vastman wrote:
I differ with TRB in that I feel BV is the better option - however as a fellow founders of SWAG we both agree either option is preferable to nothing and both well managed could be a success.
That said I feel I must state that the point you make is a bit of a cliche. As a stadium anorak I can say fairly confidently that all the new Stadia built since the implementation of the Taylor Report on Hillsborough have been something of a mixed bag in terms of success. Some have helped to create a golden future others have taken once great clubs to their knees.
There is certainly no evidence that new stadiums increase sponsorship revenue by themselves. Only the teams who have been successful on the pitch have really benefited long term from the increased potential sponsorship opportunities new stadiums offer. Ditto crowd figures.
I can say without hesitation that a spruced up fit for purpose BV with a great team would be rocking and sponsors would be everywhere. A poor team playing at a state of the art NM would see a desolate two thirds empty stadium where few sponsors would wish to tread. The only scenario in which NM would be a clear winner is if success on the field happened almost instantly which in turn would win over the doubters in the limited time frame before they found a reason not to go.
There is a certain loyalty and force of habit with BV that simply doesn't exist with NM and as I just said there is a very limited time period to change that around.
Despite a personal love for stadium design I think that the obsession with new stadiums and facilities in recent years has overshadowed the truth that most people only really care about results and if they don't get them then even the finest stadium in the world is just a glorified place to park your bum and people lose interest in that activity very easily.
Oddly Manchester is the place to look and see how both ways can work.
Old Trafford is an old ground in the wrong place etc .etc… but it's been redeveloped as well as possible and it resonates success, prestige and history.
The Ethiad is virtually brand new and at first was a flop but luckily due to a massive cash injection in the team to which the availability of a SOA stadium was a huge incentive it's now fast becoming an iconic stadium in it's own right.
Sadly this is not always the case for new stadiums.
That's a fair appraisal - although sometimes the difference between success and failure is harder to understand.
The Galpharm still suffers from the legacy of having a third rate team in a first class stadium (and here I mean the second division side). That was made worse by artificially maintaining them in SL when relegation would have been far better for them. They now have a fabulous squad and great offers, yet still it doesn't quite get to the hearts of the local population.
Wire were in the middle of building slowly. Their community work was vital in making the stadium a success when the team was not then quite so. The transition from old to new was brilliantly managed - much to learn maybe!
Salford is a decent stadium, but hindered by years of financial crisis and broken promises - then moving to a stadium with half built infrastructure, leading to traffic issues (we didn't have any as we parked the other side of the motorway and walked on advice). It will take some doing to associate the stadium with success in the long term and Koucash will need the patience of a saint and very, very deep pockets!
Wigan have had times when they struggled in that stadium - but there is no finer site than that stadium when it is close to full. Incredibly, their crowds went up when they were in a relegation battle - explain that???
Hull have had the sniff of success, but far from sustained. Their stadium is just magnificent and the crowds were about double right from opening.
Saints - well its a bit big and open for me and they don't get the crowds that club deserves, but I think they will go ok in there.
For us - if we move the NM I see the benefit as being more on the non-RL related stuff - corporate hires / sponsors etc, purely from its vicinity to the motorway. Its a clean start, we can play new layouts, have decent parking, be easily accessible to away fans and hopefully generate business that isn't just related to success on the field. BV offers romance - a love in! I would hope, if we stay, to try and maintain some of the features and the feel of the place and reflect its heritage. I wouldn't, per se, want a Halton stadium which, whilst very nice and functional, doesn't remind me one iota of the old Naughton Park.
As I say, I know preferences differ - but we can make either work - if we can get to that point.
However, until someone can convince us that we can cross ALL of the hurdles involved in staying at BV, we will hold onto what we have promised at NM.
Interesting times.
