[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[bluebruce]

What a strange position to take up.

You would be happy to see the stand around until it fell down? If not, then when would you say the time to rebuild it was?

Not when it fell down. Presumably we would realise it was in danger of falling down considerably before it fell down. Especially as that might entail deaths. No, I'm suggesting that, unless we get to a position whereby we have more money than we want to spend on footballers, or we are filling the ground, we leave it as long as we can. This is going off the kind of money I assume it would cost to build a new stand there. I don't see why we should build another stand of the same size, since it isn't beyond possibility that one day we could be attracting 30k regularly, and then we would want another big stand. Conversely, building a big stand there now would be a substantial waste of resources. So until the situation changes in one of those regards, leave it be.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Why do we have to be filling the ground to improve the poor Riverside,where the hell has this misconception come from?

A possible new stand does not have to be any bigger and btw....the club has only ever averaged over 30,000 in a season once in its entire history.

Sponsorship is another way of helping fund a new stand on top of the extra millions we are about to receive from sky,too many people seem to be stuck in a 'make do' frame of mind here.

[thenodrog]

Anyone considered studying trends in this matter?

Average Ewood attendances

2002/3... 26,226

2003/4... 24,376

2004/5... 22,315

2005/6... 21,015

2006/7... ?

Basically we have lost about the capacity of the Riverside in just 4/5 years. Anybody care to speculate when the graph will level out? Until it does at least that why consider spending money on the Riverside when there are plenty of superior empty seats across the pitch.

[philipl]

It is up by 68 following the Charlton match.

So long as the Reading attendance is above 19,800 the Rovers will have avoided a 4th fall in attendances.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Anyone considered studying trends in this matter?

Average Ewood attendances

2002/3... 26,226

2003/4... 24,376

2004/5... 22,315

2005/6... 21,015

2006/7... ?

Basically we have lost about the capacity of the Riverside in just 4/5 years. Anybody care to speculate when the graph will level out? Until it does at least that why consider spending money on the Riverside when there are plenty of superior empty seats across the pitch.

2006/7 looks a good bet followed by a marked improvement in gates next season also?....get it built while we have the coin and complete a wish of Jack Walker and most Rovers fans.

When you consider the near 20 MILLION we have wasted on dollopers like Grabbi,Davies and Ferguson but yet fans who pay good money to support the club are seated in a stand that would look about right in any Div 2 ground......WTF!

[cravenblue]

why dont we just knock th e whole ground down and start again!!!

[bluebruce]

Why do we have to be filling the ground to improve the poor Riverside,where the hell has this misconception come from?

A possible new stand does not have to be any bigger and btw....the club has only ever averaged over 30,000 in a season once in its entire history.

Sponsorship is another way of helping fund a new stand on top of the extra millions we are about to receive from sky,too many people seem to be stuck in a 'make do' frame of mind here.

It's not a misconception, nobody is saying that has to happen. Just that it should. The reasons are quite simple- we don't NEED that stand or any new stand. Replacing it would cost money. Quite a bit of money. That could buy us a player, or two, or three, depending on what calibre we're talking about (not that cash translates directly to quality). So, do we want a) some new players to take us onto the next level, or would we prefer to spend some cash and achieve nothing in footballing terms? I'm quite sure the board, as BUSINESSMEN, will be going with A.

[den]

It's not a misconception, nobody is saying that has to happen. Just that it should. The reasons are quite simple- we don't NEED that stand or any new stand. Replacing it would cost money. Quite a bit of money. That could buy us a player, or two, or three, depending on what calibre we're talking about (not that cash translates directly to quality). So, do we want a) some new players to take us onto the next level, or would we prefer to spend some cash and achieve nothing in footballing terms? I'm quite sure the board, as BUSINESSMEN, will be going with A.

Silly argument. Neglecting the ground.

[bluebruce]

2006/7 looks a good bet followed by a marked improvement in gates next season also?....get it built while we have the coin and complete a wish of Jack Walker and most Rovers fans.

When you consider the near 20 MILLION we have wasted on dollopers like Grabbi,Davies and Ferguson but yet fans who pay good money to support the club are seated in a stand that would look about right in any Div 2 ground......WTF!

A wish of Jack Walker's? To some degree yes, but in a substantial sense? I dunno about that. Jack had a very large fortune. Yet he never did anything to the Riverside. In fact, I distinctly remember Jack promising to rebuild the stand if we qualified for the UEFA Cup one season. We qualified. He didn't rebuild it.

When you consider the near 20 million we have wasted on those players...you realise firstly that some of that money was recouped, making it a bit less than 15 million, but also, you notice it is indeed gone. It doesn't matter how we spent in the past. By that logic we ought to never buy players again. What we have right now is a manager who from all available evidence, knows how to spend money on players wisely.

While we have the coin, I would prefer we buy some top players to potentially push for the Champions League, which is worth rather a lot of money. If we make that, THEN I would wholeheartedly want the stand redeveloping.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

It would cost money! nay lad get away with thee

It's needed because(once again) the facilities are p1ss poor compared to other parts of the ground and it lets Ewood down badly.It can be rebuilt at sensible cost with also the possibility of sponsorship....it just needs a bit or foresight which seems to be thin on the ground at present(ticket prices excluded of course).

[bluebruce]

Silly argument. Neglecting the ground.

Sorry Den, but I think it's sillier to neglect the team. History books will tell you plenty about our excellent three-FA Cup winning team and, crucially, the three FA Cups they won. They don't say so much about the stadium, and what they say doesn't matter to anyone really. I would love to see the Riverside look the same as the Jack Walker stand, yes. As I say, I sat there for years, and its the poorest stand obviously. It's not that I 'neglect' the ground or something. If we want to talk about pride, two points.

1) We're more likely to look silly with a half full 40 thousand seater, for those who are proposing we redevelop it to that level

2) We're more likely to achieve a good reputation for success through the league. And I would be much prouder of that than having a redeveloped stand.

[thenodrog]

Correct. Now lets get the bloody camera on the Roof of the Riverside, the Riversiders into the JW lower and outer and be done with it.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Bluebruce,we have a chance to improve BOTH the ground and the squad.....improvement on all fronts.

[bluebruce]

It would cost money! nay lad get away with thee

It's needed because(once again) the facilities are p1ss poor compared to other parts of the ground and it lets Ewood down badly.It can be rebuilt at sensible cost with also the possibility of sponsorship....it just needs a bit or foresight which seems to be thin on the ground at present(ticket prices excluded of course).

Well, I agree the facilities are poor, and have no problem with investing in improving them. That's a relatively small cost. And having a sponsor partially pay for it in exchange for naming rights on the stand works for me too. But it would depend on how much of it they covered, and how much it cost anyway...I think the truth is none of us truly has the foggiest how much it might cost, and personally I'd need to see some figures in order to be convinced- as would the board, in whose hands the club's future rests.

[philipl]

This argument that Rovers have the cash to rebuild the Riverside is complete and utter tripe- even with the new TV deal.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Why is that so philipl?..........................................................................

Nobody seems to know the real truth but at a guess would I be correct in saying the club has never been more financially heathy since Jack was personally involved?

[stuwilky]

Correct. Now lets get the bloody camera on the Roof of the Riverside, the Riversiders into the JW lower and outer and be done with it.

Someone has already pointed out the sun, hence why cameras are mounted on the opposite side at such grounds as White Hart Lane. The camera's wouldnt be able to deal with sun coming straight into them

Bluebruce,we have a chance to improve BOTH the ground and the squad.....improvement on all fronts.

You moan when we dont but new players but you want us to spend a significant amount of money - much more than £2.5m - remember the River Darwen? - on a stand which isnt needed?

Why is that so philipl?

Because we dont operate in a vacuum, ALL of the new TV money will be taken up by higher salaries/signing on fees/agents costs/transfer fees - the same as at every other club. Having higher income doesnt make you better off if your outgoings go up by just as much (or probably more)

[philipl]

I understand that the geology and the river combine to make any construction over there an expensive proposition- even a very basic version looking something like the other three stands would be well over £10m. The old Riverside had to come down because the foundations had gone if I remember correctly.

In terms of priorities, the club would only look at the rebuilding if there were several games a season when demand for tickets exceed capacity. As it is, the playing squad comes first. If the right player(s) become available this summer, I think you will find the Board will be backing Mark Hughes.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The river Darwen would not be problem,how much space do we have at the front of the now Riverside....just move it forward towards the pitch.

[thenodrog]

Someone has already pointed out the sun, hence why cameras are mounted on the opposite side at such grounds as White Hart Lane. The camera's wouldnt be able to deal with sun coming straight into them

I know but when I watched MOTD I noticed that the camera's at Villa park face into the sun with no apparent problems. I readily admit that I'm not expert in such things but I would assume that if they were situated high enough it wouldn't matter so much.

[stuwilky]

The river Darwen would not be problem,how much space do we have at the front of the now Riverside....just move it forward towards the pitch.

I take it you arent a structural engineer? AS I recall the River posed problems with the current Riverside stand, never mind a larger heavier structure - cos of course we would have to do it properly - like the existing stands. Rebuilding it in the same place (or slgihtly forward for the extra 2 rows difference that would make) wouldnt help. To put any kind of concourse facilities the stand would have to go back further - to the River.

[bluebruce]

Bluebruce,we have a chance to improve BOTH the ground and the squad.....improvement on all fronts.

But do we? An estimation would suggest we will have about 15-20 million to spend in the summer. I imagine that Hughes is going to want the chance to finally spend a bit more money. One would think he will look for a top class striker and central midfielder at the least, probably costing about 12 million, perhaps more if the market inflates by say 30%. All of our rivals are going to invest in the best players they can find with their new cash. So, I'm not sure we do. If Hughes only fancies spending say, 10 million total, and the ground improvement might still be affordable then perhaps we can consider it. I find it next to certain though that the board will not be improving the ground next year. We need long term stability too- if possible we shouldn't spend all our money whilst we have it, as one day the TV money bubble is probably going to burst. It would be fantastic if when it does, we are one of the clubs that still has a fair bit of money to spend. So practically pointless ground rebuilding doesn't seem wise to me. Clubs only usually rebuild their stadiums when it will, over time, finance itself. There's reasons for that.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

One interesting question here about the Riverside, did they totally remove the old terracing or did they build the existing stand on top?

[thenodrog]

They must have removed it cos seats wont fit on terraces designed for standing.

btw Rumour has it that JW had offered the club any steel required for free and when he came over from Jersey and saw for the first time the poverty of imagination and ambition employed in the new stand he went ape.

[Shabani]

if rovers redeveloped the Riversdie to include more seats we would become the laughing stock of the league