|
Post by Gods on Sept 7, 2019 7:50:19 GMT
Never in this wild world did that hapoen It did, I can remember filling it out. 1994 ish Thing is those surveys where you ask people if they want a brand new shiny thing that exists only on paper in place of what they have today always come out with a resounding 'yes'.
|
|
|
Post by bloodtypered on Sept 7, 2019 7:51:16 GMT
There's a lot of history rewritten about the Vic. The move was absolutely the right thing to do. Just wish the design was better....no gaps Swansea's ground design is good
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Sept 7, 2019 9:38:16 GMT
In this age of super stadiums like the new Spurs one, it’s sobering to think our ground that was so state of the art not so long back is actually quite dated. When you also think that it’s architecture is based on Manchester United’s new main stand for the 1966 World Cup, then it’s even older. why was it state of the art? The Britannia stadium was where stadium construction was at in the late 1990s. ‘State of the Art’ alludes to that and the fact that many clubs moved from very old stadiums reinforces the notion.
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Sept 7, 2019 9:54:36 GMT
From the top of my building at work, you’ve got a full 360 view of Stoke on Trent. The Brit sticks out like a sore thumb. Had a good look at it the other day and never realised how high it sits in correlation to everywhere else but it’s right on top of the hill with the Boothen corner gaping wide open.
Dreadful characterless Lego stadium in a terrible location with terrible amenities. I dislike it more and more as time goes on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 10:12:20 GMT
From the top of my building at work, you’ve got a full 360 view of Stoke on Trent. The Brit sticks out like a sore thumb. Had a good look at it the other day and never realised how high it sits in correlation to everywhere else but it’s right on top of the hill with the Boothen corner gaping wide open. Dreadful characterless Lego stadium in a terrible location with terrible amenities. I dislike it more and more as time goes on. Of all the football stadiums constructed in the last 20 odd years, it's right up there with the wankest.
|
|
|
Post by bloodtypered on Sept 7, 2019 10:14:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tony1234 on Sept 7, 2019 10:27:20 GMT
Hindsight. I think if we still lived here, it would be a huge bone of contention. We'd definitely be wanting a shiny new stadium by now! d3nfwcxd527z59.cloudfront.net/content/uploads/2017/05/04123217/Victoria-Ground.jpgBrit feels like the Brit lacks imagination. But then again, you wouldn't say that when full. So, perhaps its not the Brit, but the spaces in it - and the club need to get busier filling the spaces.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 7, 2019 10:40:17 GMT
Very exciting news it was to leave the decrepid Vic......wish we were back there though!
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Sept 7, 2019 11:13:48 GMT
Moving was a neccessary evil. At the time the only way the club was being kept from liquidation was an over-valuation of the ground on the books. I think it was valued at a number of millions at the time but the real value was what the developers paid for it - one million quid.
It was all political. Building The Brit opened the way for all the land that was once Hem Heath Pit to be developed, and the same people who bought The Vic also bought the land at Hem Heath.
The problem with The Brit is where it's built. It's a soulless place. Having said that, during our best times there, The Bearpit atmosphere has been equal to the good times at the Vic. Those first two seasons at the new ground were fabulous.
The Vic wasn't built on the River Trent. The river ran at the back of the ground. Renewing the Butler Street Stand would have meant building over the river or diverting it. I think Stoke forked out a big wad of cash for plans to redevelop and then decided not to when the council chipped in with some dosh and other grants made it viable to build a completely new stadium. Stoke paid their share by selling our best players. That was Jez Moxey's doing. (Was it Andy Griffin to Everton?) As GD says earlier in this thread, Scholes is a divine being compared to that bastard Moxey.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by stokiesteve on Sept 7, 2019 11:30:17 GMT
I was gutted
Would Loved to have seen a modernised Vic
|
|
|
Post by marrer on Sept 7, 2019 11:40:50 GMT
I don't think that we are rewriting history Joe. Ok, it may have been the only thing to do, but you will struggle to find an old supporter that prefers the Bet365 to the Vic. I do. Ot might just be me but I do. 😀 I don’t Joe
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Sept 7, 2019 11:48:25 GMT
Moving was a neccessary evil. At the time the only way the club was being kept from liquidation was an over-valuation of the ground on the books. I think it was valued at a number of millions at the time but the real value was what the developers paid for it - one million quid. It was all political. Building The Brit opened the way for all the land that was once Hem Heath Pit to be developed, and the same people who bought The Vic also bought the land at Hem Heath. The problem with The Brit is where it's built. It's a soulless place. Having said that, during our best times there, The Bearpit atmosphere has been equal to the good times at the Vic. Those first two seasons at the new ground were fabulous. The Vic wasn't built on the River Trent. The river ran at the back of the ground. Renewing the Butler Street Stand would have meant building over the river or diverting it. I think Stoke forked out a big wad of cash for plans to redevelop and then decided not to when the council chipped in with some dosh and other grants made it viable to build a completely new stadium. Stoke paid their share by selling our best players. That was Jez Moxey's doing. (Was it Andy Griffin to Everton?) As GD says earlier in this thread, Scholes is a divine being compared to that bastard Moxey. OS. Sheron to QPR and Griffin to Newcastle. Having met and spoken at length to Jez Moxey on a few occasions (and working with the son of a former board member at that time) I've learned that the accepted narrative about that period isn't quite a true reflection of the events.
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Sept 7, 2019 12:19:41 GMT
I wonder if fans of other football clubs such as Derby Middlesbrough or Sunderland wish they were back at their old stadiums as much as we wish we were back at the Victoria ground ?
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Sept 7, 2019 12:25:56 GMT
i remember there was some kind of voting slips handed out, new ground or do up the vic, new ground won comfortably. Never in this wild world did that hapoen I filled one in?
|
|
|
Post by silsdenstokie on Sept 7, 2019 14:05:45 GMT
Moving was a neccessary evil. At the time the only way the club was being kept from liquidation was an over-valuation of the ground on the books. I think it was valued at a number of millions at the time but the real value was what the developers paid for it - one million quid. It was all political. Building The Brit opened the way for all the land that was once Hem Heath Pit to be developed, and the same people who bought The Vic also bought the land at Hem Heath. The problem with The Brit is where it's built. It's a soulless place. Having said that, during our best times there, The Bearpit atmosphere has been equal to the good times at the Vic. Those first two seasons at the new ground were fabulous. The Vic wasn't built on the River Trent. The river ran at the back of the ground. Renewing the Butler Street Stand would have meant building over the river or diverting it. I think Stoke forked out a big wad of cash for plans to redevelop and then decided not to when the council chipped in with some dosh and other grants made it viable to build a completely new stadium. Stoke paid their share by selling our best players. That was Jez Moxey's doing. (Was it Andy Griffin to Everton?) As GD says earlier in this thread, Scholes is a divine being compared to that bastard Moxey. OS. Couldn't stand Moxey. And if memory serves, I don't think Lou and Chris Kamara were very enamoured with him when they were managing the club
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 8, 2019 22:10:18 GMT
There's a lot of history rewritten about the Vic. The move was absolutely the right thing to do. Sorry. No it wasn’t Yes it was. It definitely was. You have to look at it in context of the time. In the mid 90s Stoke City had no money. The deadlines for all seater stadiums were looming large and our stadium hadn't had any modifications since the Stoke End Stand opened in 1979. The only substantial action was too get a new Butler St designed by an architect then, mysteriously, SCFC publicly whined about half to pay the bill. Our impecunious state dominated every action.... and inaction. The fact getting the finance together to honour our stake in the move led to relegation tells its own story. With this in mind, does anyone seriously believe, removing rose tinted spectacles, leaving nostalgia aside, a revamped Vic would have been anything but a bodge job? Really? Hawthorns an Wolves were done well but they had finance to do so. Wolves were sugar daddied by Jack Hayward. At the vic it would have been plastic dishes bolted to the ground. As for atmosphere.... it was the current stadium that saw us lauded across international media for the sheer ferocity of our crowd. When the crowds are stimulated we respond accordingly. One thing we know for certain is, if we hadn't moved, there would now be thousands now moaning about it. Possibly the same ones moaning about the move.
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Sept 8, 2019 22:55:22 GMT
Moving was a neccessary evil. At the time the only way the club was being kept from liquidation was an over-valuation of the ground on the books. I think it was valued at a number of millions at the time but the real value was what the developers paid for it - one million quid. It was all political. Building The Brit opened the way for all the land that was once Hem Heath Pit to be developed, and the same people who bought The Vic also bought the land at Hem Heath. The problem with The Brit is where it's built. It's a soulless place. Having said that, during our best times there, The Bearpit atmosphere has been equal to the good times at the Vic. Those first two seasons at the new ground were fabulous. The Vic wasn't built on the River Trent. The river ran at the back of the ground. Renewing the Butler Street Stand would have meant building over the river or diverting it. I think Stoke forked out a big wad of cash for plans to redevelop and then decided not to when the council chipped in with some dosh and other grants made it viable to build a completely new stadium. Stoke paid their share by selling our best players. That was Jez Moxey's doing. (Was it Andy Griffin to Everton?) As GD says earlier in this thread, Scholes is a divine being compared to that bastard Moxey. OS. Couldn't stand Moxey. And if memory serves, I don't think Lou and Chris Kamara were very enamoured with him when they were managing the club I had the pleasure ( or not ) of meeting and dealing with Moxey. When construction started I had the job to install several telephone lines into the builders portacabins at Trentham Lakes, he talked to me like I was something he had trod in, I was only young at the time, no way would I put up with that now. Having done that job and seeing the scale of the build I made regular trips to watch the stadium grow and it was fascinating to see it rise. A new dawn apparently but history shows not! Give me the Vic anytime.
|
|
|
Post by standbutler1 on Sept 8, 2019 23:12:19 GMT
I loved the Vic it was my intro to football and I miss it. How long before todays fans miss bet 365 ?
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 9, 2019 0:31:49 GMT
Honestly a part of me died when we left the Victoria Ground. It was as much Stoke City as the red and white stripes. It's quite bizarre, 22 years on I still have no sense as I trudge miserably over the 'D' road flyover and past the council incinerator that I'm heading for our home, it's like I'm stuck in a bad dream. We thought we could live forever in fun, our chances really were a million to one. If, after 22 years, you really dislike it so much, to a point you refer to your team's home ground as a 'hellhole' I actually suggest, viewing this with a philosophically holistic approach, you don't go anymore. Pack it in.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 9, 2019 3:23:06 GMT
The new stadium was built in 1997 for 14.7 million and had a capacity of 28,000. It was expanded to 30,000 for additional 3 million, by filing in the corner. I have been to the Stadium of Light twice for conferences in the hospitality suite. The Sunderland stadium holds 49,000 and cost 23 million. So it’s 67% bigger, easy to access and cost about 5 million more. It is also much better appointed than the BET365. I was told Sunderland at the BET365 and other similar stadiums before designing there’s. The two stadia are miles apart in quality, apparently they learnt how not to do it from Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by supersimonstainrod on Sept 9, 2019 3:46:38 GMT
There's a lot of history rewritten about the Vic. The move was absolutely the right thing to do. I re-read Trouserdog's 'Stoke and I..' t'other day,he articulates this point extremely well.Despite the wrench of leaving behind all the history,moving was the only truly viable thing for the club. Only the Butler Street side of the ground had enough space to accommodate a sensible expansion and even that meant sacrificing much needed parking spaces. Other problems were the need to divert the river Trent and that simply bolting seats on to the Boothen terracing would have afforded spectators a poor view etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Sept 9, 2019 9:01:47 GMT
Yes it was. It definitely was. You have to look at it in context of the time. In the mid 90s Stoke City had no money. The deadlines for all seater stadiums were looming large and our stadium hadn't had any modifications since the Stoke End Stand opened in 1979. The only substantial action was too get a new Butler St designed by an architect then, mysteriously, SCFC publicly whined about half to pay the bill. Our impecunious state dominated every action.... and inaction. The fact getting the finance together to honour our stake in the move led to relegation tells its own story. With this in mind, does anyone seriously believe, removing rose tinted spectacles, leaving nostalgia aside, a revamped Vic would have been anything but a bodge job? Really? Hawthorns an Wolves were done well but they had finance to do so. Wolves were sugar daddied by Jack Hayward. At the vic it would have been plastic dishes bolted to the ground. As for atmosphere.... it was the current stadium that saw us lauded across international media for the sheer ferocity of our crowd. When the crowds are stimulated we respond accordingly. One thing we know for certain is, if we hadn't moved, there would now be thousands now moaning about it. Possibly the same ones moaning about the move. Read my previous post. We had to leave the Vic because it was financially the only thing we could do. The ground was left to deteriorate to such an extent it was the only viable option.
|
|
|
Post by lagwafis on Sept 9, 2019 9:18:07 GMT
Given our mostly dire finances from the early 1990s up until Coates’ return in 2006 I’d have hated to see the Vic end up looking like Fratton Park or worse still a half-and-half job like Valley Parade.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 9, 2019 11:05:39 GMT
Yes it was. It definitely was. You have to look at it in context of the time. In the mid 90s Stoke City had no money. The deadlines for all seater stadiums were looming large and our stadium hadn't had any modifications since the Stoke End Stand opened in 1979. The only substantial action was too get a new Butler St designed by an architect then, mysteriously, SCFC publicly whined about half to pay the bill. Our impecunious state dominated every action.... and inaction. The fact getting the finance together to honour our stake in the move led to relegation tells its own story. With this in mind, does anyone seriously believe, removing rose tinted spectacles, leaving nostalgia aside, a revamped Vic would have been anything but a bodge job? Really? Hawthorns an Wolves were done well but they had finance to do so. Wolves were sugar daddied by Jack Hayward. At the vic it would have been plastic dishes bolted to the ground. As for atmosphere.... it was the current stadium that saw us lauded across international media for the sheer ferocity of our crowd. When the crowds are stimulated we respond accordingly. One thing we know for certain is, if we hadn't moved, there would now be thousands now moaning about it. Possibly the same ones moaning about the move. Read my previous post. We had to leave the Vic because it was financially the only thing we could do. The ground was left to deteriorate to such an extent it was the only viable option. Exactly. We had to move.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 9, 2019 11:17:27 GMT
The new stadium was built in 1997 for 14.7 million and had a capacity of 28,000. It was expanded to 30,000 for additional 3 million, by filing in the corner. I have been to the Stadium of Light twice for conferences in the hospitality suite. The Sunderland stadium holds 49,000 and cost 23 million. So it’s 67% bigger, easy to access and cost about 5 million more. It is also much better appointed than the BET365. I was told Sunderland at the BET365 and other similar stadiums before designing there’s. The two stadia are miles apart in quality, apparently they learnt how not to do it from Stoke. agree SoL is clearly superior however given they opened at the same time how did they learn from our mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 9, 2019 11:53:11 GMT
Given our mostly dire finances from the early 1990s up until Coates’ return in 2006 I’d have hated to see the Vic end up looking like Fratton Park or worse still a half-and-half job like Valley Parade. Which it would've done. And with new stadia popping up all over the place at the same time (and better clubs making a proper fist of re-developing their existing grounds), we'd have had fans moaning that the (all-seated) Victoria Ground was a pale shadow of its former self and we should've moved when we had the chance. Had we stayed at the Victoria Ground, how would things have panned out for the club? Would the Icelandic takeover happened? How much more toxic would the atmosphere have been under Coates, Humphreys and Moxey? Would the Coates family have invested anything like the money they've done since 2006? Would we have had ten years in the Premier League? Let's be honest, we all loved the Vic, but this is misty-eyed bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Sept 9, 2019 12:03:29 GMT
Without a massive Filbert Street-esque main stand replacing Butler St, the capacity would’ve been shite. They wouldn’t have updated the Stoke End, we’d have had a revamped main stand and probably seats just bolted onto the Boothen End. I can’t help but think it would’ve been pretty crap compared to others.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 9, 2019 12:10:03 GMT
Doing the Boothen end properly could have meant severe disruption to the school.
|
|
|
Post by northstaffycher on Sept 10, 2019 20:48:46 GMT
Don’t think I’ll ever really like the Brit, not in the same way as I loved the Viccy. For me a club’s ground should be in the heart of the surrounding community where you can have a pint, food, chat and the atmosphere builds up as we walk (not bus, taxi or barge) as one towards our ground. Not some shit industrial estate off a dual carriageway. Jumpers for goalposts, Wright’s pies, Clix chewing gum. 😥
|
|