Caledonian Stadium will look second best

[old caley girl]

If the club have this sort of money (and Im sure they dont) it should be spent on the team not on a stand we dont need. Other clubs are closing/demolishing stands to save money. its not only building the stand but if folk are to sit in it then it has to be stewarded policed etc. If the gas line had to be moved then it would surely cost so much more than the other stands cost and Im sure costs will also have risen over the years. Interesting debate but it botton line in it aint gonna happen anytime soon!

[Scotty]

The bottom line for me is the ground is unfinished. We should at least be aspiring to complete it by stating our desire to build a 4th stand and doing a rough costing. Even if it was a structure like our north and south stands costing about £750k that would do. Potential TV cash from the cup replay and hopefully the Celtic tie could see us 20% of the way there already.

your maths is flawed, you also assume (a) we will get through, and (b)the Celtic game would be televised (not an unreasonablle assumption I admit), .... and of course you forgot the cost of moving the gas transmission line which renders a 4th stand practically impossible.

I know people will say "What's the point, we can't fill the other 3 stands anyway?". Well even if it's just got an extra 1000 OF fans in it 3 times a year that's an extra 60k revenue p.a. A better atmosphere and more protection from the elements are other compelling reasons for building it.

So (assuming the gas pipe is magically moved for free) we spend 3/4 of a million pounds of money we do not have, on a structure that might see some action 2 or 3 times a season if you are lucky .... bearing in mind we have not sold out an OF game for 3 or 4 seasons, that assumption is a tad optimistic.

Also, you are assuming there is no cost involved in running this stand on a matchday as 1000 people at £20 a head x 3 times a season seems to be where you gt 60K from ? There are no stewards, no police for this stand ? There is no damage to seats, no clearing up to be done, nothing else that eats into your projected 60K profit ? Ok, lets go with that figure ..... 12 1/2 years ..... thats how long it would take to generate the revenue spent on it upfront ..... so long as every single game against the OF was sold out to current capacity +1000 ... something we havent done in the last 4 or 5 years ......

[Sorted]

I would be more than happy to see a fourth stand built or a new ground but .....

let's worry about this when we have our current facility bursting at the seams on a weekly basis eh? At the moment, we struggle to sell out matches with the OF. What is the economic case for building even more empty seats? Granted, a more sheltered environment and accessible location would help but don't see a move to Malaga on the horizon any time soon!

As my Granda once said to me, you can only p*sh with co*k you've got!

[CaleyD]

West Stand covers the terracing in that area and is concrete poured over the original steps. Not sure how suitable the new steps are in terms of dimensions for converting to safe standing. Centre section houses the media scaffold towers which would need to be moved backwards (they need to stay on the centre line) which would place them above the roof of the catering area...cost would be involved in doing that as you can't just sit them on the roof. Terracing towards the away end....we were already denied permission to use that by police for terracing when in Div 1 as segregation would have (in their opinion) caused problems.

It also doesn't solve the issue of closing in the stadium, which seems to be the OPs main problem.

Bottom line is that many of these things would be possible if we had the money....but we don't and I can't see us having it any time soon. Even if the clubs income was to increase by £500k a year, there's lots of other stuff that need money spending on them before a 4th stand/enclosure would reach the top of the priority list.

That's interesting as, unless I'm misunderstanding the area you are referring to there seemed to be no problem with Celtic fans occupying the west stand at 'our' end in the last game.

Yes, something which did not escape my attention.

[Caley]

your maths is flawed, you also assume (a) we will get through, and (b)the Celtic game would be televised (not an unreasonablle assumption I admit), .... and of course you forgot the cost of moving the gas transmission line which renders a 4th stand practically impossible.

I didn't assume we would get through, that's why I used words like "potentially" and "hopefully". I'm not 100% sure the pipeline would have to be moved either as the footprint for a semi-permanent stand is pretty much the same as what's there already on the west side of the ground.

Also, you are assuming there is no cost involved in running this stand on a matchday as 1000 people at £20 a head x 3 times a season seems to be where you gt 60K from ? There are no stewards, no police for this stand ? There is no damage to seats, no clearing up to be done, nothing else that eats into your projected 60K profit ? Ok, lets go with that figure ..... 12 1/2 years ..... thats how long it would take to generate the revenue spent on it upfront ..... so long as every single game against the OF was sold out to current capacity +1000 ... something we havent done in the last 4 or 5 years ......

Again, I didn't say 60k "profit", I said "revenue". Of course there's costs involved and that's why I chose the words I did. And I know we haven't sold out the stadium against the OF for a few years but that's because the home end isn't full. There's always extra demand from the away support, you only need to see how many OF fans can be found in the main and north stands.

I appreciate your reservations, and I a 4th stand will probably never happen, but it's still worthy of debate.

[Scotty]

I will make a prediction right now ...... there will NEVER be a 4th stand at the current TCS, or at least not a full-sized one. At best - as and when it was actually needed - we would get something similar to what we have now, perhaps as a safe standing area with half a dozen rows or something like that.

My reasoning .....

1. We do not need it, have never needed it, and are unlikely to need it in the near future to satisfy ticket demand.

2. This is the main reason ...... The pipeline would likely need to be moved if we needed to build a "proper" stand there. What we have already is basically compact terracing with poured concrete to accomodate a small quantity of seats located far enough away from the road to not affect the pipe (or regulations surrounding it). A proper stand would require a far bigger footprint, deeper founds etc etc etc ... and you then start to get into dodgy territory due to proximity rules for working near, or locating structures beside, high pressure gas lines.

I don't know the exact figures, its not my field of expertise, but I do remember the debate on here and also on Pie and Bovril at the time when we built the small enclosure and depending on the type of work undertaken, the minimum distances can be as little as a couple of metres (hand excavation) or as much as 250/300 metres for mechanical excavation.

From the National Grid's own publications ,...... "The relocation of existing underground pipelines is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact."

http://www.nationalg...Guidance_2_.pdf

Removal Costs: http://www.nationalg...L2011_04_11.pdf

Best map I can find .....

I didnt read the documents above thoroughly (got bored), just had a quick glance, but basically, my understanding is that if wanting to move or remove a pipeline. the 'third party', which in this case would be ICT, would not only be responsible for the physical costs of doing so, but also for all feasability studies, environmental impact assessments, all other costs or studies, and even the cost of infrastructure further down the pipeline to cope with the extra workload put on other parts of the system..... basically a very large blank cheque to be issued before we ever start thinking of spending anything on the actual stand

The person who first posted this subject on P&B (a County fan) reckoned it would cost "millions" and despite his generally annoying nature on that site, on this subject he certainly came across as somewhat knowledgeable and dare I say it believable .......

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

We dont sell out the ground for the old firm and Aberdeen games because there are always hundreds of empty seats in the home end , the away end always seems to be bursting at the seams .

[12th Man]

Regarding popularity fellow SPL fans were gutted when we were relegated, Inverness really is a great place to come to make a weekend of it.

Stadium I would like to see an eventual move or at least land set aside near the new campus (5-15 years away) but cant really see the point of an extra stand either.

As for County their stadium wont be that great as their east stand is being elongated which means that the seating section will still remain only about 10 seats deep no atmosphere there then.

I would say that the North stand is somewhat restricted due to depth and will actually be smaller than ours.

They need another 3500 seats and going by their stats and the size of travelling support I would assume that the seating requirements will mainly go in the away end any less than 2000 for away support and their loseing money. add 2000 away seats on to 2590 their current amount of seats which makes 4590 a few hundred more on the east stand ends could put it up to 4800 which means a tiny jail end.

Pure speculation of course but I would assume a north stand of no greater than 1500-2000 which kind of throws out my calculations a bit but will still be smaller than our 2500 seater north stand so to summerise

Victoria Park will kind of look the same but with an extended thin row of seats along the East Stand and a North and South stand smaller than ours.

Well done Dougal you must chuckle to yourself when typing this stuff up and you always get a good reply.

[Charles Bannerman]

The addition of a large fourth stand is an old chestnut which emerges from time to time but on each occasion the answer has to be "absolutely not".

Other posters have already made the point that even OF games don't quite fill the ground as it is. And even IF the Rangers and Celtic ends are just about full, how much demand would there be for any extra capacity provided? The expectation here seems to be that a new stand should be provided at massive cost IN CASE there MIGHT be a FEW Old Firm fans looking for seats on THREE occasions in the year.

And what would it cost to satisfy this wish list? Well apart from the very large cost of basic construction (someone suggested £750,000), there is also, as mentioned, the gas pipeline which, if I recollect a conversation with David Sutherland a few years back, could most straightforwardly be solved by a device known as a cantilever to support the stand - at the additional cost of £1 million.

So all this POSSIBLY to accommodate a FEW Old Firm fans - and at a time when the club has been obliged to sell off its Social Club for a fraction of the cost of a new stand to create ready cash and still unfortunately runs a deficit.

I actually thought that the reduction of the absurd SPL requirement of 10,000 seats - in which ICT played a major part - was the major breakthrough back in 2005 since there were already lots of surplus seats about the country. But here we seem to have a desire for a club which is short of cash voluntarily to go back up to the old requirement to satisfy a demand which doesn't exist.

I really think ICT has much better things to spend money on than a stand which would sit empty effectively on a permanent basis.

I know the Chairman reads this forum quite regularly.

I could guess that he's unsure whether to laugh or cry at this thread!

[Caley]

I would only back the building of a 4th stand if the pipeline(s) could remain where they are. I'm not sure how far the club have explored the possibility of building a new stand, say of the same design as the north and south stands.

I do fail to see why some think building a 4th stand is such a hilarious idea. It would make the ground a much more appealing place to visit. There are plenty of people who are put off going in bad weather, and sitting in a west stand would give protection from the prevailing wind/rain which generally comes from the west. Do the doubters have any better ideas to try and halt the slide in attendances? I'm not saying let's build the thing tomorrow, but if it is feasible (given the pipeline problem) then is it too much to ask to ASPIRE to build a 4th stand? And who says we have to make all the money back on it anyway? Sometimes you spend money on something purely because you want it!

Let's imagine we had a couple of good cup runs, got some luck in the transfer market and so had the 750k in the bank. Would you build the stand then? Or would you spend it on players that could get us into the top 6 for a couple of seasons? Or what else would you do with it to get the lost fans back?

[12th Man]

Im all for a forth stand but we have to fill all the home seats first, no point till that happens.

Would a hotel build an extension to give itself more beds when it cant even hit 60% capacity with what it has.

[Caley]

Im all for a forth stand but we have to fill all the home seats first, no point till that happens.

Would a hotel build an extension to give itself more beds when it cant even hit 60% capacity with what it has.

If a hotel was struggling because of a steadily declining number of visitors it might spend some money to make the place more appealing and therefore attract more guests, or it could lower its prices. On the other hand it could do nothing and hope for the best.

Nobody is suggesting building a 4th stand in order to increase capacity, it is in order to increase amenity and therefore make TCS a more attractive place to visit.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Caley

[Caley]

I will make a prediction right now ...... there will NEVER be a 4th stand at the current TCS, or at least not a full-sized one. At best - as and when it was actually needed - we would get something similar to what we have now, perhaps as a safe standing area with half a dozen rows or something like that.

My reasoning .....

1. We do not need it, have never needed it, and are unlikely to need it in the near future to satisfy ticket demand.

2. This is the main reason ...... The pipeline would likely need to be moved if we needed to build a "proper" stand there. What we have already is basically compact terracing with poured concrete to accomodate a small quantity of seats located far enough away from the road to not affect the pipe (or regulations surrounding it). A proper stand would require a far bigger footprint, deeper founds etc etc etc ... and you then start to get into dodgy territory due to proximity rules for working near, or locating structures beside, high pressure gas lines.

I don't know the exact figures, its not my field of expertise, but I do remember the debate on here and also on Pie and Bovril at the time when we built the small enclosure and depending on the type of work undertaken, the minimum distances can be as little as a couple of metres (hand excavation) or as much as 250/300 metres for mechanical excavation.

From the National Grid's own publications ,...... "The relocation of existing underground pipelines is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact."

http://www.nationalg...Guidance_2_.pdf

Removal Costs: http://www.nationalg...L2011_04_11.pdf

Best map I can find .....

I didnt read the documents above thoroughly (got bored), just had a quick glance, but basically, my understanding is that if wanting to move or remove a pipeline. the 'third party', which in this case would be ICT, would not only be responsible for the physical costs of doing so, but also for all feasability studies, environmental impact assessments, all other costs or studies, and even the cost of infrastructure further down the pipeline to cope with the extra workload put on other parts of the system..... basically a very large blank cheque to be issued before we ever start thinking of spending anything on the actual stand

The person who first posted this subject on P&B (a County fan) reckoned it would cost "millions" and despite his generally annoying nature on that site, on this subject he certainly came across as somewhat knowledgeable and dare I say it believable .......

Read this. It shoots down the idea that you can't build near a high pressure line. Hell you're allowed to do piling 15 metres away from the high pressure gas pipeline without supervision. See page 8.

[Scotty]

Read this. It shoots down the idea that you can't build near a high pressure line. Hell you're allowed to do piling 15 metres away from the high pressure gas pipeline without supervision. See page 8.

I did say I was no expert ..... so stand corrected, but regardless of anything, it would still be expensive to satisfy the National Grid folk over and above the actual cost of building the thing.

I do fail to see why some think building a 4th stand is such a hilarious idea. It would make the ground a much more appealing place to visit. There are plenty of people who are put off going in bad weather, and sitting in a west stand would give protection from the prevailing wind/rain which generally comes from the west. Do the doubters have any better ideas to try and halt the slide in attendances? I'm not saying let's build the thing tomorrow, but if it is feasible (given the pipeline problem) then is it too much to ask to ASPIRE to build a 4th stand? And who says we have to make all the money back on it anyway? Sometimes you spend money on something purely because you want it!

Let's imagine we had a couple of good cup runs, got some luck in the transfer market and so had the 750k in the bank. Would you build the stand then? Or would you spend it on players that could get us into the top 6 for a couple of seasons? Or what else would you do with it to get the lost fans back?

No problem in "aspiring" to build a stand, I would not argue with that, and if we had the money to deal with everything that is higher up the priority list than a stand and the money was available after that then fair enough ..... my argument is based in the here and now and I would NOT like us to spend the first 750K of any future revenue until or unless everything else was taken care of ......

anything else, and we wouldnt need to worry abut sliding attendances ... just what to do with several million quids worth of unused stadium parts !

[12th Man]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on using £750,000 to build a forth stadium when we cant currently fill what we have.

I dont think more fans will turn up because there is an extra stand to look at.

The pars have closed one of the main stands to save money and thats a stand that is already there, no maintenance, cleaning,gritting, clearing snow, no security or police and no catering staff. So they are saving money by not using something that they already have,

Using that logic if you were to approach ICT and give them 3/4M on the understanding that it was solely to build a 4th stand maybe they wouldnt want it. as it would cost them more money to look after it than to not have it at all.

Im all for a forth stand but only when it has a purpose and that time hasnt arrived yet.

[Tormod]

http://www.football.co.uk/inverness_caledonian_thistle/caley_jags_embrace_terracing_plan_rss1997030.shtml

Anyone any idea where these 1500 people are likely to be standing?

[Yngwie]

For the forseeable future the only standing will be in the queue for the pie kiosk. Our club's initial comments were slightly misleading and this statement was released to clarify the position.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/328-safe-standing-areas

[Sir C the 3rd]

hypothetically a potential new stand could be payed for if it was small and it was actually working for the club. In that i mean like with other clubs the stand for football isnt the main part of it. On a Saturday 20 times a year yes, but basically an office block or student accomodation or gym etc with seats and a roof built onto part of it.

Now obviously that is never going to happen because 1. the club have no vision for it 2. we would have no money to build it in the first place, regardless of the potential monies returned and 3. this gas pipe line (which somehow no-one considered when building the thing in the first place)

When built in 1997 there won't have been many that weren't impressed with the stadium, but now times have changed. Kind of what like what has happened with Inverness as a town, the look of the stadium has been sacrificed for capacity, which is a shame as there is no atmosphere whatsoever, both down to the same man...... but a move to a new ground would be good but i just cant see how that is going to happen any time soon either, so looks like we'll be down the longman with no 3rd stand for the forseeable.

As with being left behind by County...... don't be silly, they will always be the 2nd team in the Highlands!!

[CaleyD]

...and as I said already, why would/should we spend so much on a Stadium we do not own? We already did that when we built the new stands, but had little option if we wanted to play in the SPL. To do so again for no enforced or positively beneficial reason would be shear folly.

The only way I could see the Stadium being developed would be if the owners of it decided to do so to increase rental by way of things like offices mentioned above....but that would do nothing to increase the clubs income.

[+bughtmaster]

Let's put the subject to bed untill we are playing in European ties regularly and getting the sort of income from T V and attendance that will warrant a move or reconstruction of the ground, 'tll then I'm afraid it is really just pie in the sky.

We haven't reached the top six yet, We are not getting enough fans in, concentrate on that please you whizz kids and bring up some realistic ideas on how to get more fans in,

more noise and more money. In the meantime accept what we have got as adequate.

[dougiedanger]

Something that always puzzled me: how was it that after selling two prime sites in the centre of town the club ended up with a half-built stadium at the dump?

And did no one think of the potential problem of the gas pipe when deciding on the stadium site?

[Charles Bannerman]

Something that always puzzled me: how was it that after selling two prime sites in the centre of town the club ended up with a half-built stadium at the dump?

Telford Street realised £1M and Kingsmills Park £486K. The net value of the assets was £1.225M after various expenses (including considerable legal expenses for both Thistle and Caley) and possibly tax on the Caley deal.

The total bill for the Stadium, completed in 1996, was £4.844M.

The balance was made up of £511K from INE, £373K from the EU Objective 1 fund, bank borrowings of £928K, Roads and Transport grant of £87K, a Football Trust grant of £619K, a Football Trust loan of £200K and the much discussed Inverness Common Good Fund grant of £900K.

That was what made the CGF Grant so vital in the whole equation. Massive economies and short cuts had already had to be be made to keep the cost down to £4.844M and they were still around £1M short. Without the CGF grant, the whole thing could well have foundered.

One major reason for it being so expensive was that the planners insisted on a road which cost £1.3M. There was also an insistence that the finish of the building wasn't just cheap and nasty blocks as well as a lengthy list of other planning requirements - right down to "16 cycle racks (Sheffield Style)"

As a result, anything more elaborate than what appeared was out of the question. It's really important to understand how marginal the construction of the necessary stadium was in financial terms, but it was an integral part of the deal for Inverness to get intothe SFL.

On the other hand, what did materialise was relatively easily upgraded to 6000 seats when the opportunity of SPL football came along - which at the planning stage in 1994 probably wasn't even foreseen by Dougie McGilvray.

As for the gas pipeline, yes that was known about but really the problems related to going to so many other sites were so huge that it was regarded as relatively minor at the time. Finding a site was also a major issue.

And the gas pipeline remains a minor issue, given that building a fourth stand remains inconceivable for the foreseeable future.

I do appreciate the danger of a tide of protest there may be at me appearing to plug my own book, but Against All Odds is free on this site and the whole tale is told there in detail!

Edited January 11, 2012 by Charles Bannerman

[12th Man]

Well Charles are ICT likely to get the same amount of funding from so many sources if it were to relocate?

Or is it unlikely now that we are in the SPL.

[CaleyD]

Unlikely we would get funding from those same sources again....not directly at least, and not unless it was of benefit to any of them to see us relocating. We wouldn't need it though.

I'm still of the (personal) opinion that we will relocate, and in fact had it not been for the economic collapse we would probably have relocated already. The commercial value of the land that the stadium occupies is such that (subject to change of use approval) we would be able to secure more than enough from selling the remainder of the lease to fund a relocation without the need for additional assistance.

[Caley]

Where do you think we would relocate to? A lot of fans would love us at the Bught but I reckon there's too many hurdles to overcome with that one.

As long as it's got 4 sides and is nowhere near a feckin gas pipe I'll settle for anywhere!