Castleford stadium.

[phiggins]

20 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

The Princess St stand will get some new cladding if the new development ever goes ahead but it is planned to then revert it back to standing. And yes it's being done now just to get IMG points

Do you think it will have many tangible benefits beyond the IMG points? Feels like it would've been better to give a deadline of 3,5 or however many years would be feasible, to do the full renovation, rather than give boxes to tick in a <12 month window. 

Cas are doing what they have to do, I just find it odd that they have to do it this way.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Do you think it will have many tangible benefits beyond the IMG points? Feels like it would've been better to give a deadline of 3,5 or however many years would be feasible, to do the full renovation, rather than give boxes to tick in a <12 month window. 

Cas are doing what they have to do, I just find it odd that they have to do it this way.

I do think people are looking at it wrong with all the talk of box-ticking. We can't keep ignoring things and focusing on long term plans that may or may not happen.

On the surface this would appear to be a ground improvement - their only seated area is poor and this offers more seating for people. 

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do think people are looking at it wrong with all the talk of box-ticking. We can't keep ignoring things and focusing on long term plans that may or may not happen.

On the surface this would appear to be a ground improvement - their only seated area is poor and this offers more seating for people. 

It's why I asked the question to be honest. I read things about the state of the terracing that the seats are on, and the roof that they are under, and just wondered if this was looking like a rushed patch up, rather than a genuine improvement that brings benefits to Cas beyond IMG points. I don't know the answer to that, so asked the question of people on this thread who know far more of what is going on than I do.

[dboy]

It's clearly glitter-rolling for IMG points, but I reckon it does materially improve the ground overall, in the interim.

That, however, raised the question - why didn't they do this many years ago??

The answer is, of course, IMG and the threat of relegation based on off-field standards.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, phiggins said:

It's why I asked the question to be honest. I read things about the state of the terracing that the seats are on, and the roof that they are under, and just wondered if this was looking like a rushed patch up, rather than a genuine improvement that brings benefits to Cas beyond IMG points. I don't know the answer to that, so asked the question of people on this thread who know far more of what is going on than I do.

I get that, and it aint a criticism, but a huge criticism of the last 20 years is that everything has been based on future promises rather than actual improvements. Now we are seeing tangible improvements instead of 3d images.

9 minutes ago, dboy said:

It's clearly glitter-rolling for IMG points, but I reckon it does materially improve the ground overall, in the interim.

That, however, raised the question - why didn't they do this many years ago??

The answer is, of course, IMG and the threat of relegation based on off-field standards.

There are a couple of things - funding has been made available hasn;t it from the council? And maybe for the first time these minimum standards actually mean something instead of the toothless ones in the past that allowed for too many allowances. This is something that many have wanted for years - minimum standards that drive change.

[Barley Mow]

32 minutes ago, dboy said:

It's clearly glitter-rolling for IMG points, but I reckon it does materially improve the ground overall, in the interim.

That, however, raised the question - why didn't they do this many years ago??

The answer is, of course, IMG and the threat of relegation based on off-field standards.

I'd be interested to know whether the majority of Castleford fans consider it an improvement.

That stand usually looks quite full with people standing. Is it the quality of the seating facilities in the main stand that put those people off sitting, or would they just rather stand?

If it's the latter, then Castleford are potentially reducing the the amount of standing space (favoured by their supporters) in order to obtain a higher IMG grade.

[dboy]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

I'd be interested to know whether the majority of Castleford fans consider it an improvement.

That stand usually looks quite full with people standing. Is it the quality of the seating facilities in the main stand that put those people off sitting, or would they just rather stand?

If it's the latter, then Castleford are potentially reducing the the amount of standing space (favoured by their supporters) in order to obtain a higher IMG grade.

So, "happy" fans v scoring essential IMG points and remaining in SL.

Not a difficult choice, I don't think.

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I'd be interested to know whether the majority of Castleford fans consider it an improvement.

That stand usually looks quite full with people standing. Is it the quality of the seating facilities in the main stand that put those people off sitting, or would they just rather stand?

If it's the latter, then Castleford are potentially reducing the the amount of standing space (favoured by their supporters) in order to obtain a higher IMG grade.

I think there is also the case for considering people who don't go because they don't have a nice place to sit with their kids. Maybe this is attractive to new fans. If I think about Wire's move, the seating is far more popular than the old stand that Wilderspool had.

[WN83]

Seeing the Princess Street seating in the flesh yesterday, I wouldn't like to be sat on the front couple of rows, well not unless looking at a fence is your thing. It looked a lot smarter than I expected though. 

Edited April 15 by WN83

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, WN83 said:

Seeing the Princess Street seating in the flesh yesterday, I wouldn't like to be sat on the front couple of rows, well not unless looking at a fence is your thing. It looked a lot smarter than I expected though. 

Yeah, just from the photos it looks low. I wondered if they were going to replace that fencing with more modern lower boards. 

[WN83]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, just from the photos it looks low. I wondered if they were going to replace that fencing with more modern lower boards. 

I think they'll need to or they'll need to make sure they only sell the front couple of rows to fans over 7 foot tall. 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Problem with bolting seats to a shallow terrace, but fundamentally q decent view isn't a criteria to score points in. The seats are all that matters here so it's a short term points grab and understandably so, especially with the actual improvements in the pipe line. Cas are playing the game that's all. 

What I challenge is the theory that money is being spent on the ground to the detriment of the team, which I feel is a line their board are feeding the supporters to keep them sweet. As far as I have read, the ground improvements are coming from the council £2m grant, and the playing budget is a conscious decision to save some cash, safe in the knowledge that London will finish bottom and the seats will score them enough points to retain the SL place. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

54 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Problem with bolting seats to a shallow terrace, but fundamentally q decent view isn't a criteria to score points in. The seats are all that matters here so it's a short term points grab and understandably so, especially with the actual improvements in the pipe line. Cas are playing the game that's all. 

What I challenge is the theory that money is being spent on the ground to the detriment of the team, which I feel is a line their board are feeding the supporters to keep them sweet. As far as I have read, the ground improvements are coming from the council £2m grant, and the playing budget is a conscious decision to save some cash, safe in the knowledge that London will finish bottom and the seats will score them enough points to retain the SL place. 

I'm also wondering where in their PP application they mentioned installing seats in the Princess St stand.....

[Agbrigg]

I have never seen any confirmation as to long term intention. On the face of things those seats look ok and if that fence is altered that would make a decent little stand. Plus the cas floodlights are really poor and old fashionioned . You would think they would remove them too and bring them up to modern standards when the ground gets up graded. That would also improve the view from the seats 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

7 hours ago, phiggins said:

Do you think it will have many tangible benefits beyond the IMG points? Feels like it would've been better to give a deadline of 3,5 or however many years would be feasible, to do the full renovation, rather than give boxes to tick in a <12 month window. 

Cas are doing what they have to do, I just find it odd that they have to do it this way.

No. The club have stated themselves that this is merely to gain points.

[Lowdesert]

3 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

No. The club have stated themselves that this is merely to gain points.

Indeed.  It will be just the same for most clubs, just to satisfy most of the audit.  Token compliance.

[dboy]

I'm not sure the boarding heights can be lowered - they are there for a reason, which is as relevant to the playing area, as it is the spectator area.

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, dboy said:

I'm not sure the boarding heights can be lowered - they are there for a reason, which is as relevant to the playing area, as it is the spectator area.

Other clubs don't have those high boards. 

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

No. The club have stated themselves that this is merely to gain points.

That's a rather disingenuous read though. 

The outcome will be new modern seats in the stadium. 

[dboy]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Other clubs don't have those high boards. 

I've had a look at images of the stand and their boards are that high as they are affixed to the railings, and thus dictated by their height.  Wakey's are the same in front of the North Stand.

I've also looked at the RFL Operations Book - no minimum height is specified, so, as long as the WMDC H&S is happy, they could reduce them.

If they don't, as pointed out, the first few rows of seating are obsolete.

 

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think there is also the case for considering people who don't go because they don't have a nice place to sit with their kids. Maybe this is attractive to new fans. If I think about Wire's move, the seating is far more popular than the old stand that Wilderspool had.

Totally agree 

I always want to sit if I have my kids with me....it means the world to them to be settled in one spot...it can be scary for them in a crowded mostly male stanfing environment

[M j M]

11 hours ago, dboy said:

It's clearly glitter-rolling for IMG points, but I reckon it does materially improve the ground overall, in the interim.

That, however, raised the question - why didn't they do this many years ago??

The answer is, of course, IMG and the threat of relegation based on off-field standards.

They didn't do it years ago because it's a waste of money that would be better saved up for either the new stadium they were working on for years or the backup plan for a proper redevelopment of Wheldon Road. Forcing clubs into taking short-term measures which aren't really in their interests and don't really improve things is an unfortunate by-product of the spreadsheet exercise.

[Tre Cool]

5 minutes ago, M j M said:

They didn't do it years ago because it's a waste of money that would be better saved up for either the new stadium they were working on for years or the backup plan for a proper redevelopment of Wheldon Road. Forcing clubs into taking short-term measures which aren't really in their interests and don't really improve things is an unfortunate by-product of the spreadsheet exercise.

They've had plenty of time. Now's the time for action.

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, Tre Cool said:

They've had plenty of time. Now's the time for action.

Given how complex and complicated getting stadium funding and planning sorted are that's just a pretty meaningless cliche.

[Hopie]

18 minutes ago, M j M said:

They didn't do it years ago because it's a waste of money that would be better saved up for either the new stadium they were working on for years or the backup plan for a proper redevelopment of Wheldon Road. Forcing clubs into taking short-term measures which aren't really in their interests and don't really improve things is an unfortunate by-product of the spreadsheet exercise.

Absolutely correct, those trying to spin this as a benefit of IMG need to stop and think for a while.