Two options for the stadium | Page 4 | Vital Football

Two options for the stadium

Interesting to see everyone’s opinions and comments, I was reviewing plans to expand, the Compton and Ederitch stands at Lords this morning,increasing the ground capacity by 2,500 seats, at a cost of 50million. I wonder what price expansion would, really cost, a couple of temporary 500 seater stands may suffice for the interim.
 
On a message board like this you are preaching to the converted. By definition we are keen City supporters and are willing to put up with quite a lot to follow our side, provided they are doing somewhere between ok and very well.

What you cannot tell is how many potential fans are still on the periphery and might become regulars if they enjoyed a better view, had better facilities and better parking.

However you look at it, Sincil Bank is a mess, with only the Co-op really fit for purpose in a contemporary ground. And for a permanent solution, unless you knock entire stands down and start from scratch, it is likely that capital returns will be poor and you will be chasing good money after bad. Temporary stands would only be effective if we were often completely sold out.

I regularly pass the new Brentford stadium which is rising up close to the elevated section of the A4 heading into west London. The comparison to the nearby Griffin Park is startling; the new stand already looks magnificent. While my heart wants to stay at Sincil Bank, my head tells me we should follow Brentford's example.
 
Last edited:
berksimps said:
On a message board like this you are preaching to the converted. By definition we are keen City supporters and are willing to put up with quite a lot to follow our side, provided they are doing somewhere between ok and very well.

What you cannot tell is how many potential fans are still on the periphery and might become regulars if they enjoyed a better view, had better facilities and better parking.

However you look at it, Sincil Bank is a mess, with only the Co-op really fit for purpose in a contemporary ground. And for a permanent solution, unless you knock entire stands down and start from scratch, it is likely that capital returns will be poor and you will be chasing good money after bad. Temporary stands would only be effective if we were often completely sold out.

I regularly pass the new Brentford stadium which is rising up close to the elevated section of the A4 heading into west London. The comparison to the nearby Griffin Park is startling; the new stand already looks magnificent. While my heart wants to stay at Sincil Bank, my head tells me we should follow Brentford's example.
Click to expand...


Yep, I a
berksimps said:
On a message board like this you are preaching to the converted. By definition we are keen City supporters and are willing to put up with quite a lot to follow our side, provided they are doing somewhere between ok and very well.

What you cannot tell is how many potential fans are still on the periphery and might become regulars if they enjoyed a better view, had better facilities and better parking.

However you look at it, Sincil Bank is a mess, with only the Co-op really fit for purpose in a contemporary ground. And for a permanent solution, unless you knock entire stands down and start from scratch, it is likely that capital returns will be poor and you will be chasing good money after bad. Temporary stands would only be effective if we were often completely sold out.

I regularly pass the new Brentford stadium which is rising up close to the elevated section of the A4 heading into west London. The comparison to the nearby Griffin Park is startling; the new stand already looks magnificent. While my heart wants to stay at Sincil Bank, my head tells me we should follow Brentford's example.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree let’s move forward it will still take 6-8 years to achieve, by then who knows where we could be.
 
I still find it hard to believe the ground capacity in the 60s was 24,000, albeit on a similar footprint, although it was largely standing in those days. Head says we need a new ground in the next five years, but heart would love us to stay at the Bank. I thought we were restricted by the amount of land around the ground, but seeing the aerial shots there's more than I thought. Assume SW will stay otherwise we could make the SW a bit bigger with a cantilever design? Agree the South Park stand seems most unfit for purpose (in purely supporter terms, not in corporate or hospitality terms) and biggest waste of space. Assume the land behind the South Park is owned by someone other than LCFC? Shame, unless it can be purchased. Co-op is obviously pretty much at capacity and the drain makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to do anything with. That leaves the Selenity, which seems to have the most scope for development. Most obvious question relates to the 4g ground - do we need it with the new training facility or is it a question of income being generated from its use for non-training/external users? As a side issue this also raises the question about training facilities in bad weather - can the new training ground cope or will we have to resort to the 4g?
 
Personally I think the most likely course of events is some sort of extra temporary seating in the gap between St Andrews and Stacey West until a new ground can be built.
The temporary stand and enough of the SW will be to satisfy away supporter requirements, that way existing facilities in the SW can still be used for away fans and the home fans use the coop side of the SW as now. Any other solution will require additional services which adds complexity and money to the solution.
 
Spilsby52 said:
Personally I think the most likely course of events is some sort of extra temporary seating in the gap between St Andrews and Stacey West until a new ground can be built.
The temporary stand and enough of the SW will be to satisfy away supporter requirements, that way existing facilities in the SW can still be used for away fans and the home fans use the coop side of the SW as now. Any other solution will require additional services which adds complexity and money to the solution.
Click to expand...


I think you are almost spot on with this. Although the only change I would make is that a temporary stand will be put in place until all information pertaining to a possible stadium move is in place and a final decision on whether to stay or go is made.
 
Casperimp said:
Here you go a quick knock up of what a full length Selenity Stand could look like from the CO-OP stand

View attachment 29536
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you just cannot do that. Modern techniques and hosts of regulations (construction and safety) do not allow for "bolt ons" in a 1980's format. In any case it would be ludicrously expensive for the gain.

Any stands at the side of the Selenity would have to be temporary in the true sense of the word.
 
Hackney Ian's post regarding Lords is very interesting: a very small increase in capacity at a cost of £50m. Why are they doing that? One reason: commercial income.

While many of you are fantasising about increased capacity, temporary stands, doubling the size of the Selenity, tripling the size of the Selenity etc, very few have considered the main reason for a new stadium - increased commercial revenue. How are you going to achieve that at Sincil Bank?

It would be relatively easy to increase the capacity at Sincil Bank, but every such development has to be relevant to the cost. A few years ago it was estimated that redeveloping the Selenity would cost between £5m and £8m, and that was not considering the disruption to office functions and loss of capacity in the interim. Is that really viable? Who is going to pay for that? And what about commercial income generation? We would have a new stand, but the same problem would remain.

Attendances would certainly increase if the need to buy a ticket in advance were to be removed. Furthermore, history shows that attendances shoot up when a club opens a new stadium, and that factor must also be taken into account when the club makes any decision on whether to stay or leave.

The days of simply building a new stand for use once every fortnight for nine months of the year are long gone. Anyone who is thinking about this purely from the perspective of capacity needs to think about it again.

I don't have any answers to any of this. We would all like to stay at Sincil Bank but we also have to be realistic. If the only reason for staying is that we have played there since 1895, then we have to move.
 
berksimps said:
Unfortunately you just cannot do that. Modern techniques and hosts of regulations (construction and safety) do not allow for "bolt ons" in a 1980's format. In any case it would be ludicrously expensive for the gain.

Any stands at the side of the Selenity would have to be temporary in the true sense of the word.
Click to expand...


I realise that. I work in construction and I know exactly what you can and can't do but Croozey ask for a little graphic which is what I did.
 
I think there is surprisingly little scope for in filling between the Senility and SW as the side wing of the Senility would severely restrict the view. Then there is the issue of access and extra facilities for any additional numbers. Then you would expect any new temporary seats in that area to be uncovered. The prospect of regularly sitting in one of those between November and March for a casual fan is probably not too appealing.
 
The Electric Banana said:
All right in theory but all the ventilation supply and extract systems for the existing stand are on that elevation of the stand those and perhaps the underground services would need to replaced and/or re-engineered, most likely the former. Furthermore, there is no such thing of simply bolting on a new steel frame onto a structure that is 35+ years old. A nice idea but technically not a good idea or more importantly financially not the best option.
Click to expand...

Okay to answer your point I am talking about a separate stand alone structure that would simply mirror the rake of the seating deck. With regards to ventilation systems these can simply be rerouted to another vent outlet via ducting to the rear elevation. I am not talking about connecting to the existing structure I am simply talking about linking the seating deck and the roof line.

By building a separate structure and undertaking ground services survey the steel framework can be designed to provide the support where services are not located. As long as the existing services are at the normal depth then a supporting pile mat could be used to provide protection and where this is not the case these can be simply exposed and protected. We don't need to build a complicated structure to increase capacity.

I have worked on the design and engineering for a good number of projects with existing structures that need to extended and are between 15 and 48 years old including steel and concrete structures. You do not need to make it overly complicated.
 
Any decision on what should be done should be completed by assessing Value for Money, as highlighted by Scotimp

VfM = I/M x O/I x V/O = V/M (Value/Money)

a. Economy – i.e. Cost of Inputs (I/M : Inputs/Money)
b. Efficiency – i.e. Ratio of Output to Inputs (O/I : Outputs/Inputs
c. Effectiveness – i.e. Value of Outcomes from Outputs (V/O : Value/Outputs)
 
The club are between a rock and a hard place. We are enjoying success unprecedented in recent times. To go to the next playing level will absorb all available cash. To go to the next level of stadium will blow those figures out of the water. To do both simultaneously will require a Bill Gates investor or at the very least somebody who loves the club to drop the Euro Millions. The only left field solution is for the Cowleys to defy all logic and take us to the Prem on a shoestring and use the TV money/parachute money to simply develop a new ground. Ok a little tongue in cheek but it does illustrate the size of the task especially if you are looking to progress on and off the pitch at the same time.
 
I take ScotImp's point about commercial income and that would almost certainly mean a ground move.

The problem is the short term - which is not so short, at being 5+ years away for any possible new stadium!

It's a pressing matter because:

a) We may well be promoted soon.
b) We want to maximise success whilst the Cowleys are still with us.

In some ways, the ground move will take care of itself. What we do *before* that is key for at least the next 5 years.
 
Any potential increase in capacity is all fine, but it will only be used to generate income 23 days a year plus Cup games ( but we never get drawn at home anyway ! ) What is needed are additional quality facilities for commercial income on the other 340 days of the year, and I dare say it, a better vehicular access to the Ground which is currently dreadful. It will be interesting to see what is proposed.
UTI.
 
NottyImp said:
I take ScotImp's point about commercial income and that would almost certainly mean a ground move.

The problem is the short term - which is not so short, at being 5+ years away for any possible new stadium!

It's a pressing matter because:

a) We may well be promoted soon.
b) We want to maximise success whilst the Cowleys are still with us.

In some ways, the ground move will take care of itself. What we do *before* that is key for at least the next 5 years.
Click to expand...

That is the quandary in a nutshell. I think there are two separate issues to be addressed - how to maximise what we have in the short term, and how to prepare properly for the future with a new stadium.

I have been going to Sincil Bank for almost 50 years and would like to stay there. But I just cannot see any way to do it, and I also think we are at an important juncture. Clive and Roger are right to be considering this right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.