If we get a new West Stand it MUST look the part........i.e. Symmetrical

If we get a new West Stand and I hope we do.
Although a lot on here sez the ground is big enough, but these are small thinkers
We need a ground that will hold 30,000, ready for bigger things
The new stand must link in with what is there already.
This means it has to be the same height as the North and East stands ie. 3 stands the same size and a smaller stand (Ponti)
Or it as to join the Ponti End at the height of the Ponti End stand ie, 2 large stands the same height together (North and East) and 2 smaller stands the same height together (West and Ponti)
The new stand CANNOT be a one off stand alone sort of place, it has to blend in with what is already there
Because if we get a one off sort of stand, the whole shape of the ground will look odd

 

A mirror image of the East stand.........

would take the capacity up to approx 26500.</p>

When the North stand was finally built there was plans drawn up for a 3 tiered stand to replace the old main stand. As far as I am aware these plans would still be at Oakwell somewhere. Problem is a 2 or 3 tiered stand would cost upwards of 5-6 million quid. Maybe we missed the boat on that one and could have paid for it before we bought - Krizan/Tinkler/Hristov/Marksdedt/Leese etc</p>

 

3 tier stand

 

When the East Stand was first built

There was a multitude of people complaining about it's size and saying it would be nothing more than a white elephant . Funnily enough , no one complained when we promoted to the Premiership . Whether we like it or not , any monies raised from the sale of land will NOT go to team strengthening . Therefore , a new West Stand is probably one of the few options left open and if a job's worth doing , it's worth doing well . I'm not aware of any rule forbiding a return to the Premiership and , if we were to do so , I'd rather we have a stadium already built to maximise our potential income from gate receipts .We filled our three home stands every home game that season in the league . Hopefully , we could do so again .

 

Thats got be the point........

If the money is to be put back into the ground due to the deal with the council then why not? Surely its better going into that than back into Council coffers.</p>

I am sure Patrick Cryne would put the money straight back into the playing side if it wasn't for the council owning half of the land with him.</p>

 

RE: Thats got be the point........

doubt we'll fit something the size of the east stand without buying half of grove street

 

Fact is though Terry that surely 50% of any proceeds SHOULD go into the council's coffers??

It was council tax payers' dosh that funded the 50% BMBC purchase of Oakwell with Patrick in the first place.
Those tax payers are surely entitled to expect any return on that investment i.e. sale or development proceeds, to benefit the borough as a whole and not just BFC?

Don't get me wrong - I'd be delighted if ALL the money went to improving the stadium, I'm just acting as devil's advocate here.

The other thing I'm not clear on is exactly how much we are talking about here. What exactly is the value of the land - £1mill?, £2mill?, £3mill? or more? I ask that because 50% of £1mill ain't a lot in terms of improving the stadium if we're talking about the West Stand.

 

was just thinking that

i think we would be looking at something a lot smaller, Whats all this about make the stadium look right? who cares about symmetry? as long as it looks better than is now i dont see the problem. Yes do it right but lets not get carried away. we wouldn't fill the stadium at current size even in the championship.

 

The east stand is about 25m deep, its 27m from the pitch to grove st wall

approximately...from google earth.</p>

So I guess your wrong.</p>

And its only restricted by grove street school, which is closing.</p>

Ever seen bratforts stands? they cantelever across a road / above housing so owts possible.</p>

In any case I think that you are jumping the gun slightly. </p>

Improvements to the west stand have been muted. Just that, not wholesale redevelopement.</p>

 

You make a valid point........

but I am sure that the council did the deal to keep football in Barnsley and the money to be made from having football in the town.</p>

I'd be very suprised if the council took the money from the sale of the land and still kept the 50% share of the rest of the ground/land. I say that because of the way it has been reported on so far.</p>

The council didn't help out to make profit, I hope anyway. If that is the case I would prefere the council to sell the land and take all the proceeds but leave the rest to Patrick Cryne and the club. This would then leave the club free from multi ownership on the land ground front.</p>

 

..and it should incorporate a Fitness centre, a restaurent for match days where you can get summat other burger & chips, a small shopping mall for the women. In fact the East stand concourse could incorporate a fitness suite.

 

RE: You make a valid point........

can someone please tell me what land we are talking about

 

away car park & bottom 1/3rd of main car park

 

RE: away car park & bottom 1/3rd of main car park

thanks spartacus i always thought yorkshire traction owned the away car park ,so did the club buy it sometime ?

 

Got it along with old cricket pitch etc after long negotiations

 

Yep - fair comment.

As a fan I'd like to see any proceeds that accrue from this initiative go towards improvements at the stadium. However, if that happened BMBC would have to justify their share being utilised in that way to their electorate. I'm not convinced that will be as straight forward as it sounds - given the outcry that took place when they originally announced the 50/50 purchase agreement of Oakwell.

Being a council tax payer myself, I could understand it if the electorate expected 50% of any proceeds to be channelled back into council funds to reduce any future council tax rises. At present BMBC are getting no monetary benefit from their 50% investment, as far as I'm aware, and we have to be conscious of the fact that BFC fans only form a minority of the electorate. And I would also expect BMBC to anticipate SOME profit from their original investment, be it monetary or material. It was an investment after all - not a donation.

 

RE: Got it along with old cricket pitch etc after long negotiations

thanks for that information ,well lets hope we can do something with the west stand then we will have a stadium to be proud of, think back 10 to 12 years what the ground was like! and the club its self have developed the ground not some big concern i.e. McAlpines at Huddersfield ,Reebok at Bolton e.t.c.,we should be proud of how the club have developed the ground over the years and not neglected it like Rotherham,Donny and Chesterfield.

 

My worry is if the independants take control of the council and decide that they want the money back. In an ideal world it would be great if the land was owned by the community of which the council would be the elected custodians, but we are at the whim of political descision makers. Therefore I would like the club to actually pay the money back to the council and have control over its own future.

 

Your final sentence would be the ideal solution!!

Keeps the council tax payers AND the fans happy! Result all round...

 

Is that ever likely to happen?.

It's a serious question, as being from outside the borough I'm not totally up to speed with local politics in Barnsley, but I would suggest that if Labour ever lost control of a council like Barnsley then they really WOULD be in trouble.