Main Stand redevelopment thread

est1905 said:
Yeah that and the small matter of Palace owning Selhurst Park (which Jordan NEVER did) and not running on a £30m debt which today equates to about £100m.

Massive difference
Click to expand...

Because of prem tv money, a few seasons back in the championship and we will be running at a loss every season.
 
I would like to see updated financials that show the " new stand " whatever it is would be sound economic sense. I couldn't beleieve after years there were technical engineering issues with the proposed method.

I can't see a few thousand extra seats and some boxes would ever make the outlay reasonable
 
The driving issues: Increasing attendance to enable more expenditure. Getting rid of a structure that no longer conforms to legal requirements. Making fans, neighbours and the Council happy.
It's the preparation that takes the most resources. Design, funding, materials, Planning, objections, amendments, etc...i'm falling asleep already. zzz. 🙂
Finally, is it going to be viable, and what are the best options within the constraints agreed.
And probably near the end, is timing. Are the funds available, what time of year is the work being done, how will it impact attendances.

It's like trying to solve a constantly mutating and developing equation. Or in layman's terms, like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

And it shouldn't be rushed. Because if it derails for any reason, the fall-out and consequences will be massive £££
 
HKOwen said:
I would like to see updated financials that show the " new stand " whatever it is would be sound economic sense. I couldn't beleieve after years there were technical engineering issues with the proposed method.

I can't see a few thousand extra seats and some boxes would ever make the outlay reasonable
Click to expand...
Agreed. Presumably a major reason is to increase the ceiling of what is now the Squad Cost Ratio calculation - a PL team can spend up to 85% of revenue on players. So be interesting to know what the extra turnover generated is from the additional seating and corporate. This assumes of course that the club spends the additional revenue wisely. Pinot for example cost £30m on a five year deal which would be £6m a year for SCR, needing £7.06m of extra annual revenue. That’s an awful lot of new seats.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
The driving issues: Increasing attendance to enable more expenditure. Getting rid of a structure that no longer conforms to legal requirements.
It's the preparation that takes the most resources. Design, funding, materials, Planning, objections, amendments, etc...i'm falling asleep already. zzz. 🙂
Finally, is it going to be viable, and what are the best options within the constraints agreed.
And probably near the end, is timing. Are the funds available, what time of year is the work being done, how will it impact attendances.

It's like trying to solve a constantly mutating and developing equation. Or in layman's terms, like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

And it shouldn't be rushed. Because if it derails for any reason, the fall-out and consequences will be massive £££
Click to expand...
I had no idea about this, the implication being we are acting illegally when we use the stand?
 
HKOwen said:
I had no idea about this, the implication being we are acting illegally when we use the stand?
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. If it was illegal there'd be a legion of officials trying to close it. I assume what is mean here that is that it couldn't be built today in its present form but whatever the laws that would have been broken don't apply retrospectively.
 
Adrift said:
I very much doubt it. If it was illegal there'd be a legion of officials trying to close it. I assume what is mean here that is that it couldn't be built today in its present form but whatever the laws that would have been broken don't apply retrospectively.
Click to expand...
May well be the case, which if right, isn't a good look in terms of risk. Often such a change in regulations allows a grace period to get up to spec
 
My bad phrasing. Not illegal. But doesn't conform to current standards (and provisions have been made) but inevitably will reach the end of it's designed lifespan. However, it was previously mentioned that Local Authorities have given Football Clubs room for manoeuvre where designs of existing stands no longer conform to current standards. I thought Palace were one of those clubs, but can't find the link
And the leeway doesn't extend forever. People always have the Bradford fire in mind where safety concerns (and particularly Fire Certificates) are issued
 
Last edited:
As I can't see for myself has any real work been started yet,apart from some trees being removed from the houses.
SP stating supporters would see progress in January appears to be another fairy tale
 
Once the new stand is up, all we need to do is put a cantilever roof on the Arthur, maybe giving the stand a second tier and we will have a smart looking modernised stadium to be proud of.
 
cyprussteve said:
As I can't see for myself has any real work been started yet,apart from some trees being removed from the houses.
SP stating supporters would see progress in January appears to be another fairy tale
Click to expand...
Did you see the trees removed or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top