Jump to content


Photo

Football At The Palace


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Elmo

Elmo

    All bad precedents began as justifiable measures

  • Sponsors
  • 3,226 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 09:28 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we may have a problem:

From Guardian (http://sport.guardia...1594549,00.html)

:angry: :angry: :angry:

Fight on for family crystal

Plans to redevelop the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre in time for the 2012 Olympics could provide the Champion-ship football club with a new home. But a potential major sticking point for Simon Jordan, the Crystal Palace chairman, is the proposed capacity of 25,000, which he insists is too small. Talks are now taking place with local councillors to increase it to 35,000. Palace's current home, Selhurst Park, seats 26,400. However, it is seldom full.

UK Athletics, though, will be seeking assurances from the government about the future of the Olympic stadium in Stratford post-2012 before agreeing to give up any claim to Crystal Palace, their home for more than 30 years.

The Olympic stadium is supposed to become the new national centre for athletics following the 2012 games, but UK Athletics remains concerned the venue will be handed to a top London Premiership club to ensure it is financially sustainable.
Jermaine was right... "You can't reason with stupidity"

Follow me on Twitter

#2 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 09:32 AM

Well if they are handing it to a top London premiership club, that rules out Palace.


More smoke and bluster I think.

#3 Smoothy

Smoothy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 09:49 AM

Moving? Now while I don't support Crystal Palace in any shape or form, I wouldn't like to see them move anywhere, after all, Selhurst Park has been their home for decades. OK, I know they originally used to play in the Crystal Palace area but still, we're all used to having Palace around. That said, it would solve one problem, traffic in and around South Norwood.

I think Simon Jordan won't get his 35,000 seater stadium, it's too big (as pointed out, they rarely fill their current 25,000 stadium), however, if he can get assurances that he'll have permission (and there'll be room) to increase capacity at a later date, then it sounds like a good idea.

#4 charlie

charlie

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 09:57 AM

Well if they are handing it to a top London premiership club, that rules out Palace.
More smoke and bluster I think.

If you read the article they mean handing the Stratford Olympic stadium over to a top London Premiership Club - which is nothing to do with the Sports Centre at Crystal Palace or the Eagles.

I wouldn't dismiss this article out of hand as they are quoting UK Athletics concerns not Simon Jordans. I actually find it slightly worrying that there have now been two articles muting a move to the park. Who really knows what is going on behind the scenes!!!

Does London need two top sports stadiums?

Edited by charlie, 18 October 2005 - 09:57 AM.


#5 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 10:05 AM

Oh I see, sorry. Well who would play in Stratford? I guess they mean West Ham (hardly a top premiership club, they've only just come back up), or Spurs? Can't see Charlton moving across the river, and Arsenal already have their new stadium.

These 2 articles from the same stable - Observer & Guardian, and journalists always copy each others articles as it gives them an idea of what to write about, so I still wouldnt read too much into it.

I think the more likely scenario is that the NSC is redundant after the Olympics as the new stadium will be used for any athletics events, and gradually goes to rack and ruin before Bromley build a combined multiplex/supercasino/housing on it.

#6 charlie

charlie

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 10:11 AM

Matt - How dare you mention the West Ham/Spurs words on VN!! :angry: :D

You are probably right about the journos. I'm a natural born worrier.

As for the stadium - I've heard Morrissons are interested. ;)

#7 jannism

jannism

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,014 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 10:39 AM

Sounds like a fab idea to me. Selhurst park is a hole and the present owner (Ron Noades) has never looked like selling it to the club, making it incredibly difficult for them to make any money, buy new players and achieve their destiny as the greatest football team in the world...

...ahem...

I digress. If the development at Stratford is to become the new home of British athletics (and it should), then the regeneration of the Sports complex at Crystal Palace and the subsequent regular use thereof, generating a much-needed income in order to sustain it (think 30 years of underinvestment) is exactly the tonic it needs. Not only that but with the improved transport links and parking facilities that are integral to the devlopment, the traffic situation wouldn't really be any worse than it already is.

#8 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 11:00 AM

The traffic might not be (v. debateable) but I don't want swarms of football fans descending on the Triangle and park every other week. Not to mention that the park would be seriously threatened by such a development - the chances are it would involve lots more parking than there currently is there - which would be more concrete.

I just don't see it happening myself. There would be too many objections to destroying the park - I'd rather it stayed as it was, certainly. Palace don't fill Selhurst and so theres no need for them to move anywhere bigger - besides, they'd only end up bankrupting themselves, like many other "championship" calibre clubs have done with new, half-empty stadia. Besides, the football bubble is bursting, financially.

#9 Smoothy

Smoothy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 11:45 AM

Hmmm... valid points, although I reckon having swarms of fans around the park is better than having them around on the streets, who knows, the trees and tranquility might calm them down instead of harsh, grey concrete :) We'll just have to see how this one runs I reckon, because to me, either way looks good for Palace (and plus point for them moving is that the residents will get respite at last, while having them in the Crystal Palace area will mean the stadium at least has a bigger buffer zone between it and the resident's houses).

#10 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 11:59 AM

I don't care whats good for Palace, I'm not a Palace fan and I moved to the Triangle knowing there was a nice park nearby and that there wasnt a Selhurst Park nearby. I want the park to stay as it is - last saturday it was packed full of people walking, kids playing and babies such as mine, being pushed. Perfect.

#11 Amanda1

Amanda1

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 12:53 PM

I live very close to Selhurst Park and I have no problem with it being there. Crowds quickly disperse before and after the match and I have never experienced any trouble related to the football. There are the practical problems of parking and the fact that Sainsburys closes a couple of hours prior to kick off aqnd does not re-open for the rest of the day. I now have the fixture list for CP on my kitchen wall so I know sainsbury's opening hours! I have lived next to a few football stadiums (QPR, Millwall - enough said- and Fulham) and CP appears to be very family orientated compared to the others (unless the face of football has changed over recent years). I understand people's concerns about the possibility of CP moving to the park but they may be unfounded. I am not a football fan but I would be sad to see them move, particularly the floodlights which light up my garden.

#12 gekko

gekko

    Sponsor

  • Sponsors
  • 4,570 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 02:08 PM

Sorry but, parks exist to provide green spaces for the local community. They are there for children to play in, especially important in London where there isn't much green space and many people don't have gardens. As I said yesterday on another thread, if you move the football ground there, you make the park a no-go area for families on a Saturday. Any commercial development for the park needs to be of benefit to the local community or as unobtrusive as possible. Football grounds aren't either of these things.

As Matt said, those of us who live near the park chose to do so because it was a park and not the home of Crystal Palace FC. There's no way I would have bought the house if it was close to a football ground. I didn't choose to live near a football ground so don't see why I should have one imposed on me.

Anyway, I assume the residents will protest in force if it ever comes to anything. If people can veto the plans for a multiplex, they must be able to do the same for a football ground.
Mel, Forum Moderator

#13 jannism

jannism

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,014 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 02:38 PM

I'm not convinced it would be as bad as all that. What would make it a no-go area for families? Football's a great day out for for families. Most people travelling by train and car would be unlikely to go into the other areas of the park when they have a game to go to, and why on earth shouldn't they go to the park anyway? It's a park! Besides, football matches rarely happen more than once a week.

The things that put me off taking my kids to the park are already happening - litter, vandalism, graffiti, unsavoury gangs of youths and parents that smoke, swear and shout at their children are there for all to see already. Personally, I think a bit of insightful planning and remodelling would go down a treat.

#14 peanut

peanut

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 03:09 PM

I have lived next to a few football stadiums

Likewise. Lived near Loftus rd for a number of years with no probs and a good local buzz on match days.
Personally think it could be a good thing, certainly bringing more money into the area.
Can't imagine it would disrupt park life at all.
If a pub doesn't want the business they can ban football shirts.......
Imagine it's all hot air though....

#15 jamesl

jamesl

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,016 posts

Posted 18 October 2005 - 03:36 PM

I'm not convinced that it will happen but if it did I don't think it would be as bad as many might think

First off matches would only be fornightly (excepting the occassional mid week cup game and we rarely have a sustained cup run

Second the park area would not be diminished because the existing stadium is already there and the existing ca park is probably capable of holding the match day traffic

Third Palace fans are pretty well behaved most of the time

Fourth whilst there is always a small element of troublemakers (particularly during Palace/Milwall, Brighton and Cardiff games) the game are always heavily Policed - the one recentish example of football related trouble on the triangle ("Palace Charlton last season) was stamped on by the Police in minutes

Fifth the proximity of a family park is more likely to mean that matches are heaviliy Policed.

Sixth the increase in trade would be welcome

I think those who have fears over this should go to a game at Selhurst Park and actually witness what match day is really like

Points against are obviously whether the traffic system could take it (probably not) , the increase in rubbish caused by fans buying take way food and littering the place up/urinating and noise/minor trouble.

Admittedly I am a Palace fan so I would welcome anything that improved the fortunes of the club but I also don't think the idea is completely ludicrous. However I still remain of the view that this is Simon Jordan's PR machine at work ramping up pressure on Ron Noades to sell him the existing ground.