Comments on: Well we’re not going to Clifton!

By: mark

mark — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:24:22 +0000

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!!!”

By: Aylesbury Red

Aylesbury Red — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:06:27 +0000

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.

By: nffc

nffc — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:52:25 +0000

Sounds great!

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:05:17 +0000

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

By: nffc

nffc — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:57:22 +0000

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.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:49:23 +0000

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.

By: nffc

nffc — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:07:05 +0000

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!

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:51:02 +0000

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.

By: Mr B

Mr B — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:32:27 +0000

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?

By: nffc

nffc — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:18:08 +0000

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.