EXCLUSIVE: NEW £2M STAND PLAN FOR IBROX
Exclusive
By Keith Jackson
RANGERS are set to splash out £2million on a redevelopment of Ibrox that will make room for another 700 season ticket-holders.

Record Sport has learned bulldozers will move in immediately after the final home game of the season to begin work on the extension to the stadium's Govan Stand.

A new cantilever construction will be added between the existing top and bottom tiers of the stand, taking the ground's capacity to 51,200.

Included for fans who snap up the £900-a-season seats in the new section will be membership of a pub, named Bar 72 in honour of Rangers' European Cup- Winners' Cup triumph, which will also be built into the Govan Stand. Chairman David Murray is expected to announce the development later this month.

Are there any renders available?

The new capacity will be 51444, as 100 seats will also be added to the main stand. The Club will relocate the Press Box in the Main Stand to a new, extended Press Gantry creating 100 prime season ticket seats at the back of the stand.

The upgrade should bring in about 1 million a year in revenue - well worth the 2 million for the upgrade if you ask me.

bulldozers? I thought it was an expansion of a current tier, I can't see much demolition work being done.

Thye will be a bit of demolition due to the Bar area being installed. Not much though.

That's going to be quite an overhang at the front of the upper deck.

What's phase two?

What's phase two?

Third tiers are going to be added to the other stands, the main stand has three tiers, taking the capacity to over 70,000. This will be done in phases.

and then when do celtic start with their redevelopment so that they have a higher capacity?

and then when do celtic start with their redevelopment so that they have a higher capacity?

Celtic's long-term plans involve replacing the old main stand with a new one, which will be at least the same size as the rest of the stadium. If the new stand was the same height and proportions as the rest, the stadium would have a capacity of approximately 75,000.

Unfortunately this won't be happening in the near future.

Celtic's long-term plans involve replacing the old main stand with a new one, which will be at least the same size as the rest of the stadium. If the new stand was the same height and proportions as the rest, the stadium would have a capacity of approximately 75,000.

Unfortunately this won't be happening in the near future.

Would love to see a 3 tier monster south stand at Celtic Park.

Celtic's long-term plans involve replacing the old main stand with a new one, which will be at least the same size as the rest of the stadium. If the new stand was the same height and proportions as the rest, the stadium would have a capacity of approximately 75,000.

Unfortunately this won't be happening in the near future.

my post was meant to be sarcastic but thanks for the info

my post was meant to be sarcastic but thanks for the info

Pretty pathetic trying to provoke a response to be honest!

Celtic Park will join Ibrox as a five star stadium when it is finally completed!

Not too sure about the three tier plans for Ibrox, I think it is more likely two or three more thousand will be added to ibrox by digging down as opposed to adding tiers. I think for Rangers 55 - 60K is sufficient!

And before it all starts, the Camp Nou increased its capacity to current levels by adding a third tier, not by digging down, a common legend!

City of Manchester on the other hand.

true and false....

they did indeed add a third tier increasing the capacity to 115,000 in the early 80's


but in 1994... (taken from the official nou camp website.)


"Remodelling of the first tier of terracing. This work, undertaken over the summer of 1994, lowered the field of play by 2.5 metres to increase the capacity of the lower tiers. Seating was introduced in the areas behind the goals and the security moat around the field was eliminated"

Pretty pathetic trying to provoke a response to be honest!

Celtic Park will join Ibrox as a five star stadium when it is finally completed!

Not too sure about the three tier plans for Ibrox, I think it is more likely two or three more thousand will be added to ibrox by digging down as opposed to adding tiers. I think for Rangers 55 - 60K is sufficient!

i thought both clubs were in debt

Pretty pathetic trying to provoke a response to be honest!

Celtic Park will join Ibrox as a five star stadium when it is finally completed!

Not too sure about the three tier plans for Ibrox, I think it is more likely two or three more thousand will be added to ibrox by digging down as opposed to adding tiers. I think for Rangers 55 - 60K is sufficient!

Celtic Park will have to be rebuilt before they change the main stand. It was built so cheaply that the materials have a 20 year lifespan. That means in about 15 years the whole stadium will have to be rebuilt!!

They will not change the main stand until then as they know this!! Celtic Park has no stars and will not have any for at least 15 years!!


There are no concrete plans to add 3rd tiers to the 3 Ibrox stands. It would be cheaper to knock them down and start again. There is no 2/3 phase plan. The work in the summer (increase to 51500) is the only definite planned work.


Barcelona added 3rd tiers AND dug down.


Celtic are about £30 million in debt, Rangers almost now have no debt due to the JJB deal and Murray putting in £50 million. Rangers debt is now about £8 million.

celtic park has 4 stars you plum

celtic park has 4 stars you plum

It's impossible for a stadium over 50000 to have 4 stars.....you fucking idiot!! If you are over 50000 then you are 5 stars or no stars. Celtic Park has ZERO stars!

I bet you feel pretty stupid right now.....you plum!

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html

It's pretty useless to put up links 'proving' Celtic Park is either 4- or 5-star, as pefectly reputable sources saying both things are readily available:

5-star: http://www.uefa.com/magazine/news/Kind=128/newsId=18479.html (notice this is a UEFA site, which adds some credability).

4-star: http://www.stadiumguide.com/stadiumstars.htm

As for Mr. Tennant's comments, I think he should re-read the information in the guide he posted. It states minimum requirements. So of course any stadium with a capacity greater than 50,000 can be either 4- or 5-star (or have no star rating), dependent on its fulfilling the other criteria.

The guide also states that 'A stadium is only added to the list when the stadium owner applies for hosting a UEFA Club Competition Final'. If this accurate describes UEFA's stance, there is therefore a difference between being of 4- or 5-star quality, and going through the formal process of being added to some list possibly kept in a vault in UEFA headquarters. Being of 4- or 5-star quality is obviously the important factor - gaining the official status is a formality.

This is dragging the thread off topic, so if people really want to discuss Celtic Park a new thread should be opened.

Celtic Park is NOT 5 star. It was a mistake by whoever wrote that article for the website. Not one stadium site lists it as 5 star, and neither do Celtic!!

It is impossible for a stadium over 50000 to have 4 stars. 5 stars is for stadiums over 50000 that meet the requirements, 4 star is for stadiums under 50000 that meet the requirements.

The link you posted does not mention Celtic Park and their list of 4 star stadiums is totally wrong!!

http://www.stadiumguide.com/stadiumstars.htm


The two 5 star stadiums in Glasgow are Hampden Park and Ibrox. You can even email Celtic and they will tell you that.

Boil My Eggs,

You haven't taken the time to read my post. Please do so. I did not say Celtic Park was 4-star, 5-star, or no star. I quite clearly took no stance as to what the status of the staduim was. I did, however, point out the difference between passing all the criteria for being a stadium with a certain munber of stars yet not having an official status, and having that official status. I do not know the status of Celtic Park. However, I think that the important issue, unless you have some kind of predudiced attitude to the quiestion, is whether Celtic Park passes all the criteria for being a stadium of 5 stars. After that, it is simply a formaility to get the official rating. Maybe Celtic FC haven't bothered, or maybe UEFA only do checks every few years, and Celtic Park has not been reviewed in a while. Of course, maybe it does fail on some criteria. But you have to supply evidence of which one. Until then, I can simply say that it is an unresolved issue, and say that we don't know.

One small point though; why assume that the individual writing for the official UEFA site is incorrect? You can't say he's incorrect because other sites say so, as that's begging the question. We must assume we don't know until some kind of decisive evidence is offered. Perhaps it is these privately-operated sites which are wrong. There are many websites on the internet containing false information. My post attempted to point out that it seemed futile to simply quote websites. We need to discuss what websites should be believed, and why.

I also think you misunderstand the situation regarding 50,000+ stadiums being unable to have 4 stars. The website I quoted certainly does not say this Can you provide a source for this?

Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

Boil My Eggs,

You haven't taken the time to read my post. Please do so. I did not say Celtic Park was 4-star, 5-star, or no star. I quite clearly took no stance as to what the status of the staduim was. I did, however, point out the difference between passing all the criteria for being a stadium with a certain munber of stars yet not having an official status, and having that official status. I do not know the status of Celtic Park. However, I think that the important issue, unless you have some kind of predudiced attitude to the quiestion, is whether Celtic Park passes all the criteria for being a stadium of 5 stars. After that, it is simply a formaility to get the official rating. Maybe Celtic FC haven't bothered, or maybe UEFA only do checks every few years, and Celtic Park has not been reviewed in a while. Of course, maybe it does fail on some criteria. But you have to supply evidence of which one. Until then, I can simply say that it is an unresolved issue, and say that we don't know.

One small point though; why assume that the individual writing for the official UEFA site is incorrect? You can't say he's incorrect because other sites say so, as that's begging the question. We must assume we don't know until some kind of decisive evidence is offered. Perhaps it is these privately-operated sites which are wrong. There are many websites on the internet containing false information. My post attempted to point out that it seemed futile to simply quote websites. We need to discuss what websites should be believed, and why.

I also think you misunderstand the situation regarding 50,000+ stadiums being unable to have 4 stars. The website I quoted certainly does not say this Can you provide a source for this?

Hopefully that clears up your confusion.


You're the confused one mate. I know more about Rangers/celtic than you could dream of!! This has been discussed to death on Rangers/Celtic fan forums, and eventually a guy emailed celtic and got a reply saying Celtic Park couldn't get 5 stars for 'various technical' reasons. I also know almost everything about 4 and 5 star criteria as my father worked for Bar Construction and I have seen various documents in UEFA stadium criteria!

There are two 5 star stadiums in Glasgow - Hampden and Ibrox


Now fuck off

While i'd have to agree with Ibrox's 5 star grading how is Hampden five star. The ground is nowhere near in the same league, bland and a stadium that could be anywhere in the world, nothing that encapsulates the great history of Hampden Park before it. The exterior of the Main Stand and the fact that the majority of the capacity is all on one teir (which IMO is the best way of getting a decent atmosphere at any ground) is all that it's got going for it. If Hampden Park can get 5 stars for that crock of shoddyness then why on earth can't Celtic's excellent Park Head get five stars? I realise that there are restricted views due the main stand, is that anything to do with it?

While i'd have to agree with Ibrox's 5 star grading how is Hampden five star. The ground is nowhere near in the same league, bland and a stadium that could be anywhere in the world, nothing that encapsulates the great history of Hampden Park before it. The exterior of the Main Stand and the fact that the majority of the capacity is all on one teir (which IMO is the best way of getting a decent atmosphere at any ground) is all that it's got going for it. If Hampden Park can get 5 stars for that crock of shoddyness then why on earth can't Celtic's excellent Park Head get five stars? I realise that there are restricted views due the main stand, is that anything to do with it?

There are restricted views in the main stand AND North stand at Celtic Park. 14 large poles in the North stand and 4 Huge poles in the main stand. The reason it is not 5 star is because it is very cheap with basic facilities. The whole thing is a concrete shell.

UEFA love Hampden due to the South Stand having some of the best facilities in Europe. £50 million was spent on this one stand and it has 8 floors packed with conference halls/restaurant/museum, warm up facilities, gyms, 6 changing rooms, indoor warm up pitches, offices etc!

This is why it is going to get its 2nd European final in 5 years next year!!

It is impossible for a stadium over 50000 to have 4 stars. 5 stars is for stadiums over 50000 that meet the requirements, 4 star is for stadiums under 50000 that meet the requirements.





erm.........Ernst-Happel-Stadion in vienna has a 5 star rating.....yet has a capacity below 50k........ :bash:

------------

Celtic Park is NOT 5 star. It was a mistake by whoever wrote that article for the website. Not one stadium site lists it as 5 star, and neither do Celtic!!

It is impossible for a stadium over 50000 to have 4 stars. 5 stars is for stadiums over 50000 that meet the requirements, 4 star is for stadiums under 50000 that meet the requirements.

The link you posted does not mention Celtic Park and their list of 4 star stadiums is totally wrong!!

http://www.stadiumguide.com/stadiumstars.htm


The two 5 star stadiums in Glasgow are Hampden Park and Ibrox. You can even email Celtic and they will tell you that.

Stadiums have to be at least 4 stars to host a UEFA Cup final and 5 stars to host a champs league final. St James' Park is 52,320 and has bid twice to host the UEFA cup final, if it wasn't a 4 star ground why on earth would it bid for the final?

erm.........Ernst-Happel-Stadion in vienna has a 5 star rating.....yet has a capacity below 50k........ :bash:

Ernst-Happel-Stadion's capacity can be brought up to 50.000 by temporary stands. Stated on the link -

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html

Stadiums have to be at least 4 stars to host a UEFA Cup final and 5 stars to host a champs league final. St James' Park is 52,320 and has bid twice to host the UEFA cup final, if it wasn't a 4 star ground why on earth would it bid for the final?

and both times they failed. Newcastle obviously asked for a UEFA cup final hoping that UEFA would grant them 5 star status when they visited the stadium, but when UEFA visited, they must have looked at their stadium and decided not to give it 5 stars and no final.

5 star stadiums are allowed to host Champions League OR uefa cup finals, as seen by Hampden which next year will have held both within 5 years.

St James' Park can only be 5 stars or no stars, and at the moment has no stars!

Why do you use so many logins and why are you so rude?

Why do you use so many logins and why are you so rude?

stadium questions only, I don't have time for any of your shite!

Why do you use so many logins and why are you so rude?

he is born with it im afraid, we are just gonna have to live with it

the facilities at st james park are rubbish i use to work there in the concourse bars! inside the main stand because of construction of the upper tier inside the concourse is all over the place its not one straight line and also its just bland and cold!

Ernst-Happel-Stadion's capacity can be brought up to 50.000 by temporary stands. Stated on the link -

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html

i think you'll find that the use of temporary stands have been banned by uefa and sure as hell won't be used for a showpiece final...

i think you'll find that the use of temporary stands have been banned by uefa and sure as hell won't be used for a showpiece final...


hhmmmm, that's strange, because that's exactly what they are using for this stadium in Euro 2008 to get it up to 50000!!

They also used temporary stands in the Kobe Wing stadium in the 2002 World Cup and even the Sydney Olympics!!

weren't they temporary stands at city of manchester stadium for the commonwealth games, the end behind the goal?

weren't they temporary stands at city of manchester stadium for the commonwealth games, the end behind the goal?

Correct.

and the Gelredome in Arnhem in Euro 2000 used temporary stands!!

and Euro 2004


http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/municipal_dr_magalhaes_pessoa/images/innen_24.jpg

Celtic Park will have to be rebuilt before they change the main stand. It was built so cheaply that the materials have a 20 year lifespan. That means in about 15 years the whole stadium will have to be rebuilt!!
Hilarious. :hilarious

But... bullshit.

Hoorah he's been banned!

But it was so much fun pointing out how childishly bad his arguments were!

At least we'll know what his new account is as soon as he attacks this post...

See you soon, Boil My Eggs...

But it was so much fun pointing out how childishly bad his arguments were!

At least we'll know what his new account is as soon as he attacks this post...

See you soon, Boil My Eggs...


You pointed out nothing, as here are the pdf's fresh from UEFA proving everything I said was 100% correct....you fucking moron!! Never question my knowledge of stadiums...NEVER!!

http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-1.pdf
http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-2.pdf

Don't mess with the Jimmy Sommerville fan! He knows his stuff!

You pointed out nothing, as here are the pdf's fresh from UEFA proving everything I said was 100% correct....you fucking moron!! Never question my knowledge of stadiums...NEVER!!

http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-1.pdf
http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-2.pdf

how about you provide us with a link direct from uefa cos how do we know you've not made that up yourself? :sleepy:

how about you provide us with a link direct from uefa cos how do we know you've not made that up yourself? :sleepy:

All you have to do is email UEFA and you will get the exact same pdf's emailed to you. They are not on the website, so that is why you have to email UEFA. I got the pdf's from a very large football website, who's owners emailed UEFA's media office!

http://www.followfollow.com/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=284217

Look at the pdf's, does it look like I made them up??? www.followfollow.com is part of the massive www.footymad.net network, and UEFA would take legal action against it if it started publishing forged documents! How much more proof do you need? If a UEFA spokesman said live on TV that Celtic Park has no stars, you would probably claim it was all a big set-up and the guy on TV was a lookalike or some shite like that! Grow up you fucking kingsize bellend!! Accept reality, Celtic Park has no stars!

We all know you won't email UEFA because you know fine well the pdf's are genuine.

You were wrong, it happens to the best of us, be man enough to admit it.........you cheese merchant!

:stupid:

All you have to do is email UEFA and you will get the exact same pdf's emailed to you. They are not on the website, so that is why you have to email UEFA. I got the pdf's from a very large football website, who's owners emailed UEFA's media office!

http://www.followfollow.com/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=284217

Look at the pdf's, does it look like I made them up??? www.followfollow.com is part of the massive www.footymad.net network, and UEFA would take legal action against it if it started publishing forged documents! How much more proof do you need? If a UEFA spokesman said live on TV that Celtic Park has no stars, you would probably claim it was all a big set-up and the guy on TV was a lookalike or some shite like that! Grow up you fucking kingsize bellend!! Accept reality, Celtic Park has no stars!

We all know you won't email UEFA because you know fine well the pdf's are genuine.

You were wrong, it happens to the best of us, be man enough to admit it.........you cheese merchant!


lol..it's so easy to wind someone up....

i couldn't give a shit how many stars celtic park has got..i don't care

winding up a prick like you on the otherhand :cheers:

You were wrong and I was right, and no amount of 'lol's' will get you out of it!!

Man, it feels good to be so clever!!

Grow up! the pair of you.

Phase 2 of Ibrox Expansion

Record Sport understands plans have already been drawn up to increase the stadium's capacity to around 57,000.

Architects have found room for around 5000 new seats by ripping out the jumbo TV screens in two corners of the ground and lowering the pitch.

Two new cantilever extensions - similar to the one which was added to the Govan Stand last summer - have been earmarked for the Copland Road and Broomloan Road stands at each end of the ground.

aren't Rangers in debt? wheres the money coming from?

What a waste of money putting the screens in in the first place then! Only got installed a few years ago. If Ibrox is going to expand beyond 57'000 I imagine its going to take megabucks. You could say it was short sighted when they virtually rebuilt the stadium to build four stands rather than a bowl, Rangers did lead the way in the all-seater stadium revolution in Britain though. There were plans in the late 80's to expand to 96'000, pie in the sky obviously.

Demand has exceded supply and the club has decided it is time to expand. The current Ibrox is far from a short sighted design. Each of the three more modern stands were designed to take a third tier, which probably will happen eventually.

It is on the back of the success last summer when an extra 800 seats were added costing over £1000 a season ticket with access to new bar, which all sold out.

As for debt Rangers have one of the lowest debts in the SPL of only £6m.

Rangers this season are the only team to fill their stadium every home game. Quite impressive considering it has been one of the worst in their history.

1 Rangers (2) 17 848674 50488 49922 50444 98.9%
2 Celtic (1) 17 981603 59659 57741 60832 94.9%
3 Heart of Midlothian (4) 17 287242 17369 16897 18008 93.8%
4 Hibernian (6) 16 235841 16747 14740 17500 84.2%
5 Falkirk (7) 18 100440 7245 5580 7576 73.6%
6 Aberdeen (3) 17 206968 20045 12175 22199 54.8%
7 Dundee United (8) 16 117569 12329 7348 14209 51.7%
8 Dunfermline Athletic (12) 17 104261 8561 6133 12558 48.8%
9 St Mirren (11) 17 91477 8445 5381 11125 48.3%
10 Motherwell (10) 17 98741 11745 5808 13742 42.2%
11 Kilmarnock (5) 17 111496 13506 6559 18128 36.1%
12 Inverness C T (9) 18 86233 7522 4791 22199 21.5%

The current Ibrox is far from a short sighted design. Each of the three more modern stands were designed to take a third tier, which probably will happen eventually.


Why not just fill the corners in in the first place instead of having to spend a lot of money filling them in at a later date? Why build giant screens only to remove them a few years later?

That seems a bit of a silly question if you ask me. Clubs all across the world are constantly adding to their ground to make them bigger, how many times has Old Trafford been redeveloped in the last 15 years......about four times! If we take your view on things then then Rangers should have built an 80,000 stadium 10 years ago when they redeloped the ground, but this would not be pratical because of the huge financial strain it would have put on the club.

I think doing it bit by bit , like United have done is a great way to expand as it lets the club know if they'll sell out and if there's demand for the next expansion phase ,rather than just hoping you could get an extra 30,000 fans all at once.United are currently looking at filling in the south stand corners to take capacity to 84,200, still leaving the main south stand for future develpment.

I think doing it bit by bit , like United have done is a great way to expand as it lets the club know if they'll sell out and if there's demand for the next expansion phase ,rather than just hoping you could get an extra 30,000 fans all at once.United are currently looking at filling in the south stand corners to take capacity to 84,200, still leaving the main south stand for future develpment.


Is this just speculation or have you any written proof of United actually looking into this?

I havn't read anything official, but i would speculate that if the crowds keeps filling the stadium it will happen in say 3 years. Also it would be more likely that they do the whole South stand and the 2 corners at the same time. Just doing the corners would mean many of the seats would be blocked by the older lower roofed South stand cantilever. The cost would be a bit of a problem but of course all the extra Sky TV money from next year will go a long way. It would be fantastic to see Old Trafford fitted out to 92,000 seated. Surely thats the maximum, unless the put a 4th tier on the North Stand?

That seems a bit of a silly question if you ask me. Clubs all across the world are constantly adding to their ground to make them bigger, how many times has Old Trafford been redeveloped in the last 15 years......about four times! If we take your view on things then then Rangers should have built an 80,000 stadium 10 years ago when they redeloped the ground, but this would not be pratical because of the huge financial strain it would have put on the club.

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. I merely suggested Rangers could have filled the corners in when they redeveloped Ibrox - dont then spout off shit like taking my view Rangers should have built an 80'000 seater stadium from the off - I never even hinted at that.

Yes, and Man U should have developed OT all at once rather than in stages.......When Ibrox was redeveloped 10 years ago they spent a hell of an amount of money turning it into one of Europes 5 star stadiums, and increased the capacity then by 10,000 or something so never had the money to increase the capacity farther.

Due to demand for tickets they have now decided the time is right to expand again and it will certainly not be the last time they expand the stadium. You could ask why not add each of the third tiers now too, but they do not have the money at present to do that.

As I recall, when the jumbotron screens in the corners were installed, the club had a plan to screen away games and charge fans to watch them. That revenue stream obviously never materialised so it makes sense, now that the club isn't so skint, to generate more income by investing in the stadium itself. I have been amazed at Rangers' consistently high attendances despite being resoundingly pish for the last 2 years and there does seem to be a genuine case of demand outstripping supply.

Regarding the three tiers on the Govan, Copeland and Broomloan stands, I'm not so sure this is possible with the current 'goalpost' structure of each. Perhaps they could be converted to cantilevered stands in the style of Old Trafford but I'm sure the cost would be prohibitive. Maybe someone with a bit more engineering savvy could tell us.

Boards - when Ibrox was originally redeveloped to a 44,000 capacity stadium in the early 80's, was it not the case that Rangers were really struggling to get the attendances to which we have become accustomed? There would have been no good business case back then to build a bigger new stadium than they did.

Yes, and Man U should have developed OT all at once rather than in stages.......When Ibrox was redeveloped 10 years ago they spent a hell of an amount of money turning it into one of Europes 5 star stadiums, and increased the capacity then by 10,000 or something so never had the money to increase the capacity farther.

Due to demand for tickets they have now decided the time is right to expand again and it will certainly not be the last time they expand the stadium. You could ask why not add each of the third tiers now too, but they do not have the money at present to do that.


This 5 star grading is a farce, almost every UK ground from Scunthorpe up would be 5 star rated on facilities compared with the shit holes of Europe....San Siro, Nou Camp et al...these stadiums are beyond a joke..

Ibrox and Celtic Park are far superior in facilities to these two. Not as big, but not constructed of 50 year old crumbling concrete.

Regarding the three tiers on the Govan, Copeland and Broomloan stands, I'm not so sure this is possible with the current 'goalpost' structure of each. Perhaps they could be converted to cantilevered stands in the style of Old Trafford but I'm sure the cost would be prohibitive. Maybe someone with a bit more engineering savvy could tell us.

Not an engineer but I know a little bit. If you took the Goven stand for example and built a new third tier behind. Firstly the foundations for the uprights of the cantilevers would be done. Possibly if the design was rather like the later cantilever stands at Old Trafford, the uprights for the cantilevers would be done first, then part of the tier would be built and the roof cantilevers then fitted. In that way as at O.T. a temporary roof could be built and the old roof below removed and the goal post structure dismantled. The next stage would be to complete the top tier and executuve boxes, facilities understand etc. Doing the construction this way would mean all the existing seating would be in use and covered during construction which might take an entire season. The first really big cantileever stand at Old trafford wasnt built in this way but both end stands and quadrants were done that way. I would imagine that a third tier could hold 8,000 to 10,000. Not sure about the cost but might be upwards of 30m?
The 2 ends and corners could easily add 20k to 25k, if needed of course.

Could the jumbotrons be stuck on the roof or the edge of the roof?
Just an idea rather than them going to waste (unless they want to shift one up to Kirkcaldy!!).

As I recall, when the jumbotron screens in the corners were installed, the club had a plan to screen away games and charge fans to watch them. That revenue stream obviously never materialised so it makes sense, now that the club isn't so skint, to generate more income by investing in the stadium itself. I have been amazed at Rangers' consistently high attendances despite being resoundingly pish for the last 2 years and there does seem to be a genuine case of demand outstripping supply.

Regarding the three tiers on the Govan, Copeland and Broomloan stands, I'm not so sure this is possible with the current 'goalpost' structure of each. Perhaps they could be converted to cantilevered stands in the style of Old Trafford but I'm sure the cost would be prohibitive. Maybe someone with a bit more engineering savvy could tell us.

Boards - when Ibrox was originally redeveloped to a 44,000 capacity stadium in the early 80's, was it not the case that Rangers were really struggling to get the attendances to which we have become accustomed? There would have been no good business case back then to build a bigger new stadium than they did.

Right! Let me clarify this to the people jumping on my back for saying they could have filled the corners in from the start! I never mentioned the size of the stadium just the layout. The redeveloped Ibrox held around 44'000, I was just thinking that if the stadium was built in a similar style to Old Trafford was ( the 44'500 fully enclosed style back in the early 90's ) then I would have thought it might have been easier to build on in the future, I didn't say it should have been the 44'000 stadium + the filled in corners. Got it?

Freelaus - I nearly went blind trying to read your post.

Right! Let me clarify this to the people jumping on my back for saying they could have filled the corners in from the start! I never mentioned the size of the stadium just the layout. The redeveloped Ibrox held around 44'000, I was just thinking that if the stadium was built in a similar style to Old Trafford was ( the 44'500 fully enclosed style back in the early 90's ) then I would have thought it might have been easier to build on in the future, I didn't say it should have been the 44'000 stadium + the filled in corners. Got it?

Freelaus - I nearly went blind trying to read your post.
Sorry I couldnt edit the colors later. Just a little jibe at a certain board member!

It is absolutely the case that the shortsightedness of the original Ibrox redevelopment has cost the club money and predicated some of the subsequent poorer attempts at expanding the stadium.

I have seen the original brief provided by the Club to the Design Team back in 1977 and in regard to capacity the Club’s requirements were stated as “around 40,000”. To this day I still cannot understand how they arrived at this figure considering the Club’s record attendance is 118,000? But it is the nature of the design that is even more perplexing. The lack of foresight is clearly evident by virtue of the restrictive goalpost structures. Do you know that the ‘crossbar’ of the Govan Stand cost more than a complete refurbishment and re-roofing (albeit propped cantilever) of the Main Stand at White Hart Lane at around the same time? If the Board/Design Team had only opted for a cantilever roof structure then the corners could be filled in accommodating at least 15,000 more seats. Instead we have seen the pathetic screens and corner wedges installed which cost a fortune and might/might not be getting removed for another half arsed attempt at expansion.

To suggest that the Copland, Govan and Broomloan Stands were designed to accommodate a third tier is as ludicrous as it is inaccurate. This was done at the Main Stand due to Planning restrictions placed upon the existing Archibald Leitch stand. Thankfully so, as IMO it is the finest Grandstand in the world. But it was hugely expensive. It is much cheaper to build something from scratch at ground level as would have been the case with a full corner infill.

Dortmund’s Stadium had similar problems with goalpost structures impacting on corner redevelopment but they installed a giant suspension system which transferred the loads outwith the stadium bowl and facilitated the removal of the internal columns. It is, therefore, possible from an engineering standpoint but enormously expensive.

Sorry to be so negative but its difficult not to be when you read some of the nonsense from other posters.

Cheers Gerome.

Could this suspention work with Celtic Park's mainstand if they wanted to build on top of it?

Dortmund's stadium has got to be the best in the world.

It could work but again would be very expensive and what would be the point as Celtic's Main Stand is truly appalling. The beam above the Celtic Park Main Stand is an engineering disaster which requires to be temporarily propped when the grounds not in use. It would be easier just to flatten the stand and rebuild it. After all its not had any real money spent on it so this decision could be justified. The problem at Ibrox is that the three stands are superb and in todays money would cost a fortune to construct. Therefore they cannot just be demolished IMO. If only they had been designed to allow the corners to be in-filled :bash: .

The beam above the Celtic Park Main Stand is an engineering disaster which requires to be temporarily propped when the grounds not in use. It.

...rather than being propped when there are thousands of fans sitting right underneath it:tongue3:

...rather than being propped when there are thousands of fans sitting right underneath it:tongue3:

Is that a bad thing?;)

...rather than being propped when there are thousands of fans sitting right underneath it:tongue3:

It is a bit mind blowing that one isn't it

[QUOTE=Gerome;12952661] The lack of foresight is clearly evident by virtue of the restrictive goalpost structures. Do you know that the ‘crossbar’ of the Govan Stand cost more than a complete refurbishment and re-roofing (albeit propped cantilever) of the Main Stand at White Hart Lane at around the same time? If the Board/Design Team had only opted for a cantilever roof structure then the corners could be filled in accommodating at least 15,000 more seats. Instead we have seen the pathetic screens and corner wedges installed which cost a fortune and might/might not be getting removed for another half arsed attempt at expansion.

The main stand at WHL, I assume you mean the grandstand was a new structure in 1981-2 and is a full cantilever roof. Unless you mean the stand opposite it which was re roofed in 1991 with a propped roof? Think you may be confusing your info up. Reading 'Simon Inglis' it states that the 'crossbar' at the Govan costs more that the entire roof at WHLs new West Stand. Maybe the number of Leitch Stands at Ibrox and WHL had you slightly confused. Then again 'Inglis' states the reason for not having the corners filled in was the prohibitive cost, yet other grounds had seating in corners at the time. :banana:

The main stand at WHL, I assume you mean the grandstand was a new structure in 1981-2 and is a full cantilever roof. Unless you mean the stand opposite it which was re roofed in 1991 with a propped roof? Think you may be confusing your info up. Reading 'Simon Inglis' it states that the 'crossbar' at the Govan costs more that the entire roof at WHLs new West Stand. Maybe the number of Leitch Stands at Ibrox and WHL had you slightly confused. Then again 'Inglis' states the reason for not having the corners filled in was the prohibitive cost, yet other grounds had seating in corners at the time. :banana:

Confused I was and corrected I stand!

Inglis rationale behind the corners is bullshit the cost of curved seating is only marginally dearer than straight - your right about England at the time. Also you only have to look at Celtic Park which was done with budget being the primary focus - if corners were so expensive then there would be none there.