Just been reading Sky's report on the 92 league clubs; http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9915096? I've always argued that we do not need a bigger ground, having supported the club for over 40 years, I could probably count on one hand the amount of times i visited a game at Priestfield where a bigger stadium may have been required. Let's look at that report - Gills average 49.16%. Then focusing on other newer stadiums and models, MK Dons 30.99% - Colchester 38.46% - Shrewsbury 54.11% I've seen Wigan given as an example many a time of what we could achieve, well they only managed to fill 51.48% of their ground, ok it was with an average of 12,882, but that is not much bigger than the size of our current ground, do we really want to build a stadium on their model to attract an additional 2k over capacity! So I ask why new stadiums, they just become sterile environments, that lose all there atmosphere, normally over priced complexes. Yes, of course at my aging years i like some comfort but that can just as easily be achieved and has in our current stadium, instead of moving to new pastures. Moving ground will just saddle us with even more huge debt and i know theoretically we have a huge catchment area, but that debate has been done so many times. The only time we will fill our ground is when we join the glory hunters, do i want that, no, if you do, people can go support any of the top five, you might not get a ticket but you can always subscribe to SKY Debate...
I'm not against the idea of a new ground. It would definitely be a situation of speculating to hopefully accumulating - in terms of possible progress. We have a problem with the current site. It is not user-friendly for anyone attending by car - you have to park a long way off to find a space ( and where it is not resident only parking ) -- not that I'm advocating buying up land just to be used as a car park ! --- a new stadium could be designed in a way that could incorporate a decent amount of 'under venue' parking ( creating a small additional income ). THIS extra capacity would be beneficial /crucial if a new stadium had additional facilities to allow the whole development to be used for different forms of entertainment all year round - which is a must rather than a venue that is used only 23 times a year. I'm sure that Mr.Scally has his mind on improving the facilities for Gills' players, fans, opposing fans and fans of all sorts of different attractions that can be offered by a new stadium for Gillingham Football Club. I don't particularly like 'out-of-town' stadiums - but vehicular access - especially egress to main routes is so important for all of us - whatever we're doing/ wherever we go. Mr.Scally has talked about Beechings Cross. I believe that this could provide a site large enough to cater for sporting and social attractions other than football - in a place that can give good access to and from M2 & A2. The actual size of a new stadium could be 'modest', say 15,000 but with the capability to easily be doubled (if required).
I think this is another aspect of where football is getting it wrong, it is good to cater for vehicle access but then that becomes another class issue because it assumes everyone can afford or has a motor vehicle, or even wants to drive to a game. Unless football is to become an entirely middle class sport, which has social cleansed a certain culture out of the game. My first priority would be to look at public transport access, which in turn would also be the solution to staying at the existing ground, so technically we are just going full circle from old site to new with no obvious resolutions in the forecast that i have seen. Gillingham as an whole always has been a transport issue, just try getting from either Rainham or Gillingham stations to the business park, no mean feat, unless you have healthy legs and the time come rain or shine. Why is football going to be any different. My fear is that GFC will be no different if not worse in a new ground, unless they open up a halt. You only have to look at Shrewsbury and Colchester as examples, no more walking to the pub for visitors a captive market, destroying traditions.
I've made my opinions known previously on what additional income revenues this stadium could provide, so will not go into that issue. The site plan that was released (for the build at the Beechings Cross site) did include a train station to be set at the rear of where the medical centre is. This would be on the doorstep of the new stadium. I currently walk from Rainham to Priestfield with my family for every home game I can get to (shiftworker) but feel that the additional (or at least easier) access to the football by means of car and train would be beneficial to all. There would still need to be access by foot but with an improved image and access I can only see it bettering the club's fortunes.
brb The Club needs to move to be on a site where it can build / provide alternative attractions for revenue - Football alone ( at Division 3 level ) will not provide extra monies. With alternative attractions comes a need for better transport. gillslad69 reminds us of the proposed train station at Beechings Cross. This is a good idea and would reduce the need for catering for too many cars. Shrewsbury do provide additional opportunities for activities on their site for additional revenue - and it has a fairly sociable drinking establishment ( if you hide your colours ) Colchester is 'cold'. They do not own their ground - which doesn't appear to offer the Club much chance of 'alternative' revenue. This might change as the area becomes developed - but frankly I'm not interested with their 'model' - -- Gillingham need to get it right with any new stadium. I actually feel that Mr.Scally's plans for Beechings Cross will not necessarily lose the 'old fashioned' appeal that football has had in Gillingham - but should help to set our sights further up than dreaming of a top 6 finish in L1. Whilst there has been a lot wrong with Football at the 'Top' ( Blatter etc ) for a long time, I would like GFC to rub up against some larger shoulders on more occasions other than Cup games. As for providing pubs (within walking distance from the ground ) for away supporters - the last time I visited Gillingham ( a couple of weeks ago ) I'm pretty sure I saw that the Livingstone Arms ( an 'away' pub for many years ) was 'boarded up' - seems that they couldn't survive on revenue just 23 times a year !
Good opinions guys and i agree to a degree alwaysright, it's about Scally and the future development getting it right. The only way this can happen is by fans voicing opinions. I might be in the minority as an old dinosaur but i do agree with the alternative revenue. Football even in the past struggled to survive on the game alone, as long has it is for the benefits of the game and not the bankers and corporate market. As you have highlighted we need to ensure we do not end up with a Colchester and cater better (for visitors) than the Shrewsbury model. I like Notts County but they live in the shadows, so maybe that highlights the positive need for venue entertainment, it is just about getting the cocktail right and not ending up with an expensive, over priced long island mix sucked through a straw, when real ale will do.
Public transport is all well and good if it runs close to where you live and close to where you want to go, otherwise you need to use a car which then needs parking. Football is fast becoming a family sport (30 years ago it was mostly male dominated) and needs the facilities to cater for a more diverse clientele.
grumpygit - what diverse clientele would that be? The middle class one that can afford it, whose ££££'s are then used by FIFA to corrupt football.
bloody phone posted too soon...as for families...not much in that direction when kids cannot even open a can of pop they brought in. The Establishment have the game just how they want it, controlled under any banner.
From the plans that have been submitted to Medway Council which everyone can view on Medway Council's website, the plan does include the rail halt and parking spaces. This parking would most likely to be shared with the supermarket and other retail outlets to be built there. Although phase 1 of the stadium would be built as a 16,000 seater multi purpose stadium which is much larger than Priestfield, I am of the opinion it would help generate more interest in the club. I for one know several people who would be willing to go and watch us, if we were in a better location or more accessible to public transport. The new stadium could help generate more revenue through the other outlets on the site and the land that has been designated for the building of new houses. For me you need to focus on the Swansea and Brighton models where they've built new grounds and seen higher attendances due to new facilities. More bums or seats = more revenue for the club. More revenue for the club = funds to purchase better players and give us financial security. I appreciate that the new stadium may look empty to start with but at the same time there are teams in this league with old stadiums such as Notts County or Port Vale are just the same. The benefit we have is that we have Kent and Medway which has a population of just under 2 million to try and tap into. I share the idea that the potential for the club to go places is massive, it's just about unlocking and tapping into that potential.
But Gills PegLeg, we've had plenty of opportunity to tap into the market for increased finances, instead of playing in an half filled Priestfield. Charlton managed to tap into the Medway Towns and they don't have an all singing all dancing complex, just saying like.
brb I think that you'll find that with Charlton it will be the vicinity within /proximity of London and the International appeal of our capital city. The fact that we are close to our capital will (should) give us an extra'advantage' to secure attractions etc to be held within / at a new & more 'user friendly' venue - where we wouldn't need for an underground network to overcome congestion of a site that doesn't do a lot to appeal to people to want come to Priestfield stadium. If we want our club to be a family club you have to understand that families do NOT walk anywhere these days - they go everywhere by car.
alwaysright - I never asked for our club to be a family club, that's an establishment ideology to ensure control of the social classes
brb I might be going off at a tangent when I mention that our Club might be a 'family club' - but ( wether you like it or not ) the social scene of the 'modern era' is vastly different to the days of the man in the cloth cap trudging over cobbled paths within heavily built up 'Hovis' style streets to HIS local football ground - where he can stand, cramped with many other smelly peers in the pouring rain for 2 hours or so. When he needs to go to the loo it is a journey to what is little more than a hole in the ground. Where there is a permanent smog from everyone smoking. etc etc etc. .............Don't get me wrong - there is a certain level of 'romance' / nostalgia associated with the 'good old days.' -- but the modern way is for more comfort and amenities for the added pleasure of football fans ( which include spouses / partners and children - because the family go everywhere together ) Whilst football might have been more of a 'man's' game when you first started watching - and players were honest & didn't roll around on the ground etc, the game as a 'spectacle' has evolved - and I'm pretty sure that Mr.Scally would love it if every MAN coming to Priestfield also brought his wife and kids. Entertainment venues need to provide greater variety, comfort and accessibility to attract more customers. ( and I know that you may not like me reminding you - customers are what we have become - we are not just fans.) ps - sorry for the politics.
Oh i love politics alwaysright - 'family' is a term used to social cleanse the game stemming from the days of the Thatcher government, after she used the police as class warriors following the miners strikes of the 80's, which in turn led to Hillsborough. And from there the game evolved under the leadership of SKY, supported by the British government. To a stage today where Blatter follows his bust up the with a comedian by words such as he needs to be better educated. Well we all know about Blatter and FIFA's style of education. So the question is how many families can afford to go to football that they so promote or is it on the whole now just for the middle classes who can afford Prem prices, and who can afford a TGI Fridays or a Frankie & Bennys as a family before or after a game, because this is what is being promoted across the land. Remember Northampton?....or was it Coventry! Go to Arsenal the youngsters have an ST waiting list that will make them an adult without ever having made the ground for there so called 'Family' union. I might still hold the nostalgia and romance of days gone by, but i can assure Mr Blatter I might not be very well educated, but i know when i'm being coerced to conform, while corruption has become the marketing force of the modern game. None of this is aimed at my club or our chairman, I'm just vocal in saying be careful, otherwise instead of a Swansea we might get a Millennium Dome. I had to give up my ST for want in change of personal circumstances and because i can no longer afford the price, as one adult I pay £21 post match for League One football, blimey mate, their pricing us out of OUR game.
brb The subject of politics in football could fill up many pages - and would bore people ( without your stomach and mine for the subject ) more than my stories in the ARGS thread. The EPL & SKY TV has a lot to answer for as far as it relates to the modern game of football and how it is 'enjoyed' by the 'customers.' In very simple terms - those who can afford to pay to go to matches or subscribe to television viewing - will continue to do so - those who can't afford it will miss out. I don't like the situation even if I can afford both - but I'm not sure what can be done to make things more equitable for all 'fans.' If we can bring the subject back on track - Clubs like Gillingham need ( somehow ) to find the funds to provide a location and the attractions to encourage real football fans out of their armchairs on a cold Tuesday winters' night to watch a L1 game -- when there is a Champions League game on television. It is not easy = and ultimately it will be money for aforementioned stadia and associated attractions ( or in Our case - the lack of funds ) that will dictate if Gillingham FC will get close to the elite in Football. ( I'll be dead before that happens ) ps - it was Northampton ( Coventry away ! ) - I remember well the family who spent a small fortune in the pub before the game ( I wished we'd stayed inside instead of going to watch our rubbish ) I think that these 'days out' are normal - inasmuch that modern families cannot afford to go to live football every week - so the Northampton experience becomes a once-a-season treat -- whereas the cost of Sky or BT is comparatively affordable - have we, the consumer (customer) created a need for Sky & BT football without realising the damage it causes for the game ?
I accept all the points raised including your own alwaysright, i certainly do not dismiss the opposite arguments and i know there was no suggestion i did. I just think if the club really want to pave the way, then there is a lot the club could already being do to provide better attractions. The Blues Rock (IMO) is a mess and i refuse to use it. The catering in the ground itself, Lindley's as it was, were a shambles and I wrote to the club on this topic several times (so no hiding behind persona's Mr Chairman). As for pricing and as a comparison a few seasons back, i did a little bit of research, I could get travel, game with ST cheaper for Championship football than i could for my local team as an ADULT. The way we were treated as ST holders a few season's back for the first game was a shambles (Scally apologised). Let's iron out the basics before we think big is all i'm saying.
