Sons' sorrow

[sons'r'us]

Well you're clearly in the know more than anyone else on here.

If the council thing is a smoke screen then spill the beans. Why wouldn't we want to expand? Untill the beans are spilled I'll continue to believe the issue lies with the council and not DFC.

No i'm not in the know any more than anyone else. Most of the discussion about the council standing in the clubs way has been rumour and speculation. No one from the club has officially approached the council to request permission for a temporary increase in capacity. The club have cited a number of factors that could make it not work, the legal one being one of them, i take this to be permission from council, etc. Anyhow there are too many alleged reasons reported to be obstacles in the clubs way, yet every club that rangers played in the 2nd and 3rd divisions that had a small capacity provided addional capacity. If they can do it why can't we?Particularly as we have much more to gain than they did, e.g. hibs and hearts as well as rangers. If you believe that the council is the reason we are not providing additional accomodation then you are badly informed.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

No i'm not in the know any more than anyone else. Most of the discussion about the council standing in the clubs way has been rumour and speculation. No one from the club has officially approached the council to request permission for a temporary increase in capacity. The club have cited a number of factors that could make it not work, the legal one being one of them, i take this to be permission from council, etc. Anyhow there are too many alleged reasons reported to be obstacles in the clubs way, yet every club that rangers played in the 2nd and 3rd divisions that had a small capacity provided addional capacity. If they can do it why can't we?Particularly as we have much more to gain than they did, e.g. hibs and hearts as well as rangers. If you believe that the council is the reason we are not providing additional accomodation then you are badly informed.

I must be badly informed then. What other reasons should I believe? From the way you are talking you are in the know. If you are in the know then spill the beans and stop spouting cryptic shite like your last sentence.

How do you know the club haven't approached the council officially? The website published a statement this week claiming they are exploring all avenues with the local council and experienced contractors.

Perhaps the other clubs could do it because they received the required permission? The location of our stadium and lack of parking are the issues I am aware of and until the club comment further I'll continue to be "badly informed".

[sons'r'us]

I must be badly informed then. What other reasons should I believe? From the way you are talking you are in the know. If you are in the know then spill the beans and stop spouting cryptic shite like your last sentence.

How do you know the club haven't approached the council officially? The website published a statement this week claiming they are exploring all avenues with the local council and experienced contractors.

Perhaps the other clubs could do it because they received the required permission? The location of our stadium and lack of parking are the issues I am aware of and until the club comment further I'll continue to be "badly informed".

Right then Paddy you are only the 2nd pie and bovriller sons fan that has offended me on this forum. The other being Swete Pete.

Nothing cryptic about my post at all, so im a wee bit confused there.

It wasn't me that said the council were to blame nor the club, it was you. I merely suggested that that was a bit of a smoke screen.

I thought i made it quite clear when i said where there was a will there was a way. Have you considered from the club's statement that as it appears to be quite difficult to achieve the aim of providing temporary accomodation that perhaps they just didn't have that will to make it happen. Maybe hibs going down has swayed that a bit and they are now pulling out all the stops to try and make it happen.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

Right then Paddy you are only the 2nd pie and bovriller sons fan that has offended me on this forum. The other being Swete Pete.

Nothing cryptic about my post at all, so im a wee bit confused there.

It wasn't me that said the council were to blame nor the club, it was you. I merely suggested that that was a bit of a smoke screen.

I thought i made it quite clear when i said where there was a will there was a way. Have you considered from the club's statement that as it appears to be quite difficult to achieve the aim of providing temporary accomodation that perhaps they just didn't have that will to make it happen. Maybe hibs going down has swayed that a bit and they are now pulling out all the stops to try and make it happen.

Well perhaps you need to grow a bit of a thicker skin to post on a Scottish Football forum if that offends you.

We shall wait and see the outcome and I promise not to use bad language and offend you in future petal.

[ThirdrockfromtheSon]

..........every club that rangers played in the 2nd and 3rd divisions that had a small capacity provided addional capacity. If they can do it why can't we?

Sorry to cut your post down a bit, but did you consider that these grounds with a small capacity were maybe allowed to increase it due to being grounds where you could stand and watch the game as opposed to seated space increases? Or did they bring in seating to accommodate the Horde?

[sons'r'us]

Well perhaps you need to grow a bit of a thicker skin to post on a Scottish Football forum if that offends you.

We shall wait and see the outcome and I promise not to use bad language and offend you in future petal.

You do realise i was joking regards being offended?

[ThirdrockfromtheSon]

You do realise i was joking regards being offended?

Right you two. Get a boxing ring. Or get a room.

[sons'r'us]

Sorry to cut your post down a bit, but did you consider that these grounds with a small capacity were maybe allowed to increase it due to being grounds where you could stand and watch the game as opposed to seated space increases? Or did they bring in seating to accommodate the Horde?

They were a mixture of both. East fife had 3 sides of scaffolded terrace. Stenny had trucks which opened into mini stands. Montrose had temporary seating, etc.

[ThirdrockfromtheSon]

They were a mixture of both. East fife had 3 sides of scaffolded terrace. Stenny had trucks which opened into mini stands. Montrose had temporary seating, etc.

Cheers, I understand now.

FWIW, my opinion is that where we are situated might play a part in not expanding for the season. We are right beside a housing estate, so there might be some legislation about how many people would be allowed in the vicinity I suppose. I mean in terms of a Saturday 'surge' kind of way.

I also heard a rumour that there has to be some sort of vehicle to ground capacity ratio, but that might just be bollocks though.

BBPF might have a point about the Council holding us back. I did hear something about the original plan being for a 3,000+ capacity stadium at The Rock, but this was reduced to current capacity, but I can't remember the source.

Lastly, I recall a recent discussion where it was suggested that the inhibitor to erecting temporary seating was the prohibitive but necessary requirement /cost to provide modifications to the ground (eg move the perimeter fence a bit), power, food serveries, toilet facilities and all the usual stuff you'd expect if you're in a sporting event, but the club believed the cost outweighed the benefit. That might be one of the reasons for the do nothing approach being the current plan. As was said before, though, the club are reviewing options. Maybe having three big(ger) teams in the league has helped to focus minds a bit more.

[sons'r'us]

Cheers, I understand now.

FWIW, my opinion is that where we are situated might play a part in not expanding for the season. We are right beside a housing estate, so there might be some legislation about how many people would be allowed in the vicinity I suppose. I mean in terms of a Saturday 'surge' kind of way.

I also heard a rumour that there has to be some sort of vehicle to ground capacity ratio, but that might just be bollocks though.

BBPF might have a point about the Council holding us back. I did hear something about the original plan being for a 3,000+ capacity stadium at The Rock, but this was reduced to current capacity, but I can't remember the source.

Lastly, I recall a recent discussion where it was suggested that the inhibitor to erecting temporary seating was the prohibitive but necessary requirement /cost to provide modifications to the ground (eg move the perimeter fence a bit), power, food serveries, toilet facilities and all the usual stuff you'd expect if you're in a sporting event, but the club believed the cost outweighed the benefit. That might be one of the reasons for the do nothing approach being the current plan. As was said before, though, the club are reviewing options. Maybe having three big(ger) teams in the league has helped to focus minds a bit more.

Many of these points had been raised previously and may well be cited by the club for the previous do nothing approach. Regards your points.

Montrose have only 1 road in and out and are surrounded by houses on at least 2 sides. These houses are much closer to their ground than the those at BBS.

Parking. Taking montrose example again. 1 car park that can accomodate around 30-40 cars.

Original plans were for a 3500 stadium. However there wasn't enough cash and it was reduced to 2000. It was nothing to do with planning permission that i can recall.

Your last point is entirely what the club were suggesting. However the benefits are much greater now.

Edited May 29, 2014 by sons'r'us

[Howlin' Wilf]

Many of these points had been raised previously and may well be cited by the club for the previous do nothing approach. Regards your points.

Montrose have only 1 road in and out and are surrounded by houses on at least 2 sides. These houses are much closer to their ground than the those at BBS.

Parking. Taking montrose example again. 1 car park that can accomodate around 30-40 cars.

Original plans were for a 3500 stadium. However there wasn't enough cash and it was reduced to 2000. It was nothing to do with planning permission that i can recall.

Your last point is entirely what the club were suggesting. However the benefits are much greater now.

Links Park has a network of roads on all sides:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.714395,-2.461814,17z?hl=en

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Montrose+Football+Club/@56.7142191,-2.4588221,302m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x54ffcdfb35f7dc38?hl=en

[Howlin' Wilf]

Why would the club not put extra seating/terracing in place if they could do it legally and cost effectively?

Why would they put up a 'smoke screen' of deceit to make it appear that they couldn't when they could?

I just can't see any motive for them to lie about the issue.

[sons'r'us]

Links Park has a network of roads on all sides.

Thats a wee bit sneaky, it has one other road at the opposite end of fans access road. I didn't realise that road was accessible from the ground. Perhaps i was wrong there.

[sons'r'us]

Why would the club not put extra seating/terracing in place if they could do it legally and cost effectively?

Why would they put up a 'smoke screen' of deceit to make it appear that they couldn't when they could?

I just can't see any motive for them to lie about the issue.

Wilf i am not suggesting the club is lying or that it was the club who are even putting up a smoke screen. I think that smoke screen has been created by fellow pnb contributers who have discussed this matter previously.

[Howlin' Wilf]

Wilf i am not suggesting the club is lying or that it was the club who are even putting up a smoke screen. I think that smoke screen has been created by fellow pnb contributers who have discussed this matter previously.

Alan Findlay's statement the other day on the DFC website included the following:

“Of course a small club and community like Dumbarton also has to operate within significant planning, logistical and financial constraints.

“Indications at this stage are that, with the best will in the world, it will be extremely difficult to make temporary stands for six games workable, legal and financially viable.

“But supporters can be assured that all possible avenues are being explored with the local council and with experienced contractors.

“As soon as a more definite statement can be made, the Club will do so.”

Knowing Alan, I'm sure he'll have checked his facts before posting that. Seems pretty clear and definitive. The problems in extending capacity are of a planning, logistical and financial nature. Those are what I understood to be the issues when I posted on the subject last month and it looks as if that is indeed the case.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Howlin' Wilf

[Darren1872]

Bulldose that shithole Garshake and stick the ground there.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Alan Findlay's statement the other day on the DFC website included the following:

“Of course a small club and community like Dumbarton also has to operate within significant planning, logistical and financial constraints.

“Indications at this stage are that, with the best will in the world, it will be extremely difficult to make temporary stands for six games workable, legal and financially viable.

“But supporters can be assured that all possible avenues are being explored with the local council and with experienced contractors.

“As soon as a more definite statement can be made, the Club will do so.”

Knowing Alan, I'm sure he'll have checked his facts before posting that. Seems pretty clear and definitive. The problems in extending capacity are of a planning, logistical and financial nature. Those are what I understood to be the issues when I posted on the subject last month and it looks as if that is indeed the case.

Having spoken recently with the Chairman on this issue I'll be surprised if we manage extra capacity, due to a combination of factors not all of which are in DFC's control. There is also a tendency to make fag-packet financial calculations which are far from delivered in reality. Is there any point in bursting your ass for say £3 a head ?

Of course we should pursue the idea until it can't fly but remember that even without any expenses an additional 1500 bods @ £20 per head generates only £30K - hardly a massive sum.

[lionel wickson]

Many of these points had been raised previously and may well be cited by the club for the previous do nothing approach. Regards your points.

Montrose have only 1 road in and out and are surrounded by houses on at least 2 sides. These houses are much closer to their ground than the those at BBS.

Parking. Taking montrose example again. 1 car park that can accomodate around 30-40 cars.

Original plans were for a 3500 stadium. However there wasn't enough cash and it was reduced to 2000. It was nothing to do with planning permission that i can recall.

Your last point is entirely what the club were suggesting. However the benefits are much greater now.

Montrose also have an exit/turnstiles at the opposite end of the ground from the main entrance. Lots of street parking too.

[Howlin' Wilf]

Having spoken recently with the Chairman on this issue I'll be surprised if we manage extra capacity, due to a combination of factors not all of which are in DFC's control. There is also a tendency to make fag-packet financial calculations which are far from delivered in reality. Is there any point in bursting your ass for say £3 a head ?

Of course we should pursue the idea until it can't fly but remember that even without any expenses an additional 1500 bods @ £20 per head generates only £30K - hardly a massive sum.

I think the point is that even if the planning and legal difficulties were overcome that the cost of supplying extra seating could actually be more than £20 per head. The ready made roll off model used by Stenny (even if legal and planning could be negotiated) apparently costs £14 per seat before considering the other costs involved. In the case of East Fife and Peterhead I am told that their scaffolding type configuration would run the risk of being rejected on health and safety grounds (quite apart from planning) even if the perimeter fence could be moved. I'd love there to be a way that DFC could capitalise on the increased demand but it does seem like a challenge.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Howlin' Wilf

[Nowhereman]

I think the point is that even if the planning and legal difficulties were overcome that the cost of supplying extra seating could actually be more than £20 per head. The ready made roll off model used by Stenny (even if legal and planning could be negotiated) apparently costs £14 per seat before considering the other costs involved. In the case of East Fife and Peterhead I am told that their scaffolding type configuration would run the risk of being rejected on health and safety grounds (quite apart from planning) even if the perimeter fence could be moved. I'd love there to be a way that DFC could capitalise on the increased demand but it does seem like a challenge.

If the cost of supplying seats is greater than £20 per head it seems odd that other clubs did it. Anyway no necessity for seats. As to the temporary terracing being rejected on Health and Safety grounds do Fife and Aberdeensire operate under different laws ? There is no legal reason that I am aware of that would prevent temporary accomodation. The Council do have a certain discretion when it comes to planning though and that is probably where the idea that it is the Council who are being difficult comes from.It would also be a logistical challenge and to make it worthwhile the club would have to make a decent amount on it. There would be no point in doing it for the sake of a couple of thousand pounds.