Main Stand redevelopment thread

[Runningman]

Nice post. Clear that long timelines aren't unique to us, and the notion that other clubs just throw up new stadiums in a coupe of years isnt true

But look how quickly Planning Approval was given in the above cases.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

Here is the truth according to various AI sources which would suggest you are incorrect in your assertion that the club have dropped the ball. Planning etc are the reason the project has only just started and it has started according to the club.

Fulham FC - Riverside Stand
Planning application submitted: 1 December 2017 StadiumDB.com Fulhamfc
Planning permission granted: March 2018 (approved at a planning application hearing on 20 March 2018) StadiumDB
Note: There had been an earlier approval in 2013, but it was never implemented and the 2017 application was a revised scheme.


Liverpool - Anfield Road Stand
Planning application submitted: December 2020 Liverpool FC
Planning permission granted: 15 June 2021 by Liverpool City Council’s planning committee 4dplanning Liverpool FC
The application was originally planned for spring 2020 but was paused due to COVID-19 uncertainty.


Tottenham Hotspur Stadium
First planning application submitted: October 2009 (for a 56,000-seat stadium) Wikipedia Wikipedia
Revised planning application submitted: 2015 (for the larger 61,000-seat stadium design) Wikipedia Tottenham Hotspur
Revised plans approved: December 2015 by Haringey Council, with final approval from the Mayor of London in February 2016 Wikipedia


Crystal Palace - Main Stand
First planning application submitted: 2018 Newsroom
Revised application approved in principle: October 2022 GiveMeSport Newsroom
Final planning permission granted: 16 August 2024 by Croydon Council Newsroom Fsm-online

The project has faced significant delays due to COVID-19, land purchase negotiations with Sainsbury’s, and the need to rehouse residents of Wooderson Close.

What is more, many of those clubs were engaged in some sort of exploration of their options long before they committed to the new stands and stadiums you list. About 20/25 years ago Fulham got quite a long way down the road on a new, replacement 30,000 seater stadium. It had planning permission as I recall, but the club didn't proceed. Spurs famously wanted the Olympic stadium site to build a new ground on, and fought all the way to get it. Liverpool were going to build a new ground on Stanley Park. Very few football clubs decide to expand and then quickly get it done.

Like any building project, obtaining planning permission is just one of the balls you need to juggle. Engineering designs, logistical arrangements, legal arrangements, contractors, pricing, financing... It all needs doing. Sometimes these things are lined up before the planning application is submitted, but mostly they come afterwards, as nobody wants to spend a lot of time and money on these things before they know they have got planning permission. Sometimes, the planning application is an exercise in seeing what may be possible, but only a first step towards establishing if it is actually viable.

The biggest issue is usually the economics, of which finance is but a part. Even if the bank or the clubs owners are willing to pay the cost of a new stand or stadium, unless that loan is essentially a gift which the clubs will not be burdened with or forced to pay back, the sums simply must add up. The issue is surely that the parts of the sum are always changing, unpredictably so, and often quickly.

Viability may depend on the teams fortunes on the pitch and/or the value of our playing assets. Both are factors that are subject to sudden changes. Then there is the issue of need; as many have said, if we get relegated then we won't need a bigger capacity, and Palace are never, and probably will never be, safe from that threat.

Given it takes years to go from conceiving of these projects to actually building them, and a clubs prospects can swing wildly from one extreme to the other in weeks, its a miracle these things get built at all.

None of which explains why Parish was so bullish at the outset, and then so unforthcoming in explaining the subsequent delays. For a few years now he has somewhat avoided the question, simply saying that the project is complex and that talks with Sainsburys were tricky. Thing is, he knew all that from the start.

My own guess is that the feasibility of the project is finely balanced, and that he and/or the other board members have been torn between biting the bullet and undertaking what would be the biggest part of his long term regeneration of the club, or not doing it and avoiding the risks. If it goes well, the stand would eclipse the training ground and academy in terms of legacy, and give Palace a much better chance of competing financially with the middle part of the league. If not, it could sink the club and be a huge source of regret for decades.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

What is more, many of those clubs were engaged in some sort of exploration of their options long before they committed to the new stands and stadiums you list. About 20/25 years ago Fulham got quite a long way down the road on a new, replacement 30,000 seater stadium. It had planning permission as I recall, but the club didn't proceed. Spurs famously wanted the Olympic stadium site to build a new ground on, and fought all the way to get it. Liverpool were going to build a new ground on Stanley Park. Very few football clubs decide to expand and then quickly get it done.

Like any building project, obtaining planning permission is just one of the balls you need to juggle. Engineering designs, logistical arrangements, legal arrangements, contractors, pricing, financing... It all needs doing. Sometimes these things are lined up before the planning application is submitted, but mostly they come afterwards, as nobody wants to spend a lot of time and money on these things before they know they have got planning permission. Sometimes, the planning application is an exercise in seeing what may be possible, but only a first step towards establishing if it is actually viable.

The biggest issue is usually the economics, of which finance is but a part. Even if the bank or the clubs owners are willing to pay the cost of a new stand or stadium, unless that loan is essentially a gift which the clubs will not be burdened with or forced to pay back, the sums simply must add up. The issue is surely that the parts of the sum are always changing, unpredictably so, and often quickly.

Viability may depend on the teams fortunes on the pitch and/or the value of our playing assets. Both are factors that are subject to sudden changes. Then there is the issue of need; as many have said, if we get relegated then we won't need a bigger capacity, and Palace are never, and probably will never be, safe from that threat.

Given it takes years to go from conceiving of these projects to actually building them, and a clubs prospects can swing wildly from one extreme to the other in weeks, its a miracle these things get built at all.

None of which explains why Parish was so bullish at the outset, and then so unforthcoming in explaining the subsequent delays. For a few years now he has somewhat avoided the question, simply saying that the project is complex and that talks with Sainsburys were tricky. Thing is, he knew all that from the start.

My own guess is that the feasibility of the project is finely balanced, and that he and/or the other board members have been torn between biting the bullet and undertaking what would be the biggest part of his long term regeneration of the club, or not doing it and avoiding the risks. If it goes well, the stand would eclipse the training ground and academy in terms of legacy, and give Palace a much better chance of competing financially with the middle part of the league. If not, it could sink the club and be a huge source of regret for decades.

The problem is that a small 100 year old stand, still made of wood in part and with only 5k seats cannot continue to be the main hub of the club. Keeping it is not really an option for the Premier League.

If the cost of the new stand became a problem going forward, I'm fairly confident that other investment could be found now that Palace remain an established Premier League club. If we got relegated, we have assets to sell. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Adam Wharton's sale didn't pay for half of the cost at some point. Hopefully not for a few seasons.

We need to crack on with it. The rest of the ground also needs attention.

 

[grumpymort]

Nice post. Clear that long timelines aren't unique to us, and the notion that other clubs just throw up new stadiums in a coupe of years isnt true

Not really it's using AI for answers which are not to be trusted.

I know this because on multi subjects I have tested it and it has gotten it wrong on 95% of the time.

You could say it's the same as a person who goes and read The Sun newspaper and starts quoting what they have claimed.

 

[mtp1958]

Excuses.

Covid didn't change that much in construction game people still worked as normal.

Yes costs increased but that is how things work they change daily anyway (Look at Liverpool who has finished there stand the price increased but they still finished it)

SP didn't need to redesign anything too much messing about he did the same with Academy which only got sorted because of Tex.

They should have knocked the thing down and rebuilt it.




That project is a lot more complex and had many parties involved plus remember Everton was having $$$ issues.

Your dates are well off if you was to stick with the date they had found the location you are looking at around 10 years ago and a designer was appointed in 2020 this year it opened (This really shows up how Palace have been very poor not able to even refit one stand)

The stadium had a budget of around 500m but ended up costing closer to around. 800m.

was a quick summary to highlight the length some ideas take for one reason or another , and the fact Everton changed plans about 3 or 4 times I think

 

[mtp1958]

Not really it's using AI for answers which are not to be trusted.

I know this because on multi subjects I have tested it and it has gotten it wrong on 95% of the time.

You could say it's the same as a person who goes and read The Sun newspaper and starts quoting what they have claimed.

hang on you saying the Sun is not honest with its reporting , wash your mouth out with soapy water

 

[TheBigToePunt]

The problem is that a small 100 year old stand, still made of wood in part and with only 5k seats cannot continue to be the main hub of the club. Keeping it is not really an option for the Premier League.

If the cost of the new stand became a problem going forward, I'm fairly confident that other investment could be found now that Palace remain an established Premier League club. If we got relegated, we have assets to sell. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Adam Wharton's sale didn't pay for half of the cost at some point. Hopefully not for a few seasons.

We need to crack on with it. The rest of the ground also needs attention.

I wouldn't disagree with you that the existing stand is outdated, and even in a ground that has seen little change since the mid 90's, it is the prime candidate for redevelopment. Even so, keeping it as it is or undertaking some further minor refurbishments plainly is an option. We have managed this far with the stand as it is. Its not like the club has to redevelop it or we will be forcibly relegated, or the stadium will be condemned by health and safety, or whatever. There is a decision to be made there.

Don't get me wrong, I am very keen on the project and, unlike some of the more pessimistic amongst us, expect it will proceed. As you say, the value of our players is a bit of a guarantor. I do wonder if one reason Parish stalled initially was because, at the time, we had so little resale value in our playing staff. He must sleep easier knowing that we could rustle up £100m by selling two or three prized assets if push came to shove, though of course the implication is that we would be weakening the team and not reinvesting in it, which could be a big problem. Its better than going bust, though.

I agree with you regarding the rest of the ground, and have posted a bit on that topic recently in this thread. It seems to me that the new main stand is not only a very important project in itself, it also surely signifies a commitment to stay at Selhurst for the long term. I am a bit puzzled by Parish' comments that what happens with the rest of the ground is not really on his agenda; even if he sees the new main stand as the final part of his incredible legacy and intends to stand down afterwards (and I sincerely hope not), I think it is important for the future of the club that there is some sort of strategy in place for the other stands. To build the new main stand without any idea what you can or will do with the other stands is a strange way to proceed. Perhaps, as part of the main stand project, he had some basic feasibility studies done and is content that there is at least some potential for further redevelopment?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I wouldn't disagree with you that the existing stand is outdated, and even in a ground that has seen little change since the mid 90's, it is the prime candidate for redevelopment. Even so, keeping it as it is or undertaking some further minor refurbishments plainly is an option. We have managed this far with the stand as it is. Its not like the club has to redevelop it or we will be forcibly relegated, or the stadium will be condemned by health and safety, or whatever. There is a decision to be made there.

Don't get me wrong, I am very keen on the project and, unlike some of the more pessimistic amongst us, expect it will proceed. As you say, the value of our players is a bit of a guarantor. I do wonder if one reason Parish stalled initially was because, at the time, we had so little resale value in our playing staff. He must sleep easier knowing that we could rustle up £100m by selling two or three prized assets if push came to shove, though of course the implication is that we would be weakening the team and not reinvesting in it, which could be a big problem. Its better than going bust, though.

I agree with you regarding the rest of the ground, and have posted a bit on that topic recently in this thread. It seems to me that the new main stand is not only a very important project in itself, it also surely signifies a commitment to stay at Selhurst for the long term. I am a bit puzzled by Parish' comments that what happens with the rest of the ground is not really on his agenda; even if he sees the new main stand as the final part of his incredible legacy and intends to stand down afterwards (and I sincerely hope not), I think it is important for the future of the club that there is some sort of strategy in place for the other stands. To build the new main stand without any idea what you can or will do with the other stands is a strange way to proceed. Perhaps, as part of the main stand project, he had some basic feasibility studies done and is content that there is at least some potential for further redevelopment?

Not a realistic option in my opinion. Standing still is going backwards. That stand is League One standard. No minor refurbishments are going to fix that. It has already had the lipstick on a pig makeover.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

Not a realistic option in my opinion. Standing still is going backwards. That stand is League One standard. No minor refurbishments are going to fix that. It has already had the lipstick on a pig makeover.

Yep, though I have fond memories of it, it's one of the worst single stands in the top flight (though two of our others must run it close). No doubt about that. But if Parish is looking at a set of figures that say building the new main stand whilst staying in the premier league for the next five to ten years will allow us to break even and then have a bigger budget BUT building the stand and getting relegated may cripple the club indefinitely, I'm not sure he'd be as categorical as you!

Of course, we don't have the figures. They might be entirely rosy for all we know.

Plus, if one or all of the yanks says they will pay for it and not demand the money back (i.e. they are happy with the uplift in the value of their asset alone) then none of the financials matter. That may sound overly hopeful, but what else is the point in all these rich Americans? They can only put a small amount of money into playing staff due to FFP, so it is only really bricks and mortar they can freely invest in. If they don't want to do that, Parish might as well go to the bank for the money.

That's the big mystery to me as far as the stand is concerned.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Yep, though I have fond memories of it, it's one of the worst single stands in the top flight (though two of our others must run it close). No doubt about that. But if Parish is looking at a set of figures that say building the new main stand whilst staying in the premier league for the next five to ten years will allow us to break even and then have a bigger budget BUT building the stand and getting relegated may cripple the club indefinitely, I'm not sure he'd be as categorical as you!

Of course, we don't have the figures. They might be entirely rosy for all we know.

Plus, if one or all of the yanks says they will pay for it and not demand the money back (i.e. they are happy with the uplift in the value of their asset alone) then none of the financials matter. That may sound overly hopeful, but what else is the point in all these rich Americans? They can only put a small amount of money into playing staff due to FFP, so it is only really bricks and mortar they can freely invest in. If they don't want to do that, Parish might as well go to the bank for the money.

That's the big mystery to me as far as the stand is concerned.

One could argue that relegation is inevitable at some stage for all but the biggest clubs, but if we remain at the level of match day income we currently make from gate receipts and hospitality, it is a certainty.
Besides that, the whole image of the club is affected by its stadium. It might be classic, quaint, traditional or any number of other adjectives you care to use, but what it is not is suitable for attracting players, investment or corporate entertainment.
As I said before. We will pay for it, even if it means using player sales. If we don't, we cannot progress as a football club. Other clubs will overtake us. As it is, we have the third lowest capacity in the league and are punching well above our weight. For how much longer can we do that?

 

[PalazioVecchio]

One could argue that relegation is inevitable at some stage for all but the biggest clubs, but if we remain at the level of match day income we currently make from gate receipts and hospitality, it is a certainty.

even if we got to a 30,000 capacity, we still look like a Championship club.

And even 40k was too small for Everton, so they upgraded.

 

[StandbyPalace]

even if we got to a 30,000 capacity, we still look like a Championship club.

And even 40k was too small for Everton, so they upgraded.

No we dont "look like" a Championship club at all.
We need to upgrade the stadium for sure but not to supposedly look better in other people's eyes.
Our recent success on the pitch (siliverware and continuity in the PL) along with the academy has established Palace.

 

[ASCPFC]

No we dont "look like" a Championship club at all.
We need to upgrade the stadium for sure but not to supposedly look better in other people's eyes.
Our recent success on the pitch (siliverware and continuity in the PL) along with the academy has established Palace.

We'd probably have to upgrade the ground to achieve EFL standards.

 

[StandbyPalace]

We'd probably have to upgrade the ground to achieve EFL standards.

It does make you wonder whether other measures such as a properly functioning wifi network, rail seating and even proper cycle parking facilities are having to wait until the big ticket item such as the main stand development is complete.

Suffice to say clubs like Southampton have all the above in place so yes despite the club upgrading and improving the stadium (excluding the stands re-development) our facilities are somewhat inferior to other clubs in some aspects.

But we should not hide from the fact that despite our old main stand the club still generate £115m per season which puts us in the Top 20 of European Clubs income (if my memory serves me correct) from figures I've seen.

So rather than falling behind other clubs, all in all we are punching above our weight. And lets not forget the seat prices in a new main stand will go up considerably so we may lose some of our south london grit as a result.

We need to lose having 700 restricted view seats for sure. I'd like the club to firstly add seats by filling in the corners and put a tier above the Whitehorse Lane stand (Ron Noades got planning permission for this back in the day). Then the main stand re-development. Lastly to buy all the properties along Park Road (which may take 10+ years until we own them all, then knock them down and re-build the AW stand entirely.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

No we dont "look like" a Championship club at all.
We need to upgrade the stadium for sure but not to supposedly look better in other people's eyes.
Our recent success on the pitch (siliverware and continuity in the PL) along with the academy has established Palace.

football is all about money. Big stadium, big money. Thus you have a good chance of staying up in the longterm.
tons of clubs in the Championship and League One have a better stadium than us. And remember, that as every decade passes, the median Crowd capacity goes up. we are actually travelling backwards.

Financial Fair Play means that your wealthy boardroom cannot just shovel money at the problem. You need an Emirates stadium to get a top tier squad.

 

[StandbyPalace]

football is all about money. Big stadium, big money. Thus you have a good chance of staying up in the longterm.
tons of clubs in the Championship and League One have a better stadium than us. And remember, that as every decade passes, the median Crowd capacity goes up. we are actually travelling backwards.

Financial Fair Play means that your wealthy boardroom cannot just shovel money at the problem. You need an Emirates stadium to get a top tier squad.

Hopefully football isnt all about money. We have a decent amount of dosh coming in since SP and co tookover in 2010. You can see plenty of evidence of big money being wasted by the likes of Man City, Chelsea, and Liverpool and smaller clubs without the same resources doing well such as Brighton, Bournemouth and Palace. How well have Everton and West Ham done in the last 12 years with much bigger stadiums and resources compared to us?

 

[ex hibitionist]

an earlier poster made a simple point - if we really want to consider ourselves an established premier league club we can't have that joke of a main stand in situ - money is the bottom line but its related to status, and our status is diminished by that eye sore, that cow shed, that hangar for propeller driven air craft, that embarrassing piece of sh*t that offends my gaze, it is a joke, or it would be if it was funny, never was a collection of wood so ripe for arson, I hate it and I want it gone asap.😡😡😡

 

[BromleyMonkey]

an earlier poster made a simple point - if we really want to consider ourselves an established premier league club we can't have that joke of a main stand in situ - money is the bottom line but its related to status, and our status is diminished by that eye sore, that cow shed, that hangar for propeller driven air craft, that embarrassing piece of sh*t that offends my gaze, it is a joke, or it would be if it was funny, never was a collection of wood so ripe for arson, I hate it and I want it gone asap.😡😡😡

I’ll be sad to see it go, I’ve been looking at that cow shed for 50 years either from the new stand enclosure or the Whitehorse. In all that time you can probably count on the fingers of two hands the amount of times I’ve actually stood or sat in it but it’s always been there. Myself and a mate actually said against Brighton the massive metal post we used to stand next to in the new stand(Arthur) when we were kids in the 70’s is still there, if there was a surge sometimes we’d end up behind it unable to see one goal, but it’s memories our old ground has given us growing up.

 

[ASCPFC]

an earlier poster made a simple point - if we really want to consider ourselves an established premier league club we can't have that joke of a main stand in situ - money is the bottom line but its related to status, and our status is diminished by that eye sore, that cow shed, that hangar for propeller driven air craft, that embarrassing piece of sh*t that offends my gaze, it is a joke, or it would be if it was funny, never was a collection of wood so ripe for arson, I hate it and I want it gone asap.😡😡😡

If you're going to do it, perhaps best not to tell us.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

even if we got to a 30,000 capacity, we still look like a Championship club.

And even 40k was too small for Everton, so they upgraded.

I'm not sure it's realistic to compare us to Everton. They are one of only two big clubs in a football obsessed city. They have been a big club for many years.

South London does not have the same attitude to football and we have only been an established Premier League club for just over a decade.

40K would currently put us in 12th place for capacity. That puts us above all the mid sized clubs. 34k would put us 13th and still above the mid sized clubs, but a long way behind the big boys.