Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:31 pm  

There's a gang of us walk our dogs round Taylor Park every morning, all retired, one of our crew worked for the firm that built the jjb and the reabock he was the boss over everything at ground level, drains roads foundations ect, he said unless they hit a problem they will have no trouble with the time they have to build the stadium.
But he also built the new Pilks factories near by, they hit a problem on that job he says, old pit workings had left holes underground, they had to pump in 45,000 ton of concrete before normal building could start.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:52 pm  

two blokes put up our old pebble dashed concrete garage in a couple of days

is it the same blokes who are doing your stadium in 12-14 months?

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:57 pm  

J. Willard Gibbs wrote:

Sadfish has already done a good job of pointing out he's talking out of his backside; he's desperately clinging to his idea that the current board are no better than the previous people, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The quality and level of your debate, thanks! LOL - the lowest of lowest always use personal attacks.

Thanks Sadfish for your reply, I would think 14 months is a minimum, what is most important is as you say they get it right, this is a stadium for the future, long past when many of may have gone, I still would have liked to have seen it as a 20,000 seater, to allow for representative matches, while Wilderspool is fine, it is not a stadium, like the Reebok that The Doghead brings us the info about.

[Sadfish]

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:04 pm  

jaybs wrote:

The quality and level of your debate, thanks! LOL - the lowest of lowest always use personal attacks.

Thanks Sadfish for your reply, I would think 14 months is a minimum, what is most important is as you say they get it right, this is a stadium for the future, long past when many of may have gone, I still would have liked to have seen it as a 20,000 seater, to allow for representative matches, while Wilderspool is fine, it is not a stadium, like the Reebok that The Doghead brings us the info about.

From what I understand, the difference in cost of 18k to 20k is quite huge, it means different buidling schematics and was outside the budget the Saints have.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:17 pm  

Sadfish wrote:

From what I understand, the difference in cost of 18k to 20k is quite huge, it means different buidling schematics and was outside the budget the Saints have.

Sadfish,

I accept that, but if we had a go ahead council, could they have not see the advantages for the long term and the Town with what many regard as The Number One team? but then we would have had the argument that 70% of the population don't seem to be interested in RL which is sad.

[Sadfish]

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:28 pm  

You fail to understand the difficulty in raising money for the stadium and the maximum possible money has been gleaned from maximum resources.

The council are a go ahead council, and they have invested what they possibly can into the project as far as I know.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:41 pm  

Sadfish, please give me some credit, I fully understand the problems with raising funding currently for development, but I again say did not the number one RL club not deserve The Best!

When I look at the state of the town centre and the selection of stores, I don't see it as a go ahead council, look at towns much smaller than St Helens, we are more Bar City! LOL

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:45 pm  

jaybs wrote:

The quality and level of your debate, thanks! LOL - the lowest of lowest always use personal attacks.

Pointing out someone is talking out of their backside is not a personal attack, no matter how badly you want it to be.

[Sadfish]

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:20 pm  

jaybs wrote:

Sadfish, please give me some credit, I fully understand the problems with raising funding currently for development, but I again say did not the number one RL club not deserve The Best!

When I look at the state of the town centre and the selection of stores, I don't see it as a go ahead council, look at towns much smaller than St Helens, we are more Bar City! LOL

You can only relate this council with previous councils, of which there has been different levels of involvement with the club and spending available on the town.

The councils role is for the administration and betterment of the town itself, a private rugby league club, no matter how successful is always going to up against it when it comes to hand outs against social matters.

And then there is the issue that even Wigan can't average 18K per season, which is a town that has been far more prosperous over the years, and has often had better gates than Saints.

Unless you where looking at more than 25K then the DW Stadium and the Reebok would always be ahead in the running for "other" events in the area.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:31 pm  

Sadfish wrote:

The council are a go ahead council, and they have invested what they possibly can into the project as far as I know.

That makes them so totally different from previous councils. Their attitude towards this attempt to get a stadium built have been vastly different from previous attitudes. I think this is in part because lately there has been a hung council so there is possibly less of an emphasis upon party dogma. I think also that with Pilks finally being sold off, the council has realised that if Saints don't succeed, St Helens will have pretty much nothing left of its heritage or identity. Not to mention regeneration opportunity.