eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,226
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 27, 2023 9:12:11 GMT
Are you saying that is the cost of a permanent structure? That’s ITB’s number and it’s based upon the cost of Brentford’s new ground. The recent revelation from David Bright has put ITB, Tom Gorringe and others who have said categorically that a Mem redevelopment isn’t viable in a difficult position. If Tom had been able to refer to an expert report which the club had commissioned to determine whether or not a redevelopment was viable then his statement could have been taken seriously. But it was made off the cuff with no facts or figures to back it up and this led to a suspicion that, for whatever reason, Dwane Sports wanted redevelopment to be a "non starter" as far as Gasheads were concerned. This suspicion is backed up by ITB consistently posting extremely high figures for build cost, speculating about ROI being insufficient and asking “where’s the money coming from ? ”. David has now put the cat amongst the pigeons by talking about a new 4000 seater stand being in place by August with the implication that the Mem is going to be redeveloped stand by stand which is what many Gasheads would like to see. In his announcement last week David talked about “regeneration” and said the South Stand was a “semi- permanent structure 20 years ago and it’s reached the time that needs to change”. To me this implies something less than a complete new build but more than a flimsy temporary structure. The sort of thing supplied by the company GL Events to a number of professional football clubs including Plymouth Argyle. gleventsstadia.co.uk/case-studies/plymouth-argyle-fc/The plans for the redevelopment of the Mayflower Stand were submitted in July 2017 and approved in December 2017. Contracts were exchanged with GL Events in August 2018 and Argyle announced they had agreed a fixed price of £6.5 million for a 5400 seat capacity. The stand opened in January 2020 but reading through the history it looks as though that fixed price increased by £600K over the period of construction. And once it was operational problems were encountered on the upper tier with the Plymouth owner telling fans in August 2022 that “a large chunk of the £4 million investment received from new shareholders would be used on fixing issues with the Mayflower Grandstand”. What can we learn from this ? Firstly, if David has overstepped the mark then before getting deeper in I think now would be the time to pull back and tell Gasheads that his enthusiasm got the better of him and the project actually needs a lot more consideration before accurate timescales and structure details can be provided. And at the same time announce that further information will be given after the board meeting in May but the South Stand regeneration will not take place this year. Secondly, if the Board of Directors feel they are now in a corner and are going to try to get some kind of quick fix “regenerated” South Stand in place by August, just because that’s what they’ve said they will do, is that really a sensible move ? Wouldn’t it be better to learn from the Plymouth experience, make note of the timescales and challenges they faced and then take the time to put together a properly thought through and costed plan ? I think most Gasheads would consider it worth the wait. Constructive criticism, and very well put. And very hard to argue with. So based on Plymouth's costings - that's around £1,300 per seat for a semi-permanent structure. That won't be in place for at least another 2 years (I think I'm being optimistic there). And in the meantime Rovers are working very hard on a move to a permanent new Stadium. Gotcha. There is another Thread entitled "Great Transparency and Communications". Perhaps Wael (when was the last time we heard from him?) or our CEO would like to elucidate.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Feb 27, 2023 13:26:03 GMT
That’s ITB’s number and it’s based upon the cost of Brentford’s new ground. The recent revelation from David Bright has put ITB, Tom Gorringe and others who have said categorically that a Mem redevelopment isn’t viable in a difficult position. If Tom had been able to refer to an expert report which the club had commissioned to determine whether or not a redevelopment was viable then his statement could have been taken seriously. But it was made off the cuff with no facts or figures to back it up and this led to a suspicion that, for whatever reason, Dwane Sports wanted redevelopment to be a "non starter" as far as Gasheads were concerned. This suspicion is backed up by ITB consistently posting extremely high figures for build cost, speculating about ROI being insufficient and asking “where’s the money coming from ? ”. David has now put the cat amongst the pigeons by talking about a new 4000 seater stand being in place by August with the implication that the Mem is going to be redeveloped stand by stand which is what many Gasheads would like to see. In his announcement last week David talked about “regeneration” and said the South Stand was a “semi- permanent structure 20 years ago and it’s reached the time that needs to change”. To me this implies something less than a complete new build but more than a flimsy temporary structure. The sort of thing supplied by the company GL Events to a number of professional football clubs including Plymouth Argyle. gleventsstadia.co.uk/case-studies/plymouth-argyle-fc/The plans for the redevelopment of the Mayflower Stand were submitted in July 2017 and approved in December 2017. Contracts were exchanged with GL Events in August 2018 and Argyle announced they had agreed a fixed price of £6.5 million for a 5400 seat capacity. The stand opened in January 2020 but reading through the history it looks as though that fixed price increased by £600K over the period of construction. And once it was operational problems were encountered on the upper tier with the Plymouth owner telling fans in August 2022 that “a large chunk of the £4 million investment received from new shareholders would be used on fixing issues with the Mayflower Grandstand”. What can we learn from this ? Firstly, if David has overstepped the mark then before getting deeper in I think now would be the time to pull back and tell Gasheads that his enthusiasm got the better of him and the project actually needs a lot more consideration before accurate timescales and structure details can be provided. And at the same time announce that further information will be given after the board meeting in May but the South Stand regeneration will not take place this year. Secondly, if the Board of Directors feel they are now in a corner and are going to try to get some kind of quick fix “regenerated” South Stand in place by August, just because that’s what they’ve said they will do, is that really a sensible move ? Wouldn’t it be better to learn from the Plymouth experience, make note of the timescales and challenges they faced and then take the time to put together a properly thought through and costed plan ? I think most Gasheads would consider it worth the wait. Constructive criticism, and very well put. And very hard to argue with. So based on Plymouth's costings - that's around £1,300 per seat for a semi-permanent structure. That won't be in place for at least another 2 years (I think I'm being optimistic there). And in the meantime Rovers are working very hard on a move to a permanent new Stadium. Gotcha. There is another Thread entitled "Great Transparency and Communications". Perhaps Wael (when was the last time we heard from him?) or our CEO would like to elucidate. Is the Plymouth temporary or even semi temporary? It's a larger two tier stand with many other things included which makes one ask how is this relevant to the conversation? By other things I mean changing rooms was one I read about.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,226
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 27, 2023 14:27:27 GMT
Constructive criticism, and very well put. And very hard to argue with. So based on Plymouth's costings - that's around £1,300 per seat for a semi-permanent structure. That won't be in place for at least another 2 years (I think I'm being optimistic there). And in the meantime Rovers are working very hard on a move to a permanent new Stadium. Gotcha. There is another Thread entitled "Great Transparency and Communications". Perhaps Wael (when was the last time we heard from him?) or our CEO would like to elucidate. Is the Plymouth temporary or even semi temporary? It's a larger two tier stand with many other things included which makes one ask how is this relevant to the conversation? By other things I mean changing rooms was one I read about. Fair point. I guess the Plymouth 'price per seat' is a fairly good indication of cost (rather than the cost of a permanent structure). The South Stand was a initially a temporary structure. It then miraculously evolved into a semi-permanent structure. If it's there another 10 years does it become permanent? Anyway, the cost per seat could well be a bit lower than in Jannertown. It's all speculation and we'll have to wait for Wael or Tom to tell us what the actual plan is. No rush. It's been 7 years.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Feb 27, 2023 15:11:42 GMT
No idea what it is going to cost personally. Any ideas? I used your figure of £4K per seat then multiplied it by the 4000 capacity to get to £ 16 million. Thats if you were building a permanent structure with concessions etc. Not a temporary stand.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Feb 27, 2023 16:32:03 GMT
Are you saying that is the cost of a permanent structure? That’s ITB’s number and it’s based upon the cost of Brentford’s new ground.The recent revelation from David Bright has put ITB, Tom Gorringe and others who have said categorically that a Mem redevelopment isn’t viable in a difficult position. If Tom had been able to refer to an expert report which the club had commissioned to determine whether or not a redevelopment was viable then his statement could have been taken seriously. But it was made off the cuff with no facts or figures to back it up and this led to a suspicion that, for whatever reason, Dwane Sports wanted redevelopment to be a "non starter" as far as Gasheads were concerned. This suspicion is backed up by ITB consistently posting extremely high figures for build cost, speculating about ROI being insufficient and asking “where’s the money coming from ? ”. David has now put the cat amongst the pigeons by talking about a new 4000 seater stand being in place by August with the implication that the Mem is going to be redeveloped stand by stand which is what many Gasheads would like to see. In his announcement last week David talked about “regeneration” and said the South Stand was a “semi- permanent structure 20 years ago and it’s reached the time that needs to change”. To me this implies something less than a complete new build but more than a flimsy temporary structure. The sort of thing supplied by the company GL Events to a number of professional football clubs including Plymouth Argyle. gleventsstadia.co.uk/case-studies/plymouth-argyle-fc/The plans for the redevelopment of the Mayflower Stand were submitted in July 2017 and approved in December 2017. Contracts were exchanged with GL Events in August 2018 and Argyle announced they had agreed a fixed price of £6.5 million for a 5400 seat capacity. The stand opened in January 2020 but reading through the history it looks as though that fixed price increased by £600K over the period of construction. And once it was operational problems were encountered on the upper tier with the Plymouth owner telling fans in August 2022 that “a large chunk of the £4 million investment received from new shareholders would be used on fixing issues with the Mayflower Grandstand”. What can we learn from this ? Firstly, if David has overstepped the mark then before getting deeper in I think now would be the time to pull back and tell Gasheads that his enthusiasm got the better of him and the project actually needs a lot more consideration before accurate timescales and structure details can be provided. And at the same time announce that further information will be given after the board meeting in May but the South Stand regeneration will not take place this year. Secondly, if the Board of Directors feel they are now in a corner and are going to try to get some kind of quick fix “regenerated” South Stand in place by August, just because that’s what they’ve said they will do, is that really a sensible move ? Wouldn’t it be better to learn from the Plymouth experience, make note of the timescales and challenges they faced and then take the time to put together a properly thought through and costed plan ? I think most Gasheads would consider it worth the wait. Correction. I have used Brentfords stadium as an example to people who say we should bulldozer the whole stadium and rebuild it from the ground up. Not putting in a (semi) permanent stand with no other concessions. If you do the maths on Brentford's ground, or even on Ashton Gate, the cost of regenerating the Mem is an expensive exercise. I mention the ROI as, we need a return on any investment that is put in. I'm not trying to be dismissive of a new ground at the mem, in fact, if the numbers were right and opportunity was there I would love for it to happen, I consider the Mem to be home. I also completely agree with your last 2 paragraphs.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Feb 27, 2023 18:18:41 GMT
That’s ITB’s number and it’s based upon the cost of Brentford’s new ground.The recent revelation from David Bright has put ITB, Tom Gorringe and others who have said categorically that a Mem redevelopment isn’t viable in a difficult position. If Tom had been able to refer to an expert report which the club had commissioned to determine whether or not a redevelopment was viable then his statement could have been taken seriously. But it was made off the cuff with no facts or figures to back it up and this led to a suspicion that, for whatever reason, Dwane Sports wanted redevelopment to be a "non starter" as far as Gasheads were concerned. This suspicion is backed up by ITB consistently posting extremely high figures for build cost, speculating about ROI being insufficient and asking “where’s the money coming from ? ”. David has now put the cat amongst the pigeons by talking about a new 4000 seater stand being in place by August with the implication that the Mem is going to be redeveloped stand by stand which is what many Gasheads would like to see. In his announcement last week David talked about “regeneration” and said the South Stand was a “semi- permanent structure 20 years ago and it’s reached the time that needs to change”. To me this implies something less than a complete new build but more than a flimsy temporary structure. The sort of thing supplied by the company GL Events to a number of professional football clubs including Plymouth Argyle. gleventsstadia.co.uk/case-studies/plymouth-argyle-fc/The plans for the redevelopment of the Mayflower Stand were submitted in July 2017 and approved in December 2017. Contracts were exchanged with GL Events in August 2018 and Argyle announced they had agreed a fixed price of £6.5 million for a 5400 seat capacity. The stand opened in January 2020 but reading through the history it looks as though that fixed price increased by £600K over the period of construction. And once it was operational problems were encountered on the upper tier with the Plymouth owner telling fans in August 2022 that “a large chunk of the £4 million investment received from new shareholders would be used on fixing issues with the Mayflower Grandstand”. What can we learn from this ? Firstly, if David has overstepped the mark then before getting deeper in I think now would be the time to pull back and tell Gasheads that his enthusiasm got the better of him and the project actually needs a lot more consideration before accurate timescales and structure details can be provided. And at the same time announce that further information will be given after the board meeting in May but the South Stand regeneration will not take place this year. Secondly, if the Board of Directors feel they are now in a corner and are going to try to get some kind of quick fix “regenerated” South Stand in place by August, just because that’s what they’ve said they will do, is that really a sensible move ? Wouldn’t it be better to learn from the Plymouth experience, make note of the timescales and challenges they faced and then take the time to put together a properly thought through and costed plan ? I think most Gasheads would consider it worth the wait. Correction. I have used Brentfords stadium as an example to people who say we should bulldozer the whole stadium and rebuild it from the ground up. Not putting in a (semi) permanent stand with no other concessions. If you do the maths on Brentford's ground, or even on Ashton Gate, the cost of regenerating the Mem is an expensive exercise. I mention the ROI as, we need a return on any investment that is put in. I'm not trying to be dismissive of a new ground at the mem, in fact, if the numbers were right and opportunity was there I would love for it to happen, I consider the Mem to be home. I also completely agree with your last 2 paragraphs. Out of interest, do you know, or have any indicative numbers, of the RoI of the Brentford and Ashton Gates ground investments?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 18:51:28 GMT
I think people are getting too carried away here. The only 'announcement' was what TG said in his programme notes, which very clearly stated the focus is a new site, but that there was a need to increase seating capacity at the Mem in the meantime, and the hope was to do that (if possible) via a wrap around South stand, leaving us with no tented structures.
The 'if possible' bit came from TG. So its anything but confirmed.
David Bright has subsequently given an interview to a trade site where more details of their hopes were detailed which then led to some Twitter responses.
To me its clear that the club are looking at a temporary structure that is not a tent. Thank god for that. And given that any new stadium would be several years away this makes sense, as does any other 'enhancements' that make the Mem dump slightly less of a dump and get the capacity up. Given the potential away folowings of some of the bigger clubs in League One hopefully it will make financial sense. Didnt Blackpool put up a temp stand during the summer they got to the Premier League? And I think its still there.
I'm not sure if anyone has or will find a negative in the above but I'm sure someone somewhere on here will try.
I dont think there has been any indication anywhere that the club is talking about re developing the Mem though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 19:16:45 GMT
I've just checked, Blackpools East Stand is indeed 'temporary' and has been there since 2010. It holds 5100, single tier. But has some pillars that restricts view. They have plans to re develop - dont think it has any concessions etc
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 20:26:12 GMT
Doing some more digging, it was built by the company Swiss mentions above, and was delivered in 8 weeks. I'm positive this is what we would be looking at - a rigid temporary stand. It certainly is not the redeveloment of the Mem, and there is no implication of that happening so any talk of that should be shut down as it will only lead to disappointment and some people will then say we have all been mislead by the club.
One problem with Blackpools was that it was commsssioned by Karl Oyston.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Feb 28, 2023 10:51:20 GMT
Correction. I have used Brentfords stadium as an example to people who say we should bulldozer the whole stadium and rebuild it from the ground up. Not putting in a (semi) permanent stand with no other concessions. If you do the maths on Brentford's ground, or even on Ashton Gate, the cost of regenerating the Mem is an expensive exercise. I mention the ROI as, we need a return on any investment that is put in. I'm not trying to be dismissive of a new ground at the mem, in fact, if the numbers were right and opportunity was there I would love for it to happen, I consider the Mem to be home. I also completely agree with your last 2 paragraphs. Out of interest, do you know, or have any indicative numbers, of the RoI of the Brentford and Ashton Gates ground investments? I have no idea what the structure of their shareholders are. Obviously we know that Lansdown supplies the finance for all projects to do with Bristol Sport. If you look at Ashton Gate Limited, which Ill assume is the accounts for the stadium for additional revenue to what the football gives it then it turned over £7.7m and made a post tax loss of £3.5m with shareholder loans totalling £27m. That was however for year end 2021 which was Covid interupted. On those figures alone its not "returning" anything currently. However Pula Sports (the holding company of everything Bristol Sport) is the company which allows it to trade as a going concern. I'm no accountant so Swiss will be able to provide a much better insight than me on all these matters and I'm happy to defer to his expertise on this. The point of a stadium at our level isnt to just saddle us with debt in exchange for a gin palace, its to pay back the initial investment and to provide revenue for the football club.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,226
Member is Online
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 28, 2023 17:08:25 GMT
Out of interest, do you know, or have any indicative numbers, of the RoI of the Brentford and Ashton Gates ground investments? I have no idea what the structure of their shareholders are. Obviously we know that Lansdown supplies the finance for all projects to do with Bristol Sport. If you look at Ashton Gate Limited, which Ill assume is the accounts for the stadium for additional revenue to what the football gives it then it turned over £7.7m and made a post tax loss of £3.5m with shareholder loans totalling £27m. That was however for year end 2021 which was Covid interupted. On those figures alone its not "returning" anything currently. However Pula Sports (the holding company of everything Bristol Sport) is the company which allows it to trade as a going concern. I'm no accountant so Swiss will be able to provide a much better insight than me on all these matters and I'm happy to defer to his expertise on this. The point of a stadium at our level isnt to just saddle us with debt in exchange for a gin palace, its to pay back the initial investment and to provide revenue for the football club. Fair points ITB. The slight problem would appear to be building a new stadium and having a realistic chance of clawing back that initial investment (let alone actually make money for BRFC, or Dwane Sports if you prefer). So I guess we then have three groups of supporters. 1. People who trust Wael to deliver a new stadium. 2. People who don't believe a word of the 'working very hard behind the scenes to deliver a new stadium'. Because they've heard that for 7 years. 3. People who turn up, drink cider, have a laugh, watch the football and couldn't give a monkeys. All valid IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Feb 28, 2023 19:16:51 GMT
I have no idea what the structure of their shareholders are. Obviously we know that Lansdown supplies the finance for all projects to do with Bristol Sport. If you look at Ashton Gate Limited, which Ill assume is the accounts for the stadium for additional revenue to what the football gives it then it turned over £7.7m and made a post tax loss of £3.5m with shareholder loans totalling £27m. That was however for year end 2021 which was Covid interupted. On those figures alone its not "returning" anything currently. However Pula Sports (the holding company of everything Bristol Sport) is the company which allows it to trade as a going concern. I'm no accountant so Swiss will be able to provide a much better insight than me on all these matters and I'm happy to defer to his expertise on this. The point of a stadium at our level isnt to just saddle us with debt in exchange for a gin palace, its to pay back the initial investment and to provide revenue for the football club. Fair points ITB. The slight problem would appear to be building a new stadium and having a realistic chance of clawing back that initial investment (let alone actually make money for BRFC, or Dwane Sports if you prefer). So I guess we then have three groups of supporters. 1. People who trust Wael to deliver a new stadium. 2. People who don't believe a word of the 'working very hard behind the scenes to deliver a new stadium'. Because they've heard that for 7 years. 3. People who turn up, drink cider, have a laugh, watch the football and couldn't give a monkeys. All valid IMHO. It could be achieved, it just needs the right site, with the right opportunity. I dont think 3 exists, we all want a new stadium. I think the 3 couldnt give a monkeys about the politics and discussion about a new stadium, they just want to turn up when its built.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 20:15:26 GMT
Regarding the “4,000 capacity South Stand”, the Atyeo at City holds 4,200. That shout is utter nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Feb 28, 2023 21:48:32 GMT
Fair points ITB. The slight problem would appear to be building a new stadium and having a realistic chance of clawing back that initial investment (let alone actually make money for BRFC, or Dwane Sports if you prefer). So I guess we then have three groups of supporters. 1. People who trust Wael to deliver a new stadium. 2. People who don't believe a word of the 'working very hard behind the scenes to deliver a new stadium'. Because they've heard that for 7 years. 3. People who turn up, drink cider, have a laugh, watch the football and couldn't give a monkeys. All valid IMHO. It could be achieved, it just needs the right site, with the right opportunity. I dont think 3 exists, we all want a new stadium. I think the 3 couldnt give a monkeys about the politics and discussion about a new stadium, they just want to turn up when it’s built. Oh 3 exists, and always have done. I’d argue that they are the majority at Rovers, and have been since Eastville.
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Mar 1, 2023 20:22:19 GMT
Early Bird season tickets on sale Friday.It'll work out about £14.70 a game for me,that's fair enough.
No tickets advertised for a new South/Tent Stand yet.
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Mar 7, 2023 22:16:04 GMT
Seems we could well be playing both Huddersfield and Wigan next season both Prem not long ago with superb stadiums.Their fans visiting us for the first time are in for a bit of a shock!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 8, 2023 10:10:29 GMT
Seems we could well be playing both Huddersfield and Wigan next season both Prem not long ago with superb stadiums.Their fans are in for a bit of a shock!!!!!!!!!! A shock, but nothing truly new.. I remember worral sterling serving up a 25 yarder right in front of us at Udders in their new John Smith's stadium, with the reciprocal match at Twerton... Wigan have been here a number of times.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 8, 2023 10:30:33 GMT
Seems we could well be playing both Huddersfield and Wigan next season both Prem not long ago with superb stadiums.Their fans are in for a bit of a shock!!!!!!!!!! A shock, but nothing truly new.. I remember worral sterling serving up a 25 yarder right in front of us at Udders in their new John Smith's stadium, with the reciprocal match at Twerton... Wigan have been here a number of times. Huddersfield's stadium is one of the coldest, and when I went there, one of the modern soulless stadiums [may have been an off day!]. I compare them coming to the Mem to us going to Accrington 10/12 years ago. They effectively had a non league stadium, 2 open ends, one new stand and a long wooden ramshackle stand down one side. The difference is they have covered one end with a permanent stand, built a permanent stand replacing the wooden one and done so cost effectively. We have yet to move on, sadly from where we were.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Mar 9, 2023 7:11:26 GMT
A shock, but nothing truly new.. I remember worral sterling serving up a 25 yarder right in front of us at Udders in their new John Smith's stadium, with the reciprocal match at Twerton... Wigan have been here a number of times. Huddersfield's stadium is one of the coldest, and when I went there, one of the modern soulless stadiums [may have been an off day!]. I compare them coming to the Mem to us going to Accrington 10/12 years ago. They effectively had a non league stadium, 2 open ends, one new stand and a long wooden ramshackle stand down one side. The difference is they have covered one end with a permanent stand, built a permanent stand replacing the wooden one and done so cost effectively. We have yet to move on, sadly from where we were It was built by Alfred McAlpine, designed by Populous and was awarded the RIBA Building of the Year award for 1995. It probably was an off day :-)
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 9, 2023 7:48:55 GMT
Huddersfield's stadium is one of the coldest, and when I went there, one of the modern soulless stadiums [may have been an off day!]. I compare them coming to the Mem to us going to Accrington 10/12 years ago. They effectively had a non league stadium, 2 open ends, one new stand and a long wooden ramshackle stand down one side. The difference is they have covered one end with a permanent stand, built a permanent stand replacing the wooden one and done so cost effectively. We have yet to move on, sadly from where we were It was built by Alfred McAlpine, designed by Populous and was awarded the RIBA Building of the Year award for 1995. It probably was an off day :-) I preferred the Leeds Road away end, but then again I'm a dinosaur...
|
|