Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone?

How the upper tier of the Jarrold Stand may be built one day.......

Recommended Posts

http://www.fulhamfcstadium.com/design-concept/matchday-facilities/

Press the right hand button of the three shown on the picture and you will see how Fulham propose to build an upper tier for their new Riverside Stand, i.e.,  behind their existing stand while it continues to be in use during the season.  This may be an option for us should we decide to add the upper tier to the Jarrold stand some time in the future. Furthermore it may make the debate about the foundations irrelvant as presumably new additional foundations could be built behind the existing Jarrold stand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is already a method for development of the jarrold as it was designed to take an extra tier. besides the city stand will be rebuilt first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ben "]Still can''t believe we built that hotel in the corner. What a waste. Looks like something you would see at a League one or two club not a Premier League one.[/quote]

Actually no, i''m sure League One or two teams would never build a hotel at the side of their ground, why would a hotel company want a hotel at a League Two side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="spudgfsh"]There is already a method for development of the jarrold as it was designed to take an extra tier. besides the city stand will be rebuilt first[/quote]

You are right the G. Watling stand is to be rebuilt first but there has been a debate in recent months as to whether the Jarrold stand really did have the foundations built to take the extra 4,000 seats of an upper tier or not. My point is that an upper tier could be built behind the existing stand, if necessary to take us above the 35,000 seat target (assuming that 4,000 seats couldnt be built using the existing foundations of the Jarrold stand) sometime in the future.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

http://www.fulhamfcstadium.com/design-concept/matchday-facilities/

Press the right hand button of the three shown on the picture and you will see how Fulham propose to build an upper tier for their new Riverside Stand, i.e.,  behind their existing stand while it continues to be in use during the season.  This may be an option for us should we decide to add the upper tier to the Jarrold stand some time in the future. Furthermore it may make the debate about the foundations irrelvant as presumably new additional foundations could be built behind the existing Jarrold stand.

 

[/quote]

 

I imagine even if allowed to build over the old Carrow Road there wouldn''t be enough room, but if there was that would be a solution to adding a tier to the City Stand, which is where the next development should obviously take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven''t chelski got a hotel?? and I know Reading definately had one when they were in the prem.But I agree, it is a wasted opportunity for seating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s all about money and getting in as many fans as possible. And i''m sure we would make more money in the long run if we would had put seating in their instead. Especially at £45 or whatever we charge for casual tickets.

Chelsea do have a hotel but it is doesn''t have a view of the pitch. Just near the front of the stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly thought there were no plans to extend the Jarrold Stand due to unsuitable foundations? It would be a helluva high stand if they did.

The GW stand however was designed with upward and backward extension in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ben "]It''s all about money and getting in as many fans as possible. And i''m sure we would make more money in the long run if we would had put seating in their instead. Especially at £45 or whatever we charge for casual tickets.

Chelsea do have a hotel but it is doesn''t have a view of the pitch. Just near the front of the stadium.[/quote]

How much more would you have actually achieved from having that infill? Remember that we would need more stewards/police for segregation purposes. So that would take out a fair few seats. As well as increasing costs.

There is no getting away from the long term solution required if attendances warrant it. That is building another tier on the City stand. The ground would looking absolutely fantastic if that was ever built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is space for some seats in front of the hotel.   Could not this space be utilised? 

I know there has probably been another thread about this, but it looks as if you could quite afew seats in there.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ben "]Leyton Orient have a hotel around their stadium. And

I was just emphasising the point that it was very short sighted. Wouldn''t see any other Premier League team having a hotel in the corner.[/quote]

Fulham have a cottage so why not?.

H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it''s easy to say,  but I''m rather sure had McNally been in place earlier we wouldn''t''ve had the hotel.  The excuse Doomy used was it was a regular income or  something like that.  It never really sat right with me, because we''ve had capacity crowds (as near as damn it) for around 10 years, so a corner infill would''ve still brought in a regular income anyway.A hotel in a stadium at a ground that never sells out yes, that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"]I guess it''s easy to say,  but I''m rather sure had McNally been in place earlier we wouldn''t''ve had the hotel.  The excuse Doomy used was it was a regular income or  something like that.  It never really sat right with me, because we''ve had capacity crowds (as near as damn it) for around 10 years, so a corner infill would''ve still brought in a regular income anyway.

A hotel in a stadium at a ground that never sells out yes, that makes sense.
[/quote]

 

From memory the cost of an infill there would have been something like £4m for around only 1,500 extra seats. That is compared to £9m for 8,000 seats in the Jarrold, which had to be rebuilt for safety reasons. With the cost of that, plus the comunity infill on the other end of the Jarrold, we had to go seriously into debt. Spending another £4m at that time simply wasn''t justified, and could have landed us in real financial trouble. The only sensible alternative to the hotel would have been to leave the space vacant.

 

That way we wouldn''t have had the income from the hotel, but we would later, if we were to cement our place in the Premier League, have had more flexibility in terms of stadium expansion. That said, given the high cost of infills, we still might have decided it was too costly a project for so few seats.

 

If McNally had been around back then I can say with a fair degree of certainty that he wouldn''t have recommended building that infill. He might have suggested leaving the area vacant. Equally he might have gone for a hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"]I guess it''s easy to say,  but I''m rather sure had McNally been in place earlier we wouldn''t''ve had the hotel.  The excuse Doomy used was it was a regular income or  something like that.  It never really sat right with me, because we''ve had capacity crowds (as near as damn it) for around 10 years, so a corner infill would''ve still brought in a regular income anyway.A hotel in a stadium at a ground that never sells out yes, that makes sense.[/quote]

 

From memory the cost of an infill there would have been something like £4m for around only 1,500 extra seats. That is compared to £9m for 8,000 seats in the Jarrold, which had to be rebuilt for safety reasons. With the cost of that, plus the comunity infill on the other end of the Jarrold, we had to go seriously into debt. Spending another £4m at that time simply wasn''t justified, and could have landed us in real financial trouble. The only sensible alternative to the hotel would have been to leave the space vacant.

 

That way we wouldn''t have had the income from the hotel, but we would later, if we were to cement our place in the Premier League, have had more flexibility in terms of stadium expansion. That said, given the high cost of infills, we still might have decided it was too costly a project for so few seats.

 

If McNally had been around back then I can say with a fair degree of certainty that he wouldn''t have recommended building that infill. He might have suggested leaving the area vacant. Equally he might have gone for a hotel.

[/quote]Fair points PC[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"]I guess it''s easy to say,  but I''m rather sure had McNally been in place earlier we wouldn''t''ve had the hotel.  The excuse Doomy used was it was a regular income or  something like that.  It never really sat right with me, because we''ve had capacity crowds (as near as damn it) for around 10 years, so a corner infill would''ve still brought in a regular income anyway.

A hotel in a stadium at a ground that never sells out yes, that makes sense.
[/quote]

 

From memory the cost of an infill there would have been something like £4m for around only 1,500 extra seats. That is compared to £9m for 8,000 seats in the Jarrold, which had to be rebuilt for safety reasons. With the cost of that, plus the comunity infill on the other end of the Jarrold, we had to go seriously into debt. Spending another £4m at that time simply wasn''t justified, and could have landed us in real financial trouble. The only sensible alternative to the hotel would have been to leave the space vacant.

 

That way we wouldn''t have had the income from the hotel, but we would later, if we were to cement our place in the Premier League, have had more flexibility in terms of stadium expansion. That said, given the high cost of infills, we still might have decided it was too costly a project for so few seats.

 

If McNally had been around back then I can say with a fair degree of certainty that he wouldn''t have recommended building that infill. He might have suggested leaving the area vacant. Equally he might have gone for a hotel.

[/quote]

all good stuff, i read on swiss ramble that the avviva infill cost around 3.2m. And considering we broke covenants with our creditors when in league one, which bowkett managed to get them to delay debt payments that extra 4m odd debt could of put us over the edge so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I would love it if the stadium could be expanded.

 

One thing is certain, at some point we will get relegated.  It would be nice to think that other than fond match menories, we could come out of this stint in the Premier League with something extra this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City penguin"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"]I guess it''s easy to say,  but I''m rather sure had McNally been in place earlier we wouldn''t''ve had the hotel.  The excuse Doomy used was it was a regular income or  something like that.  It never really sat right with me, because we''ve had capacity crowds (as near as damn it) for around 10 years, so a corner infill would''ve still brought in a regular income anyway.

A hotel in a stadium at a ground that never sells out yes, that makes sense.
[/quote]

 

From memory the cost of an infill there would have been something like £4m for around only 1,500 extra seats. That is compared to £9m for 8,000 seats in the Jarrold, which had to be rebuilt for safety reasons. With the cost of that, plus the comunity infill on the other end of the Jarrold, we had to go seriously into debt. Spending another £4m at that time simply wasn''t justified, and could have landed us in real financial trouble. The only sensible alternative to the hotel would have been to leave the space vacant.

 

That way we wouldn''t have had the income from the hotel, but we would later, if we were to cement our place in the Premier League, have had more flexibility in terms of stadium expansion. That said, given the high cost of infills, we still might have decided it was too costly a project for so few seats.

 

If McNally had been around back then I can say with a fair degree of certainty that he wouldn''t have recommended building that infill. He might have suggested leaving the area vacant. Equally he might have gone for a hotel.

[/quote] all good stuff, i read on swiss ramble that the avviva infill cost around 3.2m. And considering we broke covenants with our creditors when in league one, which bowkett managed to get them to delay debt payments that extra 4m odd debt could of put us over the edge so to speak.[/quote]

 

I must stress that the £4m estimate is one I remember, and may not be exact. But it was certainly the case that the projected cost per seat was vastly more than for the Jarrold because it is apparently (and it seems logical) much more expensive to build infills than straight-line stands. You are right that the excellent Swiss Ramble gives a figure of £3.2m for the Aviva infill, but that may not be quite correct, since he also puts the Jarrold at £6.2m - that was the original figure but the club later said the overall cost was £9m.


There is a lot of hindsighting going on now about the infill decison, but at the time we simply couldn''t afford it. As you say, it could have put us over the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money raised from the Hotel deal subsidised the Aviva community infill the other end!

 

The club had already undertaken a long term loan deal to subsidise the neccessary building of the Jarold stand a year or 2 earlier so after relegation in 2005 acruing more debt building a Barclay/Jarold stand infill that would have only increased capacity by 2-2500 wasn''t an option. I''m sure if we''d of stayed up longer than one season then an infill may have been seriously considered. I''m also sure that had Mcnally been around in the mid 00''s he''d of done the same thing!

 

I don''t like the Hotel one bit but finances at the time dictated why it was built instead of an infill. Anyway I think the Jarold stand can extended round to close the Barclay in front of the Hotel as it is. I''m sure theres enough room to continue the Jarold stand seatign design round without all the office space add ons which are behind the current Jarold stand and Aviva community infill.

 

The City stand indeed has foundations for an upper tier but the board has said that it would probably be better to just demolish it and build a completely brand new stand feauring better facilities than the current version which although still a very good stand, was built in 1986 and stadium facilities have moved on since then!

 

Some say the Jarold stand has foundations for a 4000 upper tier, others say the opposite. Whatever is the case, it is still possible to build an upper tier on this stand without foundations although this would be very expensive.

 

I was in charge of making decisions about stadium expansion at Carrow Road I''d go for a Jrold stand upper tier before anywhere else cause such an upper tier could be built without a temporary drop in capacity, something that wouldn''t be the case with building a completely new City stand!

 

I''d make a Jarold stand upper tier hold about 6200 which would increase capacity to 33,000. Then I''d see if we could fill this capacity over a number of seasons before doing anymore expansion works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will we definitely fill all those extra seats? Can''t see McNally lobbing out all that cash until Prem footie is secure or as secure as it can be. How many people will not renew at the end of the season because money is so tight at the moment?Remeber reading that the Jarrold had foundations for second tier.Hotel was good for income when it was built whatever we say now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="drurys testamonials mark 11"]Will we definitely fill all those extra seats? Can''t see McNally lobbing out all that cash until Prem footie is secure or as secure as it can be. How many people will not renew at the end of the season because money is so tight at the moment?

Remeber reading that the Jarrold had foundations for second tier.

Hotel was good for income when it was built whatever we say now.
[/quote]

 

Well, if we keep attracting new Drury''s Testimonials supporters at the current rate (it has only been a few days and we already have eleven of them, and all totally different, one from another...) and if we start to get an exponential increase via baby Drury''s Testimonials then we should reach McNally''s target of 8,000 in no time at all.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"] 

Well, if we keep attracting new Drury''s Testimonials supporters at the current rate (it has only been a few days and we already have eleven of them, and all totally different, one from another...) and if we start to get an exponential increase via baby Drury''s Testimonials then we should reach McNally''s target of 8,000 in no time at all.[:D]

[/quote]I will do my best PurpleCanary.  Hard work but someone''s gotta do it. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We''ve been almost selling out League games continually for the best part of 10 years now, so if we can hang in the Premiership for 3 seasons then increasing capacity would be a sensible option!

 

I remain gobsmacked that many Norwich fans don''t think we need to increase capacity, I suppose the "little ole Norwich" stereotype takes some shaking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does seem that the board have plans to knock down the Watling stand and rebuild. This would mean a reduction in our capacity of about 5,000/5,500 during this process, so has anybody got any ideas how we go about locking some of our season ticket holder out ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...