SJP capacity

[John William]

All seems very sensible. The other area that could be looked at is segregation; as far as I'm aware there have been no issues in the ground between home and away fans this season so there is an argument that fewer seats need to be lost to keeping fans apart.

When I was on the Gates Committee I suggested we could drill two or three sets of holes in the two stands which would be slots to take a moveable barrier between the home and away supporters. I was thinking at the time about offering part of Block A or more of Block L to the away fans of big clubs, but the reverse situation now applies...

This would give flexibility yet maintain separation, with the minumum number of seats lost - perhaps two or three columns rather than 8 or 10. There would probably be some loss of sight lines but if sheets of armoured galss or plexiglass were slotted into the barriers this could be minimised. No idea of the cost as this was not taken up, but maybe worth looking into.

 

[WXF]

We must deal with decisions of the past, and that doesn't mean we have to accept them.

It is said the average property is sold every 25 years. I think we should spend the next 10-15-20 years buying every property that comes up for sale in Stadium Way and - if by that time there is the money for an ambitious redevelopment - look to purchase the remaining dwellings, by either offering their owners a good deal or, if it comes to it, look to buy them out through a compulsory purchase order. If the club or Trust (or a company or trust set up by either) owned the Stadium Way properties, then club embarking on an ambitious redevelopment involving turning the pitch 90 degrees would become a lot more feasible (and until then, the properties might provide the club with a small stream of rental income, or grow funds to help facilitate the purchase of further dwellings). It could even be a successor project to the company that funded the development of and currently still owns the club house. Rotating the pitch has been toyed with in the past and it should provide the club with enough space for a long time to come.

Obviously such a scheme would be ambitious and exceedingly costly, but so would building any new out of town stadium. In my view, we don't have to accept that the club needs to leave SJP.

 

[Exehausted]

We must deal with decisions of the past, and that doesn't mean we have to accept them.

It is said the average property is sold every 25 years. I think we should spend the next 10-15-20 years buying every property that comes up for sale in Stadium Way and - if by that time there is the money for an ambitious redevelopment - look to purchase the remaining dwellings, by either offering their owners a good deal or, if it comes to it, look to buy them out through a compulsory purchase order. If the club or Trust (or a company or trust set up by either) owned the Stadium Way properties, then club embarking on an ambitious redevelopment involving turning the pitch 90 degrees would become a lot more feasible (and until then, the properties might provide the club with a small stream of rental income, or grow funds to help facilitate the purchase of further dwellings). It could even be a successor project to the company that funded the development of and currently still owns the club house. Rotating the pitch has been toyed with in the past and it should provide the club with enough space for a long time to come.

Obviously such a scheme would be ambitious and exceedingly costly, but so would building any new out of town stadium. In my view, we don't have to accept that the club needs to leave SJP.

I stand to be corrected, but aren't those fairly new houses in stadium way Housing association or Council owned? Very little chance of getting those I would think.

 

[Oldsmobile-88]

I stand to be corrected, but aren't those fairly new houses in stadium way Housing association or Council owned? Very little chance of getting those I would think.

They are owned by Cornerstone Housing Association.

 

[STURTZ]

After the L1 bounce, historically attendances have dropped. Next season should give us a better picture re outgrowing SJP or not, certainly for the short/medium term.

Another factor could be a reaction to the lockdown periods, people are just happy to get out and about, but will it last ?

Longer term, could be that moving is the only realistic option if Exeter continues to grow at the current rate - now a similar size to Ipswich.

I noticed that, first season in league 1, when we struggled, we were close to 6000 but the next season it dropped by 500, even though we enjoyed our best ever season position wise. Wouldn't be surprised to see a drop on attendances next season.

 

[WXF]

They are owned by Cornerstone Housing Association.

Then I've definitely got my wires crossed here. Thank you for clarifying.

I stand to be corrected, but aren't those fairly new houses in stadium way Housing association or Council owned? Very little chance of getting those I would think.

If there is only one land owner to deal with, then that potentially makes the task much easier. For example, if it was ensured that superior accommodation is built somewhere else for all the Stadium Way tenants (and if the tenants otherwise kept all of their rights), what's to say the housing association wouldn't agree to trade the land with us? Their motivation is surely providing people with good homes and, if we can help them better uphold this aim, then we might be able to come to an agreement.

 

[John William]

I stand to be corrected, but aren't those fairly new houses in stadium way Housing association or Council owned? Very little chance of getting those I would think.

More chance of Notwork Rail allowing us to extend over the Jungle Path, i.e. almost none.

 

[denzel]

Cut a deal with Heavitree United to put up a jumbotron, beam back the bigger games there....

 

[WXF]

More chance of Notwork Rail allowing us to extend over the Jungle Path, i.e. almost none.

I don't think that's a great comparison. Letting us build over or closer to the railway line would present risk to a piece of national infrastructure. It’s frustrating but after the Gerrards Cross Tunnel collapse, it’s understandable why Network Rail is so risk averse. A housing association may be extremely reluctant to surrender housing, but there are numerous examples across the country of land used for council housing or housing association homes being redeveloped. And it would be in our gift to make the offer to the housing association seem sweeter (whereas I suspect there is little or nothing we could do to placate Network Rail).

 

[Herschel]

We wouldn't be able to afford to build close to the rail line - the costs NR charge for delays to their services are astronomical (tens of thousands per hour of delay on mainlines), so if any of the works required line closures or delays of any kind, it would likely render the proposal uneconomic instantly.

In my view, the only way to increase capacity would be to build around the corner of Well St and St James' Road; and then possibly build above the away end (my thought would be seating above the standing, like Brentford's old ground (but smaller)), which means we could then house home fans in the entirety of the main stand, with no need for segregation (which would add more capacity on top).

In respect of the housing association, you would likely either have to find them an alternative site elsewhere, or pay for affordable housing provision elsewhere as part of planning application for the revised stadium plans; we're in a housing crisis in the UK, so the planning authority won't like losing any housing, let alone affordable units.