The Crystal Palace model

Interesting post from JonB for the obvious reasons of adding to the discussion in addition to firmly placing him within the pro camp for Saturday's PASB meeting.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Given the reluctance of James Brent and Akkeron to consult or expand on the feasibility of the future plans I remain highly sceptical of the future cost-effectiveness and ability to further develop the stadium. Given the park land, covenants in place and of course the grandstand being hemmed in by an ice rink and a cinema I am in the camp currently that believes we'll be stuck with a sub 20k stadium in Home Park forever and that the only alternative is an out of town stadium which I would fight tooth and nail over.

I would be placated with two things:

1. Is it not possible for PCC, as part of the planning process, to give planning permission in outline for Akkeron's preferred method of expansion? Often you will see a property being sold with planning permission for development. Is that not possible here?

2. I would like to see a fully costed design for expansion produced by Akkeron and crucially signed off by qualified stadium structural engineers that would comply with the planning requirements of PCC and all stadium legislation as it currently stands.

Edited to Add: The only Palace have got to the Premiership is because they've had a well run youth team model for a number of years now. We could do well to learn from that rather than have our Milk Cup team begging the 50/50 draw for money.

Charlton & Palace are not far from me and I have felt that both clubs have been on the up in recent times.....and both could show us a thing or two about the way ahead.

This reported Palace "model" does seem to have a sensible approach to the way to go.........what is the good of a "white Elephant" larger development if no success comes in the near future.....maybe slowly slowly catches the monkey.

We've been trying 'slowly, slowly' for a hundred years Zyph and look where stapes following the Charlton organic model got us. Palace have squeezed into the Prem through a fine youth system and inspirational management. We have neither.

If Brent really is a fan he wouldn't hem the club in and undoubtedly 'could' persuade the council to release Cottage Field now. The WG plans looked superb and make the sort of statement that the potential fanbase would buy into, as at Hull, Swansea, Brighton, Reading etc.
Without that statement of intent and the existing and growing debts acting as a ball and chain, the club will languish in the lower leagues for a long time. The self promoting few will feel self important , rattle buckets and climb mountains but they will be preaching to the already addicted.

It wouldn't take that much of Brent's personal profits from the whole enterprise and would be a ground to be proud of, not squeezed down a draughty alleyway and boxed in by an ice rink, cinema, hotel and school etc.

Why create restrictions and difficulties for the future when it is possible to get it right first time ?

ZYPH wrote:

Charlton & Palace are not far from me and I have felt that both clubs have been on the up in recent times.....and both could show us a thing or two about the way ahead.

This reported Palace "model" does seem to have a sensible approach to the way to go.........what is the good of a "white Elephant" larger development if no success comes in the near future.....maybe slowly slowly catches the monkey.

I assume by "white Elephant" larger development you're referring to the mere 20k capacity stadium most normal fans are asking for? In which case how the hell can a 20k capacity Home Park be a "white elephant"? Argyle would nearly fill that with a L1 or even L2 promotion run! Where were you last time we were in that position? 20K stadium a "white elephant?" FFS!

To have success on the field and rise up the leagues would be a start.....at present 6000 rattle around Home Park.......then a ground that is too small is a nice problem to have... and ways would be found to change that then....nothing is unsolvable

The ice rink cometh!

ZYPH wrote:

To have success on the field and rise up the leagues would be a start.....at present 6000 rattle around Home Park.......then a ground that is too small is a nice problem to have... and ways would be found to change that then....nothing is unsolvable

Let's agree to differ on the proposed capacity.

What do you think about the apparent disappearance of some of the footprint of the grandstand into the Akkeron development? This is space owned by the PCC & leased by the club.

knecht wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

To have success on the field and rise up the leagues would be a start.....at present 6000 rattle around Home Park.......then a ground that is too small is a nice problem to have... and ways would be found to change that then....nothing is unsolvable

Let's agree to differ on the proposed capacity.

What do you think about the apparent disappearance of some of the footprint of the grandstand into the Akkeron development? This is space owned by the PCC & leased by the club.

I do not know enough about it to have a view......except maybe swings & roundabouts ?

ZYPH wrote:

knecht wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

To have success on the field and rise up the leagues would be a start.....at present 6000 rattle around Home Park.......then a ground that is too small is a nice problem to have... and ways would be found to change that then....nothing is unsolvable

Let's agree to differ on the proposed capacity.

What do you think about the apparent disappearance of some of the footprint of the grandstand into the Akkeron development? This is space owned by the PCC & leased by the club.

I do not know enough about it to have a view......except maybe swings & roundabouts ?

Can you explain the "swings and roundabouts" regarding the Grandstand?

ZYPH wrote:

knecht wrote:

ZYPH wrote:

To have success on the field and rise up the leagues would be a start.....at present 6000 rattle around Home Park.......then a ground that is too small is a nice problem to have... and ways would be found to change that then....nothing is unsolvable

Let's agree to differ on the proposed capacity.

What do you think about the apparent disappearance of some of the footprint of the grandstand into the Akkeron development? This is space owned by the PCC & leased by the club.

I do not know enough about it to have a view......except maybe swings & roundabouts ?

In that case, in my opinion, you are missing the most unacceptable part of the proposals. When I get opportunity, I will re-post the information about this - unless someone else beats me to it (please ).

Further, if you are not aware enough of the issues around the 'footprint problem', maybe you don't know enough about the 'expansion problem' to fully understand them either. It has been stated by Akkeron, no less, that any expansion on their plans would amount to approximately 2,000 to 2,500 extra seats added to the horseshoe. These may have restricted views. The ability to add them on would be restricted by the ring road that is proposed. Anything else would cost silly money. All these people getting hung up with size - they must have displacement anxieties. Size isn't everything, you know.

Palace have ambition aswell as fans that wouldnt stand for an owner handicapping the club to line his own pockets..

so jonb's model idea falls flat on its arse before we go any futher as that goes against his vision for fat cats to be paid and the football club to suffer as a result.

Don't you believe it.

The Palace fans displays and the Forza Merde displays are very similar though. Breathtaking.

ZYPH wrote:

To have success on the field and rise up the leagues would be a start.....at present 6000 rattle around Home Park.......then a ground that is too small is a nice problem to have... and ways would be found to change that then....nothing is unsolvable

the ground cnat be upgraded once the new stand goes up do you not read what the club tells you? the new stand wont be able to be upgraded (and that is 99.9% of the issue as to why so many are against it) becuase of the nandos and other shops in its way the lyndhurst and barn park may be able to have a few extra seats but thats it no futher upgrades becasue of a road that will be put there. As for the Devonport End that could be extended but it would be very costly and hardly worth it and there isnt that much space behind it either.

So overall if the club ever does attract ambitious fans or an owner that likes football in order to achieve the impossible dream of championship even premiership football the club will have to move to a new area of plymouth and build a new stadium as little under 20000 max acpacity is going to be too small.

Knecht & GOB.......I have stated that I'm neither for or against the development and that is my opinion, no one at this stage will change my mind.

If you believe that there is a case against the present development,in the form that it has been submitted....then fair enough, try your hardest to get it changed... but because of the plans, not just because it's James Brent that is doing it.

Graham Clark's response to the latest jamboy's Palace reference:

Graham Clark
Post subject: Re: The Crystal Palace approach to stadium developmentPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 7:53 am

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:51 am
All very interesting Jon, except you failed to mention that the essential underpinning of the rebirth of the club from administration was the acquisition of the freehold of Selhurst Park as part of CPFC2010. Also the last time they were in the Premiership for a single season their relegation eventually ended with them being put in administration even though they hand a very supportive 'sugar daddy' in Simon Jordan.

The Sainsbury's supermarket was built in the Whitehorse Lane end of the ground in the early 1980s. It is a first generation store in size and is constrained. Even so, they opened a petrol station on the site in February this year which is not indicative of any early move. Palace's ground has suffered from years of under investment and the the main grandstand and Arthur Wait stand are in desperate need of replacing. Any phased replacement will of course reduce capacity at a time when attendances and demand will at its highest. No wonder they flirted with the idea of relocating to the National Recreation Centre.

As you have indicated, at present we have an relatively unrestrained ability to extend our capacity being located in a Park rather than in a tight urban environment. The I'd rather the council remain the owners for the foreseeable future. The Palace hierarchy may well have been incredulous if they realised that given that privileged position we have we were on the verge of constraining that ability to extend on three sides of the ground!

Palace is now a very well run club with high net worth individuals at the helm with a strong and proven business background. That they have been successful so far, football wise, after exiting administration,o is because they have evidently put the needs of the football club first.

Isn't that what you call "slam dunk" from Graham?

@ ZYPH - Angry is absolutely correct. It's is not the capacity of the stand now but the fact that it will not be able to be extended in the future due to ice rink, cinema, Nando's etc. The current solutions proposed to extending the horseshoe are not cost effective and I believe offer restricted views which contravene some stadium legislation. It is therefore unlikely to proceed.

Can anyone answer me something - What is there in the plans which mean that the Devonport End couldn't be demolished and a new double storey stand be built? Other than the fact that it would look odd and out "grand" the grandstand.

Palace would have alot to contend with for they are indeed hemmed in. I suspect 3 sides of the ground would need compulsory purchase orders on housing to develop the stands any further (see the article on how Liverpool FC has blighted the area by buying up property around the ground). Or a major negotiation with Sainburys or own the land and car park behind the other stand.

Similar arguements rage on CP fan sites at what is best to do but at least they have the money to do it if they don't break the bank on players.

Of course they have the additional option of selling up a prime bit of South London real estate and locating elsewhere (the relative wastelands of Purley have been mooted).

Pokesdown wrote:

Interesting post from JonB for the obvious reasons of adding to the discussion in addition to firmly placing him within the pro camp for Saturday's PASB meeting.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Given the reluctance of James Brent and Akkeron to consult or expand on the feasibility of the future plans I remain highly sceptical of the future cost-effectiveness and ability to further develop the stadium. Given the park land, covenants in place and of course the grandstand being hemmed in by an ice rink and a cinema I am in the camp currently that believes we'll be stuck with a sub 20k stadium in Home Park forever and that the only alternative is an out of town stadium which I would fight tooth and nail over.

I would be placated with two things:

1. Is it not possible for PCC, as part of the planning process, to give planning permission in outline for Akkeron's preferred method of expansion? Often you will see a property being sold with planning permission for development. Is that not possible here?

2. I would like to see a fully costed design for expansion produced by Akkeron and crucially signed off by qualified stadium structural engineers that would comply with the planning requirements of PCC and all stadium legislation as it currently stands.

Edited to Add: The only Palace have got to the Premiership is because they've had a well run youth team model for a number of years now. We could do well to learn from that rather than have our Milk Cup team begging the 50/50 draw for money.

Akkeron could easily get planning now for expansion later, planning permissions have a five year life before you need to start some works but you can apply to have the permission timeline extended nearer the time. The truth is that Brent has no intention of extending later.