Colchester 8500 already sold | Page 3 | Vital Football

Colchester 8500 already sold

SalfordImp said:
Peanuts mate, last project for me was US$6.78bn (sorry got my decimal point wrong, listening to Hortin) and sorry but you did mention values.

Forgot to add, you did start mentioning values of contracts worked on.....
Click to expand...
do you have any thoughts on options for short/mid-term expansion?
 
Blackpool won promotion to the Premier League on 22nd May 2010, removed an old "temporary away terrace" and replaced it with a new "temporary stand" over the summer - which is still in place today, 8 years on. They played their first home game on 28th August. The stand went up the length of the pitch too, and contained all the "requirements for media". The "new stand" also has a street of houses directly behind it - much closer than behind the Stacey West too.

There is no way that this was planned before promotion was won, as a) promotion wasn't expected, and b) the club never does forward planning!

The city was buzzing before and after the game today. Loads of kids are wearing Lincoln City shirts and they are the future. Those lucky 9000 of us who were at the game today, are not going to stop going. Another couple of thousand seats are going to be needed.

I still don't see why a small temporary stand can't go up between the Selenity Stand and the Stacey West either. It is already empty ground. UTI
 
imp73 said:
for a stand that is designed to be merely functional and have a short shelf life (say 5 years) that seems excessive.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how the long the structure is meant to stand be it one year or a hundred years the same processes apply and those time scales don't materially change.

Particulary: Planning, Building control,licensing, stakeholder consultation, tendering, drawing up of contrcats et al. The only thing that really varies is the time on site. Places of entertainment (which includes footbal stadia) almost always have to go through the full planning process and are not often decided under delegated powers. I note the club had to get planning for a solar PV array, those in the vast majority of cases can be installed within ones permitted development rights.
 
I think we should be careful here. For starters, how much extra capacity can we really fill? Are there really 1000s of additional fans out there or is this just hand-waving and wishful thinking?

Any development of SB as outlined by any of the options above will not be cheap. Which would you rather have - a shiny, brand-new 25-goal a season striker - or spend (waves hands himself) £2 million on a temporary stand that will be redundant if we do move grounds?

That stand may well "pay for itself" in a few seasons, but the bank-balance would still be down by a significant portion of our (cliche alert!) war-chest.
 
nlondonimp said:
decent sized stands are put up for the open golf each year, no way can that take a year!
Click to expand...

It depends what and where it is being built and the interfaces required. It's one thing errecting a temporary stand in a middle of a golf course for a sport that is played purely in daylight. It quite another attaching it to an existing structure on a contrained site for a sport that is played under lights. There would be a requirement for modest service connections such as additional WC capacity, lighting, emergency lighting etc.

I agree with Notty the club would need to very carefully consider what is required in the way of additional capacity. I would venture an additional 2k would be the upper limit.
 
Last edited:
largely dependent on the league we are in... but imagine we do the incredible and get in the championship in the next 3 years. We may still be 5 years away from a new stadium. With the away support factored in we could realistically be looking at 15k crowds potentially. 5k extra at sincil bank is impossible but, if it is possible, it would be a shame and a waste if we hadnt increased it an extra 1k or 2k.
 
NottyImp said:
I think we should be careful here. For starters, how much extra capacity can we really fill? Are there really 1000s of additional fans out there or is this just hand-waving and wishful thinking?

Any development of SB as outlined by any of the options above will not be cheap. Which would you rather have - a shiny, brand-new 25-goal a season striker - or spend (waves hands himself) £2 million on a temporary stand that will be redundant if we do move grounds?

That stand may well "pay for itself" in a few seasons, but the bank-balance would still be down by a significant portion of our (cliche alert!) war-chest.
Click to expand...
would it really be 2 million? if it is that much then i agree, no.
 
NottyImp said:
I think we should be careful here. For starters, how much extra capacity can we really fill? Are there really 1000s of additional fans out there or is this just hand-waving and wishful thinking?

Any development of SB as outlined by any of the options above will not be cheap. Which would you rather have - a shiny, brand-new 25-goal a season striker - or spend (waves hands himself) £2 million on a temporary stand that will be redundant if we do move grounds?

That stand may well "pay for itself" in a few seasons, but the bank-balance would still be down by a significant portion of our (cliche alert!) war-chest.
Click to expand...

That is the dilemma in a nutshell.

If the momentum continues, 15,000 is not out of the question at Championship level including visiting support. That would take a huge investment in terms of money and time, and there is no point if the stadium move becomes feasible with the building of that bridge. That appears to be the crux at the moment.

The only way you could near that kind of capacity at SB would be to redevelop the Selenity side completely with a Co-op replica. The upheaval would be massive, all the club offices and dressing rooms are there, the ticketing system is there etc - and I think City have already said the expense would not be worthwhile (£5m was quoted a few years ago, but it must be more than that with all the offices etc required).

SB is a bit of a glass ceiling at the moment, and there isn't a solution in the near future.
 
NottyImp said:
I think we should be careful here. For starters, how much extra capacity can we really fill? Are there really 1000s of additional fans out there or is this just hand-waving and wishful thinking?

Any development of SB as outlined by any of the options above will not be cheap. Which would you rather have - a shiny, brand-new 25-goal a season striker - or spend (waves hands himself) £2 million on a temporary stand that will be redundant if we do move grounds?

That stand may well "pay for itself" in a few seasons, but the bank-balance would still be down by a significant portion of our (cliche alert!) war-chest.
Click to expand...
easy to say if you are one of the 9000 lucky ones watching the new striker.
but then, if we don't increase the capacity, how do we finance the squad further - to progress - when we will need to sign a more shiny second striker, and an even more shiny midfielder...
 
NottyImp said:
I genuinely don't know. But figures of around £20 million are being touted around for the new stadium with a capacity of 12000.
Click to expand...
on the evidence of the last eighteen months we really would be nuts to be looking at swapping grounds and spending £20m to increase capacity by only 2.5k
 
nlondonimp said:
easy to say if you are one of the 9000 lucky ones watching the new striker.
but then, if we don't increase the capacity, how do we finance the squad further - to progress - when we will need to sign a more shiny second striker, and an even more shiny midfielder...
Click to expand...

Well, there were plenty of spare seats at SB not so long ago - about 7500, to be exact. I'm not too fussed about providing extra seating for fans that won't be there when the going gets tough. Sorry.

And my point is that providing that extra seating will cost money out of the money we have earnt from our current success, thus reducing our ability to invest in the playing squad.

That extra seating *will* be expensive to provide and, therefore, *won't* make any extra money for the club, especially if we do go on to move grounds in the not too distant future.

I don't see the point: spend the money on the squad and long-term options like the training ground.
 
Last edited:
Scotimp said:
The only way you could near that kind of capacity at SB would be to redevelop the Selenity side completely with a Co-op replica. The upheaval would be massive, all the club offices and dressing rooms are there, the ticketing system is there etc - and I think City have already said the expense would not be worthwhile (£5m was quoted a few years ago, but it must be more than that with all the offices etc required).
Click to expand...

I would say one would be looking at £7m to £8m to replace the St Andrews side of SB with anything decent. It is not just about having a bigger version of what is currently there and replacing/upgrading the existing infrastructure like-for-like. Using the economies of scale it would be barmy not to up the corporate offer and have more boxes, bigger and better catering, social and dining facilities.

I personally believe for what is in the public domain at the moment any potential ground move is a currently a very long way off and as Scotimp has said SB is currently a glass ceiling. It's the ultimate Gordian knot at the moment.
 
Last edited:
It's a temporary problem. Once the Colweys leave, we'll employ some lower-league journeyman to replace them and we'll soon have plenty of capacity available at SB. :lol:
 
The Electric Banana said:
I would say one would be looking at £7m to £8m to replace the St Andrews side of SB with anything decent. It is not just about having a bigger version of what is currently there and replacing/upgrading the existing infrastructure like-for-like. Using the economies of scale it would be barmy not to up the corporate offer and have more boxes, bigger and better catering, social and dining facilities.

I personally believe for what is in the public domain at the moment any potential ground move is a currently a very long way off and as Scotimp has said SB currently a glass ceiling. It's the ultimate Gordian knot at the moment.
Click to expand...
re: your post #11 and #31. have you changed your mind about semi-permanently increasing the size of the sw?
 
nlondonimp said:
re: your post #11 and #31. have you changed your mind about semi-permanently increasing the size of the sw?
Click to expand...


No, in fact the opposite. In fact I have not offered an opinion on what should happen, I have just outlined what from a construction perspective whats possible. The expansion of the SW being the most likely and cost effective.

I was just responding and offering my constructional eye to a post by Scotimp of what would the cost and implications would be of developing the St Andrews side of SB. Clearly a £7m to £8m development is highly unlikely to happen as is any expansion of the SW. I'm also not holding my breath on a ground move any time soon, either
 
It’s perhaps not the done thing to mention but once DC leaves we’ll lose a few thousand hangers on. Seems a bit strange to be making major infrastructure decisions (with th massive associated costs) on the whims of the floating fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.