just rambling as usual - but there’s far too many questions at this stage and I don’t trust the FAB to actually stick up for the normal match going fan and it’ll be pushed through without significant foresight into what people want. We’ve had 3 years of PIF and off the pitch matters have left a lot to be desired in my opinion. Every forum they’ve held they’ve basically taken nothing on board. I don’t see why a new stadium will be any different. 

[NG32]

Just build the same stadium again slightly further up with a bigger capacity.  

 

Sorted. 

[J7]

1 hour ago, Interpolic said:

I've said many times on here - I don't want to leave SJP, it's a proper football ground and I've yet to see a new build in this country that isn't completely naff in comparison.  I don't aspire to be Spurs. 

 

I accept progress may be a bit slower taking this route.  I do not accept that we actually need to do this to compete.  I do not accept we should make a forever decision based on PSR rules which may end up being relatively short-lived.

I think our posts overlapped.

 

I wouldn’t consider it a senseless argument, but I don’t think any football ground stays the same. We, and any other football club will move on at some point so expecting something to just stay the same is delaying the inevitable. We’re going to have to do something at some point with the stadium, so what’s the point in being left behind until it’s almost forced on us? 
 

My first game was 1993 and the East Stand is the only one anywhere near similar to what it was then. What we have isn’t exactly historic beyond its location. It’s a late 90s stadium with a small bit from the 70s that nobody seems to like, and it’s too small and out of date already. Has there even been a period as long as the last 25/26 years where nothing has progressed at SJP or most other stadiums?

[pedro111]

1 hour ago, Toon No9 said:

Yeah, brick by brick!🤔

 

Beamish you say?

[bobbydazzla]

22 minutes ago, christ said:

You’d think it’d make it better by allowing fans who want to make a noise to concentrate in dedicated places.
 

Better than right now when those fans have to work around the po-faced knackers who think anyone trying to generate an atmosphere is an impediment to their 90 minute sponsored silence.

 

If they gave me the CEO job I'd immediately introduce massive swathes of safe standing and designate those areas to be singing sections

It's relatively low cost, would have a massive positive impact on atmosphere and would be a PR win with most (but admittedly not all) fans

 

I'd say to ST holders who don't want to stand that they can have their pick of where to move in the stadium (not the posh seats obvz) and allow groups of sitters to move together if they want

 

If they complained about it I'd chain them up outside the changing rooms at Dorothy Perkins between 2.30-5pm on a Saturday so they could have a long hard think about their life choices and why moving seats is better than having their ST's revoked by yours truly

 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:48 by bobbydazzla

[Yorkie]

11 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Now now… and I still await my answer?

 

Personally I place great value in having buildings and places that look interesting and have some character and personality. Others don't value that aspect so highly, both views are valid. 

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

I’d be very happy if the development impacts Leazes Park, place is an absolute dump and needs redeveloped. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, Interpolic said:

I've said many times on here - I don't want to leave SJP, it's a proper football ground and I've yet to see a new build in this country that isn't completely naff in comparison.  I don't aspire to be Spurs. 

 

I accept progress may be a bit slower taking this route.  I do not accept that we actually need to do this to compete.  I do not accept we should make a forever decision based on PSR rules which may end up being relatively short-lived.

 

Is it based on PSR rules? I was thinking more like our ground is too small for how big a club we want to become. 

[LFEE]

19 minutes ago, Superior Acuña said:

This is where I fundamentally disagree. Yes it is. And therefore any 'sensible' decision has to take emotions into account, because this is football. It's nothing like deciding where to build a new Tesco's etc. from a business point of view. You may not feel much emotional attachment to the stadium itself, that's fine, I understand your reasoning, but the fact is many are, and that's valid and should be an important part of the calculation. I'm definitely emotionally attached, and I think probably overall I'd support a move on balance - not because I'd removed emotions from the equation though.

 

tl;dr emotions have to be part of any sensible decision, because this is about football and football's largely about emotions.

Without going over everything again I think these plans have took that calculation into account and then some hence me referring to the club making the “sensible” decision. Not necessarily the one they would’ve wanted. I think they’ve compromised what they could’ve done that could’ve been bigger and cheaper still.
 

I don’t think our fundamentals are that far apart. I get what you say. I just argue that you can still have all these emotions in a new ground practically planted on top of it. They will just be new emotions where your previous emotions become memories. I still remember the day we beat Derby 3-2 and looking in awe at the Leazes end finished and full. I’ll no doubt have emotions walking into a new stadium if that’s what they decide. I’ll certainly be happier and feel less guilty about friends not being locked out as much.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:58 by LFEE

[STM]

Always bemused by our own fans saying our atmosphere is shit but yet, it regularly features in ex footballers top grounds for atmosphere and also opposition fans opinions too.

 

The reason for this, is because our fans expect the atmosphere to be at its most electric at all times, which is virtually impossible and certainly doesn't happen at other grounds.

 

The stadium also has an "awe" about it. Very few stadiums can you walk up to on match day and it takes your breath away. The new Wembley doesn't even have this effect IMO. SJP does.

 

However, the realist in me gets why it's time to turn over a new page. I'd like the design of it to take into account acoustics but more importantly I'd like to make sure that those who want to make the most noise get closest to the pitch.

 

There's absolutely nothing stopping a large standing section at the new gallowgate end, which I'm sure would continue to make serious noise.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 16:01 by STM

[Doctor Zaius]

1 hour ago, Interpolic said:

I've said many times on here - I don't want to leave SJP, it's a proper football ground and I've yet to see a new build in this country that isn't completely naff in comparison.  I don't aspire to be Spurs. 

 

 

Thats where I stand basically and I'm not opposed to leaving SJP. I dont have any faith in the architects or club not producing something that isnt quite ugly and soulless, with all the character that encapsulates the corporate nature of modern football. 

 

From the outside, its even more important than your average stadium as its such a big part of the citys skyline. SJP looks really good from afar.

 

Bramley Moore looks alright (if a little souless from the inside), but fuck me, imagine this football stadium disguised as a bus terminal dominating the Newcastle skyline. 

 

 

Perfectly open to examples of modern stadiums that might actually A. Look good and B. Would be feasible though. Maybe im not looking hard enough?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 16:01 by Doctor Zaius