Jump to content


Photo

Crystal Palace FC and the NSC


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#16 jamesl

jamesl

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,016 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:58 PM

Lets remeber also that when the One Way System was being mooted, Croydons Planners were confident that it could cope with the additional traffic generated by The Multiplex. We need to make this area a destination again not somewhere to avoid or get through as quickly as possible


Seriously fang - are you suggesting that the one way system could cope or that croydon's town planners got it right ?

I have personally sat in a tail back along Church Road for 40 mins the last time a friday night athletics meet was held and they only attract about 8000 people on average.

A Palace game attracts about 14-16,000 - using rough maths would you sit in traffic in Church road for 1 1/2 hours to get to the local shops ?

People already avoid the area because of the trafffic - If you don't believe me try standing in Central Hill during Rush hour and see how much traffic now goes down it to avoid the one way system.

All the football would contribute to the local economy would be the loss of the last remaining useful local shops and their replacement by burger bars and fried chicken outlets. CP would become nothing more on a Saturday than a place to eat and get p****d

#17 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 03:01 PM

"Bookshops, Chemists, even Woollies may not benefit directly but as I have said before they are not the main contributors to the local economy"

I'm very interested how you know that food/pub establishments contribute more to the local economy than all the rest of the shops put together.

How would having Palace on the park, draw shoppers into the area? Do you go shopping on the way back from football? - Answer, no unless its beer and (usually fast) food. If a football stadium was a magnet for shoppers, then Selhurst would be raking it in. Personally, I've never seen a stadium in a bustling retail area, not even Stamford Bridge. Fans want convenience - quick into the ground and back home for tea & bullseye, except for food/drink on the way. Perhaps my footie experience is different to yours, but I go for the footie, not to have a "retail experience" before/afterwards.

And we may want CP to be a "destination", but that depends on what the destination is like! I'm sure the area around Upton Park is a destination during matchdays, but I'd rather not live there, thanks.

At present, the NSC is used for a few events each year - and each of which (eg athletics meet, coldplay concert) causes major disruption to the roads and the Triangle generally. Its one thing to do that a few times a year, its another thing entirely to have that every other week. Whilst the multiplex may have increased traffic, I severely doubt that it would have seated 40,000.

#18 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 03:17 PM

James, I suspect there is more you and I agree on than disagree. My contempt for Croydons Planning department knows no bounds and when I have tried to point out the shortcomings of the One Way System before, I have been given short shrift. The tailbacks and congestion are worse than they were. As someone who lives on the Traingle your warnings about the area becoming a place to eat and get pissed in are a little late. The NSC does/will have much better Transport links than Selhurst Park but as I said before I still feel we need to make this area a destination again and a Stadium might help.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#19 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 04:31 PM

Having lived next to a major football stadium I can comment on some unexpected benefits:
- on match days the hotdog and burger trollies go past your front door so you can be decadent and get fast food in much the same way as ice-cream vans
- because of the huge amount of mess left behind by the fans an overnight cleanup operation is mounted leaving the place spotless the following day. As a result the streets on non-match days are cleaner than the average London street.
- the local pubs build up extra capacity and are well stocked so on non-match days it is unlikely your favourite beer is unavailable. Pub staff have to be a bit more professional so standards are raised
- if trouble starts it is rarely in the immediate vicinity which is always heavily policed
- due to the noise created by the fans it is best to go out on match days. If it is an important match you can put the tv on with the sound really low and windows open, and pick up the ambience from the fans in the stadium

What I would like to know though, is if football fans are prepared to travel to away matches 50% of the time, then how important do they consider location to be? For example London Irish (rugby) are now based in Reading. Why does Crystal Palace FC need to be in Selhurst Crystal Palace anyway?

European.vote - EU Referendum


#20 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 05:16 PM

'Cause there's nowhere else. Certainly not in the LB of Croydon. Purley Way was mentioned in the past, as was the Gateway Development at East Croydon. The Councils position is that they would like the Club to stay in the Borough but there is no site suitable for a new stadium. If The NSC option was taken up, Palace would be coming home, they played there some 50 years ago. Franchising is not an option (look what it did to Wimbledon, sorry, The MK Dons.) it would be the death of the Club, any club frankly. Why didn't Arsenal build their new Stadium on The Isle of Dogs, Becton, or Essex?

I also think you would be surprised how little collateral damage is caused in and around Selhurst Park on match days. I can't think of a Hamburger or Hot Dog stall that operates outside the ground as they require licenses and the Police move them on in any case. Litter is not an issue neither is violence (except when Millwall come a calling). Let's remember not all supporters are knuckle dragging retards and some of us can actually read, so I don't think the bourgeoisie of SE19 have too much to worry about. The residents living around Highbury Grove, Craven Cottage, Stamford Bridge show that it is possible for the working and middle classes to get along.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#21 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 05:49 PM

Well the park isn't in the LB of Croydon, so how does that fit?

As for how little collateral damage is caused - I don't want any! Why should the desires of some 15-20,000 fans (if that) destroy our area and park? So what if they were there 50 years ago? It might well be best for the club to move, but I don't care about the wellbeing of the club, if it comes at the expense of my area. If theres nowhere else. Tough.

The residents around Highbury and Stamford Bridge incur considerable disruption (I work with some examples) - however heres the crucial point - at least they knew about this disruption when they moved to the area.

Edited by matt, 03 January 2006 - 05:52 PM.


#22 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 06:29 PM

Calm down, calm down it's only a discussion. I don't recall saying The Park was in Croydon. As I'm sure you have spotted by now, it is in Bromley, whose Council is quite supportive of the idea of CPFC moving to the NSC. We were having a discussion about whether there was any merit in the idea. I think it's an idea worth exploring, you don't. I think you will find that football fans have as much interest in destroying your Park and area as do Rock Fans or Athletics spectators. (I would keep an eye on The Classical Concert mob, who a clearly bent on crop burning, rape and pillage.) So lets try and have a relaxed and respectful conversation about this.

PS: You are also completely wrong about the contribution catering and drinks establishments make to the local economy.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#23 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 07:02 PM

Let's remember not all supporters are knuckle dragging retards and some of us can actually read, so I don't think the bourgeoisie of SE19 have too much to worry about.

I don't subscribe to that point of view. The demographics for the local area are very mixed, with people of all sorts of backgrounds living together in our area. You can find out more from the Census 2001. Maybe you could introduce me to the some of the bourgeoisie you've referred to - I haven't met anyone in our area that fits that description.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#24 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 07:17 PM

Well I was being a little tongue in cheek but as you can see not everyone thinks football supporters are the sort of people they want in the area. I'll take your word for it that SE19 is a bourgeoise free zone.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#25 Axean

Axean

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 895 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 07:21 PM

Axean, I simply do not understand how you can say that blocks of flats would not effect the ambiance of The Triangle. I have a problem with of selling of public swimming pools school playing fields etc and I don't understand why other parks in London can be maintained without being built on.

I didnt say that :P I think it was matt in the previous post. Ironic when you read my view on the flats, Click Here (That posting contains a suggestion of a place could build a new stadium)

But I'll repeat that I think it would prove impossible to build the football stadium in the park. NSC is contained in a MDS within a MOL. If you look up what that entails, it isnt going to happen. For example, the new developement must not have a larger build footprint than the old. I cant see any way you can build your stadium without increasing the build footprint.
An "Inspector" also produced a report on the parks MDS designation that also stated.
Any development must
1. Improve the openness of the Park or have no greater impact on the purposes of including the NSC land and the Park in MOL
2. not exceed the height of the existing National Sports Centre building or the athletics stadium
3. enhance the visual amenities of the Park landscape
4. contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the long term regeneration of the Park, including integration with the parkland surroundings
5. be restricted for indoor or outdoor sporting uses only, with facilities ancillary to those primary uses

Add to this local opposition....and lets not get started about SE20

Edited by Axean, 03 January 2006 - 07:27 PM.


#26 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 07:34 PM

Axean, My profuse apologies. Off course it was Matt who wants the blocks of flats. I do take your point regarding the last inspectors report. However, one has to ask why,despite this, are the LDA still talking to CPFC?

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#27 duckec01

duckec01

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 08:48 PM

it is in Bromley, whose Council is quite supportive of the idea of CPFC moving to the NSC.


Fang, where did you get that information as a matter of interest?

Edited by duckec01, 03 January 2006 - 08:50 PM.


#28 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 08:50 PM

A sports academy has been mentioned so perhaps the LDA are talking to CPFC about a boot camp or training facilities. (all these acronyms are great aren't they). Seeing as the LDA are proposing a new sports stadium it would be good for them to consult with CPFC regarding the needs of football, and dare I say it 'sports science', even if it isn't purpose built for the CPFC or used as their home ground.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#29 Silver

Silver

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,643 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 11:21 PM

In order for the CPFC to stay where it is, it has to be shown that all other options have been exhausted. I guess that this is what the negotiations with the LDA are all about.

#30 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 12:15 AM

Fang, where did you get that information as a matter of interest?

It was mooted on a couple of occasions after the collapse of the hated Multiplex proposals, when it became clear that The Sports Council didn't have the funds or inclination to redevelop the Stadium or even renew the lease. Bromley had made it clear that any financial involvement on their part was dependant on the Multiplex going through. I recall that Simon Jordan was reported in the local press as having talks with Bromley about Palace moving to the Stadium and Bromley said they had no objections in principle. Bromley had been very helpful with regard to getting the Beckenham training ground up and running and Jordan acknowledged this in the Palace programme. I don't whether he was using all this as a means of putting pressure on Ron Noades, who owns Selhurst Park and who is still insisting on an inflated price for the freehold.

I suspect Bromley's attitude would be different if the stadium was in Chiselhurst or Hayes!

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."