It was broken on the local media this morning that the audacious plans Forest have for a ground move have developed a pace. The original proposal suggested that the likely spot for the new development was to be between Gotham and Clifton out near the M1, with boasts of a new train station, a tram route and the widening of the A453.
But suggestions locally are that the Nottingham City Council – a partner in the scheme – are keener to secure a location closer to the City Centre, presumably so the city of Nottingham can benefit more directly from events that take place at the new arena. Now that opens up all kinds of interesting ideas for speculating on potential locations for something as huge as a 50,000 capacity football stadium.
Obviously whichever developer is awarded the construction will have a say, as will Forest and the councils representing Nottingham and Rushcliffe Borough – where the City Ground is. Having a little think about it, I’m struggling to come up with likely areas that are truly close to the City Centre – although the ‘East Side’ area near the BBC studios seems like a big space currently unused that could fit the bill.
A move to within striking distance of the city centre sweetens the prospect for me incredibly. Of course, it seems inconceivable that we’ll need a ground of this size – but I suppose you have to plan for the future, and with England bidding to host the World Cup in 2018 there’s a potentially great opportunity to sneak ahead of other Midlands venues in securing a piece of the World Cup action.
That said, the City Ground is a dear place to my heart – as I’m sure it is for many other fans – and coupled with it being difficult to imagine us needing such a venue, even in eleven years, do provide mental stumbling blocks to me fully embracing this scheme. There are a few considerations that could, whilst not make-or-break the idea for me (after all, I’m stuck with Forest whether I like it or not!), but it will impact on my whingeing levels!
1. The location should be walkable from the city centre and the railway station – that’s a real benefit of the City Ground now, whilst it’s a reasonable walk from town, it is most certainly doable. Depending on the new location, this convenience factor could be improved upon with a new location – particularly should the area near the BBC building between Sneinton and the city be utilised.
2. The increased capacity should create a serious review of pricing, the opportunity to fill the ground should be taken. We can only assume we will have a more impressive league placing which will help to draw the crowds, but it would be awful if we end up with Sunderland-like attendances upon moving to a huge new ground.
3. To get away from the ‘silent new ground’ situation that you see at other midlands grounds, and places like the City of Manchester stadium – there should be plans to try to locate like-minded fans together. Let the singers sit together, let the quieter fans sit together, and try to minimise the friction that can occur between different types of supporter too.
4. The design of the stadium is paramount. If we end up with yet another clone of a flat-pack bowl affair like Pride Park, the Walkers Stadium, the Riverside Stadium et al, then I will be deeply deeply unhappy. It is essential that Forest don’t do this on the cheap, and deliver a stadium that has character, and great facilities. Coupled with this is the name of it, which is a real tricky one – but it had better not be some kind of corporate sponsorship name!
5. There should be no ground-share with Notts County. I don’t need to qualify that any further.
6. If this move is to happen seriously, then we need to see a dramatic improvement on the pitch between now and then. How embarrassing would it be to still be in League One with a brand new 50,000 seater stadium? It’s bad enough as it is with our current capacity being regularly grossly under utilised due to a combination of poor football and over-inflated prices for our level.
They were the six factors that immediately occur to me, I’m sure there are many other things I haven’t considered in my haste to ramble on about it. The suggestion that Clifton is – whilst not off the agenda – moving down in favour of somewhere more reachable for fans, has really improved my thoughts about the idea of making a very emotional move from the City Ground.
Filed under: News
Why shouldn’t we ground share with County? I am yet to see one convincing argument as to why we shouldn’t. Be the first to change that…
Just my preference really. Plus – whilst it’s pretty absurd for us to have a 50,000 seater stadium – you can square that when you think about Notts.
Also what colour would the seats be?
In 1999 the owners of my favorite baseball team, the Boston Red Sox, came out with proposals for a new stadium that would drawf the teams current stadium, Fenway Park. However fans were very angry at the developments and when new owners bought the team, they promised to stay at Fenway. Since then, they have added seats to every empty spot in the park, thus increasing capacity while remaining at the hallowed ground. It was a win-win situation. Is this an option for Forest? Playing in a sparkling new stadium sounds tempting but I’d hate to lose the aura of the City Ground. Could they add to the current stands?
Unfortunately developing the current ground does not appear to be an option. It’s likely to be opposed by the council – who own the land the ground sits on – as they have their eye on lucrative residential developments there, I suspect.
Drat! I was rather looking forward to C3PO and Chewie walking down the aisle in the stadium from the image above to be celebrated by Kris, CC and Co.
Brighton’s new stadium is marvelous. Has anyone seen it yet? (Sorry poor joke).
I get a sinking feeling anytime someone mentions the new ground.
Sorry again.
Give me a straight choice of staying or going, and you can bet your bottom dollar I’d stay – alas, the choice won’t be mine, or any other supporters – so I guess the only option is to hope that as many positive factors can be built into the move as possible.
What worries me is that the emphasis seems to be based on being part of the world cup bid and not the benifits this would have on Nottingham Forest. I can see why alternative sites have been considered, yes they are building a wider A453, However this is not all the way up the A453, Have you ever been to East Midlands airport? Takes bloody ages.
For the sake of a couple of group games probably between two small countires, what else will be on offer for the fans of Nottingham Forest FC once Trinidad and Tobago plus someone like Tunisia have gone home????
The tournament would only be in Notts for a couple of weeks max, alot of time and effort seems to being going in pointing out we need a stadium for the world cup.
We have a 30000 seater stadium now, which we don’t fill until usually the last few games of the season when something is riding on it, even then nobody struggles to get a ticket? Having a futher 20,000 seats doesn’t make sense, unless they are going to go down the corporate route.
For NFFC to go down the corporate route then major improvements will obviously be need to be made on the pitch. We need to be a premier league club, not just for a couple of seasons but for ten seasons and beyond.
Granted I am all for having a gleamy new stadium, afterall the city ground does look tired, have you seen the trent end from the outside? However if this is going to go-ahead then Nottingham Forest need to get totally involved with all aspects of the design. They need to make the intentions clear on how they are going to fill this stadium and so on. What benifits will the fans get etc etc
Afterall, the fans and NFFC will live long after some world Cup which we haven’t yet won?
Sorry young man, can’t normally fault your comments – but as a resident of the fair city in question your statement of : “it would be awful if we end up with Sunderland-like attendances” cannot pass without reply.
The last home game was against Fulham. I am reliably informed that the Fulham fans arrived in two cars [OK, two buses, but you get the drift]. Not a match with two-teams-challenging-for-Europe-attractive-football-filled potential – but there were nearly 40,000 there. The average gate for their first 5 home games is a shade under 42,000. Those games were Spurs & Liverpool, which you would expect good crowds – but the other three were Blackburn, Reading & Fulham – hardly attractive fixtures.
I can think of a number of ‘premier’ teams who would kill for Sunderland-like attendances. BTW the SoL holds around 48,000 – if it had rafters, it would be full to them on Saturday [tyne-Wear derby]. It is also a ‘new’ bowl-type stadium, but there is plenty of noise and atmosphere generated.
Can I suggest that you actually meant Middlesboro – now they do have sh**te support.
I wasn’t suggesting the Mackams support is bad, just that the ground – originally – was a stretch. I vividly remember Match of the Day at a half-empty Stadium of Light not long after the move, I guess times are better now and the crowds then follow.
You’re quite right about Middlesbrough, though!
Again, insider knowledge prevails. The average gate last year (championship) was 32,000 – and remember they started very badly.
It may not be an Emirates, but – as those that have visited will, I’m sure, agree – the SoL is a very good ground to go and watch football in ie good view, reasonable seats, plenty of cafes/bars, easy access etc. And here is the crunch.
It cost only 15 million when it was built 10 years ago. For all Sunderland’s recent financial woes, paying for the ground was not part of the problem. For the new City Ground the toilets will cost more than 15 million.
But I suppose that’s the point isn’t it – 32,000 is only 2/3rds of the capacity – hence there will always be empty seats that looks terrible. And I can’t see it being any different at ‘new’ City Ground.
I do like the SoL compared to other new stadia – the only ones I’ve not checked out are the new Man City and Arsenal grounds, and Sunderlands definitely wins against the remaining competition by some margin.
nffc – Your right. Take Scunny, compact ground they can fill – too small for us but you get the idea. Plus, latest prem financial figures say gate money less and less important, so why go for 50,000 if – realistically – 30,000 is a much as we will ever get on a regular basis?
Oh yes – if ever S/land & Forest are in the same league – or cup – I’ll give you the tour of the SoL
Sounds great!
I really don’t like the thought of us playing in a 50k bowl to crowds of 15k in League One!
I think that we have quite a unique location by the river and would be sad to move. I can see the benefits for the long term of the club, world cup venue, better parking etc but I say let’s build a new main stand and finish what was started in 1980!
That would give us a 40k capacity which is more than enough for our support – even if we do ever get back into the Premier League.
First class post. Moving to Moving to Clifton or straying too far from the banks of the Trent must never happen. I was always in favour of a move down the A52 towards Gamston but your option of the ‘Eastside’ seems even better. Close to the city center, close enough (just) to the river and most importantly, close to where the city ground is at present. One more thing has just sprung to mind . There would be no need to rename the ground should this relocation take place.
“The City ground is dead. Long live the City ground!!!”