St James' Park

[SteV]

4 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

Get on quicker and buy together? As it would be if there was general sale/free for all like there is at most other clubs in the world. But this way you know there is a set number of tickets and an equal number of purchasers so you've got a pretty good chance of getting what you want.

 

If you end up having to buy slightly apart than that's a fact of life, or you simply return the tickets if it doesn't work. Or you could have the option to decide only to commit to 2 rather than 3-4 and the others are returned.

 

Got to admit I really don't see how it's an issue. If anything it's better than the current situation where families are e.g. going in for 4 together and missing out altogether, at least this way they'd have the option to then go for 2+2 or 3 together etc.

 

 

 

They won’t go back down that route as that was more or less the whole argument for having the ballot in the first place.

 

You know exactly what would happen - someone would get tickets with their kids in the ballot, they wouldn’t get on the site in time (whether for good reason or otherwise) then wouldn’t be able get seats with their kids and the whole thing would kick off on Twitter or elsewhere. The club don’t want any part of that if they can avoid it.

 

If they want to allow people to pick their seats (or a more specific area of seats) - which I do totally agree they should be looking to do - it’s going to have to be done pre-ballot draw.

[Whitley mag]

Watched a podcast last night and it was rumoured that feasibility study has said 6k more seats possible.

 

If that was the case and I would imagine the costs would be astronomical, surely at this point a new stadium is the option.

 

If we can’t even get above 60k and I’d guess a big proportion of the 6k seats would be corporate, it just seems pointless staying at SJP, as any development wouldn’t be transformative in terms of finances, or letting more fans see the team.

[Nucasol]

Just now, Whitley mag said:

Watched a podcast last night and it was rumoured that feasibility study has said 6k more seats possible.

 

If that was the case and I would imagine the costs would be astronomical, surely at this point a new stadium is the option.

 

If we can’t even get above 60k and I’d guess a big proportion of the 6k seats would be corporate, it just seems pointless staying at SJP, as any development wouldn’t be transformative in terms of finances, or letting more fans see the team.

6k? If correct, that is shit and anyone who doesn’t see it as stunting is part of the problem. No doubt it’s the old timers and “I’m alright Jack” season ticket holders that are moaning about relocation who are pissing on progression.

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Watched a podcast last night and it was rumoured that feasibility study has said 6k more seats possible.

 

If that was the case and I would imagine the costs would be astronomical, surely at this point a new stadium is the option.

 

If we can’t even get above 60k and I’d guess a big proportion of the 6k seats would be corporate, it just seems pointless staying at SJP, as any development wouldn’t be transformative in terms of finances, or letting more fans see the team.

What podcast is that? I’d like to have a listen to it. 

[Dr Venkman]

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

What podcast is that? I’d like to have a listen to it. 

It’s a podcast which you watch.

[Whitley mag]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

What podcast is that? I’d like to have a listen to it. 

https://x.com/IrishMagsPod/status/1768357011853304157?s=20

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

https://x.com/IrishMagsPod/status/1768357011853304157?s=20

Sean Casey 

[OverThere]

I have never believed staying in the exact same location was ever a realistic option, for multiple reasons, including the inability to expand much and the disruption to revenue while you upgrade by a few thousand. Also, St James just was not build to maximize revenue.

 

If fans want to stay close by then Leazes Park/Castle Leazes is the place, as Sir John Hall already identified.

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Jack27 said:

Sean Casey 

Take the ITK stuff away he actually talks some sense in relation to team and tactics, don’t mind the kid to be honest.

[gbandit]

Don’t mind the kid? Someone who spends the vast majority of their time making stuff up for attention?

[Big River]

who is spending their limited time on this earth listening to anything Sean Casey has to say. fuck me.

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

Don’t mind the kid? Someone who spends the vast majority of their time making stuff up for attention?

Doesn’t come across bad on that podcast, talks some good sense in relation to Howe and tactics.

[TomYam]

2 hours ago, OverThere said:

I have never believed staying in the exact same location was ever a realistic option, for multiple reasons, including the inability to expand much and the disruption to revenue while you upgrade by a few thousand. Also, St James just was not build to maximize revenue.

 

If fans want to stay close by then Leazes Park/Castle Leazes is the place, as Sir John Hall already identified.

Hmm. John Hall never identified a thing in his life except for the principles of Thatcherism. His 'advisors' suggested he focus on Castle Leazes - just as they suggested he buy Newcastle rather than Sunderland.

[OverThere]

14 minutes ago, TomYam said:

Hmm. John Hall never identified a thing in his life except for the principles of Thatcherism. His 'advisors' suggested he focus on Castle Leazes - just as they suggested he buy Newcastle rather than Sunderland.

Well whomever identified Castle Leazes they did it for a reason. My point is, that work must be floating around somewhere that the current owners could read and see why that site was preferred. For instance, the issues regarding SJP are no different now from what they were then. The main difference from the 90s I would think is that there may be different brown field sites available now to then.

 

Given it seems from a fan perspective and a transport infrastructure perspective that being close to the city center would be a better solution then Castle Leazes would appear to be the obvious choice. Somehow the owners have to overcome the NIMBYs.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by OverThere

[TomYam]

1 minute ago, OverThere said:

Well whomever identified Castle Leazes they did it for a reason. My point is, that work must be floating around somewhere that the current owners could read and see why that site was preferred. For instance, the issues regarding SJP are no different now from what they were then. The main difference from the 90s I would think is that there may be different brown field sites available now to then.

 

Given it seems from a fan perspective and a transport infrastructure perspective that being close to the city center would be a better solution then Castle Leazes would appear to be the obvious choice.

 

 

 

You're right. It's an obvious choice as the land is a blank space and those that don't wish to move can be reconciled with this tiny migration northwestward.

[manorpark]

32 minutes ago, TomYam said:

You're right. It's an obvious choice as the land is a blank space and those that don't wish to move can be reconciled with this tiny migration northwestward.

 

I remember this from 1997 . . . 

[TheBrownBottle]

11 hours ago, SAK said:

NUFC aren’t a PIF priority let alone a stadium. So far grand statements of wanting to be the best are just that, empty words.

Seems like the chairman hasn’t made as many appearances as last season. Think they got into this without much thought about the rules others would impose on them and are a bit bored with their not so shiny toy as they can’t push on as they would like.

 

Sorry for the doom & gloom but I don’t feel our owners have the same fight as the City owners and this passive approach will encourage others to tighten rules further.

100%.  They’re so very, very interested that there isn’t a permanent PIF representative in the day-to-day running of the club.  For all the promises of communication with the support - well, in their own time - we seem to get information no quicker than the last regime.  Even those who are meant to be involved day to day are far more likely to be found talking shite at Bloomberg than to the support.  

 

There’s been nothing to support what they boasted about so far.  We’re halfway to that five year point, and so far I’ve seen nothing to suggest that there is anything like a grand plan.  Last season was effectively a fluke.   It doesn’t take two and a half years to plan for serious investment like a stadium; and it definitely doesn’t need two and a half years to build new training and academy facilities etc.

 

On top of that we get tied to one of the nastiest regimes on the planet. 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by TheBrownBottle

[OverThere]

If we cant make much progress on the pitch then its time to get some wins off the pitch.

 

Time for PIF and Co to get a move on and give some kind of updates on the training ground and the stadium.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

48 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

100%.  They’re so very, very interested that there isn’t a permanent PIF representative in the day-to-day running of the club.  For all the promises of communication with the support - well, in their own time - we seem to get information no quicker than the last regime.  Even those who are meant to be involved day to day are far more likely to be found talking shite at Bloomberg than to the support.  

 

There’s been nothing to support what they boasted about so far.  We’re halfway to that five year point, and so far I’ve seen nothing to suggest that there is anything like a grand plan.  Last season was effectively a fluke.   It doesn’t take two and a half years to plan for serious investment like a stadium; and it definitely doesn’t need two and a half years to build new training and academy facilities etc.

 

On top of that we get tied to one of the nastiest regimes on the planet. 

 

 

 

That’s an incredibly negative spin like

[gbandit]

Can’t argue about being tied to an awful regime. Really don’t know what more they could have done working within the restrictions they’re working though

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah, fully agree with the regime part obvs. 

[Conjo]

54 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

100%.  They’re so very, very interested that there isn’t a permanent PIF representative in the day-to-day running of the club.  For all the promises of communication with the support - well, in their own time - we seem to get information no quicker than the last regime.  Even those who are meant to be involved day to day are far more likely to be found talking shite at Bloomberg than to the support.  

 

There’s been nothing to support what they boasted about so far.  We’re halfway to that five year point, and so far I’ve seen nothing to suggest that there is anything like a grand plan.  Last season was effectively a fluke.   It doesn’t take two and a half years to plan for serious investment like a stadium; and it definitely doesn’t need two and a half years to build new training and academy facilities etc.

 

On top of that we get tied to one of the nastiest regimes on the planet. 

 

 

Sorry, but that is utter bullshit

 

Information no quicker than under Ashley? Specific examples please? What are you expecting exactly? I thought we wanted experts to do the job, rather than some rich know nothings running the ship. 

We're one of the highest spenders in the league since the takeover. We're investing in top youth talent for the future, we hire among the top people within their field of expertise for backroom positions. We have increased our revenue significantly season by season.

Calling last season a fluke is ott. We overperformed a bit I'm sure by riding on the positivity wave around the whole club, but we were fucking excellent as well, as we have at times this season too. We'd be a hell of a lot better off than we are this season if we had a normal season injury/suspension wise which would have further debunked the "fluke".

 

Edit: It is one of the nastiest regimes on the planet. No arguments there.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by Conjo

[TBG]

Whats the average build time for a new stadium? 2 -3 years?

 

Absolute embarrassing from the owners if they don't manage it in 2 - 3 months.

[Pablo]

Given it is going to take 9months to build the stack I think it is unreasonable to expect a stadium to pop up quickly. However I would appreciate some club communication on the matter, it will give us a true insight into long term plans and ambition.

i think we are being held back by a large proportion of the fan base insisting on staying at St. James at all costs, and the recent requirements for fan consultations and engagement. I fear the board are worried about further fan backlash as there has been a lot of negativity recently.

Ultimately I think as a club we need a good news story and we need it soon, the national media are quick to twist the knife and we seem to lack friends.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by Pablo
Formatting, cause underline in error.

[El Prontonise]

It would take a long time to get any project off the ground (pun intended).