|
Post by hoopy on Apr 4, 2024 8:12:14 GMT
At a guess - Birtley, West Auckland, Heaton Stan. For your information Birtley have completed all the minor issues brought up by the grading team. We are pulling up all the flagstones and replacing the hard standing with a concrete hard standing . This was our own decision to replace it as levelling the trip hazards would not solve the problem but only be putting a sticky plaster on it. All the required work will be done . I have no idea how other clubs sit but do know we will be fine . So once again you have guessed incorrectly. Do your homework before your guess work. Ultimately, you have 11 months to do any work. Depending on where you're starting from it can be a massive task or fairly easy. Ashnigton's main issues were removing a privacy wall in the refs changing rooms, infilling the perimeter fence, blocking some fencing near the entrance and putting a new turnstile in. It's been expensive, but it has been doable. The last piece was the turnstile which was held up at customs as it's come from abroad. I'm sure the 3 clubs mentioned could make their ground compliant assuming they can afford to. Some clubs may find it beyond them. Specifically WAC as there would be an incredible amount of work needed and the community centre might not let them do the work if it impacts on the use of the facility by others.
|
|
|
Post by handifan on Apr 4, 2024 11:46:16 GMT
Ground grading is idiotic. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to maintain a stadium of 700,000 capacity when their average is 70,000. That’s effectively what is happening at northern league level with capacities at 1200-1500 and average crowds often 10x fewer. The FA should instead be shit hot on safety and make annual inspections on safety alone and set maximum gates with big penalties if those gates are exceeded.
Take Spenny as an example. Mr Groves could have done nothing to our ground and spent it all on the team. If the FA are shit hot on safety they could easily have graded the ground as 500 max capacity. That would have encouraged investment in the stadium as he’d be losing out on 700 paying punters ever week and bumper crowds against local rivals and potential FA cup runs. He would invest in a suitably sized and safe stadium for the right reasons. Mr Groves is a businessman - he’ll invest in the stadium because it saves him money from his own pocket in the long run.
Ground grading is stupid because all it does is set a minimum standard and stratifies football for off the field reasons. All we are seeing is clubs rushing to do the absolute minimum possible to comply. That’s not good for the long run and leads to some “unique” grounds that technically comply but wtf.
|
|
wacker
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by wacker on Apr 4, 2024 12:21:13 GMT
Ground grading is idiotic. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to maintain a stadium of 700,000 capacity when their average is 70,000. That’s effectively what is happening at northern league level with capacities at 1200-1500 and average crowds often 10x fewer. The FA should instead be shit hot on safety and make annual inspections on safety alone and set maximum gates with big penalties if those gates are exceeded. Take Spenny as an example. Mr Groves could have done nothing to our ground and spent it all on the team. If the FA are shit hot on safety they could easily have graded the ground as 500 max capacity. That would have encouraged investment in the stadium as he’d be losing out on 700 paying punters ever week and bumper crowds against local rivals and potential FA cup runs. He would invest in a suitably sized and safe stadium for the right reasons. Mr Groves is a businessman - he’ll invest in the stadium because it saves him money from his own pocket in the long run. Ground grading is stupid because all it does is set a minimum standard and stratifies football for off the field reasons. All we are seeing is clubs rushing to do the absolute minimum possible to comply. That’s not good for the long run and leads to some “unique” grounds that technically comply but wtf. Complete rubbish. Having minimum standards is absolutely necessary otherwise you would end up with teams playing in nothing more than a field. And whilst the average attendance may be ten time lower than the capacity, there's always a chance for bigger crowds. Capacities at lower levels are largely down to the amount of turnstiles and exits. At least in the Northern league I can go to a ground knowing there will be enough seating, and covered standing, plus hard standing, and basic catering. Ground grading has developed over the years , some hurdles have been dropped, for example there was a minimum of 200 seats at step 5, but this was relaxed to 100 some years ago.
|
|
|
Post by sikirk on Apr 4, 2024 13:24:38 GMT
Ground grading is idiotic. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to maintain a stadium of 700,000 capacity when their average is 70,000. That’s effectively what is happening at northern league level with capacities at 1200-1500 and average crowds often 10x fewer. The FA should instead be shit hot on safety and make annual inspections on safety alone and set maximum gates with big penalties if those gates are exceeded. Take Spenny as an example. Mr Groves could have done nothing to our ground and spent it all on the team. If the FA are shit hot on safety they could easily have graded the ground as 500 max capacity. That would have encouraged investment in the stadium as he’d be losing out on 700 paying punters ever week and bumper crowds against local rivals and potential FA cup runs. He would invest in a suitably sized and safe stadium for the right reasons. Mr Groves is a businessman - he’ll invest in the stadium because it saves him money from his own pocket in the long run. Ground grading is stupid because all it does is set a minimum standard and stratifies football for off the field reasons. All we are seeing is clubs rushing to do the absolute minimum possible to comply. That’s not good for the long run and leads to some “unique” grounds that technically comply but wtf. Complete rubbish. Having minimum standards is absolutely necessary otherwise you would end up with teams playing in nothing more than a field. And whilst the average attendance may be ten time lower than the capacity, there's always a chance for bigger crowds. Capacities at lower levels are largely down to the amount of turnstiles and exits. At least in the Northern league I can go to a ground knowing there will be enough seating, and covered standing, plus hard standing, and basic catering. Ground grading has developed over the years , some hurdles have been dropped, for example there was a minimum of 200 seats at step 5, but this was relaxed to 100 some years ago. Exactly. Couple of things clubs fail ground grading on are picky but on the whole i think its ok. Imagine a club in the northern premier with barely any seats and covered standing when it pees it down. Also increased hard standing is a must as teams rise through the leagues, its a pain walking round fans on slippy grassy banks.
|
|
|
Post by sikirk on Apr 4, 2024 13:25:51 GMT
Ground grading is idiotic. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to maintain a stadium of 700,000 capacity when their average is 70,000. That’s effectively what is happening at northern league level with capacities at 1200-1500 and average crowds often 10x fewer. The FA should instead be shit hot on safety and make annual inspections on safety alone and set maximum gates with big penalties if those gates are exceeded. Take Spenny as an example. Mr Groves could have done nothing to our ground and spent it all on the team. If the FA are shit hot on safety they could easily have graded the ground as 500 max capacity. That would have encouraged investment in the stadium as he’d be losing out on 700 paying punters ever week and bumper crowds against local rivals and potential FA cup runs. He would invest in a suitably sized and safe stadium for the right reasons. Mr Groves is a businessman - he’ll invest in the stadium because it saves him money from his own pocket in the long run. Ground grading is stupid because all it does is set a minimum standard and stratifies football for off the field reasons. All we are seeing is clubs rushing to do the absolute minimum possible to comply. That’s not good for the long run and leads to some “unique” grounds that technically comply but wtf. Decent stadiums also increase revenue due to better match day experience leading to more fans and off field income
|
|
|
Post by bigcbeat1 on Apr 4, 2024 14:15:19 GMT
Ground grading is idiotic. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to maintain a stadium of 700,000 capacity when their average is 70,000. That’s effectively what is happening at northern league level with capacities at 1200-1500 and average crowds often 10x fewer. The FA should instead be shit hot on safety and make annual inspections on safety alone and set maximum gates with big penalties if those gates are exceeded. Take Spenny as an example. Mr Groves could have done nothing to our ground and spent it all on the team. If the FA are shit hot on safety they could easily have graded the ground as 500 max capacity. That would have encouraged investment in the stadium as he’d be losing out on 700 paying punters ever week and bumper crowds against local rivals and potential FA cup runs. He would invest in a suitably sized and safe stadium for the right reasons. Mr Groves is a businessman - he’ll invest in the stadium because it saves him money from his own pocket in the long run. Ground grading is stupid because all it does is set a minimum standard and stratifies football for off the field reasons. All we are seeing is clubs rushing to do the absolute minimum possible to comply. That’s not good for the long run and leads to some “unique” grounds that technically comply but wtf. Decent stadiums also increase revenue due to better match day experience leading to more fans and off field income It certainly has in our case . Averaging 50 five years ago increased to an average of over 250 this year
|
|
|
Post by sikirk on Apr 4, 2024 15:38:23 GMT
Decent stadiums also increase revenue due to better match day experience leading to more fans and off field income It certainly has in our case . Averaging 50 five years ago increased to an average of over 250 this year I rest my case. Thats good to see your crowds have shot up
|
|
|
Post by mut on Apr 4, 2024 15:52:06 GMT
At a guess - Birtley, West Auckland, Heaton Stan. For your information Birtley have completed all the minor issues brought up by the grading team. We are pulling up all the flagstones and replacing the hard standing with a concrete hard standing . This was our own decision to replace it as levelling the trip hazards would not solve the problem but only be putting a sticky plaster on it. All the required work will be done . I have no idea how other clubs sit but do know we will be fine . So once again you have guessed incorrectly. Do your homework before your guess work. Am I right in thinking you mean for npl div1?as that's the grading I'm on about.
|
|
|
Post by mut on Apr 4, 2024 15:57:18 GMT
Ground grading is idiotic. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to maintain a stadium of 700,000 capacity when their average is 70,000. That’s effectively what is happening at northern league level with capacities at 1200-1500 and average crowds often 10x fewer. The FA should instead be shit hot on safety and make annual inspections on safety alone and set maximum gates with big penalties if those gates are exceeded. Take Spenny as an example. Mr Groves could have done nothing to our ground and spent it all on the team. If the FA are shit hot on safety they could easily have graded the ground as 500 max capacity. That would have encouraged investment in the stadium as he’d be losing out on 700 paying punters ever week and bumper crowds against local rivals and potential FA cup runs. He would invest in a suitably sized and safe stadium for the right reasons. Mr Groves is a businessman - he’ll invest in the stadium because it saves him money from his own pocket in the long run. Ground grading is stupid because all it does is set a minimum standard and stratifies football for off the field reasons. All we are seeing is clubs rushing to do the absolute minimum possible to comply. That’s not good for the long run and leads to some “unique” grounds that technically comply but wtf. Decent stadiums also increase revenue due to better match day experience leading to more fans and off field income To a point.you can build a Premier league standard ground.best in the world but if your only getting 300 in how much have you lost.......darlo was prime example of that
|
|
|
Post by mut on Apr 4, 2024 15:58:58 GMT
Now they crying on for own stadium so can make revenue.but if build a league standard ground costing 6 or 7 million,where do they find that and how long does it take them to make it back.not financially viable in the slightest
|
|