+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: Are new stadiums always bigger?

  1. #1
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default Are new stadiums always bigger?

    Just managed to persuade them to replace the San Siro.

    Is it going to be bigger than 80,000? I don't want a downsizing.

  2. #2
    Amateur
    Join Date
    28th August 2009
    Posts
    471

    Default

    I would presume so otherwise what's the point.......

  3. #3
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    21st May 2010
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    In real life, newer stadiums might have similar or smaller capacities but more modernized amenities such as luxury boxes. Any income lost from the decrease in seats is made up by additional revenue from luxury boxes, premium services such as dining, technological improvements that improve efficiency such as A/C etc

  4. #4
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    2nd January 2007
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    4,565

    Default

    Very highly doubt a massive club like Inter/AC would move to a smaller stadium.

  5. #5
    Amateur
    Join Date
    28th December 2003
    Location
    Zhodino, Belarus
    Posts
    42

    Default

    What would you say about Spartak Moscow and CSKA Moscow those are to move to their own new stadiums with capacities lower (45000 and 35000 correspondingly) than in Luzhniki Stadium (80000)?

  6. #6
    Amateur
    Join Date
    16th February 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechanizator View Post
    What would you say about Spartak Moscow and CSKA Moscow those are to move to their own new stadiums with capacities lower (45000 and 35000 correspondingly) than in Luzhniki Stadium (80000)?
    well, considering that spartak moscow had the highest average attendance in the russian premier league with only 25k ppl, i don't think it's a bad idea to move to a 45k stadium that they have a chance to fill instead of an empty giant.

  7. #7
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    So does anyone know id it is possible on the game?

    Also, is there some sort of bug?

    Just the planning phase is due to take 4 YEARS?!

  8. #8
    Amateur
    Join Date
    7th September 2008
    Posts
    645

    Default

    No bug - Liverpool's "planning" has taken 10 years already.

  9. #9
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    25th April 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,414

    Default

    my new stadium for liverpool is into its 2nd year despite the fact it said it would be finished July 12th 2011, its now late January 2012

  10. #10
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InterWolf View Post
    No bug - Liverpool's "planning" has taken 10 years already.
    Thats completely different.

    I have plenty of money to pay for it and always have. Nothing has changed there.

  11. #11
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    Thats completely different.

    I have plenty of money to pay for it and always have. Nothing has changed there.
    It's not just about having money a stadium has to be designed from scratch, it then has to be proposed to the council for planning permission, they have to loacte ideal sites for the stadium to be built if they plan to build near where people live they may need relocating new infrastructure built like roads. there is so much that has to be taken into consideration when building something it's not like sticking a shed in your garden and it's not just about having the cash. these things take time!

  12. #12
    Amateur
    Join Date
    7th September 2008
    Posts
    645

    Default

    I'd say 4 years is on the low end of realistic. If you think that the point your told is the point at which the board say, yes we need a new one, we have a budget of x (which seems realistic).

  13. #13
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    What is also annoying is how, it started off as a one year plan, but now it is 4.

    Also IRL, these things are always being considered. Clubs are always 'planning'. IRL, Milan have been looking into a new stadium for years. So if the decison was made to go ahead. They would already know the possible sites, theyd know if they can get planning permission, and theyd know what architects to go to. (They were thinking of going with the ones that built Schalke's IRL).

    On this game, its as if they are just sitting around doing nothing, and when I suggest a New Stadium, its as if I'd suggested we relocate to India or something.

  14. #14
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    1st November 2004
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Started as a one year plan and now it's 4 years... You must have a really short memory, or aren't old enough to remember the debarcal that was wembley stadium. That was AT LEAST 4 years over due and ir was costing the fa £100 million a year to look after the derelict site, and then it went something like 50% over budget. I'd love to see the thread you would make if THAT happened to you.

  15. #15
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    The Emirates Stadium was 'planned' from the 1990s when Highbury was deemed inadequate for European nights.

    The site was chosen in 1999, and it took seven years until it was completed.

    And let's not even talk about Wembley.

  16. #16
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Yes, then as I said.

    Every big club should start the game in the 'planning' phase.

    Every big club has some sort of preliminary plans for a new stadium (unless they have moved very recently, or the existing one is perfect).

  17. #17
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    But even if a club has been 'planning' a new stadium for years, it doesn't mean things will go smoothly once they decide to go ahead.

    There are always hiccups and delays to these sort of things.

  18. #18
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    Yes, then as I said.

    Every big club should start the game in the 'planning' phase.

    Every big club has some sort of preliminary plans for a new stadium (unless they have moved very recently, or the existing one is perfect).
    No they shouldn't because clubs in real life don't even do that. They don't just squander cash on the possibility that one day they may decide to move to a new ground. Just because your game hasn't given you your new stadium yet does not mean they should remake the game just to suit you.

    I'm actually surprised you even find time to play the game with the amount of threads you start every time you find something in the game that isn't to your liking!

  19. #19
    Amateur
    Join Date
    1st October 2009
    Location
    www.hqfootball.blogspot.com
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marcftm View Post
    Very highly doubt a massive club like Inter/AC would move to a smaller stadium.
    Juventus did though...

  20. #20
    World Cup Winner
    Join Date
    20th May 2003
    Posts
    55,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emiloprisa View Post
    Juventus did though...
    So did Bayern Munich

  21. #21
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    25th January 2010
    Posts
    1,163

    Default

    I'm quite happy with the time it takes on the game, 3-4 years is very quick. Just got a 66000 seater for Liverpool, after our 6th season. Named after me of course.

  22. #22
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emiloprisa View Post
    Juventus did though...
    They have moved to a smaller capacity stadium but are relocating back to the Delle Alpi as they are having the stadium redeveloped to a smaller capacity and having the running track removed.

  23. #23
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    5th May 2003
    Location
    Boston United researcher
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    A smaller capacity may also be cheaper to maintain - much so if the previous stadium is quite old. Add in the conferencing facilities, and i can be worthwhile.

  24. #24
    Amateur
    Join Date
    1st October 2009
    Location
    www.hqfootball.blogspot.com
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cruyff14 View Post
    They have moved to a smaller capacity stadium but are relocating back to the Delle Alpi as they are having the stadium redeveloped to a smaller capacity and having the running track removed.
    It's a new stadium built from the ground, on the site of the old Delle Alpi. It will have a capacity of 41.000. Some 30.000 less than the old stadium.

  25. #25
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emiloprisa View Post
    It's a new stadium built from the ground, on the site of the old Delle Alpi. It will have a capacity of 41.000. Some 30.000 less than the old stadium.
    I knew it was either a new stadium or a redeveloped one.

  26. #26
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    27th November 2005
    Location
    Enter the dragon, exit Johnny Clarke
    Posts
    16,094

    Default

    I would guess that even if a team moved to a slightly smaller stadium the new stadium would have room for a lot more expansion in the future.

  27. #27
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cruyff14 View Post
    No they shouldn't because clubs in real life don't even do that. They don't just squander cash on the possibility that one day they may decide to move to a new ground.
    A lot of clubs do. And its not squandering money. It's building for the future. So many big clubs have some sort of plans for new stadiums. Pretty much any team that has a very old stadium or one which sells out every week has looked at moving or doing extensive renovation. All the delays and problems are happening now and preventing them from starting. And the lack of funding is also.

    The game should either refelct this by having the team automatically start in the planning stage, or once they do finally give the go ahead, things should move quicker.

  28. #28
    Amateur
    Join Date
    14th September 2008
    Location
    Macaé, RJ, Brasil
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LFCMatt7 View Post
    I would presume so otherwise what's the point.......
    Not paying any rents maybe

  29. #29
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Just doing a bit of reading and Chelsea for example, actually get 2 or 3 offers a season to relocate their stadium. So someone who owns some land or a big architect will present them with plans. So if they were to agree to it one day, it would not take too long at all to actually do it

  30. #30
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    Just doing a bit of reading and Chelsea for example, actually get 2 or 3 offers a season to relocate their stadium. So someone who owns some land or a big architect will present them with plans. So if they were to agree to it one day, it would not take too long at all to actually do it
    If that's the case then why haven't they moved as they have said many times that they want to expand the Bridge but can't so surely they would be leaping at all these so called offers you claim to have read somewhere on that great reliable source the 'internet'

    And surely seeing as Chelsea are bankrolled by a billionaire cash is no issue so surely by now they could have built there new stadium ??

    Face facts not every club plans new stadiums for the future they look firstly at what can be done with there existing one. and a hell of a lot of clubs have more important things to spend there cash on than designing new stadiums for that one day when they just might get more fans or win a league and even if they did there are a lot complications when moving to new grounds or building them. try getting planning permission for an extension on your house or to build one and see all the compliactions and paper work you need to go through. And that's even before you get people complaining about it as there are always complaints from people when building and development is involved.

  31. #31
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    19th March 2009
    Location
    Tirana, Albania
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    AFAIK Milan aren't planning to build a new stadium IRL. They wanted to buy San Siro though, but they can't at the moment. Inter were planning to build a new stadium, but I don't know what happened to that. Milan have never even considered to move in a new stadium, let alone planning a new one.

  32. #32
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    27th September 2007
    Location
    recluse, safehouse, east eight
    Posts
    2,103

    Default

    Chelsea have a lot of legal obstacles to clear before they could consider building a new ground in real life. Property developers dangling speculative 'offers' at them does not count as planning.

  33. #33
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cruyff14 View Post
    If that's the case then why haven't they moved as they have said many times that they want to expand the Bridge but can't so surely they would be leaping at all these so called offers
    There are many reasons. Ultimately Abrahmaovic doesn't want to make that sort of investment. It would cost him a fortune and he might get bored of Chelsea, and not reap the rewards. They have certainly looked into it and had lots of proposals.

  34. #34
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonboyacmilan View Post
    AFAIK Milan aren't planning to build a new stadium IRL. They wanted to buy San Siro though, but they can't at the moment. Inter were planning to build a new stadium, but I don't know what happened to that. Milan have never even considered to move in a new stadium, let alone planning a new one.
    They aren't actively planning a move. But they do have preparation and ideas and potetial ideas and sites.

    http://english.people.com.cn/200510/...07_212984.html

    That is from 2005. I'm not saying anything is concrete, but its not like it is a brand new idea. It would not take them 4 years just to plan a new stadium. They already have a lot of the ideas. The main thing stopping them IRL, is Berlusconi like Abrahamovic doesnt want to sink his money in. And also, Milan cant even fill up the San Siro.

    If Milan were very rich, and attendances were up, a new one could be built in 3 years.

  35. #35
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    I assume you don't have any idea about the construction business.

    Like I said, having plans is one thing. The actual execution, no matter how well you 'planned' it, will never be as easy as you think it is.

    Clubs only go ahead (not plan) with a new stadium if they decide that their existing facilities are inadequate, AND they can ensure that they can get the relevant project done.

    Lots of clubs have plans to have a new stadium, but they are just that, plans on paper. Whether they can get approval and funding and etc is a whole completely different matter.

  36. #36
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenArsenal View Post
    I assume you don't have any idea about the construction business.

    Like I said, having plans is one thing. The actual execution, no matter how well you 'planned' it, will never be as easy as you think it is.

    Clubs only go ahead (not plan) with a new stadium if they decide that their existing facilities are inadequate, AND they can ensure that they can get the relevant project done.

    Lots of clubs have plans to have a new stadium, but they are just that, plans on paper. Whether they can get approval and funding and etc is a whole completely different matter.

    I don't think Sheva lives in the real world sadly. I along with others have tried telling him this but he refuses to accept the facts. He is unfortunately one of these people who needs to complain if anything isn't going his way and when people try to help him throws it back in there faces. In this case rather than accept that his stadium in the game will take time just like in real life he would rather bitch and moan about it and then supply us with links to websites of what appear to be very unreliable sources.

  37. #37
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenArsenal View Post
    I assume you don't have any idea about the construction business.

    Like I said, having plans is one thing. The actual execution, no matter how well you 'planned' it, will never be as easy as you think it is.

    Clubs only go ahead (not plan) with a new stadium if they decide that their existing facilities are inadequate, AND they can ensure that they can get the relevant project done.

    Lots of clubs have plans to have a new stadium, but they are just that, plans on paper. Whether they can get approval and funding and etc is a whole completely different matter.
    Yes, but you are missing the whole point. We only go to this stage because someone was talking about how they need to spend ages looking for potential sites and all that. I'm just saying that they already have most of these ideas and plans. ONCE you get the funding (which I have), then it is just a matter of making the plans exact and getting all the relevant permissions. Not that hard. Certainly shouldn't take 4 years

  38. #38
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    I'll try to explain this to you, using the Emirates Stadium example, breaking down the timeline.

    1993: Highbury upgraded to all-seater after the Taylor Report (due to Hillsborough incident requiring all stadiums in England to be upgraded). Plans in place for a new stadium after further expansion deemed impossible due to surrounding housing. Various sites considered.

    1999: Site in Ashburton Grove chosen, although Arsenal also considered moving to Wembley. Said site consists of a recycling plant and Royal Mail Office which needed to be bought out. This was very expensive as the club had to fork out the bill for both facilities to be relocated and took about 3 years.

    2002: Residents in Islington (the borough where Arsenal is located) protest against new stadium, with a number of lawsuits filed. Also problems with Met Police with regards to parking and access to surrounding streets on matchday. Health And Safety would not grant building permission until said issues were resolved.

    2004: Groundbreaking (actual construction) begins of Emirates Stadium (you will note this is 11 years after initial plans have been proposed and 5 years after site is chosen). Structure completed in 2005, ahead of schedule and on budget.

    2006: Emirates Stadium opened for use.

    The Emirates is considered one of the best planned and well-constructed football stadiums of late, yet even from planning to completion took damn near 13 years. 5 years from site chosen to actual start of construction.

    It is never that easy mate.

  39. #39
    Amateur
    Join Date
    11th October 2007
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    So does anyone know id it is possible on the game?
    I think I saw a newsitem come along that said a club had the stadium-improvements ready, more seats or covered stands probably "with less capacity, but a better football-atmosphere".
    So I guess that's a yes, and rightly so.

    It surprised me actually, always thought FM didnt do this, and was a bit flawed in that department for that reason. It seems realistic to want to upgrade your stadium without nescessarily increasing the capacity. Now if only we could suggest such improvements to the board instead of just expansions.

  40. #40
    Amateur
    Join Date
    19th November 2001
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    Just managed to persuade them to replace the San Siro.

    Is it going to be bigger than 80,000? I don't want a downsizing.
    WOW!!!! To change San Siro??? What is your avg. attendance? FCI or ACM?

  41. #41
    Amateur
    Join Date
    26th February 2009
    Posts
    114

    Default

    1989: Ajax' old stadium de Meer isn't good enough anymore so they start looking for plans to build a new stadium.

    1993: The plans for Amsterdam ArenA are finished and building is commenced.

    1996: Building is finished. Ajax and Amsterdam stayed within their budget of 96.000.000 euro.

    This doesn't say all though. Because designing the Amsterdam ArenA took 10 years, it means that the setting up the new stadium from scratch took 13 years.

  42. #42
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenArsenal View Post
    The Emirates is considered one of the best planned and well-constructed football stadiums of late, yet even from planning to completion took damn near 13 years. 5 years from site chosen to actual start of construction.

    It is never that easy mate.
    I understand all that. My point is, a lot of clubs are already at the 1999 stage. And a lot of clubs could get things done quicker than Arsenal. It's notoriously difficult to get things like that done in London due to space constraints and the densely populated area.

    Money also held Arsenal back to some extent. I

  43. #43
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    1st November 2004
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Really Sheva, pray tell which clubs are at that stage? Maybe spurs are at that point out of all 20 premier league clubs. And when do spurs expect to be on their new stadium? 2016-2017. 5 or 6 years away.

    Try again.

  44. #44
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    I understand all that. My point is, a lot of clubs are already at the 1999 stage. And a lot of clubs could get things done quicker than Arsenal. It's notoriously difficult to get things like that done in London due to space constraints and the densely populated area.

    Money also held Arsenal back to some extent. I
    But this is just it a lot of clubs are not at that stage whatsoever. Look at Liverpool they are in no stage whatsoever to move as they are still exploring all there avenues as are Tottenham at this moment. So please just accept this is how things operate all over the world and so the game is doing it's best to replicate this. You have been told you will get your new ground so in the mean time just be patient and move on from this as you have been proved wrong time and time again and your starting to get boring now.

  45. #45
    Amateur
    Join Date
    17th December 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I have never saw a club move to a smaller stadium, in game. So i assume you can only move to a bigger stadium.

  46. #46
    Amateur
    Join Date
    1st October 2009
    Location
    www.hqfootball.blogspot.com
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ommerson View Post
    I think I saw a newsitem come along that said a club had the stadium-improvements ready, more seats or covered stands probably "with less capacity, but a better football-atmosphere".
    So I guess that's a yes, and rightly so.

    It surprised me actually, always thought FM didnt do this, and was a bit flawed in that department for that reason. It seems realistic to want to upgrade your stadium without nescessarily increasing the capacity. Now if only we could suggest such improvements to the board instead of just expansions.
    The problem with this is that it's not really a smaller stadium built from the ground up, it's just that they installed seats and that reduced the overall capacity of the existing stadium by getting rid of some teraces that could hold more spectators than the seats. Until this date i have never seen a team build a smaller stadium than the current one.

  47. #47
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    I understand all that. My point is, a lot of clubs are already at the 1999 stage. And a lot of clubs could get things done quicker than Arsenal. It's notoriously difficult to get things like that done in London due to space constraints and the densely populated area.
    Are they really?

    Name me the clubs who have already CONFIRMED their desired site for a new stadium, for definite.

    Chelsea still can't decide whether to move to Earl's Court. Everton had problems deciding whether to go to Kirkby. And etc.

    I can only remember Liverpool wanting Stanley Park, and Spurs recently confirming their chosen site.
    Last edited by BenArsenal; 03-01-2011 at 14:39.

  48. #48
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    1st November 2004
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenArsenal View Post
    Name me the clubs who have already CONFIRMED their desired site for a new stadium, for definite.
    I agree with you in general - but to answer your question - spurs and west ham...

  49. #49
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maidel View Post
    I agree with you in general - but to answer your question - spurs and west ham...
    That would be two. And one of them would be moving into a stadium built for other uses that has been planned well before.

  50. #50
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenArsenal View Post
    Are they really?

    Name me the clubs who have already CONFIRMED their desired site for a new stadium, for definite..
    I dont see why it matters whether their 'desired' site is definite. It means nothing. It doesn't make the plans any more complete. I could say I DEFINITELY want to live in Monte Carlo, even though I have no money. And a rich guy could be stuck between New York and Tokyo, but within the week he'll have made up his mind and be off. Jut being sure of your ddesire means nothing.

  51. #51
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    1st November 2004
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BenArsenal View Post
    That would be two. And one of them would be moving into a stadium built for other uses that has been planned well before.
    Absoultely agree.

    Add to those two the 'thinking about it' group of liverpool, chelsea and everton.

    But only 1 club is actually in the planning stages, and thats spurs, and even they arent finalised because they still have 3 options (improve white hart lane, move to that new swanky stadium they have planned, or use the olympic stadium)

  52. #52
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    1st November 2004
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    I dont see why it matters whether their 'desired' site is definite. It means nothing. It doesn't make the plans any more complete. I could say I DEFINITELY want to live in Monte Carlo, even though I have no money. And a rich guy could be stuck between New York and Tokyo, but within the week he'll have made up his mind and be off. Jut being sure of your ddesire means nothing.
    Sorry Sheva, you are just talking nonsence now. I am a surveyor, I deal with planning every single day. The majority of HOUSES are planned 3-5 years in advance of building them, and they are VERY simple when compared to a football stadium.

    Also, there is absolutely no way to plan a stadium without a site. Sure you can have a lovely artists impression of what you want to build, but the actual site that it sits on will influence the stadium design more than any artists impression.

    Please drop it - Ill start quoting planning law soon and it will just get boring for everyone else.

  53. #53
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd July 2010
    Posts
    795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maidel View Post
    Also, there is absolutely no way to plan a stadium without a site.
    Obviously. But you dont need one definite site. You can do planning for 2 sites and see which one would be easier.

  54. #54
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    I dont see why it matters whether their 'desired' site is definite. It means nothing. It doesn't make the plans any more complete. I could say I DEFINITELY want to live in Monte Carlo, even though I have no money. And a rich guy could be stuck between New York and Tokyo, but within the week he'll have made up his mind and be off. Jut being sure of your ddesire means nothing.
    Because life is never that easy, unlike a game.

    You don't just say "I want my new stadium here" and throw money at it and expect it to magically appear. As I laid it out (and others have pointed out) there is a lot of planning and permissions and knock-on effects from your decisions.

  55. #55
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    Obviously. But you dont need one definite site. You can do planning for 2 sites and see which one would be easier.
    *facepalm*

    Clubs don't have the time nor resources to waste on things like that you know. I reckon they would rather focus on, you know, football.

  56. #56
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    1st November 2004
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheva Elite View Post
    Obviously. But you dont need one definite site. You can do planning for 2 sites and see which one would be easier.
    ...

    Ok - not in the way you are implying.

    Step 1 - find a site
    Step 2 - employ architech, planning officers (lots of a stadium of this size)
    Step 3 - submit basic planning proposal

    Cost - Many millions.

    Repeat that for every site you want to look at - 10+million before you have even started formal planning applications. (this stage will take a minimum of 2-3 years, more like 5+)

    So, now you have found a site and basic planning has been proposed and accepted its time to submit formal planning applications.
    The plans that are drawn up at this stage by quantity surveyors will be unbelievably detailed - it will show every single pipe, the thickness of the glass in the windows, every electrical socket.

    These plans have to then be looked over in great detail, provision made for traffic etc. The council will then submit a return proposal saying that X has to be changed and that Y has to be improved in the local aread, all at the clubs expense.

    This part takes another 3-5 years, unless by some ridiculous chance the planners and the council actually agree on everything (wont ever happen, some resident will always complain about something)

    Oh, and once you have finally agreed with the council that everything is ok, then you have to go to a public consultation.

    So, now we are 6-10 years down the line, having spent something stupid like £50Million in fees and costs. And you think that all clubs will do this 'just cos'.

    So 6-10 years later you can start building. Absolute minimum of 2 years, and thats for a small stadium.

    So 8-12 years without any delays, hold ups, re-negotiations, contractor failures etc

    And you are STILL complaining about a 4 year delay?

  57. #57
    Third Team
    Join Date
    30th March 2007
    Location
    FMS Prediction League 2011-12 Champion
    Posts
    8,909

    Default

    I think this would be a good read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_..._league_system

    Most clubs look to simply expand their existing ground. Only Spurs and Liverpool have definite plans to move out.

    I could list out all the delays and problems clubs have with plans to move to a new stadium, but it would take forever.
    Last edited by BenArsenal; 03-01-2011 at 15:11.

  58. #58
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th March 2006
    Location
    Andre Pirlo's beard
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Sheva, you clearly know nothing about construction, development or planning I strongly suggest you quit before you make yourself more stupid than you already seem to appear to be (I'm going on the way you compose yourself on every other thread you have started).

  59. #59
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,603

    Default

    Every club has long-term plans - they're just not concrete. For example, a Championship side could have a 15-20 year "masterplan" to establish themselves in the Premier League and add 10,000 capacity to its stadium. That's not really "planning" though - they could identify several plausible sites. They then would of course have contingency plans in case things don't work out - for example, they could start saving some money for a basic 2,000 capacity upgrade plus health and safety upgrades which will definitely take place in 5 years (because the savings would have been made) - in that case, they could start planning.

    In other words, these plans 10 years ago are generally non-committal - they're not binding. While the Emirates was planned 10 years ago, it was only binding when planning really got underway.

  60. #60
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    25th April 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,414

    Default

    very annoyed, It was meant to take the club 1 season to finish the planning then start building the new stadium. It took an extra 10-11 months for the bug to correct itself, now its saying end of May 2015 for end of planning.

    So instead of 1 seasons, now it's going to take 5 seasons to plan, 3 left to go. Only good thing coming out of this is I have 3 more seasons to become Liverpools most successfull manager.

    I may be struggling but may get close to beating Paisley if I win every competition possible, including 2014 World Cup. That would also include 3 EPL titles, 3 FA/League Cups, 3 Champions League Titles, 3 UEFA Super Cups & 3 World Club Championships.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts