Firhill Stadium

[Jaggernaut]

Is it too late to hope that the new people in charge at Firhill might stop the permanent mutilation of the stadium that Propco has in mind? In other threads there have been discussions about how to make visiting Firhill an entertaining experience. Yes, the product on the park is important, but so is the environment in which professional football is watched. The plans seem to be for basically two high walls to go up, one behind the goal at the city end, and one along where the main stand now is. What a soul-destroying scene that will make. If I was a half-decent player I wouldn't want to play in such a place, and as a football supporter I wouldn't be enthusiastic about going to such a place either (I know I won't be). Imagine too, what the place will look like on tv (the bing and the ghost main stand are already bad enough, but two big brick walls.......!). I would also think that such an environment would be far less attractive to the Warriors. The previous plan that got thrown out had at least a 1,000-seater diddy stand at the city end. Is it too much to hope for that we could go back to something like that, for the sake of the image of the club as a serious football club?

[Steven H]

Is it too late to hope that the new people in charge at Firhill might stop the permanent mutilation of the stadium that Propco has in mind? In other threads there have been discussions about how to make visiting Firhill an entertaining experience. Yes, the product on the park is important, but so is the environment in which professional football is watched. The plans seem to be for basically two high walls to go up, one behind the goal at the city end, and one along where the main stand now is. What a soul-destroying scene that will make. If I was a half-decent player I wouldn't want to play in such a place, and as a football supporter I wouldn't be enthusiastic about going to such a place either (I know I won't be). Imagine too, what the place will look like on tv (the bing and the ghost main stand are already bad enough, but two big brick walls.......!). I would also think that such an environment would be far less attractive to the Warriors. The previous plan that got thrown out had at least a 1,000-seater diddy stand at the city end. Is it too much to hope for that we could go back to something like that, for the sake of the image of the club as a serious football club?

 

I fear it is too late. The plans displayed in the Aitken Suite did not show a 'high wall' at the city end but it did give a distinct reminder of Kilbowie (remember that shitehole) with a shelter of sorts that you could put seats/terracing into at a later stage (although the plans did show seats there). Plans can change and they may need to to get it through the planning permission stage, but I doubt they will change for the benefit of the Club.

 

Here's why I think it is too late and the new folk in charge wont change it, Billy Allan is a big player in Propco and now appears to be the public big player in the Thistle boardroom (although many suspect he has been since his arrival on the Thistle board). If planning permission isn't granted we as a Club will suffer because in addition to the debt owed to the bank we will now owe almost a million quid to the Propco investors. Its in everyone's best interest for this to go thru now, the time to stop it passed a long time ago, but how it looks from inside the stadium is important to every Thistle fan so maybe any change of the plans (if there are any) can incorporate a bit of thought in that direction.

 

Some other thoughts...maybe the plan not to incorporate Club facilities in phase 1 is an indication that the Main Stand might well be kept afterall. If investors can make enough profit in phase 1 to be pleased enough (bearing in mind they are 'Thistle-minded' people) they might just settle for that. However Im not sure the development of the city end can make enough money for investors to get their investment back, but without having to build Club facilities there must be scope to increase the money made from it. Whatever money the Club make from this (if any) could go to bringing the Main Stand upto scratch, including the Aitken Suite and the possible return of the Hospitality (and all that that used to entail before moving it to the JHS)...maybe even working with the Warriors on this one could be viable.

 

I dont know enough about the property business to know if enough money can be made from phase 1 to cover the investments made, just thinking out loud really.

[Vom Itorium]

Rather than putting a paltry attempt at seats/terracing in front of the carbuncle that is PropCo why don't the club look at providing state of the art disabled facilities in place?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Vom Itorium

[Allan Heron]

I fear it is too late. The plans displayed in the Aitken Suite did not show a 'high wall' at the city end but it did give a distinct reminder of Kilbowie (remember that shitehole) with a shelter of sorts that you could put seats/terracing into at a later stage (although the plans did show seats there). Plans can change and they may need to to get it through the planning permission stage, but I doubt they will change for the benefit of the Club.

 

Here's why I think it is too late and the new folk in charge wont change it, Billy Allan is a big player in Propco and now appears to be the public big player in the Thistle boardroom (although many suspect he has been since his arrival on the Thistle board). If planning permission isn't granted we as a Club will suffer because in addition to the debt owed to the bank we will now owe almost a million quid to the Propco investors. Its in everyone's best interest for this to go thru now, the time to stop it passed a long time ago, but how it looks from inside the stadium is important to every Thistle fan so maybe any change of the plans (if there are any) can incorporate a bit of thought in that direction.

 

Some other thoughts...maybe the plan not to incorporate Club facilities in phase 1 is an indication that the Main Stand might well be kept afterall. If investors can make enough profit in phase 1 to be pleased enough (bearing in mind they are 'Thistle-minded' people) they might just settle for that. However Im not sure the development of the city end can make enough money for investors to get their investment back, but without having to build Club facilities there must be scope to increase the money made from it. Whatever money the Club make from this (if any) could go to bringing the Main Stand upto scratch, including the Aitken Suite and the possible return of the Hospitality (and all that that used to entail before moving it to the JHS)...maybe even working with the Warriors on this one could be viable.

 

I dont know enough about the property business to know if enough money can be made from phase 1 to cover the investments made, just thinking out loud really.

 

I don't think this is the case. If the planning permission fails it just means that both the football club and the other shareholders in PropCo have an asset that they can't develop as they wish. But there should be no obligation on the club to return monies to the other investors.

 

Whilst there is a general positive air about the recent changes (or, to be more precise, removals) what it does do is focus a light more sharply on the conflict of interest issue as the Club Board is now unambiguously dominated by those with large personal stakes in PropCo. I know that one thing I'd be looking for is a clear statement of intent on this whole area to at least assuage any concerns. In the absence of anything further though, I wouldn't expect any fundamental changes to the intention although I do suspect the timing will perhaps be stretched out over a longer period.

[Allan Heron]

Rather than putting a paltry attempt at seats/terracing in front of the carbuncle that is PropCo why don't the club look at providing state of the art disabled facilities in place?

 

From hearing a representative of CAFE at the last Supporters Direct conference, I don't believe that they'd regard such a development as state of the art.

 

They are looking for disabled supporters to be able to be part of the general mass of supporters rather than effectively segregated (as they are currently and would be in this suggestion) so they wouldn't regard this as a positive step.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Allan Heron

[Steven H]

I don't think this is the case. If the planning permission fails it just means that both the football club and the other shareholders in PropCo have an asset that they can't develop as they wish. But there should be no obligation on the club to return monies to the other investors.

 

Result

 

Whilst there is a general positive air about the recent changes (or, to be more precise, removals) what it does do is focus a light more sharply on the conflict of interest issue as the Club Board is now unambiguously dominated by those with large personal stakes in PropCo. I know that one thing I'd be looking for is a clear statement of intent on this whole area to at least assuage any concerns. In the absence of anything further though, I wouldn't expect any fundamental changes to the intention although I do suspect the timing will perhaps be stretched out over a longer period.

 

A clear statement of intent is a must, I suspect that will be forthcoming and hope it's something on the agenda for the Open Meeting, or at least on the agenda of Billy Allan et al.

[Windcalmer]

Two big high walls, with two giant mirrors on them. Makes the place look twice as busy. Sorted.

[McKennan]

I'm of the opinion that Firhill is finished as a football stadium. Mind you, I'd rather watch a good Thistle side play in a tip than a tip of a Thistle side play in a good stadium. It's lose-lose on that one right now.

Edited September 29, 2010 by McKennan

[McKennan]

Two big high walls, with two giant mirrors on them. Makes the place look twice as busy. Sorted.

 

Murals.

[northernsoul]

There should be some form of spectator facilites in the City End and it's a disgrace there isn't.

 

Now that Cowan has gone can we get a proper well constructed reason with regards to fans disappointment about this? Cowan's patronising tone in the programme a few weeks back on the issue was too much to stomach.

 

If plans for a stand can be scrapped then surely there is still time for it to be put back in place. Or some research into the terracing rule referring to Glasgow City Council and SPL and SFL criteria.

 

Will this be discussed at the Trust meeting next week? If folk are in the know that is?

[Vom Itorium]

From hearing a representative of CAFE at the last Supporters Direct conference, I don't believe that they'd regard such a development as state of the art.

 

They are looking for disabled supporters to be able to be part of the general mass of supporters rather than effectively segregated (as they are currently and would be in this suggestion) so they wouldn't regard this as a positive step.

So, we're supposed to spend money we don't have adjusting the JH to make a disabled area? This ain't gonna happen. When we may well have a development going on at the City End that could include a proper, new disabled area with facilities then surely this would be good enough?

 

This isn't about segregation, it's about being able to provide better facilities and if we can do that as part of this development, which also brings the disabled fans closer to the main throng then it should be welcomed not treated as some discrimination issue.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Vom Itorium

[Jaggernaut]

Rather than putting a paltry attempt at seats/terracing in front of the carbuncle that is PropCo why don't the club look at providing state of the art disabled facilities in place?

Isn't it the case that neither disabled spectators nor their carers pay any entrance fee? If that's the case, then given the club's dire financial state, should such facilities be a priority?

[Jaggernaut]

Two big high walls, with two giant mirrors on them. Makes the place look twice as busy. Sorted.

Brilliant!

[Junior]

Id rather sacrifice having a stand behind the goal if it meant we retained the main stand or built something of a decent size (2000+) in its place.

[McKennan]

If plans for a stand can be scrapped then surely there is still time for it to be put back in place. Or some research into the terracing rule referring to Glasgow City Council and SPL and SFL criteria.

 

And the point of building a stand the club can't fill with money the club/Propco probably won't see is?

[McKennan]

Id rather sacrifice having a stand behind the goal if it meant we retained the main stand or built something of a decent size (2000+) in its place.

 

Jesus Christ. Are brains having an in-service day today? Why spend money - and the success of redevelopment is tenuous at best - on a 2000+ seat stand to replace the Main Stand when there are nearly 8000 seats in the north and JH stands that are rarely filled?

 

Do people add expensive extensions to their houses on the premise they might want to run a B&B business 15 years from now?

[Jaggernaut]

Jesus Christ. Are brains having an in-service day today? Why spend money - and the success of redevelopment is tenuous at best - on a 2000+ seat stand to replace the Main Stand when there are nearly 8000 seats in the north and JH stands that are rarely filled?

 

Do people add expensive extensions to their houses on the premise they might want to run a B&B business 15 years from now?

OK, but how would you like to see the ground developed? The city end and the main stand sold for housing, and two giant walls in place to leave us forever with a 2-sided stadium?

[Steven H]

OK, but how would you like to see the ground developed? The city end and the main stand sold for housing, and two giant walls in place to leave us forever with a 2-sided stadium?

 

Ideally, I would like to see the JHS replaced with a smaller 3000 seater stand, the main stand to stay as is but with work being done to restore it to former glory and no restricted view seats. The city end can be deveoped as planned, it would look ok (provided the Main Stand was kept and up brought up to standard). We can but dream tho, reality dictates this is unlikely to happen.

[McKennan]

OK, but how would you like to see the ground developed? The city end and the main stand sold for housing, and two giant walls in place to leave us forever with a 2-sided stadium?

 

Jim, how I'd like to see the ground developed and how it will develop have nothing in common and are unlikely to have anything in common. Ever. I believe we will briefly have a three-sided stadium, then briefly a two-sided stadium, then we'll leave Firhill.

 

What I'd like is a four-sided, SPL compliant stadium that's full of Thistle fans every other week and put to good use for other sports when our team isn't playing on it. I'd like to see it as the sporting centrepiece of a redeveloped canal area and a focus for the Maryhill community.

[Premjag]

Rather than putting a paltry attempt at seats/terracing in front of the carbuncle that is PropCo why don't the club look at providing state of the art disabled facilities in place?

 

Where's the money in that?

[northernsoul]

And the point of building a stand the club can't fill with money the club/Propco probably won't see is?

 

Calm down.

 

What would be the big difference anyway, there's nothing behind the goal right now, and if there was something behind the goal, in all likelihood it would be empty. That depends where the Club is, from a league and financial point of view.

 

The impression I got from Hughes at the time was that it wasn't the Club's money being spent on the proposed 300 seater stand behind the goal. It was part of the "£12 million development" in the City End.

 

Can someone verify this?

Edited September 29, 2010 by northernsoul

[The Big Man]

Why not Build club facilities at the city end - maybe a recreation area for players/dressing rooms etc. And at the left of the JH Stand a small but adequate social club for the supporters. At least that way it would allow the stadium to look more like a stadium.

 

The main stand could then have whatever done to it that they wanna do and put small rows of seats in place for directors and hospitality. Keep the JH Stand home only and Away stand for well.. away only lol

[Colognejag]

Whilst other clubs may have 3 or 4 stands, how many of the stands are actually used?

 

Clyde

St Johnstone

Morton

Dunfermline

Raith Rovers

Livingston

Airdrie

 

All of these clubs may have more than two stands,but how often are they ever used? We have one very large stand (for our level) and a small sized stand. 8,000 seats has been more than enough, even for the bigger cup games...How many games since the JH stand and Viagra stand were built have we even filled them? We have effectively been in a two stand stadium for years (and so have others), but it seems some people think that looking at an empty stand is better than something that might (?) generate some income for us...

 

How many times have you watched foreign football and seen stadia that are not 4 stands - it often is the case with smaller teams where there is one end with a large bank for advertising. It is not that uncommon you know.

 

As others have said, four, fully filled stands would be lovely, but we have to be realistic. We aint got the cash to even entertain the thought.

[northernsoul]

Why not Build club facilities at the city end - maybe a recreation area for players/dressing rooms etc. And at the left of the JH Stand a small but adequate social club for the supporters. At least that way it would allow the stadium to look more like a stadium.

 

The main stand could then have whatever done to it that they wanna do and put small rows of seats in place for directors and hospitality. Keep the JH Stand home only and Away stand for well.. away only lol

 

Hughes said there was an idea to move the Club facilities in the corner between the JHS and away stand, back at the Propco meeting back in March.

[Jaggernaut]

Hughes said there was an idea to move the Club facilities in the corner between the JHS and away stand, back at the Propco meeting back in March.

I personally wouldn't believe a word Hughes said about anything to do with Thistle or Firhill.