Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
First World problems eh?!
But the point is there’s no road parking - St. Andrews with a 10,000 crowd you can park 5 minutes walk and straight out or it’s walking distance to town if you take a train
I never understood the idea of it being a 'green' stadium in terms of travel. When it was just the City playing there, there would be an' event' on 26 occasions during the year, but driving to them was discouraged, hence the two mile parking zone. Yet right next door is a huge shopping complex built for motorists to use and which is open virtually all day every day of the year. It makes no sense. Another way of making it difficult to get to games and discriminating against football fans.You could park much much closer to Highfield Rd for free than you can at the Ricoh, the parking zone is ridiculous.
The pitch is looking in good shape but doesn't look like there are any footy goals up yet :-(
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Where do you live RoS?
From Tile Hill by car I can get to StAns quicker/easier than the Ricoh! And park for FREE when I get there too! Not to mention the decent boozers which are missing at the Ricoh
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
I think that I am right in saying that work was done to alter the front to rear pitch of the terrace when the West Terrace was made all seater (I have seen photos of the work underway).It is as someone has said mainly nostalgia, my Grandsons aged 15&13 know no difference and HR certainly had faults before the all seater viewing from parts of the terrace and Kop end weren’t brilliant and when the West Stand was built there were pillars running the width of the standing area obscuring viewing then when it became all seater seats where just plonked on the existing terrace, no leg room and you ended up with neck ache trying to see the other side of the pitch then we built the East Stand which again had pillars obscuring your view.
As for the Ricoh I don’t think it has really been tested, we have had a few big games with big crowds but nothing on a regular basis.
I live fairly near to the Ricoh and when the gate is larger and I’m talking 17/18000 parking ain’t brilliant so god knows what it’ll. be with 32k there..…
I think that I am right in saying that work was done to alter the front to rear pitch of the terrace when the West Terrace was made all seater (I have seen photos of the work underway).
Given that work was done to alter the slope, there is no excuse for the legroom being too small. Other stadiums suffer from this too, again there not really an excuse for it.
Regards Ricoh attendances. I don't think it would be pretty to see 32,000 there as I suspect it wouldn't cope very well.
I think that there is also an argument that says the Ricoh would never have been suitable for us if we are outside the PL (where attendances generally run at far higher percentages than the lower leagues). It is interesting that in Germany there is a history of clubs moving to smaller stadiums temporarily when they are relegated - maybe this is something to be thought about.
Bundesliga clubs average 92% capacity and Hertha Berlin are moving to a smaller stadium as they are only averaging 64% capacity in their rented stadium and they can't balanced the budget in their rented stadium (where they only have access to matchday revenues). To get 92% capacity at the Ricoh we would need to get over 30,000 - we have only achieved this twice in the time we have played at the Ricoh (against Chelsea and Crewe).
That something special is purely nostalgia.
Any kid that went to their first match at the Ricoh and have seen most of their games there will feel the same way about that you do about HR, because for them that's what a football stadium 'should' be. We grew up expecting it to be surrounded by houses, walkable from the centre, individual stands built at different times etc, open corners. But take all that nostalgia away and it was in fact quite crap in terms of a building. Ricoh is far better in actually usability. St Andrews reminded me a bit of HR and although there were bits which made it feel like a 'proper' stadium to me it did also remind me just how crap those kind of structures are nowadays,
Like you say, we'll have to agree to disagree.Well we will agree to massively disagree because I think it would be a glorious thing indeed to see us play in front of 32,000 crowds... as every other club of similar stature has done purely because they didn't totally fuck up their relocations & have disastrously bad management.
Whats your other option? This bollocks talk about a couple of lego stands holding 15,000 home seats, at a cost of £30m, 5 years down the line, requiring major transport improvements- when there is a ground right there which would be absolutely fine? Be very careful what you wish for. Its nothing to do with the stadium, its what has happened to the club and how the club has been managed.
Like you say, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Regards a prospective new stadium, I think we really don't have enough information to simply dismiss the idea. Personally, I am keeping an optimistically open mind at the moment.
We have a waffly statement, seven years after they announced their intention. You're quite right, we have no information and that's why it should be dismissed until we get action rather than words. The onus is on our owners to change the patterns from the past.I think we really don't have enough information to simply dismiss the idea.
These things take time.We have a waffly statement, seven years after they announced their intention. You're quite right, we have no information and that's why it should be dismissed until we get action rather than words. The onus is on our owners to change the patterns from the past.
They might, but seven years for a statement is a bit extreme.These things take time.
They might, but seven years for a statement is a bit extreme.
Exactly, all this passing the buck is nonsensical, as is the selective misquoting of other comparitive stadia. Brighton had an unsupportive local council in Lewes, but they got on with it. Forest Green have had an unsupportive local council, but have got on with it. We don't even have anything to get behind in lobbying people apart from a few waffly words that say nothing.Calling a spade a spade, they have lied for 13 years now and the club is worse off then when they came. So I'm not 'dismissing' it, however imho I'm sick of talk, and the figures don't stack up when you look at whats there already.
Seven years for a statement? Well, it's not really seven years as there have been previous statements.They might, but seven years for a statement is a bit extreme.
Exactly, all this passing the buck is nonsensical, as is the selective misquoting of other comparitive stadia. Brighton had an unsupportive local council in Lewes, but they got on with it. Forest Green have had an unsupportive local council, but have got on with it. We don't even have anything to get behind in lobbying people apart from a few waffly words that say nothing.
We've come up with a drawing, a stadium advisory group, and repeated statements about how they'd really like to build a ground, honestly.
If they wanted to, we'd be moving in next season!
It's up to them to prove this time is different, and any excuses for their (in)action is ludicrous.
Look over here!
(Not over there!)
Seven years for a statement? Well, it's not really seven years as there have been previous statements.
I think we both know it would be unwise for those involved in a new stadium to provide information until they really needed to.
Information leaked around the Butts suggests the council has been actively seeking details of any stadium plans the club might have. I think this is because the council ultimately needs the club at the Ricoh to support the stadium (Wasps can't support it alone and closure will be a political problem).
I think the news of the Woodlands site arose as the result of the games the two sides were playing. Probably, the council suggested an absolutely ridiculous site (listed buildings and newts) and sat back waiting for the reaction. Much to the council's surprise, the club gave signs of wanting to go with the site - but this was probably just a ploy by the club to buy time and divert attention from the university.
Perhaps all the details will come out in Simon's next book...
That's not really fair. Brighton and Hove Council was very supportive.Exactly, all this passing the buck is nonsensical, as is the selective misquoting of other comparitive stadia. Brighton had an unsupportive local council in Lewes, but they got on with it. Forest Green have had an unsupportive local council, but have got on with it. We don't even have anything to get behind in lobbying people apart from a few waffly words that say nothing.
We've come up with a drawing, a stadium advisory group, and repeated statements about how they'd really like to build a ground, honestly.
If they wanted to, we'd be moving in next season!
It's up to them to prove this time is different, and any excuses for their (in)action is ludicrous.
Look over here!
(Not over there!)
I suspect some of the statements were cack and were given because the owners were playing for time. But, we don't know the full story of what has been going on behind the scenes so it is difficult to dismiss all the of the statements out of hand.And how did those other statements turn out, bullshit or reality?
I suspect some of the statements were cack and were given because the owners were playing for time. But, we don't know the full story of what has been going on behind the scenes so it is difficult to dismiss the of the statements out of hand.
Like I say, it is difficult to know what has gone on because none of the parties involved have been particularly forthcoming. I want to support my club in Coventry and the only way I can see that happening long term is if there is a new stadium.No offence, but when someone issues multiple statements & those statements turn out to be demonstrably false, it is pretty easy to dismiss them. Anyway I hope you're right and previous promises were all just part of a game and they really mean it now.
Of course we hope they mean it now. Seven years and a statement however...No offence, but when someone issues multiple statements & those statements turn out to be demonstrably false, it is pretty easy to dismiss them. Anyway I hope you're right and previous promises were all just part of a game and they really mean it now.
They could have got advice on the chances of planning permission for the land, bought the land, gone for permission, gone to appeal, gone to judicial review, gone to judicial review appeal in the time it's taken them to issue a statement.I suspect some of the statements were cack and were given because the owners were playing for time. But, we don't know the full story of what has been going on behind the scenes so it is difficult to dismiss all the of the statements out of hand.
Like I say, it is difficult to know what has gone on because none of the parties involved have been particularly forthcoming. I want to support my club in Coventry and the only way I can see that happening long term is if there is a new stadium.
the Ricoh has been voted the worst away day in the country
the Ricoh has been voted the worst away day in the country, plenty of fans say we should never have left HR as it was a great stadium.
I think you know enough about planning to know that for any site in Coventry the council could have imposed massively expensive infrastructure improvements that aren't really necessary, but are always difficult to argue against and would not breach any legislation. Look at the ridiculous figures that were banded about when The Butts was being discussed.They could have got advice on the chances of planning permission for the land, bought the land, gone for permission, gone to appeal, gone to judicial review, gone to judicial review appeal in the time it's taken them to issue a statement.
As we know, they're not beyond a legal challenge... apart from when it comes to their stated plan A.
Frankly, the ideal is they go silent, and actually get on with building the damned thing, rather than telling us how they'd like to do it, but a load of meanies keep stopping them!SISU have put themselves on the clock and going silent again is not an option this time.
They’d have to be fuckingstupid (or think we are) to assume the 8,000 or so that are going to Brum would keep going, unless they see something/anything that represents some kind of progress towards an alternative.
Even if there’s fuckery going on with the council, they need to keep the supporters informed. But If this is bullshit again, they’ve cooked their fucking goose.
They need to communicate where it is, how it’s going to be paid for and how long it’s going to take. And if it’s multiple years? How the fuck Will we survive in the meantime.
I think you know enough about planning to know that for any site in Coventry the council could have imposed massively expensive infrastructure improvements that aren't really necessary, but are always difficult to argue against and would not breach any legislation. Look at the ridiculous figures that were banded about when The Butts was being discussed.
I suspect the club decided on a site some time ago and has been waiting for the optimum time to announce it. I believe the timetable for the A46 relief road was put back and I wonder if this had a knock on effect on the club's schedule.
It has already been said the club isn't buying a site from University of Warwick, so no site purchase was necessary.
As for planning permission, I am sure professional advice has already been taken. The club and Sisu know there are people actively seeking to thwart them (as demonstrated at The Butts), why would they give away information early and risk something derailing their plans?
Go round it circles if you want. It’s subjective.meaningless, and HR was not a great stadium. Home yes, great stadium absolutely not.
Frankly, the ideal is they go silent, and actually get on with building the damned thing, rather than telling us how they'd like to do it, but a load of meanies keep stopping them!
There's a difference between positive fan consultation (hey, a Stadium Advisory Group!) and just whinging about how nobody will let them build it.I agree in principle but don’t forget, they’ve been buttfucked for not communicating.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?