As there has been some discussion about the proposed new stadium of the past week it would be interesting to see what the fans views are on this?

Would you like the stadium to be a mixture of seating and standing areas, or would you like it to be an all seater stadium?

I've gone for the all seater option. I personally hate standing up at grounds, it's not very comfortable and old fasioned.

All seater for mine.

Mix for me, then people have the option and everybody is happy.

I ain't fused let's just get the bloody thing built.

Roger that!

Seconded, but for the poll, a mix like the Wire's HJ.

And while we're on wishing for stuff if/when we get a new stadium - we should name each stand after a Bradford Legend rather than just East/West/Main etc. The Trevor Foster Stand? The Keith Mumby stand? The Nick Zisti stand?..

maybe not that one but you get the idea.

Plus we should mark the occation if its ever comlpeted with some sort of statue/sculpture to stand out front of the old ground's most famous player or players, maybe with some representation of the old ground itself as its pretty unique.


But mainly... lets just get it bulit please

Great idea, it would certainly be something I'd be in favour of.
However, with us not being the only ones using the ground and potentially not actually owning it (is that right?), then I don't think we'd get much say.

Too bloody right!

Correct we wouldn't own it we would be the major tenant.

Would the 150 year lease still count, or would this be worked out on a different basis?

I suspect that may be up for discussion.

I understand why the club would want an all-seater - but some terracing could be used as a selling point if it was under a roof. Easier to generate an atmosphere and therefore you are less reliant on a great/good team performance to make the game enjoyable for the supporters.

I want a mixture so I can stand while I can and once I get old and decrepit I can then sit down.

Mixture for me, best of both worlds and gives people a choice

something like the halliwell jones for me. Covered standing (with a low roof) tends to generate a great deal more atmosphere than anywhere else IMO. It would be better to have a choice of seating/standing because not everyone wants to sit.

From a personal view point I would prefer to still be able to stand, but if an all seater means more options for usage then I could accept being forced to be seated. I suppose it could hinge on what Bradford City decide, but we need to make sure that the Stadium can be used as much as possible. However if the standing area's were behind the sticks it doubtful I would stand there anyway.

So I'm undecided... but like Red said.. I just want it to happen... whether I am seated or stood up..

Would like have a stand on the side line which is all standing like south stand at headingley or popular end at knowsley road but if city are going to move in it will probably be all seater

I voted for a mixture, like many have said in a similar vein to the Halliwell Jones which is more or less the stadium layout we should be considering in my opinion. I personally really dislike all seater stadiums and don't seem to enjoy the game as much when I've got to sit down.

I'd go for three seated stands and one terraced end, meaning that all the vocal home support could gather in one end of the ground and also it would mean that the ground could still be easily utilised for hosting other events like concerts, etc.

Exactly right. You can't vote for "all standing", so why should those who choose to sit vote to deprive those who prefer to stand?

The "all seater" option is a bad idea and we don't need all-seater stadia in our sport. Doing away with large standing areas can only harm fan interaction, atmosphere and crowd noise.

I fear though that the die is already cast, and all-seater is inevitable. If for no other reason than it assists use for "other sports" especially those where segregation is the thing.

I also think limiting the size to 18,000 is incredibly short-sighted. It's only a moment ago that we had 23K in for Leeds games and we shoot ourselves in the foot if we deprive ourselves of the opportunity for bumper gates. I'd have thought that a capacity of at least 20K should be the aim, and I'd personally go for no less than a 22K stadium.

Yep.

And you can get more people in the stadium if there are more standing areas available too.

If you have a stadium with standing areas provided you can always install temporary seating should an upcoming event require it to be all seated for the sake of safety. All seater stadia are a bit "final" IMO.

(hope that makes sense!)

I assume you didn't make it to the forum this time?

Hood mentioned that the 18k is an initial figure which could and probably will rise slightly. The advantage of keeping the capacity realistic to our potential crowds according to Duckett is the scarcity factor. If we have a capacity of 18k, when Hull or perhaps Saints come people will be more inclined to buy a ticket in advance for fear of not getting in. At the moment people will wait until gameday to decide and factor in weather etc knowing that we will never sell out.

I'd rather have a 18k stadium that is almost full rather than a 22k stadium that is half empty each week.

Would that be possible if the standing area's have barriers for spectators?

Hmmm. Good point but I am still sure that something could be done if the situation ever cropped up.

I just feel that there should be the choice for people and all-seated arenas take away that choice. Heck, my football team went all seated in about 1992 and I STILL miss standing in my usual area on the terracing. I would hate to see that taken away from people.

A point which seems to have been missed by Ryan Duckett is that every 1500 seats cost around 1 million in build costs. So to add 3 to 4 thousand extra seats wold cost another 3 million.