• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

The World Famous City Ground - Home of the PROPER WORLD‘S OLDEST LEAGUE CLUB

Future of the WFCG? What‘s your preference?

  • Current site - just replace the BC and PT stands

    Votes: 112 65.1%

  • Current site, demolish the existing stadium and build a new one (with ground share during works)

    Votes: 49 28.5%

  • New Stadium further down the River Trent

    Votes: 13 7.6%

  • New Stadium out-of-town

    Votes: 2 1.2%

  • New Stadium in the city centre (Eastside option)

    Votes: 19 11.0%

  • Do nothing and stay as it is with 30k max capacity

    Votes: 8 4.7%

  • Other (I will tell you in the comments)

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Total voters
    172
sammy the snake

sammy the snake

Jack Armstrong
Forest should bin it with Rushcliffe. 3 years down the line it's clear they're not really keen in it happening on any timescale otherwise progress would have been reported way before now.

I'm sure they're other options out there
 
Rzar

Rzar

Bob McKinlay
Both councils inlved in this are a disgrace! They are taking the piss.

Dan Taylor in the Athletic: https://theathletic.com/3328440/202...ound-redevelopment/?source=emp_shared_article

This is just some of the details, but The demands initially:

Just consider some of the conditions Nottingham City Council had previously wanted to insert, according to a 2021 document from the club’s advisers, among a series of eye-watering costs that most supporters — and many of the people at the top of the club — could never have contemplated when the plans were announced in Martin O’Neill’s time as manager.

The city initially wanted Forest to pay “any cost of the works” that may be required on both the Trent and Lady Bay bridges that sit either side of the City Ground after the two structures have been assessed by highways inspectors as part of a transport review. Those costs could conceivably have run into vast figures.

Forest were also asked, according to the same document, to make an “unspecified level of contribution” to a new footbridge that is being built further along the River Trent. Again, that would not have been a small amount, presumably, for a project that will run into millions of pounds.

The council wants to upgrade “all bus stops within a pedestrian isochrone (the area accessible from a given point inside a certain time period) of the site and within the city boundary” that can be used to take supporters to the ground. That is obviously going to be a lot of bus stops – and it was initially proposed that Forest should swallow up those costs if the planning application was approved.

The club had also been asked to pay for new cycle routes within “agreed distances” of the stadium, as well as upgrading the existing ones.
Click to expand...

The morons are lucky the club hasn’t been seeking alternative sites yet.
 
Strummer

Strummer

Socialismo O Muerte!
LTLF Minion
I would be willing to wager the club have been doing exactly that.
 
Danga

Danga

Formerly JLingz
Just read the article. While I can understand the councils involved wanting Forest to help with the transport infrastructure in and around the CG area, some of the requests are mental.

I wouldn't want us to move, but I wouldn't blame Forest as a club looking at other sites. You'd think the councils would want to help Forest not hinder them.
 
Otis Redding

Otis Redding

Try A Little Tenderness
I struggle to understand how these highway infrastructure demands - primarily in West Bridgford/Lady Bay - can be made by "the city", given the location is outside of city council territory.

As I've commented previously in this thread, my understanding from an old friend who was a city councillor for many years is that the previous leadership at Loxley House was very keen on the club relocating to a new site within the city boundary, particularly when the Eastside land was largely vacant. Other potential sites were also evidently suggested.
 
Last edited:
E

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
I have the Athletic and read the article this morning. I cannot believe the council demands of the club as well. Also the locals are really restless with it all.

I dont know what the answer could be but I have an idea. I go to Sunderland quite a bit withh my dad and they have a rather nifty free park and ride for matchdays thats about a few miles out. Couldnt Forest stop the parking in the council house and potentially in wilford and Town have some free park and rides?
 
Otis Redding

Otis Redding

Try A Little Tenderness
EmmersonForest4 said:
I dont know what the answer could be but I have an idea. I go to Sunderland quite a bit withh my dad and they have a rather nifty free park and ride for matchdays thats about a few miles out. Couldnt Forest stop the parking in the council house and potentially in wilford and Town have some free park and rides?
Click to expand...

I recall a time when a fleet of NCT buses ran continuously (for a nominal fare) between Lower Parliament and Trent Bridge (the old no.43 terminus) before and after Forest games mainly ferrying supporters from the north of the city.
 
Winnits

Winnits

Viv Anderson
Otis Redd'un said:
I struggle to understand how these highway infrastructure demands - primarily in West Bridgford/Lady Bay - can be made by "the city", given the location is outside of city council territory.

As I've commented previously in this thread, my understanding from an old friend who was a city councillor for many years is that the previous leadership at Loxley House was very keen on the club relocating to a new site within the city boundary, particularly when the Eastside land was largely vacant. Other potential sites were also evidently suggested.
Click to expand...

As much as I love the CG I could’ve got on board with a (decent) development on the Eastside site.
 
Redemption

Redemption

Chief Eye Roller
Redemption

Redemption

Chief Eye Roller
congo_red said:
I think it was first seriously touted when Marinakis came in - Fawaz never had the money, or ability to plan such a thing.
Click to expand...

Fawaz's 'plan' was to build a new stadium in the long term but focus of renovation of the existing stands first. He got as far as Two big tellies and a lick of paint.
 
Captain Sinister

Captain Sinister

Senior doom Monger
The amount of time the planning is taking to be granted, it might be that EM decides to relocate to a new ground... A52 , east side would be good.
 
Senior Flange Technician

Senior Flange Technician

Andy!
It's not surprising being asked to front up to paying for infrastructure improvements. From working on a couple of new builds, that cost is normally absorbed to ease planning permission, as in pay this and you can do it but mostly that's been a bit of help with already planned works or improvements to junctions because of increased traffic. The ones initially set out by the councils seem like profiteering at best or a underhanded way of forcing Forest into moving, again though that will have quite significant infrastructure costs to consider.

I don't particularly blame the council, as most are underfunded but it seems like they're intent on missing out on a significant boost to their and the local finances.

As for Beryl or whatever her name is "suffering home games", pretty sure that stadium was there before you, this kind of NIMBY-ism pisses me off and not just with football.
 
Last edited:
Rzar

Rzar

Bob McKinlay
Djed the Red said:
Just read the article. While I can understand the councils involved wanting Forest to help with the transport infrastructure in and around the CG area, some of the requests are mental.

I wouldn't want us to move, but I wouldn't blame Forest as a club looking at other sites. You'd think the councils would want to help Forest not hinder them.
Click to expand...

They are taking the piss, nothing less than that. They see a wealthy man that wants to put money in so they are trying to extract every penny they can from him.

As said by the supporters trust, they should be encouraging the benefactor that wants to put money in - not making life difficult for them. The stand is stuck in the stone ages, you would have thought the council would be seeing recently what a successful team can do for the city. Especially with the lack of housing in Nottingham as well.

Now stop taking the piss.
 
Captain Sinister

Captain Sinister

Senior doom Monger
OK SpidermAndy! said:
It's not surprising being asked to front up to paying for infrastructure improvements. From working on a couple of new builds, that cost is normally absorbed to ease planning permission, as in pay this and you can do it but mostly that's been a bit if help with already planned words or improvements to junctions because of increased traffic. The ones initially set out by the councils seem like profiteering at best or a underhanded way of forcing Forest into moving, again though that will have quite significant infrastructure costs to consider.

I don't particularly blame the council, as most are underfunded but it seems like they're intent on missing out on a significant boost to their and the local finances.

As for Beryl or whatever her name is "suffering home games", pretty sure that stadium was there before you, this kind of NIMBY-ism pisses me off and not just with football.
Click to expand...

I worked for a few years in the quarrying industry.
At one south-coast quarry, a developer put in an application to build houses on a field on the northern boundary of the quarry (in production since 1923).
The Company objected to the application, and explained that the homes would have a prime view of the working face, about 100 metres from their rear fences, and that blasting was undertaken on a weekly basis, with dust and noise generated.
I doubt "Beryl" was involved, but one the application was passed, the houses built (in 1989) and occupied there came a string of objections to the quarrying activity, which the new residents of the new houses claimed were rocking the foundations of their homes, causing exposive noise on a regular basis, and that when the wind was from the south ((the prevailing direction) there was dust.
The quarry employed 30 local chaps.
Thankfully the objections were over-ruled as the quarry had been active for many decades before the houses were built.
 
ScottC

ScottC

First Team Squad
Councils are taking the piss. With those demands I'd suggest we're more likely to end up in a new stadium elsewhere at this point.
 
E

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
Rzarecteh said:
They are taking the piss, nothing less than that. They see a wealthy man that wants to put money in so they are trying to extract every penny they can from him.

As said by the supporters trust, they should be encouraging the benefactor that wants to put money in - not making life difficult for them. The stand is stuck in the stone ages, you would have thought the council would be seeing recently what a successful team can do for the city. Especially with the lack of housing in Nottingham as well.

Now stop taking the piss.
Click to expand...

I completely understand the transport moans and groans but every decision the council makes just seems counter intuitive. For example with all the tram developments why isnt there a tram going from town to the ground?

Also you could actually make a rule that there is no parking within 2 miles of the ground for example but improve all the transport going in. Forest have offered Bicycle parking facilities as well. You can get a tram stop near the ground or free park and rides.

Why dont they give an Olive branch to local residents who I do sympathise with in part by committing to no parking within 2 miles? In return of that the locals need to give their permission and give it the okay.

You can make this a much better deal for all if they actually worked pro actively. I think Forest are open to it but the council not.
 
Strummer

Strummer

Socialismo O Muerte!
LTLF Minion
I’ve suggested before, English clubs should do what the Germans do, and include a free local public transport ticket for the entire match day in the price of the match ticket.

It encourages people to use public transport.

Granted, public transport isn’t brilliant in England, but if it encourages people out of cars, that’s a major benefit.
 
Strummer

Strummer

Socialismo O Muerte!
LTLF Minion
EmmersonForest4 said:
I completely understand the transport moans and groans but every decision the council makes just seems counter intuitive. For example with all the tram developments why isnt there a tram going from town to the ground?

Also you could actually make a rule that there is no parking within 2 miles of the ground for example but improve all the transport going in. Forest have offered Bicycle parking facilities as well. You can get a tram stop near the ground or free park and rides.

Why dont they give an Olive branch to local residents who I do sympathise with in part by committing to no parking within 2 miles? In return of that the locals need to give their permission and give it the okay.

You can make this a much better deal for all if they actually worked pro actively. I think Forest are open to it but the council not.
Click to expand...

If you look at old pictures of the City Ground when it was built, there is very little housing nearby. It just wasn’t there.

It’s a bit rich, people who’ve made a decision to buy or rent property near to a football ground, complaining about congestion a couple of dozen times a year?

If you move near a football ground, you know what you’re going to get. Don’t want the hassle? f*** off somewhere else then.

It’s like the idiots who move near an airport, then suddenly complain that the Captain of a passing 747 gives them a cheery wave when they’re sat in their garden.
 
E

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
Strummer said:
I’ve suggested before, English clubs should do what the Germans do, and include a free local public transport ticket for the entire match day in the price of the match ticket.

It encourages people to use public transport.

Granted, public transport isn’t brilliant in England, but if it encourages people out of cars, that’s a major benefit.
Click to expand...

You say that but I have to say Sunderland's set up is fantastic. The park and ride system they have which is free probably included with the match ticket is superb.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom