Stadium Updates (All Clubs)

[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/GhSuJ4hW...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/GhSuJ4hW...jpg&name=large

Interesting.

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/S...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