07 Aug 2013 13:29:47
Just heard from an unconfirmed source about CG development if we get promoted. 'Apparently' this is being put to planning as we speak.

Expect money to be put into the Brian Clough stand to improve faciltites.

Stage 1, new roof on Brian Clough stand including a gable for one camera and filling in between BC and TE. This will include a permanent corner box and large screen will be moved directly above the box including space for additional camera. The roofs of TE / BC and corner will all be same height. BC exterior will be given 'new look'.

Stage 2 (If we remain in PL), Large Screen in WB will be moved above the dipped roof on a permanent crane like structure? and Main Stand demolished.

Stage 3, build of new three tier main stand adjoining to the WB with a total capacity of around 40,000 by 2016.

1.) 07 Aug 2013
Before you ask - Source is a friend within planning at Nottigham City Council

2.) 07 Aug 2013
Why was the WB built the way it was - surley for a planning reason?

3.) 07 Aug 2013
To let more light in behind the stand for the local residents which opposed te roof being all at one height.

4.) 07 Aug 2013
An awful lot of ifs in that. I would let the team concentrate on matters on the pitch 1st and worry about everything else later.

5.) 07 Aug 2013
Not true. Swear years ago they said they can't fill in the corners in the Trent end due to air circulation or something to do with the river

6.) 07 Aug 2013
Planning for City Ground comes under Rushcliffe. Nothing on their planning website only that some internal works trent side were signed off as completed by council yesterday 6th

7.) 07 Aug 2013
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the OP or what he/she has heard, but Why 3 stages? if the club are serious about getting into the Premiership and staying there (which I belive they are under Fawaz and Billy) then it would be more cost effetive to implement any changes from the end of this season and get them out of the way, as they will disrupt the use of the stadium for a period of more than a summer/season. What is the point a remidial interim changes, then knocking them down?

There are no current planning applications lodged with Ruscliffe Council, but will keep my eye on it through the Public Access System. If plans where approved they have to be started within 3 years anyway, otherwise they expire.

BTW investment in the ground/infrstructure does not have to be accounted for in FFP so that is not a reason for holding back more major plans. If the club invested now and new development included more corporate/conference facilities etc, it is likley that they would generate more income in the short terms and therefore help the FFP situation and ultimately the team on the pitch whichever level they are playing at.

8.) 07 Aug 2013
Would love to see this happen, going to be hard though with all the housing around the city ground

9.) 07 Aug 2013
We should acquire the houses via a compulsory purchase order and do a proper job on WB.

10.) 07 Aug 2013
Re filling in the corners of the TE & BC of the Trent End it wouldn't be possible, the red stanchion support built around the front of the Trent End is exactly that, a support, it holds up the Trent End roof, it would be a major restructuring effort to remove it, it could be left in but would have restricted views from the filled in corners. I suggest you go back and ask your Nottm City Council friend how they hope to overcome this? That is not intended as a dig, just interested.

11.) 07 Aug 2013
Does investing money off the pitch, i. e stadium, training facilities etc count towards FFP or not?

12.) 07 Aug 2013
Wouldn't planning be dealt with through Rushcliffe Borough Council?

13.) 07 Aug 2013
Is the City Ground not in the jurisdiction of County Council. ie Why would the City Council be involved?

14.) 07 Aug 2013
Planning for the City Ground is the responsibility of Rushcliffe Borough Council NOT the City OR County Councils so nothing to do with either of those. All Councils including Ruchcliffe have a Public Access Sysytem so you can review live planing applications.

15.) 07 Aug 2013
For the poster that mentions compulsary purchase, the Club are not a statutory body with any such powers, they would have to negotiate a commercial deal to purcase further land or houses.

16.) 07 Aug 2013
"Does investing money off the pitch, i. e stadium, training facilities etc count towards FFP or not?"

Pretty sure it does not count.

17.) 07 Aug 2013
RE the houses around the ground, I 'think' a few of them behind the Bridgeford stand are already owned by the club to be used by academy players

18.) 07 Aug 2013
The furthest we got with a re-development strategy was advanced talks with Notts County about a ground share. A modern sports arena was proposed and would've been on the land where the cattle market is. The cattle market, although still used, is a prime location due to lack of residency surrounding it and would be relatively inexpensive to purchase, re-develop, and then build upon. Rather than redeveloping every stand, plus building an entirely new stand, it makes more sense for the long term (and probably isn't much more expensive) to build a new ground with better facilities from the get go - conferencing, banqueting and shopping. However this was all prior to the new ownership of Forest.

19.) 07 Aug 2013
Nottm City Council are the landlords, aren't they? So presumably would have to approve the works, although Rushcliffe would seem to be the planning authority.

20.) 07 Aug 2013
"We should acquire the houses via a compulsory purchase order and do a proper job on WB"

Took me a while to stop laughing at this post.

Since when do NFFC have the power to issue CPO's?

21.) 07 Aug 2013
First you say -

"Just heard from an unconfirmed source"

Then in the next post you say -

"Before you ask it is someone from planning at the council"

Thought it was unconfirmed?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

22.) 07 Aug 2013
If we truly had a 'long term vision' then building a new stadium would be a better investment.

{Ed034's Note - would it if it took something away from fans?? moving into a bowl could have a negative effect on the atmosphere and go from someone which can be intimidating due to the history of the ground, to one that is just like playing at any other ground.
I understand a new ground would be more of a benefit financially, but fawaz his big on history

23.) 07 Aug 2013
Forest own 3/4 of the houses behind the city ground. they have been buying for a long time! since before Doughty died (RIP BIG MAN) so they could renovate the main stand!

24.) 07 Aug 2013
Good points. I have asked and am told that the filling in will be lower tier only between the BC and TE. The box above and screen above that. May answer the red stansion question. And the other side will be open due to flood planning issues re; the river.

I am not sure how she knows this.

25.) 07 Aug 2013
I am not saying this is correct but just maybe the plans have been put to the city council out of courtesy beforebeing put to rushcliffe, after all the ground is city council property

26.) 07 Aug 2013
A 40,000 seater stadium?
Why?
Forest couldn't attract those kind of figures when Brian Clough was winning cups, so I do not see it happening now.
But I do agree the ground does need serious updating. I'll leave that sort of information to the new owners, they seem to be going in the right direction.

27.) 07 Aug 2013
New main stand needed, but it will reduce the ground capacity in the short term whilst new stand is being built!

{Ed034's Note - ok!

28.) 07 Aug 2013
I think I am being thick, but doesn't the council own the ground because we had a few issues a while back. Why would we spend millions on re-structuring when we don't own the land. Ok for revenue purposes if the chairman was there for the longhaul and it was cheaper than buying a plot of land and building a new stadium. Like I said, probably being thick!

{Ed034's Note - the council own the land. we own the stadium

29.) 07 Aug 2013
Re: not being able to fill in the corners.

It is possible, but because of the stanchion on the trent end, it will be more complex to do, that's all

30.) 07 Aug 2013
Forest have attracted 40,000+ crowds in the past. In fact the record attendance is over 49,000. So there is no reason we couldn't attact big crowds for certain games if we were in the Premiership; imagine a home game against Man U. or Chelsea if we were also doing well in the League.
We must plan ahead - we WILL attract much bigger crowds when we get into the Premiership, it's no use thinking that a 30,000 capacity will be big enough.
Also, a ground with a 40,000+ capacity would mean that we could be hired out for prestige International matches; all extra revenue for Forest.

31.) 07 Aug 2013
The City Council own the freehold but Nigel Dougherty acquired a very long lease, and as I have said on here before it is a virtual freehold and therefore should be trwted as such so the renting bt and City Council Ownership is not an issue.

I know Ed that Fawaz is big on history, but think it will have to be a carefully balanced financial decision, after all they are successful business men, I hope thyey can do something with the CG, but if not and we have to go new it does not have to be a bowl or pop-up stadium like the sheep and Leicester and many others.

Also, I think we would get 40K if we were in the prem, perhaps not every single game but a good few of them, attendances are better now than the mid eighties, we average nearly 25K having not been in the prem for 14 years, I think that is pretty good and something to build on either at the updated CG or a new place to call home and make a fortress.

{Ed034's Note - I agree it makes total financial sense to build a new ground, but dependent on how we develop the main stand and with us becoming a brand in Kuwait, I don't think it would make a huge amount of difference.
I also don't think fawaz would be spending the money he is currently spending on the city ground, if he was thinking about building a new ground

32.) 07 Aug 2013
For me, we need to own the place first, the stadium and the grounds. They can't currently put the screen in the Bridgford stand due to planning. The main stand does need work although I don't wanna lose my seat.
And to answer the question, none of this would count towards Ffp.

{Ed034's Note - why doi we need to own the place first?? why spend money on buying the land when it is impossible to be kicked off?? don't get me wrong, if fawaz buys the land, that's up to him, but I cant see how it will benefit us other than saving the money it costs to let it off the council.

33.) 07 Aug 2013
There were several matches in the BC era with attendance at or above 40,000 but the view was terrible for the majority who stood. Must be a jealous competitor to say Forest could not attract 40,000 for games in the Premier. At that level 5000 visiting supporters is not unusual. A turnout of 25000 for Huddersfield at a time of year when many are on holiday or saving to go demonstrates that a 40000 seater is reasonable. Phased redevelopment would be less disruptive than trying to do it all simultaneously and will be better for local builders and electricians. The rebuild of the Emirates pulled in electricians from all over the UK to meet the deadline.

34.) 07 Aug 2013
Forest would DEFO attract 40k in the PL

No Probs.

35.) 07 Aug 2013
Some fans may have forgotten but when we were last in the Prem it was often very difficult to get a ticket for any game, such was the demand and we often had a full house. I have no doubt that if we got back in to the Prem we would fill our ground as it stands now most weeks and there would be at least 10,000 extra wanting tickets for the big matches!

36.) 07 Aug 2013
I remember standing in the Trent End watching in the eighties and the missus asked why I videod the match. I told her I could hardly see, the amount of times we had to ask if we had scored. They had much better attendances before all seater was law. Would not like to see a new ground.
CyprusRed

37.) 07 Aug 2013
What do you mean 'If'?

38.) 07 Aug 2013
If we have a new ground I vote for something similar to Borussia Dortmund. What an atmosphere that would be, just a shame we couldn't have the standing areas like they do.

39.) 07 Aug 2013
07 Aug 2013 21:19:03
I too work for Nott'm City & can confirm that although South of the river the land (Trentside from Trent Bridge) & the CG are owned by the City. Discussions are believed to have been held regaring the land between London Rd & Manvers St where the City would prefer Forest to be, allowing 'prime' redevelopment of Trentside. It would be nice to see an innovative design for a new ground though, not a 'throw up' as witnessed elsewhere.
76Red.

40.) 08 Aug 2013
Very convincing, uv got me thinking il give you that. coyr

41.) 08 Aug 2013
Been at the city ground many time when it was full to capacity of 47500, was there when I watched the best cup game I ever saw there against Everton, Forest winning 3/2, never forget the Ian moore third goal.

42.) 08 Aug 2013
Forest got 40 something thousand against man city in the cup think it was one off the first sunday games played in the f a cup got to be 30 odd years ago