St James' Park

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, OpenC said:

 

We've already got one of the greatest football stadiums in the world, that the owners appear to value as such themselves. 

 

"Potential invigoration" is not a particularly appealing gamble for some of us when the aforementioned dead area of town is literally a falling apart industrial estate, and will likely continue to be.  Would you say the area around the stadium of light has been "invigorated" by people flocking to the area enough to support a full time business?  Ours would look the same unless PIF are buying 20 square miles of quayside and putting in all the shops and cafes and bars that people are imagining will spring out of nothingness for the one or two days a fortnight the area gets used.  I just don't see how a football stadium supports a non-viable part of town on its own.  Is it the go-karts, Spice Girls gigs and NFL again that are going to do it?

 

 

 

By what metric do we have one of the best stadiums in the world? Genuinely curious. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

10 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

NUST are a lame duck now and have been pretty much since the takeover.

 

We needed an advocate when Ashley was here, not that he listened but we were pretty much voiceless if not for them.

 

But now, yes the club will make the odd mistake but social media has more sway in causing action than NUST do at this point.

 

I just see all this shit as an exercise in trying to stay relevant and more certainly playing to a certain section of the support.

 

100% agree.  The club should set up better direct channels of communication with the fan (and to be fair they are tying).  All the trust is a way to give a few people views more perceived weight to the club as in theory they are representing 10,000 members.  Ultimately they are not though.  When pressing issues like ticketing for the final occur they express their own opinions.  They did not get the opinions of the members.  

 

I think an organisation like the trust can be useful when there is a breakdown between the club and its fans.  If the club are not actively trying to engage with the fans.  But to be honest when we were in that situation the trust position themselves as “not a protest group”.  They did very little to help with Ashley(I doubt anyone could have) and when they had a meeting with the Premier league they were utterly useless. 

 

I appreciate that the members of the trust board may well be trying their best but the entire organisation should just be dissolved.  

[OpenC]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

By what metric do we have one of the best stadiums in the world? Genuinely curious. 

 

Well that's the thing, isn't it?  Some things you can't put a numeric value on.  I could name you half a dozen stadiums which have better metrics (be that more seats, bigger pitch access for getting stage sets in, better transport network, catchment area not interrupted by North Sea, whatever) that I wouldn't want to call Newcastle's home in favour of what we have now.

 

SJP's location, its history, what it represents to what's always been a one-club city, are all important to a lot of us.  Opposition fans appear to enjoy visiting it and want to come here at least partially because of it.  If it was a shit tip with zero value the owners wouldn't have come out in support of staying there, presumably.

 

 

Edited May 15 by OpenC

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, OpenC said:

 

Well that's the thing, isn't it?  Some things you can't put a numeric value on.  I could name you half a dozen stadiums which have better metrics (be that more seats, bigger pitch access for getting stage sets in, better transport network, catchment area not interrupted by North Sea, whatever) that I wouldn't want to call Newcastle's home in favour of what we have now.

 

SJP's location, its history, what it represents to what's always been a one-club city, are all important to a lot of us.  Opposition fans appear to enjoy visiting it and want to come here at least partially because of it.  If it was a shit tip with zero value the owners wouldn't have come out in support of staying there, presumably.

 

 

 

Fair enough

[Kid Icarus]

9 hours ago, JJ7 said:

‘the vast majority (almost half)’. Aye, ok.

 

It represents almost half of the respondents from a quarter of the possible age demographics. Could be wrong but I think outside of voting systems majority just means the most.

[Pancrate1892]

12 hours 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 

Whilst I think that's generally a very agreeable statement I'd say that's what most teams that have moved since the Riverside or st Mary's probably aspired for. Maybe not the greatest stadium or unlimited budget bit, but certainly something bigger and better.

It's fair to say we are only presuming it would be the best stadium on a unlimited budget. We weren't lavish before FFP really kicked in although you could argue they might have been aware it was coming. 

Would it be bigger and better than real Madrid or the new Barcelona ground? Bigger no, better? fuck knows. 

 

Maybe it's a generation thing, some of us are so ingrained in football nostalgia that we will never accept something completely new. 

I have to admit, when I was 13 or 14 I probably wouldn't have been as opposed to moving, aged 20 I'd of said definitely not, but by then we had the 2nd biggest stadium. 

 

My biggest problem is that it takes half a century for the environs (the right word?) around a new stadium to catch up, and most of us will be a long time staring at the lid by then.  

 

Even if we moved slightly into the leazes (which I'd be ok with I think) when they start bulldozing SJP they'd be part of me that wants them to stop, because I'd think of all my memories and my grandad taking my dad there aged 8 in 1957. 

 

The land is pretty sacred. I pray there's an innovative way to satisfy everyone on the current site 

 

[Dr Jinx]

Look at Spurs last night. Widely accepted as the best ground currently in terms of a modern design but it was dead last night. No atmosphere at all. It’s the supporters who make it, or not as the case may be.

 

So the whole thing of the stadium being our heart and soul is rubbish.. it’s the fans and it always has been.

 

That’s why I wouldn’t be bothered at all if they moved to say the arena site. We’d bring that with us.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think Spurs stadium has everything you need for a great atmosphere though, albeit having only been once.

[madras]

14 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

Look at Spurs last night. Widely accepted as the best ground currently in terms of a modern design but it was dead last night. No atmosphere at all. It’s the supporters who make it, or not as the case may be.

 

So the whole thing of the stadium being our heart and soul is rubbish.. it’s the fans and it always has been.

 

That’s why I wouldn’t be bothered at all if they moved to say the arena site. We’d bring that with us.

On the other hand look at West Ham. The three Hammers I know have all said the atmosphere there is shit since their move.

 

I'm going to at least wait and see what the plans are for SJP. I very much doubt it'll be a bog standard "just extra tier" on the Gallowgate and there's also space to expand backwards from the Leazes and let's see how creative they can be with the East Stand.

 

 

Edited May 15 by madras

[Dr Jinx]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

On the other hand look at West Ham. The three Hammers I know have all said the atmosphere there is shit since their move.

 

I'm going to at least wait and see what the plans are for SJP. I very much doubt it'll be a bog standard "just extra tier" on the Gallowgate and there's also space to expand backwards from the Leazes and let's see how creative they can be with the East Stand.

 

 

 

True but that stadium was never built just for football. There’s also been a major disconnect between the owners and supporters there for a few years.

 

I think if we moved there’d of course be a period where things are being figured out.. singing sections etc..

 

But would also be great if they designed in safe standing from the outset, I assume that’s going to continue to be brought in?

 

[madras]

51 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

True but that stadium was never built just for football. There’s also been a major disconnect between the owners and supporters there for a few years.

 

I think if we moved there’d of course be a period where things are being figured out.. singing sections etc..

 

But would also be great if they designed in safe standing from the outset, I assume that’s going to continue to be brought in?

 

 Doesn't matter if its meant for football as its all down to the fans isn't it ? "We'd bring it with us".

[madras]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

It represents almost half of the respondents from a quarter of the possible age demographics. Could be wrong but I think outside of voting systems majority just means the most.

There were 1237 respodents to the annual survey. Is that representative enough given the demographics ?

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, madras said:

There were 1237 respodents to the annual survey. Is that representative enough given the demographics ?

 

My understanding of 'the law of large numbers' is that generally anything above 200 is considered representative of a group providing there's nothing untoward going on with participant selection. It can be manipulated but considering NUST's survey was sent out to all members and is six times that number I think the only demographic that might skew the results is that it's been filled out by the demographic of people who tend to fill in surveys

 

 

Edited May 15 by Kid Icarus

[WilliamPS]

8 minutes ago, madras said:

 Doesn't matter if its meant for football as its all down to the fans isn't it ? "We'd bring it with us".

The Olympic stadium has design issues around retaining the running track that make it terrible for football and for generating an atmosphere. it has that huge gap between tiers that doesn’t get picked up on TV, it’s a uniquely bad set up that won’t be replicated anywhere else that isn’t multi use 

[madras]

2 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

The Olympic stadium has design issues around retaining the running track that make it terrible for football and for generating an atmosphere. it has that huge gap between tiers that doesn’t get picked up on TV, it’s a uniquely bad set up that won’t be replicated anywhere else that isn’t multi use 

And I've heard decent atmospheres there, they can get up for it even with those issues, but in general they don't.

[Pablo]

4 hours ago, OpenC said:

 

Well that's the thing, isn't it?  Some things you can't put a numeric value on.  I could name you half a dozen stadiums which have better metrics (be that more seats, bigger pitch access for getting stage sets in, better transport network, catchment area not interrupted by North Sea, whatever) that I wouldn't want to call Newcastle's home in favour of what we have now.

 

SJP's location, its history, what it represents to what's always been a one-club city, are all important to a lot of us.  Opposition fans appear to enjoy visiting it and want to come here at least partially because of it.  If it was a shit tip with zero value the owners wouldn't have come out in support of staying there, presumably.

 

 

 

I wish opposition fans didn’t want to come. We give up our seats for their support to have a nice weekend away. Let them enjoy Liverpool instead and encroach on the Kop.

Who on here really gives a toss about what away supporters want. We can fill their allocation 15times over with passionate supporters who are locked out.

[NE27]

4 hours ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

100% agree.  The club should set up better direct channels of communication with the fan (and to be fair they are tying).  All the trust is a way to give a few people views more perceived weight to the club as in theory they are representing 10,000 members.  Ultimately they are not though.  When pressing issues like ticketing for the final occur they express their own opinions.  They did not get the opinions of the members.  

 

I think an organisation like the trust can be useful when there is a breakdown between the club and its fans.  If the club are not actively trying to engage with the fans.  But to be honest when we were in that situation the trust position themselves as “not a protest group”.  They did very little to help with Ashley(I doubt anyone could have) and when they had a meeting with the Premier league they were utterly useless. 

 

I appreciate that the members of the trust board may well be trying their best but the entire organisation should just be dissolved.  

 

I think a working trust is always required tbh. I wouldn't want the club setting things up in-house for fan engagement as it wont be impartial.

 

We've seen the club go ahead with stuff even now(ballots) without fully engaging with fans, which the trust have then had to survey it's members for thoughts that they can then put forward.

 

I'm not arguing NUST are fine in their current guise, the Hurst stuff really rubbed me up the wrong way.

 

But how else do you canvas the supports opinion? Stick a twitter poll up?

[Kid Icarus]

21 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I wish opposition fans didn’t want to come. We give up our seats for their support to have a nice weekend away. Let them enjoy Liverpool instead and encroach on the Kop.

Who on here really gives a toss about what away supporters want. We can fill their allocation 15times over with passionate supporters who are locked out.

 

Are you alright?

[Pancrate1892]

5 hours ago, madras said:

 Doesn't matter if its meant for football as its all down to the fans isn't it ? "We'd bring it with us".

We won't be allowed to take the goalposts, that would be stealing 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

3 hours ago, NE27 said:

 

I think a working trust is always required tbh. I wouldn't want the club setting things up in-house for fan engagement as it wont be impartial.

 

We've seen the club go ahead with stuff even now(ballots) without fully engaging with fans, which the trust have then had to survey it's members for thoughts that they can then put forward.

 

I'm not arguing NUST are fine in their current guise, the Hurst stuff really rubbed me up the wrong way.

 

But how else do you canvas the supports opinion? Stick a twitter poll up?

 

The club directly contacts the fans.  Season ticket holder and members.  Have a third tier if needed.   Emails.  

 

I'd also like the club to have a government style question/petition thing.  If you ask a question and it gets enough votes then it's discussed in a meeting and replied to.  Maybe there are better ways to do this.  But there has to be ways that the club and fans can communicate without a middle man.

 

[NE27]

21 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

The club directly contacts the fans.  Season ticket holder and members.  Have a third tier if needed.   Emails.  

 

I'd also like the club to have a government style question/petition thing.  If you ask a question and it gets enough votes then it's discussed in a meeting and replied to.  Maybe there are better ways to do this.  But there has to be ways that the club and fans can communicate without a middle man.

 

 

I get it, and yeah that would be a great idea.

 

I just don't know how much I trust any self governing organisation to have the best interests of fans at heart, even if they claim they do.

See the PL, or our government actually 

 

Suppose the German model is the kind of model you want that allows fans a say at the top table (I think?)

 

But if something that doesn't include the same rabble of TF contributors is seeking traction I'll happily throw my weight behind it.

[PRL]

Would people vote to move ground if it was to 90-100k on the town moor, with the top bowl or both ends (30-40k) distributed to under 40s in NE1 postcodes for £200 a season ticket as priority, before moving to others within an NE1 postcode after, before any general sale if left, with as much as allowed safe standing. The 10-15k hospitality could cover close to SJP revenues, then current season ticket holders could have first dibs to the more premium tickets or those in safe standing and other areas after the above (if over half don't want to be in safe standing, they'll be good with closer to the pitch and seated). 

 

By the time this was built, the women's team would be challenging towards the top of the WSL, SJP would become their stadium and they would fill it (we would still be fairly starved of relative success and the fans would pack in for reasonable price to cheer our female galacticos to the title).

 

At the same time we would suddenly have the best stadium in the UK, with the most vibrant atmosphere and some of the best facilities. We could host gigs most weekends (modern stadia with a floor that comes out and covers the pitch), NFL would come to SJP, it would bring huge tourist revenue to the city on non-game weekends as we put on the best and biggest events outside London, and you can catch the train to Newcastle and walk to the game or gig - not spend an age on a sixties era tram waiting for Rita Sullivan to get mown down in front of you...

 

I'm completely accepting this is unrealistic, but if it offered a new generation of fans access for good pricing, an uplift in atmosphere, remaining in city centre and a huge bump in the economy of Newcastle... would people go for it?

[NE27]

4 minutes ago, PRL said:

with the top bowl or both ends (30-40k) distributed to under 40s in NE1 postcodes for £200 a season ticket as priority

 

[PRL]

4 minutes ago, NE27 said:

 

Haha, is Roy sad about the use of bowls or overly restrictive postcodes?! It's an outlandish and hypothetical suggestion that wouldn't happen, I know that... I'm just intrigued as to if those who wouldn't want to move would relent if there was mitigating circumstances, whether there's a route to something that could work for most/all. 

 

 

Edited May 15 by PRL

[Ben]

20 minutes ago, PRL said:

Would people vote to move ground if it was to 90-100k on the town moor, with the top bowl or both ends (30-40k) distributed to under 40s in NE1 postcodes for £200 a season ticket as priority, before moving to others within an NE1 postcode after, before any general sale if left, with as much as allowed safe standing. The 10-15k hospitality could cover close to SJP revenues, then current season ticket holders could have first dibs to the more premium tickets or those in safe standing and other areas after the above (if over half don't want to be in safe standing, they'll be good with closer to the pitch and seated). 

 

By the time this was built, the women's team would be challenging towards the top of the WSL, SJP would become their stadium and they would fill it (we would still be fairly starved of relative success and the fans would pack in for reasonable price to cheer our female galacticos to the title).

 

At the same time we would suddenly have the best stadium in the UK, with the most vibrant atmosphere and some of the best facilities. We could host gigs most weekends (modern stadia with a floor that comes out and covers the pitch), NFL would come to SJP, it would bring huge tourist revenue to the city on non-game weekends as we put on the best and biggest events outside London, and you can catch the train to Newcastle and walk to the game or gig - not spend an age on a sixties era tram waiting for Rita Sullivan to get mown down in front of you...

 

I'm completely accepting this is unrealistic, but if it offered a new generation of fans access for good pricing, an uplift in atmosphere, remaining in city centre and a huge bump in the economy of Newcastle... would people go for it?

 

You locationist monster