Quote from: Ads on September 16, 2025, 07:05:00 PMThey're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.If the new proposals are bigger, I’m fairly sure it’s only because of the bowl optimisation around the ground. The new retrofit Witton End scheme is smaller than Purslow’s version. Only slightly, but the footprint is just smaller. I’d be interested to know how the seat/ row spacing compares.
They're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.
It's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.
Quote from: paul_e on September 16, 2025, 08:12:18 PMIt's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.At this point someone will say that we could have had the extra 1500 AND the optimised 3000 elsewhere.
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on September 16, 2025, 08:26:46 PMQuote from: paul_e on September 16, 2025, 08:12:18 PMIt's about 1500 fewer but the optimisation elsewhere, including some that's already happened, is about 3000 so the ground will be bigger in summer 27 than the Purslow plans had it.At this point someone will say that we could have had the extra 1500 AND the optimised 3000 elsewhere.Oh, how dare they. Everybody knows you are the last word on this.
Quote from: FatSam on September 16, 2025, 07:28:48 PMQuote from: Ads on September 16, 2025, 07:05:00 PMThey're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.If the new proposals are bigger, I’m fairly sure it’s only because of the bowl optimisation around the ground. The new retrofit Witton End scheme is smaller than Purslow’s version. Only slightly, but the footprint is just smaller. I’d be interested to know how the seat/ row spacing compares. It's about the same size, surely?It doesn't look - from inside the stadium - any different to the Purslow version. It's the sensible thing to do, rather than having one end of the ground empty for two years.
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on September 16, 2025, 07:32:06 PMQuote from: FatSam on September 16, 2025, 07:28:48 PMQuote from: Ads on September 16, 2025, 07:05:00 PMThey're not smaller? The original plan wasn't getting us to 50k.If the new proposals are bigger, I’m fairly sure it’s only because of the bowl optimisation around the ground. The new retrofit Witton End scheme is smaller than Purslow’s version. Only slightly, but the footprint is just smaller. I’d be interested to know how the seat/ row spacing compares. It's about the same size, surely?It doesn't look - from inside the stadium - any different to the Purslow version. It's the sensible thing to do, rather than having one end of the ground empty for two years.I’m pretty sure the footprint is slightly smaller. I’m assuming that is to avoid the below ground utilities which needed to be redirected before work could start on the Purslow scheme.