Maidel Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maidel Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheva Elite Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenArsenal Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenArsenal Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maidel Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenArsenal Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I think this would be a good read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_developments_to_football_stadia_in_the_English_football_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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruyff14 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiitastic Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.