|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 20:37:57 GMT
true enough perhaps he gets too much stick however, - he's 'smalltown', when it comes to ground capacity though - that much is true
AND ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE CLUB TO LIE ABOUT - 'ASSET CARE & RUNNING COSTS'
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 15, 2016 20:44:19 GMT
Why do people doubt PC when he says they have spent £8m? What reason would he have to sit in front of supporters and tell lies?
Having worked in industry as a manager all my life, I'm staggered the ground cost so little to build. It really was done on the cheap, which it had to be at the time.
£8m buys very little nowadays.
People need to look at the league table and see where clubs like Leeds, Nottingham Forest, Wolves, (virtually all the Championship in fact) plus Coventry and where Villa are going, and ask themselves would you spend your family fortune on Stoke City?
The club is being wisely managed, with an eye to securing the future with the best players, support team, player facilities etc.; the fans are being treated well with ticket prices and transport and need to be patient about ground facilities, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 15, 2016 20:44:57 GMT
Why are people so quick to run down the work the club have done from the days of Div2.People are good at telling others how to spend there money but when it comes down to them putting the hands in there own pockets it's a differant question.Why should PC say the club have spent 8 million if they have not.Its the clubs and bet 365s money so why tell lies.People keep on about the TV money well our wage bill next year will be over 110 million.So let's start talking our club up not slagging the internal workings of the club off. They did give some specific figures for specific items at the meeting, but I can't remember what they were. I'm sure the club would break it down if asked at the Supporters Council or elsewhere - no reason why they wouldn't and I agree with you that I see no reason why they shouldn't be telling the truth. TS did say that the ground wasn't expensive when built and that it is now showing signs of that i.e we got what we paid for.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Mar 15, 2016 20:59:49 GMT
Wrong target mate: 40 years a Stokie, been through thick and thin, away days in the old Div 3 etc........ I just say what I see. Been going to Stoke since 1961 and no way was the vic a better venue to watch Stoke than the Brit, it was dated in the 70s and for how much the ground cost compared to other over priced stadia it stands up as good value. I remember the bogs in the Boothen, mate, and so agree that the Vic in the shape it was in had had its day (although I still miss the days of being part of that big sweaty mass of humanity in the Boothen, carried far away from where I was originally standing when we scored a goal!). I also agree that the Brit was very good value in the late 90s. However, it is getting close to 20 years old now, and we are far removed from the club that built it, an established Premier League club with a far bigger regular attendance and with the untold riches of the new television deal just around the bend. Now is the time for a serious face lift, to take us forward as a club off the pitch to match what is happening on it.
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Mar 15, 2016 21:24:17 GMT
Some real bollocks on this thread To my recollection - and its usually pretty good it cost about £15m to open up the site for the ground and then about £15 - 16m on top of this - to build the detailed plans by the way, I understood, were purchased from Middlesboro ( or their architect) and when asked what they'd change (having had theirs open for a while) -they said:- more dining rooms and exec boxes in the main stand So, we doubled up on the boxes from one row of 25 to two rows totallng 50 in the main stand. the price / trade off ? leaving the two corners open although, the footings were put in (as I understand it) (LOOK AT MIDDLESBORO's GROUND ON TELLY TO SEE HOW OURS WOULD LOOK ACTUALLY FINISHED OFF) There's nothing basically wrong with the ground, another road access ( from the incinerator link road) and, filling in the two open corners would not sort out, (drawings exist for at least one corner if not both ) - to give us a 35k proper finished looking Premier league stadium. AND All this recent stuff about a brand new stadium -- horseshit as far as I'm concerned WE JUST NEED TO FINISH OFF THE ONE WE GOT ! and, overcome the obvious access restrictions Actually it was 14 million to build with significant eu and government spending on site prep and infrastructure.
In relation to the other posts on here, When I said 'bollocks' in my earlier post it was not because I was doubting that it was true, I was just shocked as to a 'chav' like me looking at it from the cheap seats the stadium is a fucking shithole embarrassment not conducive to good football and a pleasant matchday experience and by far the worst stadium of those built since the mid 90's.It is difficult for the likes of me to see what 8 million quid has been spent on. I yearn for the Victoria Ground because that at least had a bit of character
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 21:32:12 GMT
the first of my numbers reflects what you say - the second is £1m different - bet im nearer though
what I find amazing though is to call our present stadium a 'fucking shithole embarressment'
thats nothing if not bizarre
its 'system built' true -perhaps 'lacking character' true - 'purely functional' true - lacking access - true
but a shithole ????
plainly, you never went to the vic
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Mar 15, 2016 21:52:42 GMT
Bollocks. It cost about that much to build in the first place didn't it? 14 million if memory serves me right which was incredibly cheap compared with Bolton's ground. You can tell! Mind you I wouldn't swap places with them now
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Mar 15, 2016 21:56:08 GMT
the first of my numbers reflects what you say - the second is £1m different - bet im nearer though what I find amazing though is to call our present stadium a 'fucking shithole embarressment' thats nothing if not bizarre its 'system built' true -perhaps 'lacking character' true - 'purely functional' true - lacking access - true but a shithole ???? plainly, you never went to the vic I spent many years in the Vic and loved it. It was a far better stadium than the Brit. It was dilapidated but it had character. It was accessible. I always stood in the boothen and I don't remember ever being forced to stand in a rainstorm without the option of taking shelter.
The brit is awful. It looks cheap. The facilities are pathetic. The concourse cannot cope with the attendances so poor is the design. The roof doesn't cover the front 12 rows of seats. Against Villa I had to wait for nearly an hour outside the ground afterwards before I was able to get on a bus back into Stoke. It is an awful stadium and badly designed.
My figures for the original development come from my best pals geography coursework! He went down to the site regularly at the time and spoke to those involved and had all the figures. Stoke were happy at the time, they did not have to spend much money and probably could never foresee that we would become an established top flight club with sell-out crowds. They got a great deal and the stadium was the cheapest of the stadiums being built at the time and in comparison to those, it is awful.
It needs serious renovation - but if I was to hear tomorrow that we were selling the site and building a new stadium I would be delighted. Obviously that won't happen and I am sure we are here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 22:16:14 GMT
Fair opinions - my take - yep agree we got it very cheaply
but its only real problems are- lack of access and, the corners need filling in ( in fact its overdue)
other than that - no better of worse than the vast majority of other grounds for clubs our size
Ireckon
a shithole ? no way
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 22:31:54 GMT
Why are people so quick to run down the work the club have done from the days of Div2.People are good at telling others how to spend there money but when it comes down to them putting the hands in there own pockets it's a differant question.Why should PC say the club have spent 8 million if they have not.Its the clubs and bet 365s money so why tell lies.People keep on about the TV money well our wage bill next year will be over 110 million.So let's start talking our club up not slagging the internal workings of the club off. Probably because our "stadium" is a massive shit hole and an embarrassment to our club.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 15, 2016 22:32:06 GMT
I don't doubt at al the amount of money spent - it all adds up and Coates has no reason to lie.
What baffles me is that it's pretty clear the club got what it paid for with the stadium, mainly through lack of cash but also a lack of vision. Now we have the cash but we still appear to lack the vision.
And watching football at the Vic was infinitely better than watching it at the Brit, even if the bogs were a bit pissy.
|
|
|
Post by no1972 on Mar 15, 2016 23:04:20 GMT
I don't doubt at al the amount of money spent - it all adds up and Coates has no reason to lie. What baffles me is that it's pretty clear the club got what it paid for with the stadium, mainly through lack of cash but also a lack of vision. Now we have the cash but we still appear to lack the vision. And watching football at the Vic was infinitely better than watching it at the Brit, even if the bogs were a bit pissy. When we built the ground it would of been better to have built a better ground with the same money available,to of suited our crowds so instead of a 28000 unfinished stadium,we should of built a 15000 state of the art stadium,then all you ungrateful so and so's would enjoy the games on your lap top.Typical Stoke fans moan about something that was paid by others so we could survive.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 15, 2016 23:15:12 GMT
To sum up, the ground was built on the cheap and is now costing a fortune to upgrade and maintain.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 15, 2016 23:18:12 GMT
Typical Stoke-on-Trent - looking over your shoulder rather than looking ahead. The ground reflects the City.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 15, 2016 23:18:49 GMT
To sum up, the ground was built on the cheap and is now costing a fortune to upgrade and maintain. Yup, lack of vision. Buy cheap, buy twice.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Mar 15, 2016 23:20:50 GMT
These ones who criticise are normally the one who feck off from the club when it goes into decline. Wrong target mate: 40 years a Stokie, been through thick and thin, away days in the old Div 3 etc........ I just say what I see. Agree mate. We were all there in the Championship years and lets not forget we played at a lower level too. Stoke 0 Chester 3. But the stadium hasn't changed bar a scoreboard and it may be time to do some development at the showcase not the training ground
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Mar 16, 2016 2:21:15 GMT
Huge water bills due to unnecessary watering of the pitch at half-time, even when it's been pissing it down all day!!!
|
|
|
Post by skip on Mar 16, 2016 9:09:08 GMT
They could at least replace the red seats that are now a lovely shade of sun bleached pink which look proper shabby on the telebox, which judging by the amount of money spent on giving the Media a shoulder rub and somewhere to charge their laptops is obviously something that is a priority given we are in the age of global viewing.
On a related tangent I've often wondered in my more wistful moments if the game shouldn't be filmed* from the other side so the viewers see out biggest shiniest stand. It's all about the spectacle nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Mar 16, 2016 9:58:17 GMT
Why are people so quick to run down the work the club have done from the days of Div2. People are good at telling others how to spend there money but when it comes down to them putting the hands in there own pockets it's a differant question.Why should PC say the club have spent 8 million if they have not.Its the clubs and bet 365s money so why tell lies.People keep on about the TV money well our wage bill next year will be over 110 million.So let's start talking our club up not slagging the internal workings of the club off. I'd say the same thing about knobbers criticising TS. It's frustrating obviously, but the blatant childish insults and abuse the guy gets is actually embarrassing and really could only come from the mouths of chavs, delinquents, and/or football fans. Were people brought up in the gutter? Not all of us are so discourteous or "knobbers" when we openly admit our dislike for Scholes and his business dealings a number of years ago when we were not a Premier League club. So to say that because we do not like him nor forgive him for what he did (and has not yet proven to be much different when away from the PR machine) measn that we were brought up in a gutter is very disingenuous at the very least. He was recommended for the level he was at (from Preston) but unfortunately he has not grown the business, nor exploited the opportunities to grow the business anyway near enough that he should have done. Take away the TV revenue and the OPEX we have a flat performing business in terms of income. In the environment we are in, especially if the positive position that Stoke City FC find themselves (in terms of footfall opportunities (including increasing fan-base foundation and merchandise income)and also greater investment opportunities (including sponsorship value added and business links on an increasing regional reach)... then yes he deserves criticism. I believe that Stoke have outgrown him too quickly for him to react and grow with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 10:20:02 GMT
I'd say the same thing about knobbers criticising TS. It's frustrating obviously, but the blatant childish insults and abuse the guy gets is actually embarrassing and really could only come from the mouths of chavs, delinquents, and/or football fans. Were people brought up in the gutter? Not all of us are so discourteous or "knobbers" when we openly admit our dislike for Scholes and his business dealings a number of years ago when we were not a Premier League club. So to say that because we do not like him nor forgive him for what he did (and has not yet proven to be much different when away from the PR machine) measn that we were brought up in a gutter is very disingenuous at the very least. He was recommended for the level he was at (from Preston) but unfortunately he has not grown the business, nor exploited the opportunities to grow the business anyway near enough that he should have done. Take away the TV revenue and the OPEX we have a flat performing business in terms of income. In the environment we are in, especially if the positive position that Stoke City FC find themselves (in terms of footfall opportunities (including increasing fan-base foundation and merchandise income)and also greater investment opportunities (including sponsorship value added and business links on an increasing regional reach)... then yes he deserves criticism. I believe that Stoke have outgrown him too quickly for him to react and grow with it.
Unfortunately to those of us not privvy to the inner workings of the club then I have to agree, it does appear that the club has grown quicker than Tony Scholes could handle. Maybe it has grown a little too quickly for any Chief executive to handle.
We all know how Peter Coates is a very honourable man and even if deep down he felt the same way I also believe he would find it difficult to let somebody go whom he considered to be a trusted ally and a friend.
Can clubs have 2 executives or possibly somebody else who has a sole purpose to build supporter base and extra revenue streams ??
Sometimes when you sift through the banter and throw away comments on here you come across some cracking ideas and nuggets of pure gold that maybe the club could use - how about some kind of club/supporter regular meeting where the fans opinions and ideas are constructively bullet pointed and given time of day to see whether there are any that may work. Nobody knows a club better than the die hard supporters, so instead of just the odd meeting where supporters ask Tony Scholes and Peter Coates a few questions, maybe a more constructive meeting where supporters can give Tony Scholes and Peter Coates some of the answers ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 10:23:15 GMT
I would watch Stoke in a wind tunnel if they would now bring a trophy home. Oh! Hang on. I already am. Now, where is the trophy? Hopefully next season!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 16, 2016 10:25:59 GMT
It is often the case in football that football managers, by which I mean team selectors (call them head coaches or what you will) often suffer from meddling club owners, who indulge in influencing team selection and other football matters such as tactics, of which they have little or no knowledge.
People are quick to criticize TS, but do we know how much of a free hand he has? If club owners, who are usually business men interfere on football matters, then surely it is far more likely they will interfere/dictate business decisions. My guess is that freezing season ticket prices and free travel are PC decisions. How likely is it that TS is simply PC's "gofer"?
As regards growing the club, is PC really interested, knowing in all probability that if Stoke have a bad run of results, the spectator numbers will soon dwindle? Surely it is more likely that PC, as a true fan himself, is more interested in securing the future in the Prem. by investing in football matters (players, playing facilities, etc.) and building a hard core of loyal supporters who will stick with the club if or when the hard times return.
I think investments like corners, additional access directly from A500, rail connection/station are potential improvements will come in dribs and drabs over time if the club continues to stay in the top ten clubs. They are very expensive investments that offer little return in terms of improving Stoke's performance on the field or financial return.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 16, 2016 10:34:16 GMT
dont forget the 2 giant generators so they can go off grid at peak demand times, they wont have been cheap You wouldn't have thought that there was enough load for a good business case on demand side response or triad aversion?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 12:52:15 GMT
Buy cheap - buy twice
SO TRUE
tis why I always by my shoes from Clarks these- days
that and, its 'an age thing'
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on Mar 16, 2016 13:29:24 GMT
Buy cheap - buy twice SO TRUE tis why I always by my shoes from Clarks these- days that and, its 'an age thing' Correct me too, I bought two pairs last time so I have years of back up! All of this debate just to fill in that bloody corner with it's foundations ready and stuff the away fans out of the way and far from the player's tunnel. We are not talking a fortune in spend, just do it now!
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on Mar 16, 2016 13:36:47 GMT
dont forget the 2 giant generators so they can go off grid at peak demand times, they wont have been cheap You wouldn't have thought that there was enough load for a good business case on demand side response or triad aversion? Ok I am an electrical engineer, no problem with big gen sets or dsr but what the hell is triad aversion???? Love this site, it really is as weird as I am and that's going some!
|
|
|
Post by clintonbaptiste on Mar 16, 2016 13:39:14 GMT
I think most of us are guilty of wanting to spend our owners money, whether it be on the stadium or our next record transfer.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 16, 2016 13:42:18 GMT
Triad mangement, aversion was not a good word to use, its hitting the grids peak demands in the winter months by having your gensets taking the site loads and exporting as well, done through g59 control set ups, google it, theres plenty of info, we use flexitricity as an aggregator for our dsr
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 16, 2016 13:43:15 GMT
You wouldn't have thought that there was enough load for a good business case on demand side response or triad aversion? Ok I am an electrical engineer, no problem with big gen sets or dsr but what the hell is triad aversion???? Love this site, it really is as weird as I am and that's going some! Quote didnt work first time, im a newby to tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 16, 2016 13:53:36 GMT
They could at least replace the red seats that are now a lovely shade of sun bleached pink which look proper shabby on the telebox, which judging by the amount of money spent on giving the Media a shoulder rub and somewhere to charge their laptops is obviously something that is a priority given we are in the age of global viewing. On a related tangent I've often wondered in my more wistful moments if the game shouldn't be filmed* from the other side so the viewers see out biggest shiniest stand. It's all about the spectacle nowadays. That's a great point and I have no idea what the mechanics of doing that might be but if you only have one 'grown-up' stand it might as well be that one which you make visible to the outside world. On a tangential but somewhat related point have you noticed how at Wembley the best seats immediately opposite the cameras half way up on the half way line are always completely empty at the beginning of each match and again at the start of the 2nd half on all but the very biggest of occasions? Presumably it is because they are the Corporate Hospitality seats and stuffing your face with food and drink is preferable to watching the game. I am not sure what they can do about it but I think it creates a terrible impression. There are 2 things about putting on a good spectacle both equally important. First that it is a good event and second that it feels like you are part of something special and Wembley falls down every time on the 2nd of those.
|
|