It can be done quickly! | Page 2 | Vital Football

It can be done quickly!

imo any new ground is a balancing act between having enough capacity for the big games, without being lost in a sea of empty seats for the other games.

another factor would be creating more seats in premium areas of the ground. for this reason i would go for four larger stands to begin with, which would leave room for expansion in the corners if we proved that we regularly need more capacity. if the ground was build tomorrow i would say 13-14k would be a good starting point. i imagine rotherham, doncaster and the rest with fully enclosed grounds very rarely have fans filling those seats behind each corner flag.

still think the new ground is a rolling ten years away.
 
No, it cannot be done quickly, which is different to a defined date, aka the Olympic model when you have a defined date and an unlimited budget.
 
They've done what we're thinking of doing redeveloping parts of ground while long term moving to a new ground .
 
Understand all the economic arguments for erring on the side of a larger capacity. But all smaller city clubs are going to have long periods of 'non-success' and a sparsely filled ground sucks the life out of any sporting event. Surely, some of our recent success is due to the ground being nearly full most games ,bringing a sense of occasion - a rare thing nowadays in lower league footy?
 
Crowdwise we are punching above our weight relative to our population,so we must be careful about purchasing too large a stadium,although we do lack Corporate capacity. Add in the possibility of a lean time "result wise" for quite a while,then you are even more exposed. Assuming ever increasing attendance growth can be dangerous. A stadium size,12,000-12,500 would be appropriate.
 
57harry said:
Crowdwise we are punching above our weight relative to our population,so we must be careful about purchasing too large a stadium,although we do lack Corporate capacity. Add in the possibility of a lean time "result wise" for quite a while,then you are even more exposed. Assuming ever increasing attendance growth can be dangerous. A stadium size,12,000-12,500 would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
Definitely no more than 15,000 capacity stadium, taking 27,0000 to Wembley was a one off, most of them will never go to sincil bank or the new ground.
 
Personally, I think future ground capacity estimates will be on a much firmer footing once we see what season ticket renewals are like come June/July.

If we do manage to hit around the 85-90% rate, I think we could be much more confident that our increased support is here to stay. However, if a good portion of the newer STHs decide that mid-table (or lower) seasons are not worth supporting (which would be a crying shame after all the efforts of Clive and co in the last 3-4 years), then talk of 15,000 for a new stadium or redeveloped Sincil Bank really would seem pie in the sky.

There is one outlier in all these club comparisons though... Burnley - population c. 80,000 - and well-supported throughout my lifetime with 10,000+ crowds (now 20,000+ in the Premier League). I guess that's what a successful history and sustained spells in the top two divisions can bring. Norwich and Ipswich are other smallish towns/cities that have sustained good attendances on the same basis. With Lincoln having a large catchment area, might we have the potential to be the same if we could get up and stay up in the Championship? We can but dream...
 
79imp said:
There is one outlier in all these club comparisons though... Burnley - population c. 80,000 - and well-supported throughout my lifetime with 10,000+ crowds (now 20,000+ in the Premier League). I guess that's what a successful history and sustained spells in the top two divisions can bring.
Click to expand...
Burnley has always been an anomaly. Their record attendance (54,755) was larger than the population of the town at the time.
 
Well whatever the final outcome is for us, stay or move, I can only see having a club on our doorstep actually going through a very similar process as a massive opportunity to learn from every step of the move and I'm sure our boardroom will be "on it" every step of the way. And I hope lincs cc will do the same. Cambs cc seem really on board with posh with this venture, they've even suggested looking at the cost of having the arena lowered so as to give views of the cathedral. Massive learning opportunity for us.
 
Long suffering Imp said:
Well whatever the final outcome is for us, stay or move, I can only see having a club on our doorstep actually going through a very similar process as a massive opportunity to learn from every step of the move and I'm sure our boardroom will be "on it" every step of the way. And I hope lincs cc will do the same. Cambs cc seem really on board with posh with this venture, they've even suggested looking at the cost of having the arena lowered so as to give views of the cathedral. Massive learning opportunity for us.
Click to expand...

I *think* Liam Scully was involved with Doncaster's move, so plenty of experience there.
 
79imp said:
Personally, I think future ground capacity estimates will be on a much firmer footing once we see what season ticket renewals are like come June/July.

If we do manage to hit around the 85-90% rate, I think we could be much more confident that our increased support is here to stay. However, if a good portion of the newer STHs decide that mid-table (or lower) seasons are not worth supporting (which would be a crying shame after all the efforts of Clive and co in the last 3-4 years), then talk of 15,000 for a new stadium or redeveloped Sincil Bank really would seem pie in the sky.

There is one outlier in all these club comparisons though... Burnley - population c. 80,000 - and well-supported throughout my lifetime with 10,000+ crowds (now 20,000+ in the Premier League). I guess that's what a successful history and sustained spells in the top two divisions can bring. Norwich and Ipswich are other smallish towns/cities that have sustained good attendances on the same basis. With Lincoln having a large catchment area, might we have the potential to be the same if we could get up and stay up in the Championship? We can but dream...
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiments entirely. The only problem is during my lifetime we has mainly been shit since the 1950s, barring a couple of exceptions. While during that time Burnley has mainly been really shit only once (round about the time we were being even shitter than them). In another universe we could have been as well supported as Burnley if we'd had the level of success they historically had when we were being shit. In short we have still got potential but because of so many years of shitness it is difficult to see how we close the gap on Burnley.
Although if results had gone a different way on the last weekend of the 87/88 season , who knows?
 
Bucksimp said:
I agree with your sentiments entirely. The only problem is during my lifetime we has mainly been shit since the 1950s, barring a couple of exceptions. While during that time Burnley has mainly been really shit only once (round about the time we were being even shitter than them). In another universe we could have been as well supported as Burnley if we'd had the level of success they historically had when we were being shit. In short we have still got potential but because of so many years of shitness it is difficult to see how we close the gap on Burnley.
Although if results had gone a different way on the last weekend of the 87/88 season , who knows?
Click to expand...

Or more to the point 86/87...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.