Puzzled about ground requirements

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
User avatar
Al Sharp
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:39 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by Al Sharp » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:49 am

Can anyone enlighten me as to the reasoning behind different stages of the pyramid - from the Prem right down to our level - having different ground requirements? Is there any precise reason why they're in place, or why they differ as you ascend the leagues? When the powers-that-be were deciding, did they take elf and safety, attendances, policing costs, etc., into consideration, or were they just plucked out of their rear ends?

Genuinely curious, seems barmy to me that Heritage Park is deemed unfit for the Conference North. If the attendance is capped at 2000, I don't really understand what difference grass slopes or whatever other supposed shortcomings really make between this league and the next one up. I suppose segregation could be an issue if Stockport or FCUM were in town, but a second Heysel hardly seems likely. Am I missing something?

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by Darlo_Pete » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:51 am

Clearly given yesterday's crowd, the ground could quite comfortably hold 3000. But the FA are not taking into account the grass bank when they look at the Heritage Park capacity.

JE93
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by JE93 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:53 pm

The regulations are there to safely stage and manage the crowds at matches. It's not just about capacity but how you can deal with and manage that capacity for example.

Getting people into the ground, HP only has 4 turnstiles, add an extra 1000 people to the attendance coming through those turnstiles and you create a huge back log. These 4 turnstiles also make it difficult to segregate as you have to give around a third of the ground to the away team (based on where the turnstiles are).

In addition to that, you have toilet facilities, would what is currently there be able to cope with the demands of 1000 more people.

Then there is a question of covered area's. In bad weather people are going to want to be under cover. Is the covered area big enough to accommodate the likely amount of people that want to cram into it. If not it becomes dangerous.

While i am a big fan of the grassy knoll and it's where i stand whenever im around to watch home games its obvious why it can't be counted in capacity figures. I've watched lots of people slide and fall arse over tit when that bank gets a bit wet and muddy. You put an extra 1000 people in the ground then the risk of falls injuring yourself or other people is heightened.

It might all seem a bit safe and unnecessary at this level but its a better system than getting up to the conference and suddenly having to invest millions to completely rebuild sections of the ground either that or face relegation for not having an appropriately graded ground.

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by dickdarlington » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:19 pm

This is the information the FA provide on their website: http://www.thefa.com/my-football/club-l ... nd-grading

From a vindictive point of view, Salford's ground fails the Step3 criteria on a number of points, but they must have successfully gained an exemption to gain promotion based on their proposed new club house/pavillion (on the bus stop side of the ground).

My understanding is that HP would need:

Two additional turnstiles (One block probably situated between the terrace and Sainsbury's).

Two additional press seats would need to be provided (easily done in an extra row behind the existing four seats)

96m x 8 steps (the covered terrace is 48m x 8 steps), to give an increased capacity (on hard standing) of 1000 spectators (this does not need to be covered).

An addtional toilet facilities for use during segregation...this can be portable loos...likewise additional catering for segregated specators.

And finally, as we all know, temporary structures are not included.

Most of these changes are of minimal cost, and would not require planning permission as they would be within the perimiter and below the height of the fence. The obviously be a significant cost would be the building of new terracing, and i don't have any idea how much that costs, but you could easily do all of the above for less than £100K.

Dare I say it, but Spen's idea of Bish funding it (as per the intention of their generous benefactor), and ourselves paying an increased rent for the increased capacity would be a win win for all parties...whilst we work towards moving home. The extra expediture would be offset not needing to pay off any legacy debt.
Last edited by dickdarlington on Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Neil Johnson
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by Neil Johnson » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:40 pm

dickdarlington wrote:This is the information the FA provide on their website: http://www.thefa.com/my-football/club-l ... nd-grading

From a vindictive point of view, Salford's ground fails the Step3 criteria on a number of points, but they must have successfully gained an exemption to gain promotion based on their proposed new club house/pavillion (on the bus stop side of the ground).
So considerate of the Manchester FA, no such reasonableness can be expected when dealing with the Durham FA blazers.

al_quaker
Posts: 5942
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by al_quaker » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:47 pm

When you get promoted, you have until March(?) the following year to get the ground up to scratch for the next level. So, if we got promoted, and are at HP next year, then there would have to be various improvements otherwise we'd get relegated back. I'd imagine Salford are doing something similar.

I read Al's original question as more of "Why do clubs in Conference North have to have a 3000 capacity?", which is a reasonable point. If the ground is deemed to only safely hold 2000, then as long as only 2000 tickets are sold, then that is surely fine? Obviously there has to be certain rules about facilities, lighting etc, but the capacity rules for ground grading have always seemed a bit over the top. Take out FCUM and Stockport and no-one else will get close to averaging 3000.

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by dickdarlington » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:04 pm

al_quaker wrote:When you get promoted, you have until March(?) the following year to get the ground up to scratch for the next level. So, if we got promoted, and are at HP next year, then there would have to be various improvements otherwise we'd get relegated back. I'd imagine Salford are doing something similar.

I read Al's original question as more of "Why do clubs in Conference North have to have a 3000 capacity?", which is a reasonable point. If the ground is deemed to only safely hold 2000, then as long as only 2000 tickets are sold, then that is surely fine? Obviously there has to be certain rules about facilities, lighting etc, but the capacity rules for ground grading have always seemed a bit over the top. Take out FCUM and Stockport and no-one else will get close to averaging 3000.
Both valid points. My understanding re Salford is that there is nothing formally approved for their ground, which could be problematic. I know that historically, once plans are approved, clubs get a further stay of execution to get the work done.

I think one of the aims is to permit clubs to grow 'organically'. That it stops sugar daddies coming in, investing in a team, getting them up to an unsustainable level and then leaving them to rot. This of course still happens.

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by Spyman » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:34 pm

Al Sharp wrote:Can anyone enlighten me as to the reasoning behind different stages of the pyramid - from the Prem right down to our level - having different ground requirements? Is there any precise reason why they're in place, or why they differ as you ascend the leagues? When the powers-that-be were deciding, did they take elf and safety, attendances, policing costs, etc., into consideration, or were they just plucked out of their rear ends?

Genuinely curious, seems barmy to me that Heritage Park is deemed unfit for the Conference North. If the attendance is capped at 2000, I don't really understand what difference grass slopes or whatever other supposed shortcomings really make between this league and the next one up. I suppose segregation could be an issue if Stockport or FCUM were in town, but a second Heysel hardly seems likely. Am I missing something?
I know what you mean - if a capacity is capped at 2,000 fans, what difference does it make if they're NPL fans or Premiership fans?
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

JE93
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by JE93 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:28 am

Does anyone know what the rules are regarding semi permanent structures? I know we aren't allowed to add our temp seating to the capacity at HP. Is that simply because they are not firmly afixed to the ground?

Lots of clubs seem to be using these kinds of stands now as a way to add capacity eg. The stand at Bloomfield road, Blackpool which was purchased to add capacity when they got into the premier league. Crawley. Eastleigh who have a ground a lot like HP has erected a huge 2,000 seater semi permanent stand behind the goal to increase seats and capacity for their FL push. And if i remember rightly when Shrewsbury played Chelsea in the league cup last season the erected extra seats in the corners of rthe ground to increase capacity.

Just wondering if this could make developing HP a little more viable. If we only needed to lay the foundations of a stand. We then purchase the stand the be put up on top of it. But this can be taken down and taken with us when we find a new home. Just a thought.

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by lo36789 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:51 am

Think we needed to employ a structural engineer and get a roof fitted or something to get it 'permanent'.

Possibly a cheap option mind - don't think it would give us an extra 996 seats mind.

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by dickdarlington » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:24 am

A semi permanent structure (like Histon/Barnet) is laid on a solid base of tarmac or concrete, and is securely fastened to the ground, and built using 'traditional methods', i.e. nuts and bolts, and steel. It does not have foundations which makes it moveable, but it is essentially a well constructed/engineered building.

A temporary structure (like the open seats) has no foundations, and is not laid on a solid base. It is also constructed using scaffolding.

The first can be used towards ground grading, as it is intended as a long term solution. The second can not be (as it is in essence a short term solution). It can however be used to increase a capacity whilst in situ (provided the other infrastructure can accommodate it) (Like at Blackpool).

spen666
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by spen666 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:57 am

Al Sharp wrote:Can anyone enlighten me as to the reasoning behind different stages of the pyramid - from the Prem right down to our level - having different ground requirements? Is there any precise reason why they're in place, or why they differ as you ascend the leagues? ....

I suspect that part of the logic is to ensure clubs improve their grounds as they move up the leagues. Imagine the scenario if BM fell through and Darlo are stuck at HP semi permanently and carried on recent trajectory got into football league. The ground would need too much work done in one summer to make it fit and safe for league football.

The work could not be done in one summer. What would happen then? Darlo refused promotion? This is not what is wanted by anyone
if gradual improvements are needed each division you go up into, it means improvements should be achievable each year

JE93
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by JE93 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:13 pm

dickdarlington wrote:A semi permanent structure (like Histon/Barnet) is laid on a solid base of tarmac or concrete, and is securely fastened to the ground, and built using 'traditional methods', i.e. nuts and bolts, and steel. It does not have foundations which makes it moveable, but it is essentially a well constructed/engineered building.

A temporary structure (like the open seats) has no foundations, and is not laid on a solid base. It is also constructed using scaffolding.

The first can be used towards ground grading, as it is intended as a long term solution. The second can not be (as it is in essence a short term solution). It can however be used to increase a capacity whilst in situ (provided the other infrastructure can accommodate it) (Like at Blackpool).
Cheers for that :thumbup:

Could be an interesting alternative of developing HP. The only thing that would need to be put in would be a hard standing surface to secure the stand to. Am I right in thinking the proposed stand at BM was of this semi permanent nature. Could we then buy it early and fix it into the petrol station end of HP (not sure how many seats were in the original proposal) but would certainly be a lower cost way of doing things and we could take the stand with us when we go.

For anyone interested this is the example of how Eastleigh have used semi permanent stands to build capacity: http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leag ... adium.html 3 semi permanent stands in total.

dickdarlington
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by dickdarlington » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:48 pm

spen666 wrote:The work could not be done in one summer.
Ross County added 4000 seats to their ground in 7 weeks and 2 days ahead of their entry into the SPL a couple of years ago. With proper planning, anything can be achieved. Coincidentally, they used the modular semi permanent structures to achieve this...and their ground looks very tidy indded.
JE93 wrote:Cheers for that :thumbup:

Could be an interesting alternative of developing HP. The only thing that would need to be put in would be a hard standing surface to secure the stand to. Am I right in thinking the proposed stand at BM was of this semi permanent nature. Could we then buy it early and fix it into the petrol station end of HP (not sure how many seats were in the original proposal) but would certainly be a lower cost way of doing things and we could take the stand with us when we go.

For anyone interested this is the example of how Eastleigh have used semi permanent stands to build capacity: http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leag ... adium.html 3 semi permanent stands in total.
Correct, the original plan was to have a stand similar to Ashington/Aycliffe costing around £50K but it fell short because we would have need planning permission due to the height of the roof being higher than the fence. This wouldn't be a problem, but would require some hoop jumping and some legal fees. The stand was going to hold 250 seats as i recall.

In fact everything we need, can be purchased from the likes of Stadium Solutions/Arena Group etc as modular structures and moved to a new home, including toilets/turnstiles/stands/terracing etc etc etc.

However, this is just conjecture, and we're looking at it solely from a DFC perspective. We're assuming that Bish would be happy for us to rip up their tidy grass banking/tear down their fences and install new sanitary piping for our own selfish needs. Once we left, they would be left with vast plains of concrete which would not look great. Also, there would be an associated cost with dismantling and removing. At the end of the day. HP is their ground, and anything which is planned, must be of benefit to them too in the longer term.

However, this is by far and away the most sensible approach in my view. It puts the money in the bank to the best possible use, and allows us to progress, and if Bish were on board, could see us have assets for when the new ground is developed.

We would however, not be able to build a football league ground at Bish. Conference is the maximum it can be developed to, without 'serious' investment.

spen666
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by spen666 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:39 pm

dickdarlington wrote:
spen666 wrote:The work could not be done in one summer.
Ross County added 4000 seats to their ground in 7 weeks and 2 days ahead of their entry into the SPL a couple of years ago. With proper planning, anything can be achieved. Coincidentally, they used the modular semi permanent structures to achieve this...and their ground looks very tidy indded.
That of course was just the building phase. The planning going application etc would take several months so it would not be possible to do all the work as described above in one summer.

The planning building and obtaining necessary safety certificates take time unfortunately.
Then there would be the issue of raising the funds especially as grants may not be available until level club will be playing at in the following season is determined.

The building is the easiest phase

shawry
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by shawry » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:02 pm

spen666 wrote:
Al Sharp wrote:Can anyone enlighten me as to the reasoning behind different stages of the pyramid - from the Prem right down to our level - having different ground requirements? Is there any precise reason why they're in place, or why they differ as you ascend the leagues? ....

I suspect that part of the logic is to ensure clubs improve their grounds as they move up the leagues. Imagine the scenario if BM fell through and Darlo are stuck at HP semi permanently and carried on recent trajectory got into football league. The ground would need too much work done in one summer to make it fit and safe for league football.

The work could not be done in one summer. What would happen then? Darlo refused promotion? This is not what is wanted by anyone
if gradual improvements are needed each division you go up into, it means improvements should be achievable each year
you are looking at it wrong.

the whole point is they expect greater interest and support from both home and away fans so they increase the capacity requirements, everything else is to ensure the safety really.

as it stands BM is perfectly safe for the Championship or Premiership if the capacity didn't need to increase.

User avatar
Al Sharp
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:39 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by Al Sharp » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:55 am

shawry wrote: the whole point is they expect greater interest and support from both home and away fans so they increase the capacity requirements, everything else is to ensure the safety really.

as it stands BM is perfectly safe for the Championship or Premiership if the capacity didn't need to increase.
So let's say they're expecting greater interest and support at Conference North level, yet HP - at which we've shown we can safely cope with capacity crowds of 2,000, a number that dwarfs most attendances at that level - is deemed unfit for football at that level? As I mentioned, this seems completely illogical to me.

I know you've got to have some standards - otherwise a wealthy eccentric could could assemble a squad and have them play in his back garden, or whatever - but when ground requirements are way in excess capacity-wise of the attendances most games attract at a certain level of football, I just can't see how anyone benefits.

Plus, it penalises smaller clubs with less 'modern' grounds who have been promoted purely on footballing merit. For instance Brentford wouldn't have been allowed to play at Griffin Park (capacity 12,000), I believe, if they'd won the playoffs last season, whereas Bournemouth's all-seater (capacity 12,000) is accepted, and I recall Caley Thistle having to use Aberdeen's ground (which is hours away) a few years back, as if their own stadium somehow wasn't capable of hosting the SPL's League 2-esque attendances all of a sudden.

shawry
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by shawry » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:37 am

As you move up the leagues you have better opportunity to play bigger teams.

You say dwarfs most attendances, but clearly not all, so the away following is also a factor.


At the end of the day, it is what it is, and if attendances weren't set as they are how would we have felt being demoted to the Northern League if the required capacity was 500 (because that dwarfs every teams usual attendance) and every club decided just to meet that criteria?

Its not like the requirements are hidden, every club knows what they need to have.

satchmo76
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:09 pm
Team Supported: Barnsley

Re: Puzzled about ground requirements

Post by satchmo76 » Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:50 pm

Has any team ever been relegated from Conference North because they did not make the necessary improvements? I would have thought that if you have enough finance to maintain a squad that can play in that league, you would also have the finance to pay for the upgrades.

What the Conference North can't allow to happen is a club spending money on players that should have been spent on the ground. Otherwise there's no incentive to spend money in the correct ways.

Post Reply