[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[stuwilky]

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

Many grounds simplyhave seats bolted onto the terraces, Craven Cottage is the example that springs to mind.

[den]

OK then, we'll let it fall down.

[stuwilky]

OK then, we'll let it fall down.

Im not aware that we are in a matter of extremes den? The stand isnt even 20 years old, still functions as it was designed to fucntion and is popular with supporters. Why should the club spend upwards of £10m we simply havnt got on rebuilding it when it isnt necessary?

[den]

Im not aware that we are in a matter of extremes den? The stand isnt even 20 years old, still functions as it was designed to fucntion and is popular with supporters. Why should the club spend upwards of £10m we simply havnt got on rebuilding it when it isnt necessary?

The stand is poor Stu. The "facilities" are virtually non existent. Who knows how much it will cost? Sponsorship is always a possibility.

Of course it's not an urgent project. However, all the people who say it shouldn't be replaced yet don't say when it should be replaced. BlueBruce says it should be replaced only when it shows signs of becoming unsafe.

Well come on guys, when would you all replace it? Never? or maybe in another five years time when we might not be in the receipt of the income we are now? Would that be a better time?

[stuwilky]

The stand is poor Stu. The "facilities" are virtually non existent. Who knows how much it will cost? Sponsorship is always a possibility.

Of course it's not an urgent project. However, all the people who say it shouldn't be replaced yet don't say when it should be replaced. BlueBruce says it should be replaced only when it shows signs of becoming unsafe.

Well come on guys, when would you all replace it? Never? or maybe in another five years time when we might not be in the receipt of the income we are now? Would that be a better time?

Replacing the Riverside certainly wouldnt be on my agenda in the "foreseeable" future given current trading conditions. The club loses £5m in a good season, £15m in a not so good season. Our net transfer spend is small as it is, with a bit of flexibilitty, but certainly one of the smallest around.

Spending millions of pounds we havnt got on something which will have no return, other than in perception, seems at this stage to be a daft proposition - Id much prefer we invested the £xm it would cost in the playing team to push forwards, and tempt MH into staying for longer than he might otherwise do.

I cant really see much of an incentive to redevelop the riverside, and would certainly be tempted to wait until the drive to return standing areas to the top flight truly fails, as we have an ideal opportunity there to investigate alternative options.

[den]

Replacing the Riverside certainly wouldnt be on my agenda in the "foreseeable" future given current trading conditions. The club loses £5m in a good season, £15m in a not so good season. Our net transfer spend is small as it is, with a bit of flexibilitty, but certainly one of the smallest around.

We're in the 30 richest clubs in Europe/the world list aren't we?

If there was ever a right time to redevelop financially, now is it.

[joey_big_nose]

We're in the 30 richest clubs in Europe/the world list aren't we?

If there was ever a right time to redevelop financially, now is it.

I just don't see what the point is.

We desperately need money for transfers and wages. As it is at least eight clubs are going to be able to massively outspend us next season, and around six or seven will be able to spend as much as Rovers. We can't afford to upgrade a stand that is not going to produce any more revenue for us in the long run, even if it only took 30% of our budget.

[thenodrog]

A re-developed Riverside would simply be a large and often embarrassing white elephant.

[Scotty]

I know this messageboard gets bizarre from time to time but this thread is unbelievable. Normally sane(ish) people are just talking utter bollards.

On top of which I would expect the reason for the reduced ST price there is the fact that we're reducing prices across most of the ground, and the Riverside has the crappest seats in the place, offering a view obscured by iron girders.

I sit in the Riverside, level with the halfway line about halfway up the stand, and I wouldn't swap my seat for any other in the ground. I have a fantastic view of the action from a side-on perspective for an incredibly low price. Yes, I have a post (singular) that obscures my view of the edge of the Darwen End penalty box, but all I have to do is lean 6 inches one way or the other to see round it. It's not difficult and I hardly notice it's there.

The general facilities may not be as good as the rest of the ground but the only one I use (other than my seat) is the toilet and that works fine for me. If I wanted better facilities I'd move to another stand - I don't - so I stay put.

The atmosphere in the stand can be quite good at times (it's noticeably improved over the last couple of years), there's no sodding drummer, and I don't get groups of pi55ed up chavs standing up in front of me throughout the match. I like it there.

Anyway most of the Riversiders should really be re-located to those acres of empty seats on the JW lower and outers. No overall difference in revenue for the Rovers but better facilities and views to be enjoyed by those who are probably the most loyal and long standing fans.

Why on earth should we be re-located? We choose to sit where we do. As I said earlier, if I wanted better facilities I'd move. Presumably everyone else in the Riverside feels the same otherwise they'd move.

Hardly insurmountable probs nowadays I would imagine Paul. In this day and age marketing the club worldwide is most important. Compare the situation where the ground is regularly portrayed to the entire world as a 'scrattin shed with the fans being shown trudging off in droves every week as opposed to a spectacular well-finished modern stadium that it is to all intents and purposes apparently full every week. Any billionaire Yank willing to chuck good money after bad is hardly going to be impressed is he?

Furthermore it doesn't really make sense imo to have rows of empty seats in the JW whilst the thousands of 2nd class citizens with increasing inferiority complexes cultivated over many years on the Riverside have to gawp across whilst simultaineously tugging their forelocks and wringing their caps at the hoi polloi. I'm sure that you realise the importance and value of presentation and perception for any marketable product.

If you honestly believe a billionaire Yank will base his decision on whether to invest in the club or not on the look of the Riverside stand then you're just barmy. And ffs, it doesn't look that bad.

Oh, and you may be a "2nd class citizen with an increasing inferiority complex cultivated over many years on the Riverside" (it would explain a lot), but I'm certainly not. I'm happy to be sat where I am and, as I've said earlier, wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

Get the bloody thing flattened once and for all and build something modern with good facilities for the loyal fans who sit there.Wigans 6,000 seater east stand would look great at Ewood and would only cost about 2.5 million.......a Kuqi or so.

Another example of what is possible at minimum cost(just replace those horrible claret seats of course!)

Why the hell anyone would not be in favour of finishing Ewood off is beyond me.

To flatten the current Riverside stand and build a new one just so that it looks nice would be a monumental act of folly. We don't need any additional seats, we can't afford the cost of a new stand, and the current one doesn't look that bad anyway. Of course, it would look jolly pretty if all 4 stands were nice and symmetrical but this is the real world and there isn't a single practical reason for doing it.

There will always be the argument that the money will be better spent on players, but the riverside will have to be rebuilt sometime. Might as well be now. Having said that, if the club is available for sale, then it wont get done until that happens. Maybe the club can insert a "new stand" clause in the sale contract.

All of the stands will have to be rebuilt some time - should we knock them all down and start again? Or maybe it would be more sensible to wait until there is a reason for knocking them down.

The stand is poor Stu. The "facilities" are virtually non existent. Who knows how much it will cost? Sponsorship is always a possibility.

Of course it's not an urgent project. However, all the people who say it shouldn't be replaced yet don't say when it should be replaced. BlueBruce says it should be replaced only when it shows signs of becoming unsafe.

Well come on guys, when would you all replace it? Never? or maybe in another five years time when we might not be in the receipt of the income we are now? Would that be a better time?

As I said earlier, I'd replace it when it needs to be replaced. That might be because our crowds increase to a size where the ground isn't big enough, or the Riverside is structually unsafe, or simply that enough revenue could be made to make redevelopment a cost-effective exercise. However, none of those things are true at the moment (as far as we all know) so there's just no point.

[Paul]

Have to agree with Scotty on all of this one. The only justification for re-building the Riverside is to make the ground look finished. This would be wonderful but it will have zero impact on anything else related to the club. Presuming the costs wpuld be in the region of £10-12m ask yourself which has the greater impact, a new stand or a couple of top class signings? Self-evident in my view.

[Blueboy Downunder]

it is the fans whom are going to make the decision for the board, on wether or not to re develop the riverside....by coming down to ewood and packing out the stadium, thus having to turn fans away, at every home game. until then, or in other words, when pigs fly is when the club will feel obliged to build a new stand on that side. until the fans pack ewood out on a regular basis, the club have no obligation at all to do that.

i also agree with paul aswell, in that i would much rather see two top class players bought, than a re-built riverside stand.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

These figures of 10-12 million for a stand(regardless of supposed geological problems) are well over the top IMO.If the supposed figure of between 15-20 million for a Hughes spending spree are correct then some of that should be invested in the Riverside.....once again like Den says,we have an opportunity to strengthen on both fronts without it being a 'monumental act of folly'?

A new modern stand does not have to mean a massive increase in seating and Scotty,believe me, to anyone who sits outside the 'shed' it really does let Ewood down badly.

Quote from a Spurs fan :

Once inside the ground I was overall impressed with Ewood Park, the only gripe I had was the Riverside Stand, it looked like Graeme Souness had stolen the away end from Filbert Street and stuck it in Blackburn

[den]

Have to agree with Scotty on all of this one. The only justification for re-building the Riverside is to make the ground look finished. This would be wonderful but it will have zero impact on anything else related to the club. Presuming the costs wpuld be in the region of £10-12m ask yourself which has the greater impact, a new stand or a couple of top class signings? Self-evident in my view.

No, there is another justification - the non existent facilities. Although rovers have dropped ST prices, tickets are still expensive and the fans deserve facilities that match their rivals.

It's also a big presumption that it would cost £10 - 12m. How can anyone know this? Sponsorship "might" be another way.

If it was to cost a lot of dosh, would it be better to replace it when we've slipped into the lower divisions? - of course not.

[ihateburnley]

However that isn't the end of it. The main problem is that ideally for Sky purposes all the cameras and media facilities need to be in the stand containing the two dressing rooms and by the dug outs etc.

Hold on what's to stop the cameras being in the Riverside stand, but the commentators and everything else involved with the media remaining in the JW Stand? I'm sure there is no reason why the media have to be in the same stand as the cameras.

A new supporter watching football could well be under the impression that most Championship clubs are bigger than us with better stadia, and we all know that that isn't the truth.

[FourLaneBlue]

Whatever happened to all those plans for a hotel/cinema whatever we all heard about in the past? Remember those when the sky seemed to be the limit? Isn't the council still desperate for a hotel in its borough or is that thinking long gone?

There must be something that the club could organise with the help of our "award-winning council" to receive some regeneration money for doing it up surely?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Yes there is that possibility too FLB on top of sponsorship etc, etc.A new stand is totally within the clubs means but matters seem to have come to grinding halt.

[mike at picture]

I havn't been in the Riverside for 7 years and remember being miffed that I couldn't get a half time pint. Maybe facilities need upgrading but we have an excellent stadium that is perfect for us aside from being slightly on the large side capacity wise. We can think about a new stand when we are regularly locking supporters out of Ewood.

[stuwilky]

We're in the 30 richest clubs in Europe/the world list aren't we?

If there was ever a right time to redevelop financially, now is it.

WE may have one of the 30th largest turnovers in Europe - the figure those silly rich lists are based, it doesnt stop us having bank borrowing running into 7 figures, and losing money every financial year.

I cant believe people want to spend multiple millions of pounds on something which doesnt need doing in the true sense of the word - yes it would be nice to develop it, but why bother? Investment in the playing squad is far more important than a ground which looks nice.

[FourLaneBlue]

I havn't been in the Riverside for 7 years and remember being miffed that I couldn't get a half time pint. Maybe facilities need upgrading but we have an excellent stadium that is perfect for us aside from being slightly on the large side capacity wise. We can think about a new stand when we are regularly locking supporters out of Ewood.

That's just an excuse for never doing it.

I'd be interested to see just how much we could get towards the cost of it from other sources. I wonder if the club know this and have been seriously considering it for the last five or so years or whether they have been sticking to the formula of not considering it until we are regularly full (e.g. average attendance of 30,000)...something which has never happened since 1960.

Surely the size and the possible availability of grants available for regeneration come and go? Maybe something to ask at the next fan's meeting. Have the club put it on the back-burner or, should circumstances change (not just crowd size but also external factors), would they consider a new stand? What kind of plans would they have? It'd be interesting as this very same argument comes up once every year at least.

[Hughesy]

For the riverside if we was to redevelop it then they could make it so there isnt too many more seats, just add more corporate areas or a hotel, and maybe even a standing area if we could get permission?

They could also add inside a better concourse with seating and different eating outlets, like they had at leeds.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Stuwilky, if it can be built with funding and sponsorship at minimal cost to the club and Hughes still has a very good wedge of coin to strengthen the squad why the hell would any Rovers supporter protest against it?

It baffles me.

[den]

WE may have one of the 30th largest turnovers in Europe - the figure those silly rich lists are based, it doesnt stop us having bank borrowing running into 7 figures, and losing money every financial year.

I cant believe people want to spend multiple millions of pounds on something which doesnt need doing in the true sense of the word - yes it would be nice to develop it, but why bother? Investment in the playing squad is far more important than a ground which looks nice.

The rich list quote was a bit mischevious.

The point still stands though, we'll never be financially as well off as we are right now. I ask once more - when would you rebuild it?

No-one's really answered that one. [except for the "just before it falls down") comments. Oh, and the "when we can attract 30000 regular fans".

[RevidgeBlue]

Whatever happened to all those plans for a hotel/cinema whatever we all heard about in the past? Remember those when the sky seemed to be the limit? Isn't the council still desperate for a hotel in its borough or is that thinking long gone?

We've long since missed the boat in that respect. Since Jack drew up the original plans for the monster which incorporated a hotel, hotel rooms have been built at the Fernhurst, and a Travelodge and a Travel Inn near junction 4. Indicating that the demand was there originally.

Over the last year or two Nick Hall who used to be at the club was investigating the possibility of a joint venture incorporating office space etc but everything seems to have gone quiet on the new stand front so presumably nothing came of it.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The club still has the model in the boardroom of that proposed stand Rev......a 15,000 seater!!!!

Fast forward to 2015 and its just like a scene from Zulu again .......

[Exiled in Toronto]

I haven't sat in the Riverside since the Derby play-off, but it seems that it is virtually identical now to as it was then.

The argument that it shouldn't be redeveloped until we are at capacity I think over-simplifies the issue. I'm sure there are many fans, or potential fans, who have been conditioned by Sky to view the game from the half-way line perspective or thereabouts. At ewood, the choices for such fans are at either end of the spectrum: either pay top dollar for the middle of the JW or sit in a 3rd division facility and get wet or have an obstructed view, with no decent food and drink facilities.

Perhaps there is untapped demand for a good, middle of the pitch seat, in a good enviroment, at a reasonable price.

Multiplex cinemas were built when the existing Essoldo's and Odeon's had acres of empty seats. The issue wasn't capacity but facility. By giving people a much improved viewing experience in smart facilities, attendances boomed.

And I agree with the point about sponsorship (it faces the TV cameras after all) or a JV. But then I am not sure BRFC has ever got out of the Ken Beamish era when it comes to such commercial thinking, e.g. the club 'shop', so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.