|
Post by jimigoodwinsbeard on Jan 31, 2024 15:05:36 GMT
West Brom did that with some terrible views as a result I don't think was lack of vision, I think with what we had was pulled together pretty well with room to improve if the time came which it did . The other stadium design was more like Huddersfield and didn't give that so much at all. The Vic was a wreck and archaic no matter how some try and remember it, the facilities were dreadful including corporate and as you say, would have been a terrible idea. We did the correct and sensible thing, just a shame we didn't have the money then we do now of course People use West Brom as an example of a club who stayed put and have a nice ground but they knocked down and rebuilt 3/4 of the stadium. They also have plenty of space in the immediate area to utilise and that, in the end was the key reason for us having to leave. If money was no object, the perfect solution would have been for us to utilise the one area of the site where we did have space, namely behind the Butler Street, turn the pitch around 90 degrees, redirect the river (not impossible), and build out towards where the training pitches used to be. Almost like constructing a new stadium on the existing site. This sounds good to me. I will never get used to the Brit - a soulless identikit stadium in a god-awful space. There was a distinct lack of vision, it was simply copied from all the other new-build identikit stadiums and still managed to look worse than the majority. I can remember them saying we couldnt have a new stadium on the old ground due to the River Trent - that was soon sorted when they wanted a housing estate on the Vic.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 31, 2024 15:12:59 GMT
People use West Brom as an example of a club who stayed put and have a nice ground but they knocked down and rebuilt 3/4 of the stadium. They also have plenty of space in the immediate area to utilise and that, in the end was the key reason for us having to leave. If money was no object, the perfect solution would have been for us to utilise the one area of the site where we did have space, namely behind the Butler Street, turn the pitch around 90 degrees, redirect the river (not impossible), and build out towards where the training pitches used to be. Almost like constructing a new stadium on the existing site. This sounds good to me. I will never get used to the Brit - a soulless identikit stadium in a god-awful space. There was a distinct lack of vision, it was simply copied from all the other new-build identikit stadiums and still managed to look worse than the majority. I can remember them saying we couldnt have a new stadium on the old ground due to the River Trent - that was soon sorted when they wanted a housing estate on the Vic. Not remotely comparible to houses. In what way does ourvflground look worse than the majority of similar grounds from the time that were built ? Depends what glasses you look at it through. Looks far better than say the Riverside.
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Jan 31, 2024 15:14:55 GMT
People use West Brom as an example of a club who stayed put and have a nice ground but they knocked down and rebuilt 3/4 of the stadium. They also have plenty of space in the immediate area to utilise and that, in the end was the key reason for us having to leave. If money was no object, the perfect solution would have been for us to utilise the one area of the site where we did have space, namely behind the Butler Street, turn the pitch around 90 degrees, redirect the river (not impossible), and build out towards where the training pitches used to be. Almost like constructing a new stadium on the existing site. This sounds good to me. I will never get used to the Brit - a soulless identikit stadium in a god-awful space. There was a distinct lack of vision, it was simply copied from all the other new-build identikit stadiums and still managed to look worse than the majority. I can remember them saying we couldnt have a new stadium on the old ground due to the River Trent - that was soon sorted when they wanted a housing estate on the Vic. Pretty sure if we would if had the money we do now something like this would of happened but it's all hindsight, if we hadn't of moved there would be no Icelandic takeover which helped Coates (denise) set up bet 365 no buy back when he did no premier league who knows.. or we might have stayed at a dilapidated vic fluked our way to the premier and done like luton have.. hence we will never know, as for building a new stadium in Fenton etc it's bad enough trying go the bloody range or dunhelm never mind 25.000 turning up on a Tuesday night nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by jimigoodwinsbeard on Jan 31, 2024 15:59:07 GMT
This sounds good to me. I will never get used to the Brit - a soulless identikit stadium in a god-awful space. There was a distinct lack of vision, it was simply copied from all the other new-build identikit stadiums and still managed to look worse than the majority. I can remember them saying we couldnt have a new stadium on the old ground due to the River Trent - that was soon sorted when they wanted a housing estate on the Vic. Not remotely comparible to houses. In what way does ourvflground look worse than the majority of similar grounds from the time that were built ? Depends what glasses you look at it through. Looks far better than say the Riverside. When it was built it was nowhere near as good as the Riverside. And still doesnt now. Its a poor stadium, not helped by the surroundings/access. The Stan statue needs to be centre stage of the stadium also. Its probably not Stoke's job but the statue should be the first thing you see from the A50 for any fans, lit up in all its glory.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 31, 2024 17:28:24 GMT
Not remotely comparible to houses. In what way does ourvflground look worse than the majority of similar grounds from the time that were built ? Depends what glasses you look at it through. Looks far better than say the Riverside. When it was built it was nowhere near as good as the Riverside. And still doesnt now. Its a poor stadium, not helped by the surroundings/access. The Stan statue needs to be centre stage of the stadium also. Its probably not Stoke's job but the statue should be the first thing you see from the A50 for any fans, lit up in all its glory. Far nicer ground and facilities than the Riverside. Better maintenance as well. The statue gets nothing but credit from visiting fans. Is very impressive..I think where it is certainly works for visitors , not sure visibility from the road is a priority and think is in the best position possible for me Good job we weren't on a stadium planning committee together 😁
|
|
|
Post by onepara on Jan 31, 2024 18:11:29 GMT
Never did like the stadium, built on the cheap and on top of a wind tunnel. We Should have revamped the vic, people will say it would have cost too much. But other clubs have done it. There was a chronic lack of funds and vision at the time though. A revamped Vic would have looked horrendous. At a push we might have seen a new stand on the Butler Street but the rest of the stadium would have seen seats bolted onto existing terrace steps, or maybe even closed off completely. It would have held about 23,000 with little to no chance of further expansion. The Festival park was offered.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 31, 2024 18:15:36 GMT
There was a chronic lack of funds and vision at the time though. A revamped Vic would have looked horrendous. At a push we might have seen a new stand on the Butler Street but the rest of the stadium would have seen seats bolted onto existing terrace steps, or maybe even closed off completely. It would have held about 23,000 with little to no chance of further expansion. The Festival park was offered. Explored yes but that was in the 80's before Hillsborough before the Taylor report, before the grants for new stadiums came along Not sure it got as far as 'offered'? Ground share with the Vale on Festival Park done even cheaper than the Brit was could have been far worse
|
|
|
Post by onepara on Jan 31, 2024 18:24:57 GMT
The Festival park was offered. Explored yes but that was in the 80's before Hillsborough before the Taylor report, before the grants for new stadiums came along Not sure it got as far as 'offered'? Ground share with the Vale on Festival Park done even cheaper than the Brit was could have been far worse The Festival park was offered as a ground-share with Vale. It failed, as Bill Bell would not agree to it. Grants were available at the time, for ground relocation. It was reported at the time that it would have taken £6m for us to refurb the Vic. A lot of money at the time. The Board accepted a move to where we are, as the Council were on board with it with a cash input, plus Stan Clark offered the ground, plus a development grant. At the time the Council wanted what they called a 'Flag-ship' operation to move there, in order to kick-start the site, as it was just a large open space.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 31, 2024 18:28:11 GMT
Explored yes but that was in the 80's before Hillsborough before the Taylor report, before the grants for new stadiums came along Not sure it got as far as 'offered'? Ground share with the Vale on Festival Park done even cheaper than the Brit was could have been far worse The Festival park was offered as a ground-share with Vale. It failed, as Bill Bell would not agree to it. Grants were available at the time, for ground relocation. It was reported at the time that it would have taken £6m for us to refurb the Vic. A lot of money at the time. The Board accepted a move to where we are, as the Council were on board with it with a cash input, plus Stan Clark offered the ground, plus a development grant. At the time the Council wanted what they called a 'Flag-ship' operation to move there, in order to kick-start the site, as it was just a large open space. We're there grants available at that time? They came after The Taylor report Move to festival park was mooted years before Or was Festival Park offered again in the 90's? If so that makes sense
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 31, 2024 19:40:56 GMT
There was a chronic lack of funds and vision at the time though. A revamped Vic would have looked horrendous. At a push we might have seen a new stand on the Butler Street but the rest of the stadium would have seen seats bolted onto existing terrace steps, or maybe even closed off completely. It would have held about 23,000 with little to no chance of further expansion. The Festival park was offered. Wasn't offered but a possibility but would have been no Euro grant and the traffic would have put the current ground to shame
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jan 31, 2024 20:35:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 1, 2024 8:46:19 GMT
Stoke City pay £1m a year rent more than West Ham shocker.
|
|
|
Post by scfcnicholas on Feb 1, 2024 15:04:39 GMT
The stadium needs a visit from Mr Semtex, Mr JCB and Mr Caterpillar. Once its been flattened and cleared we can then rebuild it so it actually resembles a stadium instead of some cheap brieze bloke monstrosity. One with bottle kilns in each corner with viewing platforms and better access/public transport, bigger concourses, heated seats, retractable roof, retractable pitch, etc, etc ....wakes up.... and realises it was a dream ....😕😕😕 It’s definitely bigger and better than West Brom’s Hull, Watford, Bristol City Preston, Cardiff, Plymouth, Millwall, Swansea, Huddersfield, QPR and Rotherham’s stadiums. I don’t get this negativity.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Feb 1, 2024 15:24:02 GMT
The Festival park was offered. Wasn't offered but a possibility but would have been no Euro grant and the traffic would have put the current ground to shame If memory serves me right the availability of land for a shared stadium was not Festival Park. It was on Etruria Valley which is where all the new distribution centres have recently opened with access to Festival Park, Forge Lane and the A500. The Council were trying to broker the deal but neither Coates nor Bell would entertain the idea. Probably Coates knew off, and had his fingers in the Stan Clarke pie and Bell simply couldn’t or didn’t want to finance it.
|
|
|
Post by jimigoodwinsbeard on Feb 1, 2024 15:32:24 GMT
Wasn't offered but a possibility but would have been no Euro grant and the traffic would have put the current ground to shame If memory serves me right the availability of land for a shared stadium was not Festival Park. It was on Etruria Valley which is where all the new distribution centres have recently opened with access to Festival Park, Forge Lane and the A500. The Council were trying to broker the deal but neither Coates nor Bell would entertain the idea. Probably Coates knew off, and had his fingers in the Stan Clarke pie and Bell simply couldn’t or didn’t want to finance it. Would have been ideal with bet365 now there as well, Peter roll out of entrance at 16:00, straight into the bet365 Etruria Valley Stadium, with the Boothen End now having the Trent&Mersey Canal running underneath it, where supporters can see from under their seats barges going under said Boothen, gladly waving at them from above through the toughened glass floor. A pipe-dream?
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Feb 1, 2024 15:32:49 GMT
Wasn't offered but a possibility but would have been no Euro grant and the traffic would have put the current ground to shame If memory serves me right the availability of land for a shared stadium was not Festival Park. It was on Etruria Valley which is where all the new distribution centres have recently opened with access to Festival Park, Forge Lane and the A500. The Council were trying to broker the deal but neither Coates nor Bell would entertain the idea. Probably Coates knew off, and had his fingers in the Stan Clarke pie and Bell simply couldn’t or didn’t want to finance it. Was never realistically going to happen. Was no harm in having Clarke on board and we were able to get the grant due to the nature of the land Was the sensible and realistic place to relocate. Imagine 22k heading to Festival Park on a Saturday. Fatty Arbuckles was bad enough on a Bank Holiday Monday trying to get parked
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 1, 2024 17:14:22 GMT
Wasn't offered but a possibility but would have been no Euro grant and the traffic would have put the current ground to shame If memory serves me right the availability of land for a shared stadium was not Festival Park. It was on Etruria Valley which is where all the new distribution centres have recently opened with access to Festival Park, Forge Lane and the A500. The Council were trying to broker the deal but neither Coates nor Bell would entertain the idea. Probably Coates knew off, and had his fingers in the Stan Clarke pie and Bell simply couldn’t or didn’t want to finance it. that's interesting Festival Park was mooted about 1987 ish? Etruria Valley would be different then, presumably that was around 1994 ish? Bell wanted nothing to do with Stoke City fullstop
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Feb 1, 2024 19:43:53 GMT
If memory serves me right the availability of land for a shared stadium was not Festival Park. It was on Etruria Valley which is where all the new distribution centres have recently opened with access to Festival Park, Forge Lane and the A500. The Council were trying to broker the deal but neither Coates nor Bell would entertain the idea. Probably Coates knew off, and had his fingers in the Stan Clarke pie and Bell simply couldn’t or didn’t want to finance it. that's interesting Festival Park was mooted about 1987 ish? Etruria Valley would be different then, presumably that was around 1994 ish? Bell wanted nothing to do with Stoke City fullstop Perhaps others can clarify. I think Festival Park was “completed” in 1995, a couple of years before the Vic was closed. I think that we should not cross wires with Festival Park and Etruria Valley. Two completely separate development areas but still under the ownership of St Modwen. Interestingly try to imagine the A50 from the Blythe Bridge roundabout to the A500 and the A500 to the Talke junction and see how many St Modwen developments have taken place or the land still to be developed. Then think about the geographical location of Stoke on Trent. North/South East/West of the UK. Possibly the most central and valuable land grap of recent times. 4 international airports and 1.30 mins to London (hourly).
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Feb 2, 2024 0:01:47 GMT
The Festival park was offered as a ground-share with Vale. It failed, as Bill Bell would not agree to it. Grants were available at the time, for ground relocation. It was reported at the time that it would have taken £6m for us to refurb the Vic. A lot of money at the time. The Board accepted a move to where we are, as the Council were on board with it with a cash input, plus Stan Clark offered the ground, plus a development grant. At the time the Council wanted what they called a 'Flag-ship' operation to move there, in order to kick-start the site, as it was just a large open space. We're there grants available at that time? They came after The Taylor report Move to festival park was mooted years before Or was Festival Park offered again in the 90's? If so that makes sense We got a European grant with it being reclaimed land etc Paid for a large chunk of the ground. Couldn't have happened without it
|
|
|
Post by stokiesteve on Feb 2, 2024 6:15:32 GMT
Not sure we'd ever need 8k more seats even in the Prem ! I'll give you that it looks ok from a distance (coming up SM way from Hem Heath and from the railway below) but once up close and inside, we quickly realise that the stadium was typical of its 90s style - done on the cheap with no real thought of logistics, aesthetic or general facilities - it's been improved a bit but it's still a bastard to get to, bloody freezing and the concourses primitive and inhospitable..... It needs to be somewhere else. Say, Boothen for example?
|
|
|
Post by steveaustin1 on Feb 3, 2024 8:31:14 GMT
For someone who spent 15 years at the Victoria ground and who would go back to there in a heartbeat,the ground really was long past its sell by date.
The bet 365 for me is now one o 2 clever additions away from being truly fantastic, maybe i have low standads but compared to what we had before it is great. However the match day experience in the middle of a town can never be replicated by the experience of a stadium in the middle of an out of town industrial estate The prematch buzz and atmosphere away from the ground has gone and so has 50% of the reason for going in the first place But that's the way it is now
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Feb 3, 2024 8:33:41 GMT
For someone who spent 15 years at the Victoria ground and who would go back to there in a heartbeat,the ground really was long past its sell by date. The bet 365 for me is now one o 2 clever additions away from being truly fantastic, maybe i have low standads but compared to what we had before it is great. However the match day experience in the middle of a town can never be replicated by the experience of a stadium in the middle of an out of town industrial estate The prematch buzz and atmosphere away from the ground has gone and so has 50% of the reason for going in the first place But that's the way it is now maybe the fanzone can change that , i just hope it’s not overpriced that fans only use it at the start then dwindle away
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 3, 2024 8:54:40 GMT
We're there grants available at that time? They came after The Taylor report Move to festival park was mooted years before Or was Festival Park offered again in the 90's? If so that makes sense We got a European grant with it being reclaimed land etc Paid for a large chunk of the ground. Couldn't have happened without it Absolutely None of which was around on the 80's which is why Festival park was a non starter However if Etruria Valley was an option in the 90's there may have been similar grants for there?
|
|