Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Maybe a proper thick question, but can we not demolish SJP in it’s current form and rebuild it in a way which has a bigger capacity?

 

Would of course leave us homeless for a season or two though.

 

Who would we share with in the meantime?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Maybe a proper thick question, but can we not demolish SJP in it’s current form and rebuild it in a way which has a bigger capacity?

 

Would of course leave us homeless for a season or two though.

 

You would imagine something would be possible but would require building a training ground or campus first with a mini stadium to play the games in. 

 

Barca have the Mini Estadi and City have the Academy stadium

 

miniestadi-760x428.jpg

 

CFA_2-1778x1000.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

People want to move the stadium? I know we cant expand as much as wanted but good god I would't trade having stadium at top of city for the world. Albeit also realise keeps getting fucking blocked off by more and more shit buildings

 

It's not what people want it's what the consortium will require. The revenue for a 70,000 - 80,000 stadium is big compared to 52,000. It's the reason other clubs have extended or planning to extend. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done at St James'

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

Too late for the riverside. The entire plot beside the Arena is just about to get approval for residential.

 

Yes, I posted this link about that earlier in the week . . . 

 

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/quayside-west-ex-calders-yard-site-heliport-site-and-newcastle-arena-future-site-newcastle-various-approved.983200/post-168894560

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robm said:

It's had approval for a while hasn't it? Would imagine it's not an easy site to develop with being industrial. Maybe do a swap.

 

As manorpark has alluded to, city planners were unhappy with original scheme. This have now been revised, and proposals for the site are now moving forward.

 

 

Edited by Turnbull2000

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Am I right in thinking manorpark that the Freemen gave the Castle Leazes site the go ahead in the 90’s, and if Hall had gone the distance it would have then gone to govt planning for approval.

 

Was it not the timescales for planning approval that made them resort to SJP redevelopment ?

 

 

Edited by Whitley mag

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...