Jump to content

GregyScotland

Stadium and training ground back on agenda

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, C&A not the shop said:

A bridge over the railway at that location would cut the walk from Fir Park  to about a third of a mile. A train station right at the ground would be great except for when Rangers and Celtic come and make fan management a disaster.

 

Also it would be exactly halfway between Motherwell and Shieldmuir so about a mile from each, there really wouldn't be the need for another train station.

A bridge like the one near Easter Road, that would create an atmosphere.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Onthefringes said:

And that intensity couldn’t be recreated? It’s the people who create that, not any structure.

Rebuild of a stand that couldn’t be completed when first constructed?  Piffle.

The historic failure to complete the stand has no logical connection to the prospects of redeveloping. Or do you want to explain the connection?  Maybe just felt like disagreeing and saying 'piffle' but don't gave two coherent thoughts to rub together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Inthebasement said:

The historic failure to complete the stand has no logical connection to the prospects of redeveloping. Or do you want to explain the connection?  Maybe just felt like disagreeing and saying 'piffle' but don't gave two coherent thoughts to rub together?

OTF is pretty much right. An empty stadium is just a collection of buildings, although design can have a limited influence. Its the fans who make the ground. The failure to complete the old main stand as was, was due to land ownership problems which won't be solved and would contrain a new stand. . I think a stadium with 4 complete sides would help the atmosphere, although its down to the fans.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Inthebasement said:

The historic failure to complete the stand has no logical connection to the prospects of redeveloping. Or do you want to explain the connection?  Maybe just felt like disagreeing and saying 'piffle' but don't gave two coherent thoughts to rub together?

No logical connection? Have the adjacent properties which gave rise to the existing structure since been removed or would you just redevelop like for like? Hardly beneficial to the overall project...

So, logical and consistent = coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

OTF is pretty much right. An empty stadium is just a collection of buildings, although design can have a limited influence. Its the fans who make the ground. The failure to complete the old main stand as was, was due to land ownership problems which won't be solved and would contrain a new stand. . I think a stadium with 4 complete sides would help the atmosphere, although its down to the fans.   

Sorry, why won't the land ownership problem be solved? Do you have information on this? That was around 80 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

No logical connection? Have the adjacent properties which gave rise to the existing structure since been removed or would you just redevelop like for like? Hardly beneficial to the overall project...

So, logical and consistent = coherent.

See above - this is complete conjecture, all construction projects face a mass of legal, planning and ownership issues, as would anything on Ravenscraig. The position in 1962 has little bearing on the position in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Inthebasement said:

See above - this is complete conjecture, all construction projects face a mass of legal, planning and ownership issues, as would anything on Ravenscraig. The position in 1962 has little bearing on the position in 2020.

Well aware all construction projects subject to such issues.

Conjecture maybe... Are you saying the adjacent property owners’ position will have changed in around 60 years? That’s naivety in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any redevelopment of the Main stand would presumably need the land that the 2 houses at the South stand end sit on.

The last 2 houses sold on Firpark St went for approx 260k each in 2018/2019

So even supposing you could convince the 2 householders to sell at that price (which they probably wouldn’t), when you add up demolition land clearance,fees etc you could be looking at up to 1m before you even start any redevelopment work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Well aware all construction projects subject to such issues.

Conjecture maybe... Are you saying the adjacent property owners’ position will have changed in around 60 years? That’s naivety in the extreme.

No it really is not, these issues change year by year, the naive position is to assume anything in 1962 must be the same now. Unfortunately you are just spouting nonsense to back up earlier nonsense. This from a quick look at wik:- 

Construction of a new main stand began in 1962.[4] The £92,000 cost of this work was financed by a small quote and the selling of two players, Pat Quinn and Ian St. John.[4][5] To minimise disruption to the old stand, the steel frame was built over and behind it.[4] Construction of the main stand stopped 20 yards short of the south end, however, because a local resident successfully objected to a completed stand.[4] The objection was made because it would have restricted light to the garden and reduced the value of the property.[4] By the time the property owner had decided to sell, Motherwell did not have the funds or will to complete a full length main stand.[4] The club instead bought the house and used it for their offices.[4]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Inthebasement said:

No it really is not, these issues change year by year, the naive position is to assume anything in 1962 must be the same now. Unfortunately you are just spouting nonsense to back up earlier nonsense. This from a quick look at wik:- 

Construction of a new main stand began in 1962.[4] The £92,000 cost of this work was financed by a small quote and the selling of two players, Pat Quinn and Ian St. John.[4][5] To minimise disruption to the old stand, the steel frame was built over and behind it.[4] Construction of the main stand stopped 20 yards short of the south end, however, because a local resident successfully objected to a completed stand.[4] The objection was made because it would have restricted light to the garden and reduced the value of the property.[4] By the time the property owner had decided to sell, Motherwell did not have the funds or will to complete a full length main stand.[4] The club instead bought the house and used it for their offices.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense in your opinion, yet, back up your stance with a not entirely factual fan written report from Wikipedia? :dontknow:

Deary me, neither viewpoint (redevelopment/progress elsewhere) is unlikely to happen so it’s a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, santheman said:

Any redevelopment of the Main stand would presumably need the land that the 2 houses at the South stand end sit on.

The last 2 houses sold on Firpark St went for approx 260k each in 2018/2019

So even supposing you could convince the 2 householders to sell at that price (which they probably wouldn’t), when you add up demolition land clearance,fees etc you could be looking at up to 1m before you even start any redevelopment work.

You're right but there would be a minimum of 4 semi detached properties involved. Then there's planning consent to address, including the effect on neighbouring properties - we're not Celtic or Partick. As you say costs would be very high before any work even started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're unquestionably going to move from Fir Park.  It would be lovely to think that we could bit when you factor in the aforementioned houses that back on to the existing boundary at the south end of the Main Stand, the lack of space on the Hunter side of the ground, the slope and even the difficulties with the subsurface, there are a host of obstacles that make the task of coming up with a stadium of the current times problematic. 

In a sense we have some time on our side, in a sense we don't.  I think an earlier view expressed is a good point in that there is a tipping point where it goes too far the other way in terms of costs for getting a licence to open the wooden constructed Main Stand, or the pitch is too expensive to maintain or the Hunter Stand roof can't be patched up as easily etc. where the speed will be ramped up towards a move.

But by the same token deliberately hanging fire might have some benefits too.  What will the immediate area look a few years down the line when the mooted infrastructure is in place that will see the first steps towards of a Motherwell to Cumbernauld road, with dual carriageway from Airbles Road up and along Windmillhill Street and through Ravenscraig.  I don't know if that has the potential to make the land Fir Park lies on any more attractive to buyers.

There's also been a movement towards safe standing.  What if that direction of travel continues and there isn't the same obligation to have mandatory seating.  If that were to happen it may bring some savings over what might have been required if you had moved in the last few years such as St Mirren.  It would certainly offer a greater element of choice for how you view the game and may broaden the scope for designing the stadium.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Still don't have any money to pay for it, though.

Currently, no.  And not ignored in any of the above.  Any move is of course going hinge upon what can be achieved for the land Fir Park lies on, hence the line referring to the attractiveness of the location to any potential buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Andy_P said:

Currently, no.  And not ignored in any of the above.  Any move is of course going hinge upon what can be achieved for the land Fir Park lies on, hence the line referring to the attractiveness of the location to any potential buyer.

Tim Horton's overflow carpark?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2020 at 5:01 PM, Onthefringes said:

And that intensity couldn’t be recreated? It’s the people who create that, not any structure.

Not sure the fans of West Ham United would agree. Same fanbase, different "structure" has led to a completely different environment.

Not saying that environment is the sole cause, but it certainly plays a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×