|
|
Post by kidsgroveboxxy on Feb 25, 2017 21:40:59 GMT
Should never have let her go. Such a shame to see what's been left behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Feb 25, 2017 22:10:17 GMT
What on earth was the Stoke End made out of in those days? Was it an old slag heap or what? The part on the right hand side looks like its an almost sheer cliff with no fencing whatsoever.
How did it get it's safety certificate!!!???
|
|
|
|
Post by norman conquest on Feb 25, 2017 22:34:59 GMT
There doesn't look like there was enough room to build the Boothen Stand between the pitch and the road. I wonder if the pitch got moved to the left or if some of the end terraces were knocked down to make room? Picture of it being built in 1963.
Cant believe we let the Vale players practice/train on our pitch |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 22:49:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:04:14 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Feb 26, 2017 0:07:29 GMT
Picture of it being built in 1963.
Cant believe we let the Vale players practice/train on our pitch They're sheep not pigs. |
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Feb 26, 2017 0:10:05 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. Yes and it also looks like the Boothen End got a new roof between the photo on burnside's 2nd link and your photo Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Feb 26, 2017 0:15:15 GMT
Originally the Stoke End was just a bank, the terracing only appeared gradually. Right up until 1963 the Boothen paddock was only laid as concrete. The players helped lay it as part of a team building exercise LITERALLY ;-)
Can you imagine Shaq or Bojan mixing concrete instead of going to Dubai? :-)
There is loads of great stuff in a book called the encyclopedia of Stoke City by Tony Matthews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 26, 2017 0:15:55 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. I'm not convinced that's a roof at the back of the Stoke End in your picture. It's something for sure but a roof, situated so far back from the pitch it's practically in the street, I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 26, 2017 0:17:02 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. Is that what looks like the shape of an aeroplane hangar at the back? I'm struggling to see a roof else! |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:20:18 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. Yes and it also looks like the Boothen End got a new roof between the photo on burnside's 2nd link and your photo Paul.
Oh yes you're right - I hadn't noticed that, now that's really interesting because according to Burnside's map from 1922 there wasn't even a roof on the Boothen at all then, so that would mean that they erected a roof over it and then replaced it within hardly any time at all ... very odd.
So originally the end at the Victoria ground with a roof was the Stoke End and not the Boothen end, I wonder how many people realise that one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:21:03 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. I'm not convinced that's a roof at the back of the Stoke End in your picture. It's something for sure but a roof, situated so far back from the pitch it's practically in the street, I don't think so.
Mate look at the link for Burnside's map, it confirms it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:24:58 GMT
These links are so interesting because yes, there is clearly a roof at the back of the Stoke End on the picture I posted originally, however there ISN'T one on the picture that you've posted which apparently was taken in 1935 also! Interestingly the first link that you posted shows that there wasn't a roof on the Boothen End at the time. Is that what looks like the shape of an aeroplane hangar at the back? I'm struggling to see a roof else!
I hadn't noticed it at all until Burnside spotted it and on his first link for the map from 1922, the roof actually appears to cover more of the Stoke End than in the photograph from 1935.
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Feb 26, 2017 0:26:17 GMT
That's the trouble with temporary erections one minute they're up...
:-)
The next minute they get blown off and cost you a tilt at the First Division title and lose your greatest goal scorer.
Credit: Finbar Saunders
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 26, 2017 0:28:57 GMT
I'm not convinced that's a roof at the back of the Stoke End in your picture. It's something for sure but a roof, situated so far back from the pitch it's practically in the street, I don't think so.
Mate look at the link for Burnside's map, it confirms it.
It confirms some structure for sure but I'm not convinced it's a roof over the Stoke End, perhaps some covering of an area behind the Stoke End, some market stalls or something? I may be wrong but surely no one would go stand under a roof that far from the action however hard the rain was falling? |
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Feb 26, 2017 0:31:16 GMT
Paul I wonder how accurate that map really is in showing the full detail of the stadium. It shows the pitch as round at both ends as if there was a running track or some other round feature but in both your picture and burnside's picture there are no round features at the pitch ends.
I think it highly unlikely they would have gone from no roof on Boothen (as suggested by the map) to 2 different roofs in a relatively short period of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 26, 2017 0:31:51 GMT
Mate look at the link for Burnside's map, it confirms it.
It confirms some structure for sure but I'm not convinced it's a roof over the Stoke End, perhaps some covering of an area behind the Stoke End, some market stalls or something? I may be wrong but surely no one would go stand under a roof that far from the action however hard the rain was falling? I'm just guessing here but what it looks like to me is almost an entrance to the end. So like it funnels there and you pay and then out on to the end? But that is just a pure guess from looking at the picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:35:04 GMT
It confirms some structure for sure but I'm not convinced it's a roof over the Stoke End, perhaps some covering of an area behind the Stoke End, some market stalls or something? I may be wrong but surely no one would go stand under a roof that far from the action however hard the rain was falling? I'm just guessing here but what it looks like to me is almost an entrance to the end. So like it funnels there and you pay and then out on to the end? But that is just a pure guess from looking at the picture.
That's what I thought until you compare the two pictures side by side.
Burnside's picture of the end is exactly the same as mine but with the roof removed, if you look carefully on my picture you can see two stantions on the right hand side supporting the roof.
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Feb 26, 2017 0:36:35 GMT
Is that what looks like the shape of an aeroplane hangar at the back? I'm struggling to see a roof else!
I hadn't noticed it at all until Burnside spotted it and on his first link for the map from 1922, the roof actually appears to cover more of the Stoke End than in the photograph from 1935.
I'm pretty sure that the Boothen End was terraced and covered in 1930. Prior to that there were only two stands Butler St and Boothen Paddock. That other building is when it was an oval and not part of a stand it is something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 26, 2017 0:36:39 GMT
It confirms some structure for sure but I'm not convinced it's a roof over the Stoke End, perhaps some covering of an area behind the Stoke End, some market stalls or something? I may be wrong but surely no one would go stand under a roof that far from the action however hard the rain was falling? I'm just guessing here but what it looks like to me is almost an entrance to the end. So like it funnels there and you pay and then out on to the end? But that is just a pure guess from looking at the picture. That's a fair bet. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:38:14 GMT
Paul I wonder how accurate that map really is in showing the full detail of the stadium. It shows the pitch as round at both ends as if there was a running track or some other round feature but in both your picture and burnside's picture there are no round features at the pitch ends. I think it highly unlikely they would have gone from no roof on Boothen (as suggested by the map) to 2 different roofs in a relatively short period of time.
Yes that's a fair point. I don't think the roof on the Stoke End is likely to be as large as the map is suggesting but I'd be very surprised if they just omitted the roof over the Boothen completely, when you can see that they've got all the other roofs (or at least an approximation of them) on there.
But I agree, it does seem very strange that they would have had two different roofs in a relatively short period of time, maybe the first one simply blew down! 
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 26, 2017 0:40:05 GMT
I'm just guessing here but what it looks like to me is almost an entrance to the end. So like it funnels there and you pay and then out on to the end? But that is just a pure guess from looking at the picture.
That's what I thought until you compare the two picture side by side.
Burnside's picture of the end is exactly the same as mine but with the roof removed, if you look carefully on my picture you can see two stations on the right hand side supporting the roof.
Oh there's definitely a roof there on yours.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jimmyg on Feb 26, 2017 0:47:25 GMT
How did they get on to the Stoke End? Can't see any steps, etc. To be honest March the access wasn't much better in the 1970s I remember the mauling various away fans gave out and got coming down that bank. As a nipper obviously Remember my dad taking me in the stoke end late 70s couldn't believe we had to climb up there to watch a game of football. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 0:53:43 GMT
That's what I thought until you compare the two picture side by side.
Burnside's picture of the end is exactly the same as mine but with the roof removed, if you look carefully on my picture you can see two stations on the right hand side supporting the roof.
Oh there's definitely a roof there on yours....
Yep and the picture taken later the same year, with the roof removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Feb 26, 2017 1:00:00 GMT
Oh there's definitely a roof there on yours....
Yep and the picture taken later the same year, with the roof removed.
That makes sense. The Boothen was terraced in 1930. Then the Boothen End got a roof circa 32-33 and the Stoke End was terraced about the same time. They removed whatever that building was to square it off and put the terrace in. Hence it is in the non terraced image yet not thereafter. Both the photos show a spanking new roof on the Boothen by 1935 |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 26, 2017 1:00:22 GMT
Oh there's definitely a roof there on yours....
Yep and the picture taken later the same year, with the roof removed.
I think the key here is how burnside says it looks new. The terracing does look new and bigger like its just been laid. And also the bank to me behind on the second photo looks like it's heavily disturbed like its heavy machinery on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 1:02:16 GMT
Yep and the picture taken later the same year, with the roof removed.
That makes sense. The Boothen was terraced in 1930. Then the Boothen End got a roof circa 32-33 and the Stoke End was terraced about the same time. They removed whatever that building was to square it off and put the terrace in. Hence it is in the non terraced image yet not thereafter. Both the photos show a spanking new roof on the Boothen by 1935 It is strange though that they would a put a roof on the Boothen for the first time circa 32-33 but then replace it just two or three years later.
Although that is what the evidence seems to be suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Feb 26, 2017 1:02:53 GMT
The so called roof on the Stoke end,could have been some sort of storage area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 1:05:07 GMT
Yep and the picture taken later the same year, with the roof removed.
I think the key here is how burnside says it looks new. The terracing does look new and bigger like its just been laid. And also the bank to me behind on the second photo looks like it's heavily disturbed like its heavy machinery on it.
Yes I think you're right about the 'new' bit, it certainly looks different from the first picture but is there actually 'terracing' on the later picture or is it just a bank of concrete?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2017 1:08:44 GMT
The so called roof on the Stoke end,could have been some sort of storage area.
It looks open sided to me, indeed it looks just like the second picture but with a roof over that part of the of the end.
There's nothing in the second picture to suggest the area had ever been anything but a part of the end.
|
|
