W
WasStefan
Guest
40,000 too high. 36k is plentyAs previously posted ad nauseum, 40,000 seats will do us.
Less if we continue to score only once in a blue moon
40,000 too high. 36k is plentyAs previously posted ad nauseum, 40,000 seats will do us.
Less if we continue to score only once in a blue moon
I think space wise we could but that's where a structural engineer would come into their own. We could potentially go even further back but obviously the structure would have to be reinforced/supplemented. Anfield is a great example just shows what can be done.Do you think the existing structure could take the extra weight of another 3000 seats at the back plus a new roof or do you think they could build from behind similar to what Liverpool have done and I think Ipswich did with their main stand? I like your idea though.
Forest, who have an identical stand, are making major changes. Perhaps we should look at those.Do you think the existing structure could take the extra weight of another 3000 seats at the back plus a new roof or do you think they could build from behind similar to what Liverpool have done and I think Ipswich did with their main stand? I like your idea though.
Disagree.40,000 too high. 36k is plenty
Pretty sure it’s not identical.Forest, who have an identical stand, are making major changes. Perhaps we should look at those.
Interesting as l had certainly seen that fact quoted.Pretty sure it’s not identical.
Completely parallel with the pitch.
Believe they are renovating/building over the smaller stand in their ground as opposed to the Brian Clough stand.Forest, who have an identical stand, are making major changes. Perhaps we should look at those.
Pinched this from the "Old Photos" thread. It shows that potentially you could add another 33% in terms of rows at the back of the Steve Bull, c3,000 seats. If you replaced the front tier with a steeper incline from pitch side potentially another 1,000 - 2,000 seats could increase the total capacity by c4,500 seats, which is nearly in line with projections of 36k overall capacity at that point.
Issue is that would not accommodate corporate hospitality boxes and won't address the depth of each row. Likely that they'd have to demolish/lift the existing rows of terrace off the structure to address this issue and perhaps build boxes across the back of the existing stand and seats extending above. The other issue would then be what would they do about the curve of the stand.
Fascinating stuff but one thing is that there are options to produce a stand that could be done in stages with a very clever architect and structural engineer at the helm.
View attachment 30390
View attachment 30388
Having looked again it looks like they are doing the Peter Taylor stand first, you are correct. That alone will take Forest to 35k.Believe they are renovating/building over the smaller stand in their ground as opposed to the Brian Clough stand.
You can disagree but the demand for tickets shows even as low as 33k is enough. But 36k would be nice and tie in with steve bull rebuild.Disagree.
Interesting as l had certainly seen that fact quoted.
Believe they are renovating/building over the smaller stand in their ground as opposed to the Brian Clough stand.
How, given that we are capacity constrained and that has been one of the drivers of ticket pricing, you feel able to make those statements so categorically is beyond me.You can disagree but the demand for tickets shows even as low as 33k is enough. But 36k would be nice and tie in with steve bull rebuild.
Couple of RSJ's should sort it!Very much doubt that it would be possible to expand up and add an extra tier above the existing seating, the existing structure would need to support a larger roof as well as the weight of the extra terracing and seats. And you couldnt really extend the existing terracing in to the void at the back as the pillars would obstruct the view. It might be possible to utilise the void at the very top & back for new exec boxes and covert the back few rows to corporate seating. Hopefully the lower tier can be extended at a different angle towards the pitch and at the same time square up with the touchline. Could add an extra row or two in the middle section below the upper tier to keep all the lower tier rows perpendicular to the pitch.
In the end that will cost close to as much as a complete demolition and rebuild I’d guess.Nice. Think in your concept, it would need the addition of a shallow rear extension, bringing the back closer to the road. The rear extension would contain the supports for the new roof structure so that it didn’t reuse the existing structure, and if you placed the hospitality section at the back, then you’d have more depth for boxes, function rooms, and to provide lifts and stairs to access the new upper level.
To address the seat pitch issue in the SBU, it would be possible to overlay a new wider stepped layout, but that would lose a few rows of capacity to bring it up to modern standards. Of course that would be more than compensated by the significantly enlarged SBL if that starts from the top of the old boxes and extends further forward to bring the front closer to the pitch.
If you really wanted to finish the job without demolition, then you could remove the SBL and roof, build a new rear extension, and overlay a new upper and lower tier which sits square to the pitch on top of and in front of the old stand, topped with an entirely new, higher roof supported by the new rear extension. The core of the old SBU stand would remain within, but totally hidden within a new seating structure and rear elevation. That’s more or less what Liverpool have been doing with their recent works, but this needn’t be such a large expansion.
Prices are high now and the ground barely sells out. If you really think adding 10k more seats will mean prices will drop you are deluded. Prices will stay the same and the ground would have 8k+ empty seatsHow, given that we are capacity constrained and that has been one of the drivers of ticket pricing, you feel able to make those statements so categorically is beyond me.
Forest's Executive Stand down the side is similar to the Bully, but you're right it runs flush with the pitch. It's a similar age and build though.Pretty sure it’s not identical.
Completely parallel with the pitch.
Believe it was the same builders too....Forest's Executive Stand down the side is similar to the Bully, but you're right it runs flush with the pitch. It's a similar age and build though.
Just checked the Simon Inglis ground bible. Not sure about the builders, you might be right there, but the architects were different: Atherden and Nutter designed ours and then the design was apparently copied by Husband & Co. at the trees. I prefer theirs to be honest, the cantilevered shape always seemed unnecessary.Believe it was the same builders too....
Presumably the reason for the shape was to effectively make it bigger.Just checked the Simon Inglis ground bible. Not sure about the builders, you might be right there, but the architects were different: Atherden and Nutter designed ours and then the design was apparently copied by Husband & Co. at the trees. I prefer theirs to be honest, the cantilevered shape always seemed unnecessary.
(Just looking at it now, the second edition of Inglis' book is tragic - post Bradford but pre Hillsbrough, unaware of the horror just around the corner.)
I guess you've just got to remember that back in '79 this was already a huge stand.Presumably the reason for the shape was to effectively make it bigger.
Was daft though, especially as money was tight and to begin with the whole stand sat so far from pitch.
Should have been built straight, maybe higher with lower tier same size as upper...
No, no -45,000. We have to be ambitious.40,000 too high. 36k is plenty
Fair enough. But I think most of us think 40k would be plenty. I know @reanswolf has understandable reservations, but for me even if the ground isn't full all the time that isn't a problem. I reckon we'd currently get a full house for the 'big 6', Villa and important games (first game, last season if somethings on it, boxing day etc.), and 28-35k for all the other games. What we'd have then is growing room, if we're challenging for Europe more could come, groups of friends could start attending together again regardless of how we're doing, and younger fans could get the habit. Looking at Sunderland, an economically similar town but with a smaller wider catchment area, of we did what they've done in terms of support I'd be chuffed bits. When people talk about empty seats, I just don't agree, a packed home end can make a din regardless of empties, and to repeat a point I've made before, don't confuse a packed stadium with an excited crowd; we think the ground needs to be full to make the atmosphere, but forget that when the ground's full it's because it's an important game!!No, no -45,000. We have to be ambitious.
In the end that will cost close to as much as a complete demolition and rebuild I’d guess.
There were empty seats in the South Bank for City and probably 15% of the North Bank was empty for the entire game, much more after half time.
Tickets were sold. Season tickets. If peopleThere is absolutely no need to increase capacity right now, the Steve Bull is in drastic need of knocking down and rebuilding as it's far from safe but beyond that any redevelopment to increase capacity is a pipe dream. There were empty seats in the South Bank for City and probably 15% of the North Bank was empty for the entire game, much more after half time.
To attract more we need sustainable success, whether that be top 6 finishes, good cup runs, whatever. The interest from 2018 has waned, we may all disagree on why that is. But as it stands we don't sell out so why would Fosun expand?
Disagree.
Yes at least 45 with potential to go higher for me. Lets get it done right this time. We still have a massive support earnt from families whose grandparents folllowed the triple champions of England in the 50's. They are still out there and we could still get back to our true status towards the top of English game. Always believe in the old gold and don't let the bottlers, neighsayers and corporate types tell you any different.and me.
to be on the same level as the top 6 plus Newcastle a minimum of 50k, if the Vile can get 40k+ so could the mighty Wolves.
aim for the top you might come second,
It definitely wasn't possible to buy City tickets a couple of hours after they went on sale to members, because I was on a plane at the time and tried as soon as we landed. If there were any empty seats, it wasn't due to lack of demand.
Tickets were sold. Season tickets. If people
Don’t turn up still
Sold tickets. When I went to Newcastle game there were seats near me. People on holiday and didn’t want to sell them back to club I was told
So still a ‘sell out’
Not disputing that, I never said the tickets weren't sold just that there were loads of empty seats from kick off and more so later in the game. If people want to buy tickets and not turn up that's even worse.
Would it really be quicker though?Probably true on the building side, but would save a lot of time and money on demolition, so might make economic sense. Liverpool have done it for a reason, and I doubt their owners would willingly spend more than they need to.
People say the SB is “ far from safe” but that is patently untrue as it has a safety certificate.There is absolutely no need to increase capacity right now, the Steve Bull is in drastic need of knocking down and rebuilding as it's far from safe but beyond that any redevelopment to increase capacity is a pipe dream. There were empty seats in the South Bank for City and probably 15% of the North Bank was empty for the entire game, much more after half time.
Not disputing that, I never said the tickets weren't sold
But as it stands we don't sell out
Would it really be quicker though?
I imagine gently picking away parts without causing damage to what you want to remain would slow some parts down. If it’s just what they outlined in ask wolves it probably works; but extending back also and replacing the roof would not be easy. Possibly very similar time scale as complete demolition, perhaps actually longer.