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

redun said:

I made that suggestion because I think Nottingham Rowing Club may want to go with it if offered. The Brit boat house is semi derelict and as I understand it only used as a storage facility anyway. Other than a bargaining tool to get money out of Forest it is of little use to them surely.

Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That probably suits the Rowing Club. This all points to reasons other than the boathouse, for the delays in crystallising the Permission as Forest had options but opted to follow the current proposals.

Big E is prepared to pay the £50m or so for the new Main Stand because the other £50m (shares might differ) or so he's spending on the apartments will help pay for it.

Who's gonna pay the £400m* or so required for a state of the art new ground alone?

*Given Everton's is £500m plus.

Bob Fossil said:

Big E is prepared to pay the £50m or so for the new Main Stand because the other £50m (shares might differ) or so he's spending on the apartments will help pay for it.

Who's gonna pay the £400m* or so required for a state of the art new ground alone?

*Given Everton's is £500m plus.

Click to expand...

And Spurs' ground (mentioned a few times in this thread) cost over a billion quid too.

Even ignoring the location aspect (which is the biggest obstacle for any new ground), the cost of building anything even halfway decent if we were to leave the City Ground would be astronomical.

trentside69 said:

Planning is all about looking to the future.
Commitments made about reducing the carbon footprint need to be met.
Those commitments cannot be met with a stadium in the city centre.
You probably imagine it works well in Newcastle but logistically it doesn't work well at all for anyone except football spectators

Click to expand...

Alright Swampy, have a day off.

Statto said:

Yes, and going past Dunelm is drawing the short straw too as you have all the queueing past the station.

Going off through Wilford Lane is quicker, but you have to queue to get off the A453 most of the time, which is literally to get onto the island and off it again. The new stuff they did at Silverdale doesn't help with this at all when it was obvious what was needed is a segregated left turn lane between the A453 and Wilford Lane. Then you have the 3 sets of lights with Wilford Village, the tram line and then Compton Acres which is also around the area where some genius decided we needed 2 big secondary schools. Once you've crossed the river the right turn into the cattle market can literally take ages as can getting past the Notts ground and the end of Lady Bay Bridge. Sometimes it's taken me 20mins to drive from the north end of Trent Bridge to the roundabout at the retail park where The Range is.

If all the traffic is funneled on one route then it needs capacity increasing and traffic lights to be rephased to cope properly.

If you were coming inbound from somewhere like the QMC/Lenton Lane/Abbey St area where MFI used to be, you'd previously go in along Castle Boulevard, round the broad marsh 1 way system, then down Canal St to the BBC island. Now you need to either go in on the A453 to begin with or hit the "southern relief road" either by cutting through Castle Marina retail park and then in or as far as the end of Castle Boulevard where the NEP building was, then along to Hooters. But then this road hasn't been widened so shoving 2 4-lane roads into 4 lanes isn't ever going to work really is it? There's nothing stopping that road heading straight across to the A612 which would help a lot

Click to expand...

Either option seems like 5 decades of roadworks. Or should I say, put a load of cone out and leave it for months.

Nottingham is no different to anywhere else really, theres just too much traffic and the roads are 50 years behind being adequate. Then you meet "listed building" and theres no scope to do anything is there? Being on a river obviously compounds the problem significantly too. If youre coming off the A52 for example at Gamston, but live in the east, you can either take you chances and drive over NG2 through lady (or through NG1 if you live north/West) or take the 15 miles route over to Gunthorpe, thats also congested because of increased traffic.

Forget about road infrastructure, you could close this, and many other cities down for 20 years and spend unlimited money -and they still wouldnt be adequate, and if they were, they would need to dig kerb stones up 6 months later because we are f***ing useless at anything to do with civils or services.

Theres absolutely no soultion to the traffic problem unfortunately. We can all sit here like experts suggestings whats needed for a new ground from a network perspective but its NOT going to happen, at any cost, or at any time. Build a new stand and walk, or sit in traffic. End of story.

Strummer said:

The simple answer to me seems to be to build a new stadium on legs, that can walk around on its own power, like one of the Martian War Machines from The War of the Worlds.

That way, the stadium can relocate itself as needed to avoid floods, NIMBYs, traffic jams, and the Martian Heat Ray would make short work of the Boat Club too.

Click to expand...

Who knew the answer was that simple all along?

redun said:

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying in essence that RBC could remove the ACV in March if it was felt that the reason for its status no longer Applied?

Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I believe that they have to reply before March 12th and the council go through the process of deciding whether or not it will be granted.

It was 2019 when Forest started the planning process wasn't it. I wonder how the application date for the Rowing clubs compares to Forest's redevelopment announcements?

REDDERS78 said:

Alright Swampy, have a day off.

Click to expand...

Fascinating debate skills.

Newcastle have no issues on matchday?

I‘ve tried a few options over the years - supporters coach, driving up and using the metro, staying in a hotel. It’s a nightmare.

Also the reason why away supporters are stuck up in the gods at St James Park is because the Safety Group has successfully agreed (for seven seasons) that there is no pitchside seating for away fans (as required by PL regulations) that meets the safety requirements.

Genuine question - if we build a new ground - city centre or not - the cost will be around half a billion. How will this be financed? and what are the implications for improving the team to preserve PL status?

trentside69 said:

Fascinating debate skills.

Click to expand...

Okay then.

Lets Debate:

Your proposal is what? Be specific though and I'll happily obligue.

magicwoand said:

Two options in my mind.
View attachment 30657

Click to expand...

The one issue with comparing it to Spurs is they have over a billion quid of debt and because they can maintain Prem football, they can pay for it. Unless EM has found a billion quid to throw at Forest it's not realistic building a super stadium.

But I do agree our best option could be to knock the current one down & rebuild a new one, but it will cost an absolute fortune. From our position I am not sure it would pay for itself so it would require EM to pay for it himself.

REDDERS78 said:

Okay then.

Lets Debate:

Your proposal is what? Be specific though and I'll happily obligue.

Click to expand...

I never had a proposal in the first place.i stated my opinion which you denigrated with juvenile name calling.
The carbon footprint comments appear to have agitated you but I was only stating the obvious and you don't need to be swampy to know about what the carbon footprint is because it's been rammed down our throats for a few years.... Ironically that is why you even heard of swampy
Kapeesh???

Play nicely

Lady Penelope said:

Hello you Red Dogs. I want to add some comments on the stadium development / relocation.
The site discussed for a new build was Eastcroft, not Eastside. It was discussed. The latter is underway now, the former is exactly as it was ten years ago, and is owned by the city council. To be clear it's bounded by the railway to the north, the Eastcroft icinerator to the east, London road to the west, and Cattle Market Road to the south. The site is much bigger than the WFCG footprint.
Before we get into the 'no place like home' debates, let's consider a few things.
The WFCG has many positives and some negatives, the major one being access and egress. The idea of expanding the PT stand poses problems since the sheer volume of pedestrian traffic on Pavilion Rd and the narrow pavements at the Radcliffe Rd corner is something that needs attention. Similar pinch points are on Trentside North and the back of Colwick Rd both of which are simply awful.
There's also been comment about NIMBYS. Well, people in Lady Bay and other parts of WB have had issues with carers for elderly people jotting able to get there on a match day, let along emergency services. Some residents of the area are Red Dogs, others are not but are reasonable, some have legitimate concerns.
Now, can the WFCG be brought up to standard i.e. I am not queuing on the concourse outside the women's toilets ten minutes after full-time with my legs tightly crossed. Certainly the are improvements to be made, and I do wonder why there is so little progress to date. Expanding the BC Upper concourse is an obvious example.
I think that another issue with the current stadium is access to the pitch. We have had two serious incidents in recent seasons (Leicester FA Cup and Sheffield Its in the play-offs). Making access to the pitch more difficult is arguably doable but would reduce capacity.
I absolutely get the magic of a winter evening with the mist rolling in, lights reflecting off the water and so on. If I were Marinakis and looking way into the future I would ponder whether it would be better to utilise Eastcroft (railway station, trams, dozens of bus stops all with 5 minutes walk). Local residents objections to worry about? Not a problem there.
Radical viewpoint alert. Not all new builds are the same, so why not recreate the WFCG elsewhere? Bigger concourses, larger stands, pedestrian circulation all the way around (not possible at the WFCG unless several properties can be purchased). From the TV gantry, it would look pretty much the same. Marinakis might also factor in a cheaper build on the brownfield site, a two to three year job from commencement to completion, and meanwhile we play at the WFCG.
From a business perspective it makes sense. From the point of view of supported comfort it makes sense. City would benefit from a time-derelict site being used and regeneration would follow all round it. Radcliffe Rd shops would lose but there will always be winners and losers.
I don't know if any recent discussions have taken place, but when I'm standing doing my little dance waiting for a pee I think "bloody hope they have been looking at the option".

Click to expand...

The roads around the ground are all full of parked cars already on matchday, it's like getting wet through, you can't get any wetter no matter how hard it rains.
Fans get on to pitches in new grounds too, remember the clunt at pride park who took a swing at Kelv?
TWFCG is our home, it's sacred and if that means a few little accidents on the way home then there's always the washing machine or possibly even Ebay.

The current WFCG site seems the best option moving forward and I can't see any realistic alternative. Much as we've grown up with the place, the reality is that a new stadium will be required to accommodate the club's ambition.

I'm no construction expert, but it strikes me it might be possible to build a new stadium in sections while remaining in residence and allowing the cost to be spread over a longer period.

Beginning with the Main Stand, a large increase in capacity would go a good way to offsetting that lost by the subsequent Bridgford End rebuild, followed by the BC and the Trent End.

Overall capacity doesn't drop significantly below current levels during the first two phases, before ramping to somewhere around 42,000 on completion.

uniform design for ease of construction and aesthetics, but done over a period of maybe 10 years to hopefully allow the club to more successfully organise their finances than Wolves did for example.

I don't know if something like that is even possible and might be talking utter ****, but it would be preferable to ground sharing with Leicester for example.

Lady Penelope said:

I was in the vicinity of the WFCG a little earlier. Two observations:
1 Lots of people at the rowing clubs, and they are not all posh buggers so bear that in mind when you consider having a pop at them.
2 Surveying work going on at the LBC/TE corner,

Re traffic, the closer to tram, train and buses the stadium is the less the need for car travel. Match ticket could get you a benefit at a Park and Ride perhaps. Even with the current proposals for a new PT stand the emphasis is on getting people on to public transport and even push bikes. A new, bigger stadium in the right location would make travel to and from easier. I am sure the City Council would appreciate the enhanced reputation of `Nottingham if we could get a top level facility in place. Sadpies sharing? I don't think that would be an issue now, it was when Degsy brokered the Clifton Bridge package in anticipation of Euro 96, but now now. What would work IMHO is an arrangement whereby meadow Lane is used for B team games, and Notts could use the new place if, for example, they get Man Utd at home in the FA Cup.

Another point on traffic. the long term plan is for Cattle Market Rd to drive through the cattle market site, linking up with Lady Bay Bridge and avoiding the current twists and turns at the back of Notts' ground and Meadow Lane itself. That would help with getting the visiting fans buses away quickly, and also our own supporters from Newark, Lincoln, Sleaford and other places further east.

St James' Park works very well for lots of businesses in the toon. Their latest planning applications were relatively recent and were it not for the listed Leases Terrace (time spent in one of those flats is a time of which I have fond memories) they would no doubt get permission to expand further.

I get the resistance to making a move, but the balance is: are there more problems with a developed and enhanced City Ground now (let alone in ten years time) versus the problems of a new build at Eastcroft (not Eastside).

A new bridge or two would be a massive benefit to the Nottingham area of that there is no doubt, but in the present economic climate and with a Government in some disarray, pigs might fly and Basford United will get into Division 4.

Click to expand...

LP you’ve raised some great points to the debate and the only real alternative to the current site which would suit the current climate and lessen the need for private vehicle use, road infrastructure upgrades and a general boost to the City centre economy. If feasible and cost effective it should be seriously considered.
Also it would be a slap to the County Council, boat club etc who have been a big hindrance for far too long.

Tobias said:

Who knew the answer was that simple all along?

Click to expand...

I love the idea of this straddling the Trent

Rzar said:

The one issue with comparing it to Spurs is they have over a billion quid of debt and because they can maintain Prem football, they can pay for it. Unless EM has found a billion quid to throw at Forest it's not realistic building a super stadium.

But I do agree our best option could be to knock the current one down & rebuild a new one, but it will cost an absolute fortune. From our position I am not sure it would pay for itself so it would require EM to pay for it himself.

Click to expand...

I'm comparing it to Spurs because they built it on the same area of ground the previous stadium was built. We can fit a bigger stadium in the footprint of the City Ground if we rotate the pitch, as pictured. Unlike Spurs we're not in London, Don't need 66000 capacity or a retractable pitch for American football. Not that it won't be expensive but it won't be in the same ball park as what Spurs paid. By the logic of dismissing things due to escalating and prohibitive costs no new stadiums would ever get built, but they do, clubs find away. Brentford did it. Why not us. We never thought we'd be back in the Premier League, why not a new stadium?

I'm glad that the debate has opened up the possibility that a new ground will be required to meet the club's ambitions, and that nobody has got their nickers in a serious twist over the debate.

I must remind those interested that Eastside and Eastcroft are separate areas, the former being north of the railway lines and cyurrenty under development, the latter being south of the tracks, owned by the city council and currently used for various things that could easily be done from elsewhere.

To do up the WFCG will require a minimum of five years in a building site. New PT stand, Bridgrof revamp (actually it needs a "let's start again approach", all the lower tiers are a mess and the issue of spectators getting on to the pitch has to be addressed. Forest have been lucky with the punishments so far received, but eventually a really serious incident will occur, maybe at another ground, but then everyone will have to install preventative measures. It's not an if, it's a big fat when. I also find the lower tiers to have a shallow rake / poor site lines, inadequate food and beverage offering, and don't ask me about the toilets please. The lower tiers all need remodelling, in fact the BC is simply seats bolted onto the old east terrace.

If I were the owner, I'd be looking 15/20 years ahead. As he has done in Piraeus, and thinking about a legacy for the community. The City Ground will not be able to take much larger attendances (NB surveyors working on site today, seen with my own eyes) even if, as they should have done, Rushcliffe planners factor in the need to significantly enhance the pedestrian routes via both Trent Bridge and Lady Bay Bridge, and insist that Forest pay for that.

How to pay for a new build? If the new PT was going to cost £100M, which will now be £125M or more now with inflation and added legal costs, then first of all think of the cost per seat. A new build is likely to get that cost per seat down. For finance, well, some of the WFCG site is owned by the club isn't it, where the residential is proposed to be going for example. That will raise a decent chunk. Similarly arrangements could be in place whereby the Eastcroft site will accommodate a new stadium and other facilities, which will offset the build cost. The total will be more than tarting up the old place, but the benefits will be much more and the income streams much greater.

I was at Bramley Moore dock last month. It's terrific. Their financial plan evidences the additional revenues from the new facility and how that pays for it in a very short timeframe. There are many examples like this in the USA. Build it, they do come, and they spend when they are there (so long as they can get more than a crap cup of tea, some fizzy warm ersatz continental beer out of a plastic bottle, and there's how water, soap and a towel in the other facilities.

One final point before I curl up in my nice new clean sheets, the option of going a little bit east and building on the rugby club site (a site which Forest had the opportunity to purchase a goof few years ago by the way) is a non starter. It would notwould not, even if it were possible to reach agreement with the owners of that site, deal with the issues from Lady Bay and elsewhere in WB. vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic would be worse, even with the new cycle and foot bridge over the river (which is a narrow bugger anyway).

If we want develop first class and bigger facilities and we want to stay within walking distance of the railway station then the options are:

buy adjoining property at WFCG and play in a building site for years
Eastcroft

swap with Notts (it's clear that Meadow Lane could be more easily redeveloped).

Good night readers, sweet dreams.

Randomly came across this just now so probably worth linking here given there’s been plenty of discussion today.

Personally I think the bloke filming it is a bit of a cheeky bugger, but still…

Quntib Hollox said:

I love the idea of this straddling the Trent

Click to expand...

I like the idea of it stomping on the rowing clubs.

Lady Penelope said:

Sadpies sharing? I don't think that would be an issue now, it was when Degsy brokered the Clifton Bridge package in anticipation of Euro 96, but now now.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the thankfully-short-lived Wilford power station shared-stadium idea was proposed by the city council in the mid-late 1980s, before the EFA made its bid to host Euro 96, and that influentially, the role that Pavis played was minor.

As for a similar agreement in the future, I'm firmly convinced that any new stadium across the river will incorporate a groundshare in order to secure the city council's full backing in terms of identifying a suitable location, and for a smooth passage through the planning process. It will no doubt also view the land on Pavilion Road and Murder Lane as valuable potential fund-raising assets (particularly the CG, obviously).

Any "new" super stadium in Nottingham will require a new road Trent crossing, and with a provision for a tram extension on it.

Any CG development needs a new foot bridge over the Trent as a minimum. Opposite the Trent End, take a wide path through the buildings opposite and onto London Road towards the station.

The infrastructure struggles badly at the moment, an increase in capacity will certainly makes those problems worse.

YellowBelly Red said:

Any "new" super stadium in Nottingham will require a new road Trent crossing, and with a provision for a tram extension on it.

Any CG development needs a new foot bridge over the Trent as a minimum. Opposite the Trent End, take a wide path through the buildings opposite and onto London Road towards the station.

The infrastructure struggles badly at the moment, an increase in capacity will certainly makes those problems worse.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, it takes ages shuffling along the Trent End and over Trent Bridge now, put a few more thousand on that and there will be a massive bottle neck.

I haven’t got anything to add, but thought I might pop in to repeat an idea or something that was already suggested a few pages back, written slightly differently, without bothering to check if had already been suggested and debated. That ok?