copy and pasted from our brum forumers: :)

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/icBirmingham/00048957-5CBA-135F-A6F10C01AC1BF814.jpg

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/collections/Birmingham_Mail/frontpage.jpg


Blues unveil stadium plan
By Neil Connor, Oct 26 2005

Officials at Birmingham City Football Club today unveiled plans for the most ambitious leisure complex yet proposed for the Midlands.

Details of the £300 million Birmingham Sports Village were unveiled after months of talks between some of the city's most famous sporting names, the city council and US casino company Las Vegas Sands.

The project, which was first revealed in The Birmingham Post almost 18 months ago, will be anchored by a 55,000-seater multi-purpose stadium designed to put the city on the international sporting map.

The iconic structure, which will be the only four-sport arena in the country, will be set within a 59-acre "village" in Saltley, which would include facilities for basketball, tennis and indoor football.

The president of the multi-billion dollar Las Vegas Sands casino company vowed to "bring Las Vegas to Birmingham" with the building of an entertainment complex within the village.

However, the entire scheme will only become a reality if the Gaming Commission agrees to grant a super casino licence for the project, which depends on a £117 million cash injection from Las Vegas Sands.

Karren Brady, Birmingham City managing director, said the sports village would have lasting benefits for the whole region and would "right the wrong" of the decision to build a new national stadium at Wembley, not in the Midlands.

She also claimed that the regeneration benefits of the scheme put the project ahead of rival casino bids being promoted locally by the National Exhibition Centre and Coventry's Ricoh Arena.

"This is a destination that will draw people from across the UK to state-of-the-art facilities and an attractive new landscape," said Ms Brady.

"This is not just a 55,000-seater stadium where we could hold major competitions in rugby, cricket, football and athletics.

"We want to deliver regeneration and enrich people's lives in a way that no other casino proposals in the Midlands or in the UK can match."

Ms Brady also said that the new arena, which would be called The City of Birmingham Stadium, would help Birmingham City compete with Europe's best football clubs.

As the country's only arena to boast a retractable roof, pitch and lower seating, council officials also believe it could help Birmingham to stage events such as the Champions League Final, Rugby League internationals and Test match cricket.

Officials at Warwickshire County Cricket Club have already discussed the possibility of organising Test matches at the arena with Ms Brady and the city council.

Council officials have also discussed the possibility of using the stadium as a centrepiece for a future bid for hosting the Commonwealth Games.

Las Vegas Sands president William Weidner revealed that the casino group had held talks with the NEC over its plans to build a super casino.

However, he said a partnership with the complex had been ruled out as he felt it would not fulfil the Government's criteria that the new super casinos should help regeneration. The project would be funded with cash from Las Vegas Sands, revenue derived from the sale of Birmingham City's St Andrew's home, and a grant from the city council.

It is expected that between £3 million and £5 million profits will be made each year from hosting events at the stadium.

Most of that cash would go to the city council, with the remainder being paid to Birmingham City. Las Vegas Sands would hope to recoup its massive outlay through its running of the entertainment complex.

No chance :)

Looks very ambitious, not very origional though...

Looks very ambitious, not very origional though...

Ay? In what way?
It looks completely original, name another stadium in the UK it is the same as.

wonderfully different. it deosnt have anythign as ditinctive as the arch of wembley but overall I prefer the way it looks.

Blackpool or Manchester is getting the Super Casino.

ooh is a govt minister a member on this forum??? gasp

Manchester will not get the super casino.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/3348/birmstadiumnew6vn.jpg

Blackpool or Manchester is getting the Super Casino.

Manchester will not get it! Blackpool will? Then again, if London got it, it would'nt be a surprise or shock! Expect the obvious! Let the city bashing begin! :bash:

Ay? In what way?
It looks completely original, name another stadium in the UK it is the same as.
I was referring more to the general layout of the development. Stadium? Retail? Swimming Pool? Casino? Sounds a lot like a certain Sportscity.

I was referring more to the general layout of the development. Stadium? Retail? Swimming Pool? Casino? Sounds a lot like a certain Sportscity.

It's called mixed- or multi-use development Accura - you would be hard-pushed to find a new stadium without it. So it is not a copy of Manchester, nor is it a copy of anywhere else - everyone is sticking to the guidelines.

Blackpool or Manchester is getting the Super Casino.

There will be more than one super casino - there will be one per region at least (16 smaller ones on the cards too).

So Blackpool or Manchester may be getting YOUR supercasino, but Brum or Cov may get OURS, so on and so forth...

I suspect you are being a sourpuss - no comment on architectural merit or the regeneration effects of such a development - just a "you're not going to get it" comment. Nice.

The architecture on this is shockingly poor. It looks like some 60s mistake. Whatsmore, why do they feel the need to create a scaled down version of the SportCity casino plans?

The architecture on this is shockingly poor. It looks like some 60s mistake...

So says the head of RIBA or CABE...

How do you know the architecture is poor? Seen the plans? Details? Elevations?

From what I see it is a stadium that will be immediately recognisable (which is better than many stadia built today that are difficult to tell one from the other), and I like the series of pylons that form the backbone of the building. I can understand that some people don't, just like Selfridges, Dome, Gherkin etc etc

Whatsmore, why do they feel the need to create a scaled down version of the SportCity casino plans?

So EVERY casino, or stadium, or sport arena, or maybe as far as house, road, lamppost, is a copy of something in Manchester? And who says it will be scaled-down - wait till they're built (if at all).

EB - if you want to talk about Sportcity, then go to the thread or start one - don't use this one.

So says the head of RIBA or CABE...

How do you know the architecture is poor? Seen the plans? Details? Elevations?

From what I see it is a stadium that will be immediately recognisable (which is better than many stadia built today that are difficult to tell one from the other), and I like the series of pylons that form the backbone of the building. I can understand that some people don't, just like Selfridges, Dome, Gherkin etc etc
Seriously, who gives a damn about plans and elevations? Are you one of these architecture buffs who can't see the wood for the trees? I don't care how well designed it is in engineering terms. It's an ugly building.

So EVERY casino, or stadium, or sport arena, or maybe as far as house, road, lamppost, is a copy of something in Manchester? And who says it will be scaled-down - wait till they're built (if at all).

EB - if you want to talk about Sportcity, then go to the thread or start one - don't use this one.
The simple fact is that they seem to be building a lot of the SportCity facilities as a part of this scheme. It's obvious, however, that they will not be as big as the buildings in the renders are not even close to being the size needed to match the SportCity casino plans. Yes, if it includes the same concept in a slightly different package then it is a copy.

Seriously, who gives a damn about plans and elevations? Are you one of these architecture buffs who can't see the wood for the trees? I don't care how well designed it is in engineering terms. It's an ugly building.


The simple fact is that they seem to be building a lot of the SportCity facilities as a part of this scheme. It's obvious, however, that they will not be as big as the buildings in the renders are not even close to being the size needed to match the SportCity casino plans. Yes, if it includes the same concept in a slightly different package then it is a copy.

I can see the wood for the trees I just cannot see how you can categorically say something. In your opinion it is ugly. In mine it is one of the best-looking stadia in the country (if it gets built).

It is not a copy. If you have to build or propose something along the same guidelines then you end up with a similar result. You are deluded if you think that BCFC and the casino operator thought "I know - let's copy Sportcity". That said - they may well have done in which case I am completely wrong - but until it is known that they said that you cannot say it is a copy. It doesn't look the same, it has some of the same uses though

I can see the wood for the trees I just cannot see how you can categorically say something. In your opinion it is ugly. In mine it is one of the best-looking stadia in the country (if it gets built).
Fine. In my opinion, and that of many other people, it is an aesthetically clumsy design, reminiscent of the 1960s.

It is not a copy. If you have to build or propose something along the same guidelines then you end up with a similar result. You are deluded if you think that BCFC and the casino operator thought "I know - let's copy Sportcity". That said - they may well have done in which case I am completely wrong - but until it is known that they said that you cannot say it is a copy. It doesn't look the same, it has some of the same uses though
Do you not find it remarkably strange that every single component of this scheme can be found in the SportCity plans? The only difference is that the SportCity plans have a few extra things on top.

I have to say I side with the Brummies on this one. So what if a similar concept already exists in Manchester, why not stick to a proven forumula. While I do think the aesthetics of it could do with some work I broadly support the idea behind this,

Can anyone tell me if its in a run down area though because this sort of thing should be used as a catalyst to improve areas like East Manchester...

Anyway good luck with it, I hope it becomes a reality. Although on present form I doubt any of the Birmingham clubs will be filling it ;)

I have to say I side with the Brummies on this one. So what if a similar concept already exists in Manchester, why not stick to a proven forumula. While I do think the aesthetics of it could do with some work I broadly support the idea behind this,

Can anyone tell me if its in a run down area though because this sort of thing should be used as a catalyst to improve areas like East Manchester...

Anyway good luck with it, I hope it becomes a reality. Although on present form I doubt any of the Birmingham clubs will be filling it ;)

That's what I mean Irish - a shopping centre will always contain shops, eateries, car park etc so to say that a sports & casino complex containing sporting venues and a casino is a copy is a bit strange. EB talks like Sportcity was the first one ever. And with government guidelines steering developers towards this mix it is not even a developer's idea necessarily - it is just going along with what the gov't wants.

It is in a very run-down area (on the model you can see St Andrews in the top left) - part industrial, part derelict, part poor estate, contaminated land - something like this would be wonderful for the area.

And I know what you mean about the Brummie clubs - it isn'[t looking too good is it? Maybe Blues are spending too much time thinking about their shiny new stadium... ;)

Fine. In my opinion, and that of many other people, it is an aesthetically clumsy design, reminiscent of the 1960s.


Do you not find it remarkably strange that every single component of this scheme can be found in the SportCity plans? The only difference is that the SportCity plans have a few extra things on top.

ha ha you really do make me laugh sometimes...oh well if it is a copy of a manchester build at least it will make a change from you guys copying everything we did in the late 80's and early to mid 90's lol

(awaits a fantasically comedic response)

ha ha you really do make me laugh sometimes...oh well if it is a copy of a manchester build at least it will make a change from you guys copying everything we did in the late 80's and early to mid 90's lol

(awaits a fantasically comedic response)
At least when we copied things of yours we made them bigger and better (arena, concert hall, etc.). In true Brummie style, though, you downscale! :laugh:

for the last time EB bridgewater is crap in comparion to the sympahny hall

for the last time EB bridgewater is crap in comparion to the sympahny hall
:laugh: It's bigger and better. It's also part of a big complex that includes a large conference centre, a large exhibition centre and a 19,000 arena, all in the centre of the city!

That's what I mean Irish - a shopping centre will always contain shops, eateries, car park etc so to say that a sports & casino complex containing sporting venues and a casino is a copy is a bit strange. EB talks like Sportcity was the first one ever. And with government guidelines steering developers towards this mix it is not even a developer's idea necessarily - it is just going along with what the gov't wants.

It is in a very run-down area (on the model you can see St Andrews in the top left) - part industrial, part derelict, part poor estate, contaminated land - something like this would be wonderful for the area.

And I know what you mean about the Brummie clubs - it isn'[t looking too good is it? Maybe Blues are spending too much time thinking about their shiny new stadium... ;)

Yeah theres a good chance all three will be in and around the relegation mix this year though I think they'll be ok, Sunderland and Pompey should see to that.

I have to agree with you Biosonic of course Sports City wasnt the first attempt at using a stadium for regeneration this has been the norm for 20 years. Anyway I really hope this happens, so that Birmingham has 2 great stadiums for any potential world cup bid, and indoor test cricket in the winter sounds good to me! :cheers:

ah hem.....having sang in both i can categorically say that symphony hall is by far the best in the country. for the performer SH is so much better with wonderful facilities for acoustic moulding, for the technician the SH has such a great array of facilities to enable it to put on literally anything anyone so desires and for the audience, well its practically perfect, sighlines, sound quality, facilities. believe me this view is held not only by me but by some of the worlds best performers and conductors. i found BH big but lifeless and the sound is so difficult to mould to an individual performance or style of music, everything sounds tinny in there and this means that performance detail is lost. the lighting is terrible, and the organ is imo a pile of crap. another view held by most of my FRCO mates. i agree the sizes of manchesters buildings maybe slighly bigger but remember its not quantity but quality that counts.

come back on that one you mancobsessed, poor deluded, closed mind and quite frankly annoying freak. you stay in manc forum and we will stay here and discuss A STADIUM PLAN. sick and tired of your interruptions on how manc is this and manc does that. i know i couldnt care less ever since risa opened on anal treet.

goodbye
xxx

i just hope that we get this stadium..woo hoo how cool would that be

So funny listening to you manc and brum forumers argue and bicker over which of your cities are best, like it matters so much, i mean to anyone outside the north and midlands your two cities are positively provincial (esp compared to London).

I came here to read about the plans for a new world-class stadium in Brum not a regurgitated debate on two sub-world class cities.

Please don't say 'mancs' plural. i think you'll find it's only eb arguing thankyou very much.

I came here to read about the plans for a new world-class stadium in Brum not a regurgitated debate on two sub-world class cities.

oo you bitch!

So funny listening to you manc and brum forumers argue and bicker over which of your cities are best, like it matters so much, i mean to anyone outside the north and midlands your two cities are positively provincial (esp compared to London).

I came here to read about the plans for a new world-class stadium in Brum not a regurgitated debate on two sub-world class cities.

Good on you pal, what part of town are you in.

I must say I really like the look of this stadium. If it gets built it will definately be one of the best in the country.

It is very unlikley to go ahead. 55,000 is bigger than Newcastle's ground. Birmingham are and NEVER will get crowds like this for anything other than 2/3 games a season if they are lucky.

Evidence...Sunderland had empty seats against United and will not average over 40,000 this year.
Chelsea, don't sell out every home match.
Liverpool don't sell out every home match
Man City etc etc

All clubs SUBSTANTIALLY bigger than B City.... the rest of the scheme is working on some huge assumptions

looks ok, sliding roofs are a mistake in northern europe though a bit gimmicky, make it a sloping roof scheme aka Bolton/Man City's ground..... BUT different!!!

see Cardiff, Amsterdam for crap pitches!!

looks ok, sliding roofs are a mistake in northern europe though a bit gimmicky, make it a sloping roof scheme aka Bolton/Man City's ground..... BUT different!!!

see Cardiff, Amsterdam for crap pitches!!

But it has a sliding pitch too - which addresses the problem of pitch quality.

And as for the point about capacity... a) Man City and Sunderland (for several seasons) showed that a new stadium can attract more fans and b) they're not paying for the stadium, it will be paid for by Las Vegas Sands, council-owned and they will just be a tennant.

I just think it has to pay the way.. ManCity may have had the stadium built but they are still £50m in debt and owe the council money for every home game.....Birmingham City own their current ground and will have to pay rent for the new ground at the least...nothing is free... especially from a casino!!

Make everything manageable.... 40,000 capacity seems more realistic, with a chance of being fuller than a 55,000 stadium.

Amsterdam Arena has a sliding pitch......

Ok so being honest I hate almost every new build stadium :
Bolton- Middlebrook/Middle of nowhere
City- impressive but souless
Middlesborough- where do you start...
Wembley- location
Reading- empty every week
Sunderland- buy one get two mates in free
etc.... been to all of the above's old grounds..heaps better..even Bolton with a supermarket in the away end was still better than being located under a hill 10 miles out of town.... Wigan has two grounds almost it's that far out!

and calm again!

I just think it has to pay the way.. ManCity may have had the stadium built but they are still £50m in debt and owe the council money for every home game.....Birmingham City own their current ground and will have to pay rent for the new ground at the least...nothing is free... especially from a casino!!

Make everything manageable.... 40,000 capacity seems more realistic, with a chance of being fuller than a 55,000 stadium.

Amsterdam Arena has a sliding pitch......

Ok so being honest I hate almost every new build stadium :
Bolton- Middlebrook/Middle of nowhere
City- impressive but souless
Middlesborough- where do you start...
Wembley- location
Reading- empty every week
Sunderland- buy one get two mates in free
etc.... been to all of the above's old grounds..heaps better..even Bolton with a supermarket in the away end was still better than being located under a hill 10 miles out of town.... Wigan has two grounds almost it's that far out!

and calm again!

No the Amsterdam Arena does not have a sliding pitch - that's its problem. You may be thinking of the Gerledrome (not sure if that's the spelling) which is another stadium in Holland, which does have a sliding pitch. So does Shalke's new stadium.

The funding works like this. £117 million from LVSC, who are putting the money in in order to get the casino license (no regeneration, no license) with the rest coming mainly from sale of old stadium land and naming rights. Land would be for free from the Council, but actually they're getting a great deal because the land is contiminated so it saves them a multi-million pound clean up bill which is included in the cost of the project. Then the council own it, Birmningham City are the tennants and the Council get a cut of the income from Birmingham City for every ticket sold above 35,000. If they don't get at least 5,000 more fans every week, they don't pay anything. Man City have huge debts but I don't think that's anything to do with the stadium, it's because they pissed their money up the wall on players and wages particularly during the Keegan era.

Your comments on the stadium designs you've talked about are pretty subjective, but when you think about the dumps they've replaced - particularly in the case of Boro - maybe they're not so bad!

Amsterdam....stand corrected....knew it was meant to be sliding but found this...

The final decision on the pitch is made. Contrary to previous announcements, the pitch will not be mobile. The decision is made to install the so-called PAT (Prescription Athletic Turf) system, which is imported from America and is specially designed for intensive pitch use. It is a permanent grass pitch under which a system of pipes and detection equipment is installed. The condition of the grass can be constantly controlled using computers. During large-scale events the grass is subjected to a vacuum and covered with terraplas, which means that it can remain covered for around five days without being damaged.

so maybe sliding pitches do work afterall!

Still don't think renting is the way forward... what about exec boxes revenues, advertsing, event holding, alterations....stay where you are... did it stop the team getting promoted, will you gain so much as to justify the move?

Maybe the directors of birmingham want to cash in on selling the ground before they leave the club. A bit of a payback for what they have put into the club over the years. It is well documented that they want to leave. I can tell you that one director has built up a substantial stake in another premiership club.

Maybe the directors of birmingham want to cash in on selling the ground before they leave the club. A bit of a payback for what they have put into the club over the years. It is well documented that they want to leave. I can tell you that one director has built up a substantial stake in another premiership club.


Bollocks!!!

They've made there money back and then some.

And also none off them have any stakes in any other premiership clubs. BECAUSE ITS PROHIBITED BY THE FA!

And its certainlly not documented anywhere that they want to leave, the tabloids sometimes make up stories about David sulivan. the Gold brothers are'nt going anywhere!

He's an excited West Ham fan Blue! The Golds are Hammers fans but as you say - it is prohibited to have stakes in 2 Prem clubs concurrently.

So funny listening to you manc and brum forumers argue and bicker over which of your cities are best, like it matters so much, i mean to anyone outside the north and midlands your two cities are positively provincial (esp compared to London).

I came here to read about the plans for a new world-class stadium in Brum not a regurgitated debate on two sub-world class cities.


An unsuitable position for such a post id think since the one thing London lack as a genuinely world class city is a world class concert hall. It doesn’t have anything in the same league as the Symphony Hall.

I'd also disagree with your supremely arrogant post - nobody outside of London and the SE would dream of describe either city is provincial. Britain is perhaps the only English speaking country in which the description of a city of over a million in the city proper would not be met with bemusement.

Bollocks!!!

They've made there money back and then some.

And also none off them have any stakes in any other premiership clubs. BECAUSE ITS PROHIBITED BY THE FA!

And its certainlly not documented anywhere that they want to leave, the tabloids sometimes make up stories about David sulivan. the Gold brothers are'nt going anywhere!

David Gold was rumered to be sniffing around West Ham until they got promoted and thier value shot up.

David Sullivan has a stake in Tottenham that doesn't exceed Fa regulations. The Fa are not happy about it but he hasn't broke any rules. He also was activley looking for a buyer last season and was looking for offers of around £6million for his stake. Remember the story the travelling is getting too much. It was bollocks by the way, the answer has more to do with why Karren Brady isn't allowed in the boardroom or directors box on matchdays.

These people between them are worth over £1bn don't you think that they can a amass holdings on the quiet, through trusts and different company's and through and putting in place other shareholders and thus controlling other stakes. The blues are a hobby to these people, the club is not in their blood when they are bored, they will move on.

While there was a climbdown over the number of super casino licenses with just one being granted on an experimental basis, with Blackpool being the favourite. I have seen several reports saying this is all being weaseled out of.

Bump

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/icBirmingham/00048957-5CBA-135F-A6F10C01AC1BF814.jpg

I wish this stadium would be built.

It would have made a World Cup bid easier if this great stadium had been built. Superb looking stadium, I hope they one day find a way in Birmingham to build it.

^^ I wouldn't worry too much you know. The goverment is fully committed to bidding for WC 2018, and it just needs the FA's consent which should be announced sometime later this year. And I am positive England will get it, seeing as all the other big European countries have hosted it more recently then England and England will have the best stadiums in Europe by then. So when this WC bid really starts, I am almost sure the talks of building a high capacity stadium in Birmingham will re-awaken again, maybe with a bit of goverment backing. Can't say it will be this design, as that was made with a casino project in mind, but there will almost deffinietly be at least one new stadium in Brum before the WC!

:cheers:

An unsuitable position for such a post id think since the one thing London lack as a genuinely world class city is a world class concert hall. It doesn’t have anything in the same league as the Symphony Hall.

I'd also disagree with your supremely arrogant post - nobody outside of London and the SE would dream of describe either city is provincial. Britain is perhaps the only English speaking country in which the description of a city of over a million in the city proper would not be met with bemusement.

I think you'll find the Royal Festival Hall redevelopment will fix that. Plus in the Royal Albert Hall (recently refurbished) we have a world famous venue. Additionally, have you been to the Royal Opera House recently? The symphony hall in Brum is great though - all cities in the UK should have something like this.

I thought this thread was about stadiums and not the best or prestifious concert venues.

I doubt the current goverment will back Birmingham in anything nevermind a new stadium. Any news on this project or is it another brummie project truely bummed out?

n.b. Villa Park is a world class stadium

Oh what might have been - seems ironic, but the chosen Manchester site is next too an already-existing stadium - Birmingham would have got a stadium out of the super casino (and more). Considering that they were wanting to make an 'environmental' impact with where the super casino would be situated, they needn't have looked further than the Brum site; it made more sense than the Manchester one, IMHO.

^ More "Super Casinos" will probably be allowed in the next few years, so hopefully Birmingham will get the COBS within the next ten years.

Oh what might have been - seems ironic, but the chosen Manchester site is next too an already-existing stadium - Birmingham would have got a stadium out of the super casino (and more). Considering that they were wanting to make an 'environmental' impact with where the super casino would be situated, they needn't have looked further than the Brum site; it made more sense than the Manchester one, IMHO.
Also there was another site in Manchester to one point. Where was it? Old Trafford. Stadiums seem very popular for these Casinos.

Brum should have realised the answer to that age-old question,

"Which came first the stadium or the casino?"

It seems like is was the stadium...

bugger!!

Brum should have realised the answer to that age-old question,

"Which came first the stadium or the casino?"

It seems like is was the stadium...

bugger!!

You were totally let down by your council. They were told they had an excellent chance if they went for a city centre(ish) proposal, but they put their weight behind Solihull's lame duck bid, just to bail out the failing NEC, even though they were repeatedly told that it was completely the wrong site. They even failed to hedge their bets by submitting their own bid, even though there was nothing to stop them doing so. total muppets.

Birmingham had the perfect case, with the possible exception of the strong opposition that may have come from some parts of the local muslim community.

^ More "Super Casinos" will probably be allowed in the next few years, so hopefully Birmingham will get the COBS within the next ten years.

10 years is optimistic. No more casino licenses in this Parliament - the casino in Manchester would need to be built and up and running for at least one year (opponents would push for longer) before the impact could be properly evaluated. Allow up to a year for an "impact study". Then allow more for another lengthy debate. Then, assuming Brum got its act together and was chosen, you'd probably have at least another year of local debate before any go-head was given. The operator would build the casino first, then a stadium (the plans for which, by the way were developed by Las Vegas Sands, rather than the council). Assume 3 years for a stadium construction.

^I know it's optimistic, but I really want this stadium built and even though it would be difficult to get it built in the timeframe it is possible.

^I know it's optimistic, but I really want this stadium built and even though it would be difficult to get it built in the timeframe it is possible.

Sorry, forgot to mention the remediation of the polluted land the site sits on. Significant amount of that and earth-mving because it's on a steep incline. Factor in another year.

Sorry to put a downer on it. I'm still so disappointed in the council.

The thing that really, REALLY annoys me is the Manchester Casino is in an almost identical situation to our proposal. The only real differance being their stdium was already built.

This basically means that if Birmingham city council had backed the Blues proposal, there was a massive possibilty of landing the licence.

Such a wasted opportunity for the city

With all due respect, do Birmingham City FC really need a 55,000 seater stadium?

Surly 40,000 would be ample enough.

This is one of the differences i think between Birmingham and Manchester city councils. The BCC needs to show more ambition and forward thinking like MCC who are trying to make alot of ground and quite rapidly too. If it doesnt change its ways Manchester may soon pip it into Second city status(although some might say it has done already).

With all due respect, do Birmingham City FC really need a 55,000 seater stadium?

Surly 40,000 would be ample enough.

Good question. Not sure if 55,000 is too much, but I would say 40,000 is definitely not enough for a new stadium. One of the reasons why is because they could probably reach 40k from redeveloping the main stand. A fraction of the cost of a new stadium. Then there's the fact that 40k is less then the 43k at Villa Park.

If a 55k stadium was built with an athletics track, it would surely be the largest in the UK post 2012, unrivalled by any other. If they do go ahead with a new stadium, they should include a track as it would bring in so much revenue.

I must admit that I am always shocked that a club in a large city has not tried to include a running track by means of retractable or collapsible stands or whatever as surely this could provide it with an additional income stream over the summer months when football is not played. There are loads of stadiums capable of hosting a Rock Concert, but none to hold top level events such as World Athletic Championships/Golden League meeting/Commonwealth Games etc.

Good question. Not sure if 55,000 is too much, but I would say 40,000 is definitely not enough for a new stadium. One of the reasons why is because they could probably reach 40k from redeveloping the main stand. A fraction of the cost of a new stadium. Then there's the fact that 40k is less then the 43k at Villa Park.

If a 55k stadium was built with an athletics track, it would surely be the largest in the UK post 2012, unrivalled by any other. If they do go ahead with a new stadium, they should include a track as it would bring in so much revenue.

They don't fill the current ground so how are they even going to fill a 40,000 seater ground. The only club around Birmingham who could fill a 40,000+ seater ground is Villa and even they don't sell out.

Good question. Not sure if 55,000 is too much, but I would say 40,000 is definitely not enough for a new stadium. One of the reasons why is because they could probably reach 40k from redeveloping the main stand. A fraction of the cost of a new stadium. Then there's the fact that 40k is less then the 43k at Villa Park.

If a 55k stadium was built with an athletics track, it would surely be the largest in the UK post 2012, unrivalled by any other. If they do go ahead with a new stadium, they should include a track as it would bring in so much revenue.

Unfortunately the new London Olympic Stadium will be the new home of British Athletics. No need to leave London anymore I'm afraid.

They don't fill the current ground so how are they even going to fill a 40,000 seater ground. The only club around Birmingham who could fill a 40,000+ seater ground is Villa and even they don't sell out.

Of course, you are correct in what you say - but I wouldn't cite that as a reason for not building a ground of that size. For what Blues have achieved, contrasted against their attendance's (as well as what the fans are charged to get in!), they must be one of the best supported clubs in the land!!! ;)

In addition, the Midlands needs a stadium of 50,000+ to attract Internationals as well as Cup semi-finals and European showpieces, and it's not for lack of trying, yet funding isn't forthcoming. You can bet that if Blues were able to build a stadium of this size they would have done it by now.

I don't begrudge Man City or Sunderland their big stadiums - attendances always go up when a new ground is built and it would be the same at Birmingham - but they show that 'big' clubs aren't imune from the curse of mediocrity which afflicts the majority of clubs in English football, no matter how successful they've been in the past; and which ultimately affects attendance figures. To get decent crowds year in and year out requires (some) success. What the clubs I've mentioned have done is to speculate - it's what fans expect on the pitch and it's what (within reason) is expected behind the scenes so that 'success' can be brought to a club. It's what Blues fans expect.

Manchester will not get the super casino.

*cough*:lol:

i posted some info/pictures here

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=262551&page=4

i posted some info/pictures here

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=262551&page=4

Do you mind if I use some of those pics for the 2018 WC thread? Edit: too late :)

It's a good looking, unique looking stadium - but I can only see it being built sometime after 2012ish if England are chosen to host the 2018 World Cup.

It looks very good. When it will happen remains to be seen, but its more or less certain because I doubt Birmingham will be redeveloping the main stand at St Andrews, when the new stadium would be huge for the club and do so much good for the area.

plan Z for the Birmingham owners is to redevelop St. Andrew's. the place as it is now is a disgrace.

it's embarrasingly underdeveloped on one side, it looks rubbish from the outside (it's just cheap cladding and glass) and the facilities are atrocious. when they redeveloped it in the 80's and 90's it was always going to be a short-term fix to bring it in line with most other 30,000 seaters rather than building anythng that looks fit enough to house the club of the UK's Second City

the only thing going for St. Andrews is it's location (about 15 minutes walk from the city centre)

^^But a 1 hour bus journey if you get caught in the traffic at the roundabout after Bordesley Station.

^^But a 1 hour bus journey if you get caught in the traffic at the roundabout after Bordesley Station.

Or five minutes if they build a Metro out that way!!! ;)

sigh...

I cant beleive that Birmingham is the second city and does not have a sports stadium it can be proud of, it is ridiculous. Anyway does anyone know when the next proposal for the stadium (with NO super casino) will be put through to the council, and they better say yes.

After an appeal at MIPIM in Cannes earlier this year, Ken Hardeman successfully got investors interested in the stadium and from what I know, several are prepared to invest in this project. The project is going to costly as the ground is contaminated and there is so much ground to decontaminate.

Once a group of investors has been secured, that is when we can finally get down to designing, submitting planning applications and beginning work. The petition is a little useless as BCC cannot grant permission to a stadium that hasn't even been designed yet. BCFC do not even own the land they intend to build the stadium on. BCFC have to raise the money to buy the land, clear it, decontaminate, commission architects, agents, planners and surveyors before even submitting the application.

Thanks for that Erebus, but what I dont get, why build it in saltley, not the best of areas.

The petition is a little useless as BCC cannot grant permission to a stadium that hasn't even been designed yet. BCFC do not even own the land they intend to build the stadium on. BCFC have to raise the money to buy the land, clear it, decontaminate, commission architects, agents, planners and surveyors before even submitting the application.

You can actually submit a planning application for land that you don'y own. You have to give notice and all that but its often what supermarkets do to avoid buying land only to realise its undevelopable. You would obviously have to buy the land before any works could commence though.

Thanks for that Erebus, but what I dont get, why build it in saltley, not the best of areas.

It's a large site with a lot of land available which requires very little demolition. Plus it's got some great transport connections nearby which would be vastly improved if the stadium is built there. The fact that it is a brownfield site makes it much cheaper too. If the stadium is built, the whole of Saltley would be regenerated.

Think about St Andrews; that's not exactly the best area of Birmingham either. I'd much rather like to see the City of Brum stadium in Saltley than in, say, Edgbaston where the effects brought by the stadium would be minimal.

I cant beleive that Birmingham is the second city and does not have a sports stadium it can be proud of.

I can't believe Birmingham does not have a team it can be proud of!:laugh:

:hahano:

I can't believe brummies still think Birmingham is the second city !

I can't believe brummies still think Birmingham is the second city !

It's not just Brummies though: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=461115 :wink2:

Now let's get this thread back on topic.

I can't believe brummies still think Birmingham is the second city !

You people from Manchester are all the same, you can not mention the sentence, the second city without someone from Manchester turning around and saying that Manchester (The little Hamlet) is the second city.
Coventrys population comes close to Manchesters and thats telling us something. So shut your mouth and lets get back on topic ,the city of Birmingham stadium, the one better than Manchesters. :banana: :banana: :banana:

I can't believe brummies still think Birmingham is the second city !

Er, Birmingham is the Second City.

Yours, a neutral.

Coventry must be a crap city then, not having anywhere near the amount of amenites that Manc has for a city of similar size.

Which sounds stupid doesn't it.

The whole '2nd city' is stupid.

Who wants to be the silver medal city? Or the bridesmaid city?

Crap tag to have to be honest.

And if you wanna go down the 'city' route, Brum is 'technically' the UK's largest city.

Now that sounds stupid.

Get real.

Brum and Manc are in the same league. Not London's league of course. And cities like Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle have a league of their own also.

Grow up. Stop being petty (that goes for both camps) and get back to the stadium talk.

BTW, who's bright idea was it to call it 'The City Of Birmingham Stadium'?

Hardly original. And yes, Salford copied the name first for their new stadium, so having a 3rd 'City Of...stadium' is a bit tedius.

The name 'City Of.....' has never sounded good in a stadium name anyway.

And don't get me started on 'Stadium:MK' what the f**k is that about?

BTW, who's bright idea was it to call it 'The City Of Birmingham Stadium'?

I think that is just the project name for the time being. When it starts getting more serious with planning apps and decontamination works on site - then they will start to seriously look for a name. Although I think the City of Birmingham Stadium is a good name. It's going to be in one of the roughest parts of Birmingham so calling it "Saltley Stadium" just doesn't have the same ring.

Birmingham's chairman only recently had a go at his own fans for not supporting the club so how they're going to fill this I'll never know.They have something like 13,000 season tickets,will they be building a white elephant? It seems a bit over ambitious to me.

Birmingham's chairman only recently had a go at his own fans for not supporting the club so how they're going to fill this I'll never know.They have something like 13,000 season tickets,will they be building a white elephant? It seems a bit over ambitious to me.

That is a problem at the moment. But this stadium is not going to be exclusively for BCFC. It is hoped that the stadium could be used by Moseley Rugby Football Club who are currently using some standard recreation ground with a seating capacity of just 650 - they are in serious need of a stadium. As well as this, it will be a major concert/ sporting venue for national and international events.

One of the arguments put forward was that the stadium would be a new hope for Blues and that the fans would use it more. Because, to be honest, St Andrews is a right royal let down to fans. :|

The fact that there has been considerable interest shown from investors when the plans were shown off at the MIPIM show earlier this year shows that this has a lot of potential and others believe so. It's just a real shame that the person who was promoting the stadium to investors, Ken Hardeman, has passed away.:ohno:

Excuse me Chogs.

City of Manchester Stadium. Wouldn't have it any other way. ;)

PS. 55,000 is far to big for Birmingham City FC.

This is not a pop at Birmingham, but a valid point. I've always felt Birmingham as a city suffers from football apathy. With a population of five million and only 4 football clubs, you'd think crowds would be much bigger. Villa
30-40,000, Birmingham 20-30,000, WBA 20-25,000, Walsall 5,000.(?) Any reasons?

This is not a pop at Birmingham, but a valid point. I've always felt Birmingham as a city suffers from football apathy. With a population of five million and only 4 football clubs, you'd think crowds would be much bigger. Villa
30-40,000, Birmingham 20-30,000, WBA 20-25,000, Walsall 5,000.(?) Any reasons?

Well, what turns me off from going to Villa matches at Villa Park is the stadium partly and the lack of real success. Whilst I Villa do win matches, they have not had any meteoric success for a long time. The stadium has some good points but I find it pretty boring and not the most welcoming place in the world. Saying that, the Blues stadium is just a blot on the landscape :|

I love Villa Park despite not loving Villa. Apart from that scabby stand that the away fans sit in its ok. The Holte End is pretty impressive and the noise the place can generate is very substantial.
I also like that it has four distinctly seperate stands, none of this bowl madness.

I also don't think St Andrews is that bad. 2 of the sides are alright, the Tilton Road stand is ok, the main stand is a bit ropey though. From the outside it looks like its made of lego and there is something that feels temporary about the place though.

I love this proposed stadium. Very different to other UK (and European) stadia :carrot:

They should build this as an athletic stadium and bid for the World Championships then convert it afterwards. It will be the only chance that a major international athletics meet would be staged in this country outside London, unless someone builds a big athletics stadium elsewhere, which I doubt

^^ Agreed.

Coventry must be a crap city then, not having anywhere near the amount of amenites that Manc has for a city of similar size.

Which sounds stupid doesn't it.



Fuck off

Im from Cov mate and i have never seen a bigger shithole than Manchester (i can't believe im defending Brum here!) The reason Manc has more 'ameneties' is because Manc supports a larger urban area.

Sure, there is only a 100,000 difference between Cov and Manc's Population, But the 1.6 odd million people that live in 'Greater Manchester' dwarf the mear 300,000 more people that live in the Cov urban area.

Cov isnt a crap city, infact, the only thing manc is good for is its glorious football team. For a city that has way more 'ameneties' it should be good for something apart from gangs, thugs and burgleries right?

Woo Hoo go ccfc-4-life Im immpressed, you sure showed him.:):):)

They should build this as an athletic stadium and bid for the World Championships then convert it afterwards. It will be the only chance that a major international athletics meet would be staged in this country outside London, unless someone builds a big athletics stadium elsewhere, which I doubt

Well Birmingham has a large athletics stadium already - the Alexander Stadium. It is set for a bit of an expansion as well. Alongside this is the Birmingham High Performance Centre. It's safe to say that this is a world class facility - it's already helped produce the likes of Denise Lewis, Mark Lewis-Francis and Kelly Sotherton. So building this as an athletics stadium would be a waste of money and time.

Will this Alexander Centre ever host a World Athletics Championship? Dolt!

If you are going to build this, you should initially build it as a decent athletics stadium which you can showcase to a global audience, then give it over to Birmingham City to convert to football

Birmingham will never host the Olympics, but it could realistically host the worlds, IF it had a stadium. Isn't this a perfect opportunity?

I always thought Manchester should have tried to squeeze another high profile event or two out of the Commonwealth stadium before turning it over to Man C

I never thought someone would call the opportunity for the world's gaze to be focused on Birmingham a 'waste of time and money'. It's not like Birmingham has enough global exposure already, is it?

Fuck off

Im from Cov mate and i have never seen a bigger shithole than Manchester (i can't believe im defending Brum here!) The reason Manc has more 'ameneties' is because Manc supports a larger urban area.

Sure, there is only a 100,000 difference between Cov and Manc's Population, But the 1.6 odd million people that live in 'Greater Manchester' dwarf the mear 300,000 more people that live in the Cov urban area.


Hence why i said 'sounds stupid doesn't it'

It was a joke. Deal with it.

However, i take your comments as an insult, unless you're joking too? :ohno:

Cov isnt a crap city, infact, the only thing manc is good for is its glorious football team. For a city that has way more 'ameneties' it should be good for something apart from gangs, thugs and burgleries right?

Cov has done very well as a city, what with the Ricoh arena and many retail developments, but i'm afraid Manc has a lot to offer amenities wise. A hell of a lot in fact. If you're not aware of that then your ignorence obviously preceeds you.



Anyway back to topic...the World Athletics in Brum would give the City a great image boost and apart from the Olympics and Commonwealth Games, is the obvious choice for a major sporting event in the City.

The legacy? Birmingham City's new ground.

Simple.

I always thought Manchester should have tried to squeeze another high profile event or two out of the Commonwealth stadium before turning it over to Man C



There was actually a campaign to keep the running track at COMS. It failed obviously! :lol:

Did it host some other events before the CG? It seems a shame to have had it but not made more of it.

Not saying the CGs weren't good, but if you could have held onto it for a year or two more, and Man C fans could have put up with a smaller capacity and a running track for a year or so, you could have pulled the World Cup or European Championships (athletics, obviously) maybe even the WAC?

If Birmingham are building this thing anyway, if they could attract a high profile games and then convert it to football, using the Manc model, then why not?

Yes, there will be extra cost, but this could be met with the revenue raised from hosting the event

Realistically, the only chance any city outside London has of building a big athletics venue is if it can be used after. Converting it to football seems the only viable way

I'm surprised nobody has suggested this. Then again I've not read the whole thread

Did it host some other events before the CG? It seems a shame to have had it but not made more of it.



It was built specifically for the CG and of course Man City, on time and on budget! Actually, the track does still exist next to the COMS in the 3000 seater Regional Athletics Arena

During the CG, one of the stands was open air and temporary, plus the capacity was 38,000

With the completion of the permanent bowl and the extra 10,000 seats, there was no room for the track but in football stadium terms, turned out for the better, due to reduced atmosphere if a track existed.

Personally, i'd have liked to have seen the track retained, with the bottom few rows of seating retractable to reveal the track when needed. But hey, that wasn't to be!

I live in Coventry, have done for 3 years now, but have previously lived in Basingstoke, often when meeting people and they ask me where I am from, I lie and tell them Basingstoke, some how it seems less embarrassing.

i'm afraid Manc has a lot to offer amenities wise. A hell of a lot in fact. If you're not aware of that then your ignorence obviously preceeds you.


Did you not read what i had written, of course i understand the difference in ameneties available in both cities, i was stating why that is...

maybe you should take more time reading posts ;):cheers:

This is not a pop at Birmingham, but a valid point. I've always felt Birmingham as a city suffers from football apathy. With a population of five million and only 4 football clubs, you'd think crowds would be much bigger. Villa
30-40,000, Birmingham 20-30,000, WBA 20-25,000, Walsall 5,000.(?) Any reasons?

I think there are some good reasons.

One has to take league position into account and what that does for attendances. I also think that there are more big clubs in the West Midlands so the attendances are spread out more evenly.

I would argue that the West Midlands has five big clubs:
Prem
Villa 35-40k
Blues 20-30k
Championship
Albion 20-25k
Wolves 20-25k
Coventry 20-25k
1st Div
Walsall 6k

Greater Manchester has three:
Prem
Man U 75k
Man City 40-45k
Bolton 20-25k
Wigan 15-20k
1st Div
Oldham 6k
2nd Div
Bury 3k
Stockport 5k
Rochdale 3k

So, adding up the highest possible attendances in each 'city' (if they all played at home on the same Saturday), according to those figures Gtr Manchester would draw 182k and the West Mids 151k. There's only 30k in it, and that's with Manchester's Prem clubs having developed their grounds substantially in recent years.
Looking at conservative estimates for projected ground development in the West Mids and possible future attendances then you could probably add 20-30k to its weekly totals spread over the five clubs.

In reality, their's no football apathy in this region - in fact the West Midlands compares favourably - any questions? ;)

This is stupid, im sorry but is there any news on this. Will we have a new proposal by the end of this year. I thought Carson Yueng owning some of the club would have demanded a new stadium. And even Steve Bruce wants it done, and he is leaving. I know it sounds like I am moaning but we are the second city and have no decent stadium. Its an imbaresment.

While I support the idea of having a 55,000 seater in Birmingham, I have reservations about this. Well, not reservations as such... in fact I hope it goes ahead...

Basically, there is talk of the North Stand at Villa Park being redeveloped over the next five years, taking VP's capacity to over 50,000. If terraces do make a return, then this could be pushed to over 60k I'd imagine.

Wouldn't it be a tad embarrasssing for Blues playing in a 55,000 seater where well over 50% of the seats are empty, even on a good day? If Blues can't fill St. Andrews, they really don't need a bigger ground. At least try and establish yourselves as a Premiership team before you talk of massive stadia, as I can't see many flocking to watch the mighty Noses versus Hull. Even if it is kids for a quid...

They have the fans, however ticket prices are too high. I cant belive they are still charging this much. Its not like we are playing decently.

This is stupid, im sorry but is there any news on this. Will we have a new proposal by the end of this year. I thought Carson Yueng owning some of the club would have demanded a new stadium. And even Steve Bruce wants it done, and he is leaving. I know it sounds like I am moaning but we are the second city and have no decent stadium. Its an imbaresment.

This takes time and this is what you need to give it. Who's to say Yeung isn't demanding a new stadium in the boardroom? We won't hear about it. A huge amount of work on this scheme is done behind closed doors and is not reported to the masses. We know there are investors interested in this and have been since March. There will now be a lot of discussion into the management, ownership and execution of the new stadium. They could be looking at architects now. We just won't know until it is unveiled.

If they start showing off every little bit as it happens, our hopes will be raised too high, just like in Arena Central. That's why we were so disappointed when the tower was unveiled at 150 metres as opposed to the original and allowed 175 metres.

Wouldn't it be a tad embarrasssing for Blues playing in a 55,000 seater where well over 50% of the seats are empty, even on a good day? If Blues can't fill St. Andrews, they really don't need a bigger ground. At least try and establish yourselves as a Premiership team before you talk of massive stadia, as I can't see many flocking to watch the mighty Noses versus Hull. Even if it is kids for a quid...

I tend to agree with this.....just because you're supposedly the much celebrated 'second city' dosen't necesarily mean you deserve a huge stadium. You have excellent facilities such as the NEC, but where football is concerned it should be a supply on demand matter. Villa park is no tiddler and they have been away with the fairies for the past twenty five years, so if Martin O'neill does weave some magic then the south stand redevelopment should suffice. But Birmingham have never been a proper big club (and before you start arguing, I mean 'big' in the sense that you have actually won anything worth mentioning), so there is no real justification for a new ground. Does St. Andrews really restrict the teams' success? I doubt it.

But Birmingham have never been a proper big club (and before you start arguing, I mean 'big' in the sense that you have actually won anything worth mentioning), so there is no real justification for a new ground.

Come on now, that's not fair... they won the Auto Windscreen Trophy :laugh:

:lol:

Just to let you know. Wolves are drawing up revised plans for stadium expansion :banana:

:lol:

Just to let you know. Wolves are drawing up revised plans for stadium expansion :banana:

Really to what size capacity?

Come on now, that's not fair... they won the Auto Windscreen Trophy :laugh:

I take it all back.:)

This takes time and this is what you need to give it. Who's to say Yeung isn't demanding a new stadium in the boardroom? We won't hear about it. A huge amount of work on this scheme is done behind closed doors and is not reported to the masses. We know there are investors interested in this and have been since March. There will now be a lot of discussion into the management, ownership and execution of the new stadium. They could be looking at architects now. We just won't know until it is unveiled.

If they start showing off every little bit as it happens, our hopes will be raised too high, just like in Arena Central. That's why we were so disappointed when the tower was unveiled at 150 metres as opposed to the original and allowed 175 metres.

Carson Yeung is a shareholder bcfc he has not as yet been invited to join the board of directorsto the best of my knowledge. For the reason I believe to be the current board and shareholders want to keep the pressure on Carson to buy the rest of the shares.

Wouldn't it be a tad embarrasssing for Blues playing in a 55,000 seater where well over 50% of the seats are empty, even on a good day? If Blues can't fill St. Andrews, they really don't need a bigger ground. At least try and establish yourselves as a Premiership team before you talk of massive stadia, as I can't see many flocking to watch the mighty Noses versus Hull. Even if it is kids for a quid...

Build it and they will come?

Look at Sunderland, they were struggling to fill their 28,000 capacity Roker Park when they decided to build the SoL

They've had many half full games there, but I'd still say the move was good for the club

They have the fans, however ticket prices are too high. I cant belive they are still charging this much. Its not like we are playing decently.

I thought it was like 15quid in?

Birmingham reveal stadium talks

Birmingham have confirmed they are in talks with the City Council about building a new stadium in Saltley, near their current home of St Andrews.

The Blues, who failed in a previous bid to build a stadium in the area with a US casino company, are looking for external financial aid for the project.

City managing director Karren Brady said: "We are in the process of appointing a master planner.

"We have to have auxiliaries in place as we don't want to bankrupt the club."

The Premier League club are prepared to spend £20m on the stadium, but would seek other financial help for the project.

Meanwhile, Birmingham are expected to announce on Thursday that their shareholders have rejected an attempt by Carson Yeung to co-opt two new directors - former England winger Steve McManaman and ex-Crystal Palace player Fan Zhiyi - onto the board.

The proposal was heard at an extraordinary general meeting on Wednesday, but looks likely to be defeated after chairman David Gold, his brother Ralph and co-owner David Sullivan increased their shareholding in the club to nearly 50% earlier this week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/birmingham_city/7256333.stm

Basically they have no money and want someone else to pay for the ground. They'll need abit more money than £20 Million for a new ground. Alot more money.

Although it would be interesting to see what exactly £20million would buy.

As a guide, £10 million bought Shrewsbury town this: http://www.newmeadow.com/spgm/index.php?spgmGal=aerial_jul07&spgmPic=7&spgmFilters=#pic

Bham City may as well stay in St. Andrews TBH...

I'm sure they'll be able to get some funding from the city council and Advantage West Midlands as well. They'll probably end up just renting a council owned stadium like City and Coventry do.

Basically they have no money and want someone else to pay for the ground. They'll need abit more money than £20 Million for a new ground. Alot more money.

The UK is just about the only country in the world where major professional sports clubs are expected to fund their own stadiums. Even in the U.S., they get massive public handouts.

Anybody know who the masterplanner is Karren Brady mentioned?

Anybody know who the masterplanner is Karren Brady mentioned?

They're still looking for one. Info I got was that HOK was working on it but they were just probably talking with BCFC clan, hoping to get some involvement in the design process!

Sorry for the late reply too! :)

BUMPY!

Rumours are starting to fly around the Blues forums of the New Stadium proposal:

This is a translation from a chinese website someone posted today:

Quotes "Letter Newspaper" reported that Birmingham <02309.HK> President Yang Jiacheng indicated that with a family property gold organization was discussing supports by opposite party, constructs the new field in the Birmingham, hopes carries out the plan in the short-term, has the confidence to be possible to bring the profit for this company. The Saint Andrew field originally will develop commercial, the housing or the hotel use. The new field selected location “will be close” with the Saint Andrew field, this company is discussing with the Local government, hoped that may obtain the subsidy, buys up this land for building by the low price.

He indicated that after the investment, although has the debt, must depending on the admission repayments, expect in 3-4 years to be possible the balanced revenues and expenditures to be very good, and refers to the Birmingham sports attire advertizing revenue, will not be inferior largely like FA Premier League famous teams and so on Liverpool. At present the company just and the different type's enterprise discusses the cooperation, including manages the civilian clothes, as well as sales souvenir, beer and champagne and so on. (mk/w)


Other source's say CY is in talks with the developers of Arsenal's Emirate's stadium. the club would sell St.Andrews and pay for the stadium over 3-4 years. Therefore owning the ground and not leasing it as the previous regime had planned.

Watch this space.

What sort of crowds could Birmingham attract? More than 40,000?

Less then Villa, Wolves or West Brom but the city needs a stadium for its Commonwealth Games bid. Anything over 40,000 they will struggle to get half full.

Less then Villa, Wolves or West Brom but the city needs a stadium for its Commonwealth Games bid. Anything over 40,000 they will struggle to get half full.

All lies

Blues had almost 25,000 today for a home game, early kick off on a Sunday which was also on Sky. Was against wolves but despite being a west mids derby game wolves are never a big draw for us in the Prem. Our current capacity is about 29,000 and we would definitely fill a 40,000 seater stadium for the big games against Villa & top Prem teams. It would help grow the fan base if we had some spare capacity. The seats that don't sell now are generally those with a poor view so i think there would be plently of growth in attendances brought about by a new ground

All lies

Blues had almost 25,000 today for a home game, early kick off on a Sunday which was also on Sky. Was against wolves but despite being a west mids derby game wolves are never a big draw for us in the Prem. Our current capacity is about 29,000 and we would definitely fill a 40,000 seater stadium for the big games against Villa & top Prem teams. It would help grow the fan base if we had some spare capacity. The seats that don't sell now are generally those with a poor view so i think there would be plently of growth in attendances brought about by a new ground

Spot the Blues supporter.... you are right, a local premiership derby is Blues biggest (?only?) opportunity of a sell-out crowd, but it does'nt really justify a larger stadium, just to play againt Villa :lol: Good to see Blues healthy position in the Premiership, if you can get into the UEFA cup and do it regularly, it would increase your fan base/attendance, it would also be you're only hope of a larger regular crowd that would fill 40K, but 50K would push it!

It would be good for Birmingham to have another large Stadium, either at Wheels or NEC, but it might be an embarrassment to Blues (B'ham City FC)

I live 7 miles SW of St Andrews but am by no means a BCFC fan. I keep meaning to go to a Blues game but to be honest the state of the ground puts me off - I'd rather go the extra distance and head for Villa Park. If BCFC had a new state-of-the-art stadium I'm sure they'd attract 40,000K on a regular basis, especially if the club went out of it's way to woo the affluent population of nearby Solihull (moving to the NEC would put it outside of Birmingham and into Solihull anyway).

I live 7 miles SW of St Andrews but am by no means a BCFC fan. I keep meaning to go to a Blues game but to be honest the state of the ground puts me off - I'd rather go the extra distance and head for Villa Park. If BCFC had a new state-of-the-art stadium I'm sure they'd attract 40,000K on a regular basis, especially if the club went out of it's way to woo the affluent population of nearby Solihull (moving to the NEC would put it outside of Birmingham and into Solihull anyway).

Yeah thats what footall is all about!!

I would have thought that all Birmingham need to do is replace the one stand at their ground that isn't modern - ie, the only one left from the ground I last visited in the late 80s!

Spot the Blues supporter.... you are right, a local premiership derby is Blues biggest (?only?) opportunity of a sell-out crowd, but it does'nt really justify a larger stadium, just to play againt Villa :lol: Good to see Blues healthy position in the Premiership, if you can get into the UEFA cup and do it regularly, it would increase your fan base/attendance, it would also be you're only hope of a larger regular crowd that would fill 40K, but 50K would push it!

It would be good for Birmingham to have another large Stadium, either at Wheels or NEC, but it might be an embarrassment to Blues (B'ham City FC)

To be fair, a 40K stadium for Birmingham would be more or less as full, percentage wise, as the proposed 50-55K capacity for Villa Park. Villa very rarely sell out their 42K capacity as it is.

Yeah thats what footall is all about!!

Sadly that's exactly what football is all about these days. BCFC could stay where they are and modernise St Andrews as others have suggested and would end up with a very nice stadium with a capacity in the low 30 thousands, but the revenue rich corporate hospitality facilities woyuld be lacking and the location of the stadium would continue to turn off families.

If CY wants the club to compete at the top end of the PL and fight for European places without constantly having to inject funds in to the club he will need the extra revenues a new, larger stadium with state-of-the-art corporate facilities would bring. That won't happen on the current site. A move to the NEC with the easy transport connections would be very beneficial in that respect. The down side is moving the club away from it's historic supporter base but it will open the club up to a whole new support I feel.

I say all this as an impartial observer. It'd be nice to have a brand new stadium to take my children to but I don't feel that strongly about it as I don't go to much football these days anyway.

St Andrews isn't a million miles from New Street Station though, so I don't get the location argument at all.

St Andrews isn't a million miles from New Street Station though, so I don't get the location argument at all.

It's 1.3 miles as the crow flies but nearer 2 miles to walk. Bordesley Station is the nearest being just at the bottom of the hill where the A45 meets the ring road.

Saw this on the guardian website tonight. Looks like things might be moving along at last. Could they even fill 46,000 let alone the 55,000 mentioned for a new stadium?




Birmingham City look into redeveloping St Andrew's

• Midlands club aim to increase capacity to 46,000
• Scheme is alternative to moving to a new stadium

* Reddit
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook
*

* Press Association
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 October 2010 09.33 BST
* Article history

alex mcleish Alex McLeish, the BirminghamCity manager, at St Andrew's which could undergo redevelopment. Photograph: Keith Williams/Action Images

Birmingham City are considering redeveloping part of their St Andrew's ground to increase the capacity to around 46,000 as an alternative to moving to a new stadium.

The club have been looking at the possibility of moving away from their current home for several years and remain in talks about potential projects with Birmingham city council. But the vice-chairman, Peter Pannu, admitted rebuilding the Garrison Lane stand to bolster the overall capacity significantly from the current 30,000 was also an option.

Pannu told the Birmingham Mail: "Things are in the pipeline. We are talking with the city council and doing project reports. Once they are available, I'll study them and discuss with [club owner] Carson Yeung and our consultants on this issue.

"The capacity of St. Andrew's is 30,000 and we are considering pulling down our old Garrison Lane stand as another option. For us to build this extended capacity, the indication from our experts is that it would be a size increase to 45,000, 46,000."

Pannu admits Blues fans will have to embrace the proposed schemes to make them viable.

He said: "If we go up to 46,000, with our current average home gates of 25-26,000, then we would be 20,000 short of filling a redeveloped ground. That's why I call upon our fans to actively participate in making this dream a reality. There's no point in having a 46,000 stadium if we are not going to fill it."

If Birmingham are to expand St. Andrews, and believe they can fill it, now is the time to do it, as, due to their current attendences, the drop in gate receipts they'd suffer right now would be minimal.

As for the post above, what one is the stand they talk about rebuilding? Is that the main stand, from where the tv cameras currently broadcast? That seems to be the most likely to be rebuilt to add significant capacity.

Yep it's the main stand. It's no wonder they put the tv cameras on there. That way no one gets to see what an old dilapidated rust bucket it is.

Whatever they decide to do it will be great to see an addition to the 40+ club in the Prem... even if they never fill it.

With Liverpool close to new owners we may finally see a new stadium there. Then we have Man City who are sure to extend their ground at some point plus Spurs with the new ground and West Ham hopefully moving into the Olympic stadium. Could be happy days for big projects after quite a dry spell. And let's not forget Villa could well extend one end of their ground soon. Oh and Wolves.

If Birmingham do this they are idiots, they should be collaborating with the mcc and commonwealth games council for England and Birmingham city council to ensure a new multipurpose sports ground with a retractable roof, that in football mode has a capacity of 45-50k, the seats would retract like the stare de France and would be used as a 40k cricket stadium, that could also be used for the comm games. England football and rugby could play lesser teams there, it would get government funding from the lottery, cash would come from mothballing at Andrew's and Edgbaston and it would be full over thirty times a year.

I've seen the plans for the addition to st andrews to bring capacity up to 36,500. Look quite nice, can't post on here sorry. But if you imagine the kop stand, well a copy of that. The scoreboard goes. And we get 2 slightly smaller ones in between the kop and the Gil merrick, and the Garrison Lane and the Gil Merrick. These are secured to the edges of both stands, meaning slightly less evening or morning light from those corners.
Both corners are filled in with metal instead of clear plastic sheeting similar to the one at the baggies.
Additionally phase 2 would be the further expansion to 46,000. This would consist of another tier, slightly steeper than the current angle at st andrews, and this would have a row of boxes beneath, similar to the kop. pretty much if you imagine a kop stuck on top of the kop, with the front blocks of the tier hanging over the rear blocks of the garrison lane stand.

Also, I have found new images of the COBS which has had a huge re design. Its similar to spurs' new ground but for 45,000 not 60,000. It has potential to increase capacity to 55,000 with a further tier on two stands.

Good info. Sounds promising. Why can't you post the images?

Sadly that's exactly what football is all about these days. BCFC could stay where they are and modernise St Andrews as others have suggested and would end up with a very nice stadium with a capacity in the low 30 thousands, but the revenue rich corporate hospitality facilities woyuld be lacking and the location of the stadium would continue to turn off families.

If CY wants the club to compete at the top end of the PL and fight for European places without constantly having to inject funds in to the club he will need the extra revenues a new, larger stadium with state-of-the-art corporate facilities would bring. That won't happen on the current site. A move to the NEC with the easy transport connections would be very beneficial in that respect. The down side is moving the club away from it's historic supporter base but it will open the club up to a whole new support I feel.

I say all this as an impartial observer. It'd be nice to have a brand new stadium to take my children to but I don't feel that strongly about it as I don't go to much football these days anyway.

Most football grounds arent in nice areas,

its got nowt to do with the area mate,

the reason why all our mids clubs' attendances have gone down is due to credit crunch

Yep it's the main stand. It's no wonder they put the tv cameras on there. That way no one gets to see what an old dilapidated rust bucket it is.

Whatever they decide to do it will be great to see an addition to the 40+ club in the Prem... even if they never fill it.

With Liverpool close to new owners we may finally see a new stadium there. Then we have Man City who are sure to extend their ground at some point plus Spurs with the new ground and West Ham hopefully moving into the Olympic stadium. Could be happy days for big projects after quite a dry spell. And let's not forget Villa could well extend one end of their ground soon. Oh and Wolves.

The design is to firstly go to 36,500 with a new stand instead of the old main stand, then there will be a tier added to the stand bringing capacity up to 45-46,000.

V nice designs.:okay:

great for football but you'll never get close to filling it :(

Sadly that's exactly what football is all about these days. ....

If CY wants the club to compete at the top end of the PL and fight for European places without constantly having to inject funds in to the club he will need the extra revenues a new, larger stadium with state-of-the-art corporate facilities would bring. That won't happen on the current site. A move to the NEC with the easy transport connections would be very beneficial in that respect. The down side is moving the club away from it's historic supporter base but it will open the club up to a whole new support I feel.

I say all this as an impartial observer.

Having quite a few friends that live on that side of Small Heath and Bordesley; it is quite obvious there are more scouse/Liverpool supporters that live in the historic base than Blues supporters; I think most people may actually agree there are 'also' more Villa supporters locally given the local asian communities and their links with Aston.

If Blues are going to be sensible in this economic climate and invest in expansion of thier current stadium, should this thread not be closed as there will not be a City of Birmingham stadium?

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1934/010412943264600.jpg

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7163/010412943265700.jpg

http://www.bcfc.com/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,10412~2296804,00.html

Looking Good :)

Yeah I saw something about it on skysports news last night :)

hmm well that's... Different. Not at all an attempt to make up for lack corporate facilities then..

Prefer the top design, the bottom one looks too unbalanced.

agree. top one looks sleek and imposing, and fits in, the bottom one looks like a bad design student had to make some last minute adjustments but is hoping to scrape a pass with the roof.

Why would blues want to increase their capacity when they can't even fill their current stadium. I suppose they will raise their already ludicrously priced season tickets to fund it as well.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/icBirmingham/00048957-5CBA-135F-A6F10C01AC1BF814.jpg


Dead then?

Don't particularly care for either of those designs but the top one would be a better option as it actually has a few seats in it rather than rows and rows of boxes.

Dr pepper that proposal is dead and buried :(

Is the city of Birmingham not going for the Commonwealth games soon? Surely this would be an ideal chance like with Manchester to build a good sized stadium that could be properly converted for the football club after the games?

That would be 2022 at the earliest I would guess. If it's still going by then.

wow