-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Argy1e":3heil63b said:
Take into account where the family stand is fixed and all the segregation the D&C plod demand, I think you can reduce the home crowd a fair bit. There's no denying that reducing ground size is a step backwards rather than forward thinking.
But that's the thing, the current capacity is 16.?k we can't use the we used to have terracing so used to have a bigger ground logic, because terracing isn't allowed anymore and isn't part of our capacity, so to move it up to 17.7k is a step forward because it is expanding.spowell92":2v7cagav said:
Argy1e":27nsfjhb said:
That's why I said reducing ground size, not capacity. Currently HP could expand by c. 4000 in the Mayflower, at a pretty cheap cost - especially in comparison to the cost of the new stand which builds an increase of c.1.5k. The new stand builds upon the Mayflower steps and I doubt extends it's seating all the way back to where the current grandstand backs up to. We're losing out in truth. It's not the build best suited to Argyle; it may be the best Brent can do and I'm not being rude in saying thanks but no thanks.
If, by some huge miracle, we got as far as top-end championship or the premier league, we could always have a NEW BUILD stadium, and Home Park could become a supermarket or whatever.
Many other clubs have done this, including some we like to compare ourselves with
BRIGHTON
HULL
CARDIFF
SWANSEA
others are
Manchester City
Arsenal
Tottenham (pending)
Southampton
Stoke
Sunderland
Leicester
Derby
Wigan
Reading
Blackburn
Bournemouth
Middlesbrough
Bolton
Huddersfield
Doncaster
Millwall
Yeovil
even Scunny are going to build a new ground. All this "We have no space to expand" is totally pointless, because (a) what are our realistic chances of major success?? I think very low..............and (b) as above, there is plenty of space around Plymouth for a new build
Also, always throwing up the "we had 20,000" is a ridiculous. Our average attendances in our last spell in the Championship were
16,420
13,776
13,012
13,000
11,397
10,316
Even under Holloway our attendances dropped, when we were close to a play off place.................so if you own the club and land, with all the historical stats available, what on earth would we need a 20,000 capacity stadium for????
Our attendances over 20,000 since 1990-91
20,555 vs. Leeds in 2004
20,220 vs. West Ham in 2004
20,112 vs. Everton in 2005
20,652 vs. Watford in 2007
4 times in 25 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, we have only ever averaged over 20,000 8 times in 98 seasons, the last time in 1959/60!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What club owner (unless they are very rich or a total loon like the fella at Darlo) is going to look at all these type of FACTS, plus our mediocre fanbase, (see line about home averages before you have a fit at me) and our history of achieving F*** all and then go out and build a 20,000+ ground????
It won't happen.
Many other clubs have done this, including some we like to compare ourselves with
BRIGHTON
HULL
CARDIFF
SWANSEA
others are
Manchester City
Arsenal
Tottenham (pending)
Southampton
Stoke
Sunderland
Leicester
Derby
Wigan
Reading
Blackburn
Bournemouth
Middlesbrough
Bolton
Huddersfield
Doncaster
Millwall
Yeovil
even Scunny are going to build a new ground. All this "We have no space to expand" is totally pointless, because (a) what are our realistic chances of major success?? I think very low..............and (b) as above, there is plenty of space around Plymouth for a new build
Also, always throwing up the "we had 20,000" is a ridiculous. Our average attendances in our last spell in the Championship were
16,420
13,776
13,012
13,000
11,397
10,316
Even under Holloway our attendances dropped, when we were close to a play off place.................so if you own the club and land, with all the historical stats available, what on earth would we need a 20,000 capacity stadium for????
Our attendances over 20,000 since 1990-91
20,555 vs. Leeds in 2004
20,220 vs. West Ham in 2004
20,112 vs. Everton in 2005
20,652 vs. Watford in 2007
4 times in 25 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, we have only ever averaged over 20,000 8 times in 98 seasons, the last time in 1959/60!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What club owner (unless they are very rich or a total loon like the fella at Darlo) is going to look at all these type of FACTS, plus our mediocre fanbase, (see line about home averages before you have a fit at me) and our history of achieving F*** all and then go out and build a 20,000+ ground????
It won't happen.
Saying 2.5k would have been locked out is wrong as Stapleton said that if we could have fit everyon who enquirer about tickets for the QPR game the attendance would have been 39,000. The goodwill is there if argyle are doing well, people WILL come to see a winning Argyle team, they won't come and watch an average argyle team.
The new build idea is fair enough, but then you reduce yourself to moving into an identikit stadium and having a Tescos built upon your old hallowed turf. The club removes itself from the community it's supposed to represent and an out of town stadia void of atmosphere and identity takes it's place.
I've been doing a bit of research on these kinds of moves recently. People reminisce of the Baseball Ground, Ayresome, The Dell, Filbert Street. Those grounds were at the centre of their communities, they represented the community. I've heard fond feedback with regards to the atmosphere of those grounds. The grounds were unique and had character. The fantastic Milton Road Stand being my personal favourite.
Compare those grounds to what's replaced them. Pride Park, Riverside, St Mary's, Walkers/King Power/whatever-the-hell-it's-called-this-week. Can you truly tell the difference between them? Cheap circular domes, copycats of each other and the only distinguishing factor held is the colour of the plastics seats. Their predecessors demolished and replaced by houses, the new structures built out of town; out of the community. And with that loss of identity and character was a loss of atmosphere. They're dull.
If you're happy for Argyle to join that trend for the sake of Mr Brent making profit from Argyle's land then so be it, but I'm not keen on that idea. I may be in the minority, I don't know, but that's my take on things.
I've been doing a bit of research on these kinds of moves recently. People reminisce of the Baseball Ground, Ayresome, The Dell, Filbert Street. Those grounds were at the centre of their communities, they represented the community. I've heard fond feedback with regards to the atmosphere of those grounds. The grounds were unique and had character. The fantastic Milton Road Stand being my personal favourite.
Compare those grounds to what's replaced them. Pride Park, Riverside, St Mary's, Walkers/King Power/whatever-the-hell-it's-called-this-week. Can you truly tell the difference between them? Cheap circular domes, copycats of each other and the only distinguishing factor held is the colour of the plastics seats. Their predecessors demolished and replaced by houses, the new structures built out of town; out of the community. And with that loss of identity and character was a loss of atmosphere. They're dull.
If you're happy for Argyle to join that trend for the sake of Mr Brent making profit from Argyle's land then so be it, but I'm not keen on that idea. I may be in the minority, I don't know, but that's my take on things.
Argy1e":2ozig0q2 said:
Don't follow. The current capacity is only 16,000 because the club REMOVED 4,000 seats, not terracing from the Mayflower. So if we remove the seats from the Lyndhurst in the close season we could be DOUBLING our capacity with the new build? Is that the logic you are using?
Just a couple of points. The average in the first season back in the CCC was only 16,500 because the capacity was over 20,000. If it had been 16,700 after segregation as proposed the average would have been lower.Vampires11":2066wed4 said:
One of the reasons we have only had 4 attendances over 20,000 since 1990/91 is because the capacity has only been 19,800 for most of those years,
A club I have fond memories of is Darlo, from cup runs/ promotions/ play off final.
Their owner was ambitious, and built them a 25,000 seat arena, which screwed them to such an extent that they are now 4 divisions below league status.
I would love Home Park to be renovated to a 20,000+ capacity, but not as we are, because we would be just as likely to follow Darlo as climb the leagues.
The people of Plymouth ONLY come and support the team when we have the slightest sniff of success, and I have the fear that if we spent too much on a ground we could never fill, we could easily go backwards. We do not have any history on the playing side or with crowd size to warrant a large ground.
I would prefer we do what we can now................and then maybe do as Palace have done, where they have enlarged/ rebuilt one stand at a time with the TV money each time they got to the top division.
Their owner was ambitious, and built them a 25,000 seat arena, which screwed them to such an extent that they are now 4 divisions below league status.
I would love Home Park to be renovated to a 20,000+ capacity, but not as we are, because we would be just as likely to follow Darlo as climb the leagues.
The people of Plymouth ONLY come and support the team when we have the slightest sniff of success, and I have the fear that if we spent too much on a ground we could never fill, we could easily go backwards. We do not have any history on the playing side or with crowd size to warrant a large ground.
I would prefer we do what we can now................and then maybe do as Palace have done, where they have enlarged/ rebuilt one stand at a time with the TV money each time they got to the top division.
and you use teams in the prem to suit yours
so we are all thinking building a big crowd guarantees success?? I am pointing out in have the reverse effect.
AND..........all the teams you mention have built new grounds, and have some seriously rich benefactors.
are we back to Plymouth Pilgrims playing in red or whatever....................
so we are all thinking building a big crowd guarantees success?? I am pointing out in have the reverse effect.
AND..........all the teams you mention have built new grounds, and have some seriously rich benefactors.
are we back to Plymouth Pilgrims playing in red or whatever....................
But you want Argyle moving out of Home Park and somewhere in Saltash, Vamps? My argument is utilise Home Park to the best of its potential, if and when it's necessary. I think the proposed stand is decent for our current and short term needs, but beyond that it's rather bleak and suggests Argyle's ambitions lie elsewhere to their current playing surface. Home Park overcame a bombing, but it's going to whimper away to an ice rink and a cinema... Dearie me.
If you're going to take the build what's necessary approach then close the whole side, turn the entire Mayflower side into a pirate ship play park for the kids to go in while their parents shop around and pop off to the dentists. The 3 sides will do. Or perhaps we could fight to keep the ambition in Argyle? Get Argyle and Home Park the best (a better) deal out of this development. Argyle are giving up a lot for Mr Brent and Akkeron to build this development and in truth we're getting rather short changed.
I don't get this elitist approach of we're here now, we deserve the success, screw all those fair weather fans. If we want success then we'll need those kinds of fans!
If you're going to take the build what's necessary approach then close the whole side, turn the entire Mayflower side into a pirate ship play park for the kids to go in while their parents shop around and pop off to the dentists. The 3 sides will do. Or perhaps we could fight to keep the ambition in Argyle? Get Argyle and Home Park the best (a better) deal out of this development. Argyle are giving up a lot for Mr Brent and Akkeron to build this development and in truth we're getting rather short changed.
I don't get this elitist approach of we're here now, we deserve the success, screw all those fair weather fans. If we want success then we'll need those kinds of fans!
I would prefer we do what we can now................and then maybe do as Palace have done, where they have enlarged/ rebuilt one stand at a time with the TV money each time they got to the top division.
and this part that you have chosen to ignore??? Build it up a bit at a time, instead of having thousands of empty seats.............you make no financial sense.
Ok you have won me over, with our current financial situation of still paying off debts, lets build the 20000+ stadium,.........and see where we end up. Should be a great ride up the leagues eh!
and this part that you have chosen to ignore??? Build it up a bit at a time, instead of having thousands of empty seats.............you make no financial sense.
Ok you have won me over, with our current financial situation of still paying off debts, lets build the 20000+ stadium,.........and see where we end up. Should be a great ride up the leagues eh!
You've misunderstood me Vamps. I want that, a gradual build. I concede that this stand will be an improvement and good for the short term. You realise that we cant extend a bit at a time though, right? The development reduces and restricts the club. That's why I feel we're being rather ripped off here. Just because it's all we can build now doesn't mean we should. I'm a student, I could probably just about afford to be able to build a house out of cardboard as it stands, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do that and live in it for the rest of my life...
