Stadium Updates (All Clubs)

[brendy_éire]

Should’ve gone five or six rows higher there.

Probably didn't need to be that big really. If the Mark Farren stand, and a small one at the other side, are completed, it'll be plenty.

[brendy_éire]

Update on the new stand at the Brandywell.

Hoping to have 50% test capacity by the first or second home game of the season.

https://www.derryjournal.com/sport/football/official-opening-of-brandywells-new-north-stand-will-go-tight-to-the-wire-4981760

[Elfman]

Fantastic news and delighted to hear it's nearly 3k. For some reason I thought it was going to be less than 2k. They really maximised the space, fair play.

[A N Mouse]

Fantastic news and delighted to hear it's nearly 3k. For some reason I thought it was going to be less than 2k. They really maximised the space, fair play.

It's about 2.8k standing or 1.8k seated.

Presumably only the lower value would be available as season tickets until such time as safe standing given ok for uefa games.

[Elfman]

Ah that would explain it. Thanks for the clarity

[nr637]

With the new North Stand and the completed two wings of the Mark Farren Stand, the Brandywell would look quite a stadium, just a similar South Stand in the next phase and you would have a really fine modern stadium.

Probably number 2 after Windsor Park, if it was completed like that!

[WeAreRovers]

https://www.donegallive.ie/news/soccer/1727263/finn-harps-confident-over-lights-issue-after-storm-as-shamrock-rovers-pledge-aid.html

[outspoken]

https://www.donegallive.ie/news/soccer/1727263/finn-harps-confident-over-lights-issue-after-storm-as-shamrock-rovers-pledge-aid.html

Fancying buying a few bricks?

[DonegalHoop]

Ask the First Division Alliance

[Longfordian]

Fancying buying a few bricks?

We're very sorry for putting their fans in a cage.

[Shearer]

The away stand at the Markets Field was closed on Friday and it looks like it will be indefinitely.

People will point the finger at Limerick FC and now Treaty United, but the problem always has been and always will be the ground owners - the LEDP.

The LEDP are absentee landlords who have allowed the ground to get worse in the ten years since re-opening.

[outspoken]

The away stand at the Markets Field was closed on Friday and it looks like it will be indefinitely.

People will point the finger at Limerick FC and now Treaty United, but the problem always has been and always will be the ground owners - the LEDP.

The LEDP are absentee landlords who have allowed the ground to get worse in the ten years since re-opening.

where are away fans being housed?

[cobhlad]

where are away fans being housed?
Older away fans were allowed into main stand to allow them sit. Others went onto the grass bank behind the dugouts. And then the younger fans kept pitchside behind the goal. Not ideal. Meant supporters well spread out for the late celebrations.

[Kiki Balboa]

Now that Dundalk is in the First Division, and from what I’ve seen here, a lot of clubs with lower attendance have stadiums outside their town centers.


Urban planning really goes hand-in-hand for club development and it’s something clubs should be very conscious of. It might be far more cost-effective to increase support and attendances to work with councils/government to bring the town closer to the stadium or rezone the area to attract more people and amenities rather than just build out-right better facilities for supporters.

If LOI clubs were to Lobby for one thing, that would be what I would be doing.


Every club should be pushing local councils and the government to make sure they’re included in any urban renewal, development, or even public transport plans. I feel like we sometimes take a very American approach to stadium planning—wanting them in big open spaces with lots of parking. But that doesn’t really work for the LOI, which is a league built on routine and habit, and local identity - especially now that there are so many young people (with less accessibility) driving LOI attendances.

With the possibility of new teams coming into the 3rd Tier, I would say this is a near cornerstone of how they should look to develop in LOI.

[outspoken]

Older away fans were allowed into main stand to allow them sit. Others went onto the grass bank behind the dugouts. And then the younger fans kept pitchside behind the goal. Not ideal. Meant supporters well spread out for the late celebrations.

You'd see nathing from behind that goal, view was crap as it was. Poor stuff

[ger121]

The away stand at the Markets Field was closed on Friday and it looks like it will be indefinitely.

People will point the finger at Limerick FC and now Treaty United, but the problem always has been and always will be the ground owners - the LEDP.

The LEDP are absentee landlords who have allowed the ground to get worse in the ten years since re-opening.

That is shocking. LEDP have a lot to answer for it seems.

[EatYerGreens]

So when does the 'The new Dalymount needs to be bigger' discussion/thread start in earnest?

[sbgawa]

To be honest. Big game in the aviva start of season, and both rovers and bohs brought approx 11000 fans. If anything it proves that capacity of 8000 to 10000 is plenty for both clubs for 90% of matches.
You won't get neutrals coming to most Friday night loi games and normal away support is limited enough even where space available

[Glen Of Aherlow]

So when does the 'The new Dalymount needs to be bigger' discussion/thread start in earnest?


How about the thing gets built first .

With the current state of the world , there's every possibility of major turmoil on the way which if it affects our economy , could lead to an end to current plans for investment in sport , meaning none of the shiny new stadiums get built . We've been there before.

[EatYerGreens]

How about the thing gets built first .

With the current state of the world , there's every possibility of major turmoil on the way which if it affects our economy , could lead to an end to current plans for investment in sport , meaning none of the shiny new stadiums get built . We've been there before.

No matter what goes on in the world, life still goes on. Things still happen, get built etc.

The problem with the current Dalymount design (or at the last one I saw anyway) is that it seems to rule out future expansion. Which would be extremely short-sighted if so.

[Glen Of Aherlow]

It hasn’t been built yet and given the track record in this country with LOI grounds being developed it might never be built , so right now if it gets built as per current plans that would be major achievement for Bohs and the league

[EatYerGreens]

It hasn’t been built yet and given the track record in this country with LOI grounds being developed it might never be built , so right now if it gets built as per current plans that would be major achievement for Bohs and the league

But we've seen in the LOI that council-owned facilities are the ones which DO get built/developed. It's usually when clubs are leading on the development of ther own grounds that the problems arise, as they're then dependent on the FAI and government.

Building the wrong thing just because you're afraid of what a change to the plan might cause would make no sense. A stadium built now has to last for at least the next 30years. Especially if it has a design which makes changes difficult. Build it now, but build it right. And in a way which enables future expansion if required.

[Elfman]

I agree with you on the future proofing EYG but I think the issue is that Bohs are already maximising the plot they have.

iirc, the reason for the pitch rotation appears to be the fact they no longer own the land behind the goal on the Phibsborough Rd end. Open to your thoughts but I think a bigger stadium would require a move out of Phibsborough.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I agree with you on the future proofing EYG but I think the issue is that Bohs are already maximising the plot they have.

iirc, the reason for the pitch rotation appears to be the fact they no longer own the land behind the goal on the Phibsborough Rd end. Open to your thoughts but I think a bigger stadium would require a move out of Phibsborough.
In 2016 a 10K all seated capacity was planned - then in 2018 this dropped to 6,000 (at the time both Bohs and Shelbourne were to be anchor tenants) - in 2019 & 2022 there was talk of it going back up to 10K and then recently down to 8,000.
It is clear a 10,000 stadium is feasible - using terracing instead of seating increases capacity - indeed many European stadiums now have seating where the seats can be locked in an upright position creating two tiers of terracing for each tier of seating.

[Glen Of Aherlow]

But we've seen in the LOI that council-owned facilities are the ones which DO get built/developed. It's usually when clubs are leading on the development of ther own grounds that the problems arise, as they're then dependent on the FAI and government.

Building the wrong thing just because you're afraid of what a change to the plan might cause would make no sense. A stadium built now has to last for at least the next 30years. Especially if it has a design which makes changes difficult. Build it now, but build it right. And in a way which enables future expansion if required.

Do you really think the council and Govt are going to say ok to going back to the drawing board at this stage with further delays and increased costs ?

[RealJohn91]

Exactly, if you changed up everything now you'd probably be stuck trying to get the funding and everything organised for a new design for another decade.

[bohsmug]

It is clear a 10,000 stadium is feasible

Maybe a 10k stadium is feasible but it's far from clearly so. The current plan has 6k seats and the rest of the capacity is coming from terracing (and it's odd shaped terracing designed to use every available space to get people in). I have some ideas in my head for how you could squeeze a bit more capacity into the site but you'd need an in-depth knowledge of access/egress and general H&S rules to know what specifically is possible and what isn't. I've been at a meeting where a member of the stadium design team vaguely hinted it could be possible to expand in future and another member defiantly stated that the project was at max capacity, that it had been exploited to the max. Was that one team member limited in their thinking or were they the one who specialialised in issues like H&s, access/egress? I don't know.

I love what Derry have done with their new stand. You can see it has the ability to adapt to different circumstances/rules around fan demand and has adaptable capacity. I'd love if it were possible to put the same style of build in one of the pitchside stands but I'd need a more in depth knowledge to know whether that can work within access/egress restrictions. Looking at the project it looks like pitchside stands height and the amount of light that passes through it were decided upon in a way to mitigate against residential objections. The current plan looks like one that could actually get built - and even still I feel that can be precarious and dependent on external factors like economy staying in our favour. Process can be so slow in this country that those external factors are given a lot of opportunity to raise their head.

[EalingGreen]

It is clear a 10,000 stadium is feasible - using terracing instead of seating increases capacity - indeed many European stadiums now have seating where the seats can be locked in an upright position creating two tiers of terracing for each tier of seating.In theory you could maybe squeeze up to two standers into the space taken up by one seat, though this would be more by people standing tightly side by side rather than one in front of the other (person at the back wouldn't see past the person in front).

But you would never get permission to do so, if only because of Health & Safety considerations - concourses, access/egress, First Aid/Stewarding access etc.

Which is why eg in Germany, where they have rail seating the ratio of standing to sitting is 1.3:1. While in England, where they are far more strict on these things post-Hillsborough, when standing was finally permitted after the previous all-seater legislation, it was only on a 1:1 basis.

[bohsmug]

In theory you could maybe squeeze up to two standers into the space taken up by one seat, though this would be more by people standing tightly side by side rather than one in front of the other (person at the back wouldn't see past the person in front).

But you would never get permission to do so, if only because of Health & Safety considerations - concourses, access/egress, First Aid/Stewarding access etc.

Which is why eg in Germany, where they have rail seating the ratio of standing to sitting is 1.3:1. While in England, where they are far more strict on these things post-Hillsborough, when standing was finally permitted after the previous all-seater legislation, it was only on a 1:1 basis.

The Brandywell is being reported as having c. 1.8k seating capacity and c. 2.9k standing capacity, so that's more like 1.6:1. From looking online it looks like 2 steps per seat, so at full capacity that likely would mean 2 rows of standing per row of seating.

That's how it looks to my eyes, even a rough count of the empty rows versus seating rows in this picture shows you're in that range: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GhSuJ4hWwAArQI9?format=jpg&name=large

[EalingGreen]

The Brandywell is being reported as having c. 1.8k seating capacity and c. 2.9k standing capacity, so that's more like 1.6:1. From looking online it looks like 2 steps per seat, so at full capacity that likely would mean 2 rows of standing per row of seating.

That's how it looks to my eyes, even a rough count of the empty rows versus seating rows in this picture shows you're in that range: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GhSuJ4hWwAArQI9?format=jpg&name=largeInteresting.

It may be that NI doesn't have the same strict Standing-to-Seated ratio requirements of England or Germany.

And/or that Derry's design allows plenty of room not just for actual standing, but also access/egress in the event of an emergency, as you'd expect.

But as regards fitting in those extra standing places, I've been in rail-seating areas in both England and Germany, and yes, even the 1.6:1 ratio should just about be achievable. But unless each row of seats has two tiers (steps), then you cannot squeeze the extra in one in front of the other, since they would be unable to see past (obv).

I can't make out from the photo if that stand does indeed have two tiers per row. While I wonder how ticketing would work? I assume for all LOI games that the stand would operate on a standing-only basis, with maybe European or Cup games reverting to Seating? In any case, you couldn't sell an LOI Season Ticket for a specific seat if some league games were standing.

No doubt they've thought of all that (and more), while it certainly looks to be a tidy development.

[bohsmug]

But as regards fitting in those extra standing places, I've been in rail-seating areas in both England and Germany, and yes, even the 1.6:1 ratio should just about be achievable. But unless each row of seats has two tiers (steps), then you cannot squeeze the extra in one in front of the other, since they would be unable to see past (obv).



The only type of safe standing/rail seating being discussed here is those with 2 steps/tiers of standing per seating row.

There are a few indicators in the Brandywell stand to show it's 2 steps per row of seating. Particularly as the seats were still being installed when the picture was taken. You can see the aisles have 2 steps (as you'd expect regardless) and then there rows/steps/tiers continue across the rest of the development. Where there's a full block of seats beside a block were seats haven't been installed, you can see there's more or less double the rows across the stand. You can see it in the blocks that have just a few seats installed too. Occam's razor and all that... So whether it's future proofing or in line with current regulations, it's designed to fit significantly more people in standing mode than seating mode and it would appear part of that increase would be due to people stacked vertically 2 per seating row. The exact ratio permitted would be decided based on a number of factors, including regulations.

The seating is visually a bit different but fundamentally appears to offer the same effect as Hannover: https://www.sportsmanagement.co.uk/Sports-features/sports-management-magazine/The-push-for-safe-standing-in-stadiums/32350

So in relation to increasing capacity in Dalymount, rail seating has potential.... potentially! However access/egress is a concern and one that needs expert opinion. Height/light restriction (maybe due to offsetting potential residential objections) is potentially a barrier. I think, given the vast list of potential issues, that getting it to a capacity above 8k is a great outcome. If it were possible to increase capacity with rail seating (or any other method) I would be all for it but it may be that you just are not permitted to add more capacity to a site that size in a residential area.

[Elfman]

I've been at a meeting where a member of the stadium design team vaguely hinted it could be possible to expand in future and another member defiantly stated that the project was at max capacity, that it had been exploited to the max.

Did they mention at the meeting if they ever considered a 3 sided solution without pitch rotation? Just curious why they didn't go down this route.

[A N Mouse]

Brandywell stand definitely two steps per seated row. There at least one picture doing the rounds showing this, though the dodgy camera angle would have you questioning the depth of the step - maybe even the quality of the install ?

I know I previously quoted the ~2.8k standing figure, but slightly concerned actual figure might be tbd after h&s as it's been stated at different times as anywhere between 2.4k and 3k, or even slightly higher.

[Buckett]

Would it be possible to build a similar stand at the opposite end or is the dog track too close?

[Another Bohemia]

Did they mention at the meeting if they ever considered a 3 sided solution without pitch rotation? Just curious why they didn't go down this route.

The pitch rotation is a key part of the new design. It needed to happen to be in line with the best practices for building new stadia from what I remember. Current orientation is east/West and recommended orientation is a North/South bias

[A N Mouse]

Would it be possible to build a similar stand at the opposite end or is the dog track too close?

That been the talk, but not sure how practical it is. There about ten metres between perimeters of pitch and dog track at narrowest point. Might just be able to squeeze in a smaller version of what's going on at other end. But any structure passing about the middle of the goals impinges on view from Southend stand. So would need to take out that corner.

Removing corner of Southend stand leaves you with more room, but in an awkward wedge/corner combo. And nodoggietrackatthebrandy is a non runner, otherwise you'd have plenty of room to put up something connected at either end.

[CorribsideSteve]

That been the talk, but not sure how practical it is. There about ten metres between perimeters of pitch and dog track at narrowest point. Might just be able to squeeze in a smaller version of what's going on at other end. But any structure passing about the middle of the goals impinges on view from Southend stand. So would need to take out that corner.

Removing corner of Southend stand leaves you with more room, but in an awkward wedge/corner combo. And nodoggietrackatthebrandy is a non runner, otherwise you'd have plenty of room to put up something connected at either end.

I've often wondered if Derry could attempt a scaled down version of what Southampton had at the Dell? They replaced a steep two tiered concrete terrace with a triangular shaped wedge stand that held 3 or 4,000 with limited space. Derry have what looks like a similar triangular wedge shape of limited space behind that goal end. I wanted to upload a photo of that stand at the Dell but it's not letting me, but hopefully you get the idea.

[Martinho II]

That been the talk, but not sure how practical it is. There about ten metres between perimeters of pitch and dog track at narrowest point. Might just be able to squeeze in a smaller version of what's going on at other end. But any structure passing about the middle of the goals impinges on view from Southend stand. So would need to take out that corner.

Removing corner of Southend stand leaves you with more room, but in an awkward wedge/corner combo. And nodoggietrackatthebrandy is a non runner, otherwise you'd have plenty of room to put up something connected at either end.

Was there always a dog track at the Brandywell AN Mouse as my first game in the Brandywell was a quarter of a century ago and I cant remember seeing it then!

[Roones26]

would be very interested to know how long the dog track is for the world anyway. I see only this week its bring phased out in Wales so the clock is ticking on the industry and at a council facility moreso

[A N Mouse]

Was there always a dog track at the Brandywell AN Mouse as my first game in the Brandywell was a quarter of a century ago and I cant remember seeing it then!

I don't remember it not being there. You might have missed it, somehow, but it's why Southend stand was so far from pitch previously.

Afaik it was main thing brandywell was used for when senior football was gone. Not sure how often it's used now it's moved, from around main pitch, but pretty sure they held weekly meets.

I remember talking to a doggie man in Belfast and they loved coming there. Drumbo or whatever other tracks were about Belfast had been modernised, whereas brandy hadn't been changed in at least 70 years. If I'm remembering it right then it was fecking dangerous for dogs if went to fast round some of the bends, or maybe that was the newer ones but that sounds wrong

[2 Year Contract]

That been the talk, but not sure how practical it is. There about ten metres between perimeters of pitch and dog track at narrowest point. Might just be able to squeeze in a smaller version of what's going on at other end. But any structure passing about the middle of the goals impinges on view from Southend stand. So would need to take out that corner.

Removing corner of Southend stand leaves you with more room, but in an awkward wedge/corner combo. And nodoggietrackatthebrandy is a non runner, otherwise you'd have plenty of room to put up something connected at either end.

Sure as it is in that new away section if you’re in one of the seats in the corner, you can’t see about a quarter of the pitch because the side of the stand and it’s non transparent windows blocking your view. I recall the cup game up there last season lads in the corner shouting “what’s happening?” And having others commentate to them if pats won a corner and who was taking it etc

[2 Year Contract]

That’s some kicking the Cork lads in the shed end have given their own seats!

https://x.com/declancarey/status/1896121293101322288?s=46

[EalingGreen]

At the beginning if February, DCFC's CEO said he was "optimistic" that the club would get a big share of £36m for football stadia in NI which has been knocking around in Stormont for well over a decade. And he understood that under this scheme, Councils applying for a stadium which they owned would have to match-fund to the tune of 40% (for clubs owning the stadium, it's 5%):
https://www.derryjournal.com/sport/football/derry-city-with-grounds-for-optimism-over-ps362-million-fund-says-club-ceo-4976036

Anyhow, when Derry & Strabane Council considered this at a recent meeting, they were outraged, claiming that this was "discrimination" against Derry by Themmuns (the current Sports Minister is DUP, in the post for a year, after over 10 years of SF and SDLP Ministers). They were also annoyed that they had already set their budgets for this financial year, so would struggle to raise anything. (Though they've been expecting a grant from this funding for years now).

Anyhow, someone must have mentioned to them that it's nothing against Derry/DCFC per se, since it also applies to Ballymena U and Carrick Rgrs, both owned by the same (Unionist) Council.

So now they've dropped the Discrimination claims and are merely asking for an extension of the application deadline:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp8v21j97o

Though as that last article points out: "Similar funding schemes, such as Sport NI's Multi Facility Fund and the IFA's Grassroots Facilities Fund, require councils to provide at least 40% match funding.", so it shouldn't have been too much of a surprise.

[brendy_éire]

The Council did not claim discrimination. Council passed a motion, unanimously, asking for the deadline to be extended.
Council undertook a business case, funded by DfC, that was based on the 5% contribution. They obviously got this figure from DfC, so why the change?
Council hadn't budgeted for 40%, hence the need for more time.
I also believe that the work paid for by the club on the new stand can't count towards the 40%.

There has been no explanation of the 40% requirement for councils. It seems quite high, compared to the 5% required by clubs. It's essentially preferring state subsidy for private enterprise over keeping the money in public ownership.

As for the motives behind the 40%. I don't know.
The councillor interviewed suggested that some may view it as discrimination, which is true. Based on long-running issues and this minister's record, plenty will assume it is. There are also ways and means that he can use to fund other clubs affected by it, if he so chooses.

[EalingGreen]

The Council did not claim discrimination.
Correct, the Council itself may not have, since it has representatives from every community. But as for certain Councillors...

From 'Derry Now':
Sinn Fein’s Christopher Jackson believes that the Minister’s decision that local councils must match up to 40% of funding for completion of the project is unrealistic and potentially ‘deliberately discriminatory.’
and
People Before Profit’s Shaun Harkin also supported the proposal, insisting that a case had to be made to the Minister that this decision was an ‘injustice’.


Council undertook a business case, funded by DfC, that was based on the 5% contribution. They obviously got this figure from DfC, so why the change?
Council hadn't budgeted for 40%, hence the need for more time.
"Obviously?" Or misunderstood/assumed?


I also believe that the work paid for by the club on the new stand can't count towards the 40%.
Just the same as applies to other clubs who've invested in their stadia eg Coleraine or Crusaders.

However, the whole exercise is points-based and there are points scored for clubs that have invested in new facilities in the last six years.



There has been no explanation of the 40% requirement for councils. It seems quite high, compared to the 5% required by clubs. It's essentially preferring state subsidy for private enterprise over keeping the money in public ownership.

As for the motives behind the 40%. I don't know.
As for why it should be so, if you think about it, as well as having had to come up with the purchase price, clubs which own their own grounds have continually to invest in it for maintenance, upgrades and H&S requirements etc. Whereas clubs playing in municipal grounds can expect the Council to look after that. So it's not that Councils have to stump up "more" - and they do get central-government funding for sports and recreation btw - rather it's more "credit" towards clubs which own their own stadium and pay rates on it etc.

As I said earlier, this 40% requirement is hardly unknown, applying eg to IFA funding or Sports Council NI funding, which latter at least you might have expected a Council to be aware of. And afaik, similar principles apply throughout the UK eg:

UK sports funding for individuals, organisations and teams

This briefing provides an overview of the funding available for sport in the UK, including which organisations offer funding for different sports, the criteria for applicants to be eligible for funding, and the processes of applying for funding.
This includes the funds available for community teams and clubs as well as for individual athletes.

UK sports councils
There are four primary bodies that have responsibility for promoting grassroots sport across the four nations of the UK. Each organisation distributes government and National Lottery funding to achieve this goal:
• Sport England
• Sport Scotland
• Sport Wales
• Sport Northern Ireland
Typically, these organisations fund projects that look to increase participation, or improve pre-existing community sports facilities.
Each body may also offer ‘match funding’ for crowdfunding campaigns. This is when a grant giving organisation agrees to contribute to an applicant’s fundraising efforts.
For example, it might offer to top up the remaining 40% of a project if the first 60% of the goal is reached through crowdfunding.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9852/CBP-9852.pdf



The councillor interviewed suggested that some may view it as discrimination, which is true.Some may view the moon and consider it to be made of green cheese. That doesn't mean that a Councillor should be giving air time to matters which patently aren't true.



Based on long-running issues and this minister's record, plenty will assume it is.There are plenty who will assume anything you like. Or more accurately, anything they like. Doesn't make them right.



There are also ways and means that he can use to fund other clubs affected by it, if he so chooses.Really? You do appreciate that he unveiled an objective, points-based process to assess the merits (or otherwise) of each individual application?

So that if he tried to deviate from it eg in favour of some other Council owning a stadium, but against D&S Council, he'd be challenged in the Courts before you could say "Judicial Review".

In the end, this money has been depreciating in some account at Stormont for well over a decade. During this time the Ministers responsible for Sport, both SF and SDLP, proved unable (unwilling?) to release this money, while they grappled instead with the thorny issue of Casement's funding. While Lyons, who's been in the post for barely a year, has managed to unlock the process, which will be open to applications from football clubs throughout every part of NI.

[Nesta99]

The Council did not claim discrimination. Council passed a motion, unanimously, asking for the deadline to be extended.
Council undertook a business case, funded by DfC, that was based on the 5% contribution. They obviously got this figure from DfC, so why the change?
Council hadn't budgeted for 40%, hence the need for more time.
I also believe that the work paid for by the club on the new stand can't count towards the 40%.

There has been no explanation of the 40% requirement for councils. It seems quite high, compared to the 5% required by clubs. It's essentially preferring state subsidy for private enterprise over keeping the money in public ownership.

As for the motives behind the 40%. I don't know.
The councillor interviewed suggested that some may view it as discrimination, which is true. Based on long-running issues and this minister's record, plenty will assume it is. There are also ways and means that he can use to fund other clubs affected by it, if he so chooses.

Id say this one is straight forward enough, if like Dept of Sport funding here, its that the vast majority of clubs as small private companies there is no way they could raise 40% of a capital project so funding would never be drawn down. Councils and maybe NGBs in theory should have access and councils can apply for additional funding for specific projects from DoLG.

[EatYerGreens]

Id say this one is straight forward enough, if like Dept of Sport funding here, its that the vast majority of clubs as small private companies there is no way they could raise 40% of a capital project so funding would never be drawn down. Councils and maybe NGBs in theory should have access and councils can apply for additional funding for specific projects from DoLG.

Except the fact that clubs which own their own stadium have a sizeable asset which could be used to raise finance against.

[bohsmug]

I've often wondered if Derry could attempt a scaled down version of what Southampton had at the Dell? They replaced a steep two tiered concrete terrace with a triangular shaped wedge stand that held 3 or 4,000 with limited space. Derry have what looks like a similar triangular wedge shape of limited space behind that goal end. I wanted to upload a photo of that stand at the Dell but it's not letting me, but hopefully you get the idea.

Bit late seeing this and replying to it but this is essentially what's happening on the Connaught Street side in the current plan for Dalymount:
(probably a better image somewhere)
https://i2-prod.dublinlive.ie/incoming/article27703529.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_F52F6jxW8AAHrEO-1jpeg.jpg

I wonder is that a little more expensive than the more standard build like the new stand in Derry? I don't know if Derry would even have to it or maybe could do it in a less pronounced way. As far as I remember the plans for that stand in Dalymount goes from as few as 2 rows on one end to something like 18 on the other. Whatever it is, it is quite pronounced.

[Nesta99]

Except the fact that clubs which own their own stadium have a sizeable asset which could be used to raise finance against.

There is a real reluctance to borrow to finance a clubs proportion of a grant. Even with Clan Credo st up for this very purpose and offering very competative credit clubs seem to not want to risk it. Its changing, but one GAA example I encountered in the past was 30k for training lights and were freaking out over the 10% draw down requirement and freaked out even more when the Clan Credo option was suggested. Most clubs in LoI (I say most but could be perception) have their grounds in seperate ownership traditionally to protect that aspect of the club if it went to the wall, then there is the council, local association ownerships. I wondered, apart from the hard work done by Sligo, if owning their own ground directly helped pave the way for proper capital grant funding.

The asset also needs to be able to generate income to repay the collateral of the ground used, bar income would make it very doable but for some if it was just gates eg Longford, it could be a struggle to manage regular repayments (out of season especially) and everything else.

[EatYerGreens]

There is a real reluctance to borrow to finance a clubs proportion of a grant. Even with Clan Credo st up for this very purpose and offering very competative credit clubs seem to not want to risk it. Its changing, but one GAA example I encountered in the past was 30k for training lights and were freaking out over the 10% draw down requirement and freaked out even more when the Clan Credo option was suggested. Most clubs in LoI (I say most but could be perception) have their grounds in seperate ownership traditionally to protect that aspect of the club if it went to the wall, then there is the council, local association ownerships. I wondered, apart from the hard work done by Sligo, if owning their own ground directly helped pave the way for proper capital grant funding.

The asset also needs to be able to generate income to repay the collateral of the ground used, bar income would make it very doable but for some if it was just gates eg Longford, it could be a struggle to manage regular repayments (out of season especially) and everything else.

I get all that and agree with it. I was just pointing out that there IS a way that clubs who own their own ground could raise significant capital if required. The idea that clubs with an asset are as a rule in some sort of weak financial position just isn't true. Clubs without a stadium own nothing except player contracts (given that most teams here don't have their own physical academies). They're the ones in the worst financial situation.