-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan
- Thread starter Gutter Boy
- Start date
Ah, I see...........
No idea what Chrome is, I confess. I only know that it is something to do with google.
I am, in terms of computers, an idiot.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Modric shirt. Doh!!
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
So without wanting to look stupid - what is the significant of the letters on page 62? We've bought more land? Is this the final land needed before building can begin or something?
A hell of a lot of them yeah. I should know mate I've lived in and around it all my life!!!
That's the old scheme.
There is now a podium; an extra floor and a bit on the supermarket; no open space in that southwest corner; and the Park Lane buildings have changed.
yiddo2786
Steed Malbranque
Thank you so much, it's excellent
My own view is that having a 3/4 pitch would be more of a negative, than having the design element. As a purpose built facility both should be included, but given the choice of better medical/sports science facilities or a full size indoor pitch then it's understandable.
I don't think it's more thought or love, it's just a modern facility taking advantage of changes in technology. England's new training ground at St George's Park is equally, if not more impressive. Emirates Marketing Project are about to start building their new facility which will genuinely have the most comprehensive range of facilities at a training centre anywhere in the world.
I'm not sure that the 3/4 sized pitch matters. The first team will very rarely train on it anyway, I imagine, and when they do, it is unlikely to be 11-a-side games. It'll mostly be used by the younger academy age groups (just as the current giant tent at the Lodge is used). And younger age groups will play games on smaller pitches anyway.
And I do think that the strong design elements and the light and airy environment of the indoor pitch indicate a greater care and attention to detail than at most other training grounds. All the others I've seen are just huge indoor sheds with artificial lighting and no concession to aesthetic value. Even Arsenal's which, I believe, is a relatively recent addition to their training facility. Again, though, I'm not sure whether it really matters.
Lastly, no club should compare their facilities to Emirates Marketing Project's proposed new training ground. City can build whatever they want because they don't have to worry about how much it will cost. Of course they will have the best of the best and more of it than anyone else. But they are playing in an altogether different money league. Better to compare like against like.
The difference between ours and say Arsenal, is that ours is a new fully purpose built facility. So if you want to compare like-for-like then it has to be against other new builds, where an architect has been given the opportunity to consider the whole scheme. Once you start looking at extensions or additions to existing buildings then elements like roof structures become far more expensive and so compromises are made.
It may not be important, but I've had a walk through the new indoor pitches at Tottenham and Burton, and over the years had a kick about on some of the older versions at different clubs and can't see that it would make a difference to the playing side. The change is that on the new training centres the indoor pitch is being made into an architectural feature with offices and sports science facilities being built to maximise it's exposure. Again, this is only worthwhile on a complete rebuild.
It's very misleading to dismiss what Emirates Marketing Project are doing as being on an unlimited budget. Outside of player salaries/wages they are very much being run as a business, focusing on revenue and overheads as much as anyone else. Their advantage is that they don't need to worry about cash flow, and so are being a little more entrepreneurial with how they develop the business side of things.
They invest heavily on the corporate hospitality facilities, but the return is higher revenue as they're taking alot of business away from Man Utd. They invest in their marketing a promotional infrastructure, but the return is higher advertising/sponsorship revenues. Behind the scenes most Premiership clubs are watching what City do and copying the bits that work best.
Lol the return is higher sponsorship because they are sponsored by their owners though. They are spending millions to raise their profile and then using that as justification to increase sponsorship which they pay themselves.
And what do you mean outside of players wages, that along with transfer fees which you also should have mentioned in that category are probably 90% plus of a clubs running costs.
And what do you mean outside of players wages, that along with transfer fees which you also should have mentioned in that category are probably 90% plus of a clubs running costs.
Leeds Spur
Banned
Exactly. Show me a commercially competitive deal there signed that wasn't linked to the owners. It's a complete farce
I disagree. Arsenal's indoor pitch is a stand alone structure that was only completed five years ago. No need to compromise at all - even more so since building just an indoor pitch is far less of an undertaking than building an entire training and academy facility. Arsenal's is better than some, to be fair. It does have a bit of natural light from windows at either end. There is some wood detailing. But it is still, essentially, just a big shed that wouldn't look out of place in any provincial town's industrial estate. Arsenal could also have chosen to erect an EFTE roof, just as Spurs have done. Such roofs have been around since long before Arsenal planned their indoor pitch. Oh and, by the way, their indoor pitch is the same size as the one at Spurs' new training ground.
You misunderstand the point I was making.
I'm not dismissing what City are doing at all. It's fantastic. I'm simply saying that we shouldn't try to compare what we have done to what they propose to do. We had to budget very carefully in order to make our training ground deliverable. Inevitably, therefore, we had to make compromises. City will not have to make compromises. They can insist upon the very best of everything and they can afford to have as much of it as they deem necessary. They do not need to worry about how much it will all cost.
Last edited:
That's not my point. I'm sure they could have done something more visually impressive, but as an addition to an existing site it is more expensive. We've made it a prominent architectural feature but that only makes sense as part of a full new build so the situation is not comparable. Why spend the money if it's not going to be seen, and makes no difference to it's actual use.
England and Emirates Marketing Project are very similar benchmarks for what we've done.
Last edited:
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Didn't they get something like £400m naming rights for Eastlands too? I thought they still rented that stadium.
I know everyone likes to jump on the City hating bandwagon, but outside of the headline transfer fees and overinflated sponsorship deals things are run very well.