St James' Park

[McDog]

59 minutes ago, SteV said:

Understand the frustration but telling people making a decision that is liable to cost one and half billion pound to ‘just get on with it, man’, feels a bit silly.

 

 

The price goes up over time usually in these matters. They should make a decision.

[Elliottman]

Where is Edwards getting 7 years from? Do we really trust he had that information confirmed?

 

Spurs took 3 years, Emirates 2, Everton 3. 7 seems a stretch even if it means building over the footprint. 

[Chris_R]

They've already been here over 2.5 years, What's the odds we get to 5 years with them still deliberating, then they announce they're not doing anything because it takes too long?

[JT24]

10 minutes ago, Elliottman said:

Where is Edwards getting 7 years from? Do we really trust he had that information confirmed?

 

Spurs took 3 years, Emirates 2, Everton 3. 7 seems a stretch even if it means building over the footprint. 

To build, aye. 
 

The thing still needs to be designed, planned etc. 

[midds]

I get the frustration but they've not bought a shed from amazon, they're seriously thinking about slapping down over a billion quid on a stadium, that decision is going to take some amount of consideration. It's a huge project with many minefields including massive opposition from some groups that needs to be mitigated before it's announced. It'll happen, it's a huge deal and whatever they decide to build could be there for a hundred years, they need to get it right

[Stifler]

16 minutes ago, Elliottman said:

Where is Edwards getting 7 years from? Do we really trust he had that information confirmed?

 

Spurs took 3 years, Emirates 2, Everton 3. 7 seems a stretch even if it means building over the footprint. 

I’m going to guess that the planning process will take 18 months to 2 years alone.

 

Spurs took about 10 years all in all, it took them years to get a CPO on a business, and then years to get through the planning process. Everton’s has taken years to get going.

[Wallsendmag]

11 hours ago, TwoForJoy said:

I'll miss not calling it St James' Park more than I'll miss St James' Park.

 

Don't actually know anyone who calls it that. Always been called "the ground".

 

As in, "What time are we heading up to the ground?"

[54]

7 minutes ago, midds said:

I get the frustration but they've not bought a shed from amazon, they're seriously thinking about slapping down over a billion quid on a stadium, that decision is going to take some amount of consideration. It's a huge project with many minefields including massive opposition from some groups that needs to be mitigated before it's announced. It'll happen, it's a huge deal and whatever they decide to build could be there for a hundred years, they need to get it right

Yeah, but we live in the TikTok age, we must have instant gratification right now.

[Wandy]

19 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

They've already been here over 2.5 years, What's the odds we get to 5 years with them still deliberating, then they announce they're not doing anything because it takes too long?

There needs to be a confirmation, proposed stadium design and timeline - with a start date within the following 12 months - all announced before the beginning of next season. If we don’t get that then I will start to think we won’t get any kind of significant stadium development at all. 

[TheBrownBottle]

It is a lot of money they're talking about, so I don't imagine that the decision will be taken quickly or lightly - particularly given the inefficient govt (sorry, company) we're talking about.

 

We're an investment, not a sportswashing exercise - they aren't going to just hoy insane money around like they have with the Saudi League.  The Saudi League is for the direct 'benefit' of KSA.  So is putting on boxing, F1, WWF etc etc.  So there'll be cost benefits analysis and all those other fun things happening first.

 

I know that plenty fantasised about the money they'd happily chuck around the club, but I've never believed that would be the case - while I think they definitely would've spent more in the transfer market without FFP/PSR, I don't think it would have been blank chequebook Man City / PSG stuff.  They'll want to know what the likely return on investment is - both in income and in club value terms.  It would substantively increase both, which makes investment in a new ground more likely.

[TheBrownBottle]

22 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Don't actually know anyone who calls it that. Always been called "the ground".

 

As in, "What time are we heading up to the ground?"

 likewise.  Neither me nor my mates ever called it anything but 'the ground'.

 

And if anyone amongst my mates ever called it 'the cathedral on the hill' the soppy cunt would've had the piss taken mercilessly.  

[midds]

Whilst we're on the subject I'll admit my number 1 , perfect, ideal solution would have been to stay at SJP, knock it all down and build a superstadium around that little green rectangle of grass that's been our home for nearly 130 years or whatever, that would have been the perfect solution for me. You keep all of the history and tradition of the games that have been played there on that grass, same pitch and that's unique, can't think of (m)any pieces of grass that have been used exclusively by a single sports team going back to the 1880s or whatever. It would be unprecedented and simply perfect  for us to do it. 

 

But that doesn't seem possible. There are just too many hurdles in the way and we don't have the option of just moving out for 3 seasons while it happens. Nope the only option now, for me, is a brand new stadium as close to SJP as we can get. For all intents and purposes it'll still be SJP in my eyes, different architecture, different looking stands but it'll still basically be SJP just 100 yards up the road. It's not ideal , it's not what I would have voted for but it's the best option for the club now imo. We need to compete and to to do that we need the extra capacity, we need the extra income and we need a stadium fit to host the club we all want Newcastle United to be in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. That means a new build. I know it'll sting, I know it'll be unpopular with some but it needs to happen

[ponsaelius]

1 hour ago, Elliottman said:

Where is Edwards getting 7 years from? Do we really trust he had that information confirmed?

 

Spurs took 3 years, Emirates 2, Everton 3. 7 seems a stretch even if it means building over the footprint. 

 

Spurs first suggested the idea of the stadium in 2008 with a planning application approved in 2010. Then they had years of issues with legal challenges, CPOs and discussed the Olympic Stadium option instead.

 

They eventually resubmitted an amended planning application in 2015 once all the ownership issues were sorted out. They commenced on site in 2016 and moved in in 2019. So you're talking 11 years to be actually playing in the new stadium.

 

You're talking similar timescales with the other stadiums too. The actual construction from breaking ground is only the final part of the process.

 

Obviously you'd hope things could be quicker, and we're effectively two years into the process, but these things take time. We will run into different problems to Spurs but they will delay things. Once on site it probably will be 2-3 years.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by ponsaelius

[et tu brute]

Decision will already have been made and today's meeting will just be an in house confirmation of that and to outline the next steps. The amount of people who piss the pants based on anything that bald fucker puts out, always makes me laugh.