Page 1 of 1

What the Arena should've been

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:50 pm
by H1987
Although arguably even this would've been too big. Nearly 10,000 with permission to expand if needed.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54779977

Delighted for Wimbledon though. You can see they ran out of money after the main stand and it's a bit wonky but it's theirs (and who wants a bland bowl anyway)

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:27 am
by eddie-rowles
Something all Darlo fans can aspire too. A return to EFL and our own ground in Darlington

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:33 pm
by onewayup
Best 10,000 stadium I seen colchester's, for around 12 million, I think, anyone got that cash to spare ,

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 4:36 pm
by H1987
Aye, I’m sure there’s that amount down the back of my sofa. Bare with me...

Seriously though, aside from the main stand it’s quite a basic set up for them. Although if it was us, I’d like some safe standing behind the goals.

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 5:04 pm
by Makka Pakka
Quite like Rovrums. Never quite understood how having lots of extra empty seats translated into higher running costs though.

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:28 am
by Geordie Quaker
I doubt it is the seats that raise the running costs per se (although they do need cleaning /replacing if worn).

It is more that more likely that more seats means bigger concrete and steel infrastructures which do need substantial maintenance. Also having more seats also means more service faciltiies power, staff and maintain.

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:09 pm
by Makka Pakka
If you compare the Arena to a sensible sized (8-10k) seater modern stadium of similar design (i.e. a concourse under/behind all 4 sides), surely the footprint would be close to the same size, the difference being the height of the structure which affects the building costs for sure but does it really change the maintenance much?
Such a stadium would have toilets, lighting, heating, catering facilities needing services and staff. Granted the Arena was built with those appropriate for 25,000 but with large parts mothballed, the facilities being used must be not too dissimilar in demands to those that would be in the smaller stadium.
I just struggle to see how the Arena running costs are so astronomically bigger than a similar modern stadium with a smaller capacity.

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:57 pm
by H1987
I mean, we’ve been told as much repeatedly by folks who I doubt are lying about it.

I’m not sure it goes up proportionally (I.e. it costs twice as much for 25k as 12.5k capacity) but it must have been enough of an extra burden to inflict financial hardship repeatedly. Clubs our size operate on fine margins.

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:58 pm
by biccynana
The Arena features in an article on ten unsuccessful stadium moves https://www.theguardian.com/football/th ... dium-moves. To his credit, the writer was quick to change the original wording ‘Darlington folded and reformed in 2012’, to 'Darlington were ejected from the Conference in 2012 and had to start again in the ninth tier' when I explained to him that we hadn't folded and reformed.

Re: What the Arena should've been

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:22 pm
by Darlo_lad
Sadly i read this article in the guardian online today fully expecting the Darlo to get a mention and sure enough we did.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/th ... dium-moves