Whoops! I didn't spot your comment



I'm of the opinion that proposal is so underwhelming that it's not befitting of being called the South Stand any longer. My proposal is to rename that underwhelming stand assuming it gets the nod for assembly.

Any suggestions?

Here's mine.....


CLASSIC BAILEY STAND!

all they need to do now is get Jim Bowen to do the launch... "lets see what you could have got" .
But never mind here's your bus fare home.

Also it seems to be a copy of Warringtons stand.

Did anyone really expect anything else?

This is a club which in reality has no serious cash - it will struggle to fund this version.

It has to be done because the current stand will not pass another H&S inspection.

Isn't it the only club in Super League in profit?

Yes, I know profit does not always equate to cash, but we are not saddled with that much debt.

It is a massive compromise on the original plan and I am unsure whether the 'planning issues' are being used as a smokescreen to just scale things back because, financially, we can't or don't want to spend the money! The threat of HMRC wanting £2m in image rights back tax might be the issue! That is not a £10m scheme and looks more like a £7m scheme to me now!

The scaling back of corporate facilities is one thing but in reducing the height they have also clearly reduced the angle of the terracing below the maximum allowed for a standing terrace. I think this is a huge mistake, the new terrace should be the maximum angle allowed and should not be compromised on in any new stand build IMO. I think the majority of the reduction in capacity is because of the tapered eastern end of the stand, which I understand from a planning point of view, so I think that is probably the best capacity that can be achieved.

I am a little perturbed that Leeds seem to have given in to the planning officers for an easy ride and appear to be unwilling to put up a bit more of a fight to get the front and back heights up another couple of metres. The front has come down 4m and I think dropping it to 17.5m and keeping the terrace at as steep a pitch as possible would be worth running past the planning committee. I personally see less of a problem with the height than I do about the visual impact of the rear elevation of the stand on local residents. Light is not an issue because the sun is behind the South Stand, so no houses get any light or shadow issue with the stand, not matter if it was 19m. I think if they looked at at a softer materials pallet and cladding for the rear of the stand you might be able to compromise on the height. Maybe a mixture of Thermowood/Larch and Trespa timber claddings and some longer term tree-planting along the boundary wall would work.... the problem of course is, this costs money!

My suspicion is that it is all about the money, DLA are experienced at stadium development and I am sure they will have come up with similar ideas that have been pitched to the club and the planning officers... but, keeping the costs down is what is maybe driving the majority of the compromises!

Sorry, programme!

I think that this new 10 month programme is for a phased a build. Maybe Uncle Ken does not want anyone on his pitch, the Rhinos can't afford what Uncle Ken wants to charge or Uncle Gary does not want to got to Elland Road! Either way I am expecting a phased demolition and build of the current South Stand, maybe one half at a time, or possibly some sort of temporary stand arrangement. They could also get the lower half of the pre-cast terrace units up and in use and continue to build the upper-half and roof while the lower half is in use? You might get wet but them you would know how the western terrace away fans feel!

When I saw the original plans I thought it would be a fitting memorial to the late John Holmes, this glorified garden shed doesn't merit a name.

Anyone got an email address for Garry or one of his minions? I feel some constructive criticism is in order.

Fantastic input from IA as expected, cheers.

Its all a bit of a bummer...If the club cannot afford it then what can be said, thats life. Do you think there will be an opportunity to develop/extend the stand in the future IA?




Questionnaires in the cafe bar apparently.

I do know that the residents around there were against the original height planned so maybe that's part of the compromise but it's still way off what was originally proposed and doesn't look very good at this stage imo.
If it's a case of not being able to afford it then come out and say it.

The club has no significant cash on its balance sheet to fund a build of this nature. It will have to borrow the money at commercial rates. If it costs 7m + 7% interest, over 25 years the repayments will be in excess of 300k a year, significantly more than the reported profits.

Unlike the other stand I don't see anyone coming in to fund it either

Why would the residents be against it? They hardly have panoramic scenery at present do they? They will still look out of their bedroom window and see a rugby stand...will a rugby stand 5 metres higher....blocking out a couple of extra clouds make much difference....

It comes after certain assurances were made when the Carneigie stand was under construction and not delivered mate plus they were'nt happy with the proposed height!

Which is why had they stayed with the orginal proposal and had the corporate boxes at the back, then they would have had a bigger income stream to accomadate the spend.

It looks smaller than the current SouthStand to me. 3 years ago you could get 8k in there. I would have hoped for a similar size. That just looks like the terrace at HJ.

Aye.

Only if you can fill them - to me looks like the club haven't got the belief they can fill them or Caddick cannot underwrite borrowing on the original scale?

I do love some of the whingers on this thread.

"We want a sparkly new stand with lots of bells and whistles on it"

I can only assume that most of you don't run your own businesses (or won't for very much longer if you carry on living in cloud cuckoo land).

There's a recession on. As a result, revenues are likely to fall. Let's face it, Headingley has hardly been packed to the rafters the last couple of years, even with the reduced capacity in the South Stand.

Why jeopardise the future financial stability of the club by borrowing to fund the creation of something you don't need and aren't going to use to its capacity more than twice a year?

It's an improvement on what's currently in place - it'll get a full H&S certificate for a start. Better viewing, improved facilities for spectators. Who gives a fishes t*t whether it's four feet lower or has much architectural merit to it - you're going to be stood inside the bloody thing not looking at it like an art gallery exhibit.

Im not bothered about it looking all modern and "posh". Just disapointed with the capacity size if the current one is bigger.

At 31 October 2010 the club had £2.36m in the bank and had lent a further £1.7m to Leeds Carnegie to cover their cash deficit (which I ASSUME we'll be getting back...). It's very cash-rich for an RL club and whilst obviously money will need to be borrowed either from within or without the group it's a decent starting point to the funding.

According to GH (last year) whilst there was at one point an intention to install corporate facilities in the new stand, the decision not to, whilst clearly affected by what size the stand could be, is also to do with whether there really was any need or demand for yet more corporate spaces at a stadium which already has more than anywhere else in Super League by some distance.

But the current one isn't bigger. It has a current capacity of 6,000 due to H&S restrictions, so the new build will be able to hold more fans than the current South Stand (which itself doesn't get used to capacity for most games anyway).

All very valid, totally understandable, and more importantly totally correct points. But it doesn't stop people having the right to be underwhelmed.

Nobody asked for it to be pitched to us in the way that it was. Everybody would've understood if the club would have come out and said... "The money is tight, we're trying to keep costs low, so that we can keep ticket prices low. The South Stand obviously needs updating, so we're basically constructing a working, safer version of the one we've got, with a few minor improvements (for example no pillars restricting the view) where economically viable."

"Pitched"?

Leeds aren't trying to sell you the concept of a new South Stand - the decision to rebuld has been taken out of their hands by the failure of the current structure.

Neither are they genuinely seeking your opinions on how the new one should look. This is a government style consultation, which is shorthand for "we've already decided what we're doing". If they haven't, then they've wasted a lot of money in architects fees.

This is an exercise in letting fans give their opinion and feel part of the process, purely cosmetic in nature. Accept it for what it is.

2.3m at October has to keep the club going until January - by January it will have next to nothing - hence the need to play the festive season game. Wages for both teams etc will be close to 400k a month these still need to be paid even though revenues are virtually non-existent.

Not sure it has more corporate than either Huddersfield or Wigan?

You know what I mean



The current SS is "big enough" to hold 8k and has been more in the last 10 years.

Well I did say:




The reason why everyone is a bit dissappointed is because of the previous plans we saw -which was a belting stand. Its only natural.
I can't afford to take our lass to the maldives this year. But I won't get the holiday brochure out and start looking at the Maldives showing her where I think Im going to take her....only for me to then on the day to drive her to Blackpool.