Shrimpsvoices

Whilst I understand the financial reasons for not having a roof on the terracing opposite the main stand this is very bad news for the cosmetics of the stadium and will create an unsightly and unfinished image. Short sighted posters believe the terracing is a larger version of the car wash which would not attract many spectators. I put it to you that if the roof had been retained the terracing would gradually have taken over as the place to be as it provides a better overview of the match. The majority of clubs appear to give priority to the 2 sides of the ground and I can’t think of a new stadium that has not got a roof down both sides.
However people try to justify the decision, the roof will never be put on in the foreseeable future. The directors have done their best for which we must be thankful, but we have already reduced the capacity by 800 and now this means we will have the most basic of new builds and may not stand comparison with other new builds.

Why post a new thread when one is already running on the subject?? Yet another attention seeker! Still the same drivel, can't criticise the footie at the moment so have a go at the new stadium. You must have a very sad, deeply depressed personality.

Oh no I've bitten when I really shouldn't and I'm sure others will as well. Oh hail Ned, king of the trolls. Gets us every time

Ned's got a point somewhere in all that negativity
But as usual he's gone for the totally one sided, depressing, unbalanced and pessimistic view.

"No roof" ~ Agreed

"bad news" ~ Not the news we wanted, but in these difficult times for everyone but Wetherspoons, there will be plenty of chance at a later date for an "investor" to put a roof over our heads.

"poor image" ~ bollox. just ask Accy., Barnet, Rotherham, Aldershot, Exeter, Bournemouth, Hereford, Macclesfield, York City, Darlington, Gillingham etc. etc. what position they would prefer.

Conference to a £12M purpose built (L1/L2) Stadium in 4 years ~ Bl@@dy disgrace

Simply Ned wrote:Whilst I understand the financial reasons for not having a roof on the terracing opposite the main stand this is very bad news for the cosmetics of the stadium and will create an unsightly and unfinished image. Short sighted posters believe the terracing is a larger version of the car wash which would not attract many spectators. I put it to you that if the roof had been retained the terracing would gradually have taken over as the place to be as it provides a better overview of the match. The majority of clubs appear to give priority to the 2 sides of the ground and I can’t think of a new stadium that has not got a roof down both sides.
However people try to justify the decision, the roof will never be put on in the foreseeable future. The directors have done their best for which we must be thankful, but we have already reduced the capacity by 800 and now this means we will have the most basic of new builds and may not stand comparison with other new builds.

Instead of being thankful that the Board are delivering a superb Stadium, albiet not originally as planned , all you can do is find fault in the revised plans particularly in an area that was strongly rumoured not even to be in the final scheme. The Board and their Architects deserve to be congratualted in delivering a scheme that more than meets our present rquirements. Significantly the Chairman has expressed his hope that in the near future that the club will be in a position to put a cover on the North side. However as has been already said 'what's the point in putting a roof on a side that to date only caters for a few hundred at the most?' IF it means that the entire stadium is within the financial framework of what can be afforded...then in my view that is being financially prudent!

Aesthetically I agree it would have been nice to have 4 sides covered. But in my book not at an expence that could have repercussions in other areas. I'd rather we spent whatever monies are left over on the playing side to aid us to develop on the field than on a roof .

Just for once SN be thankful in what lies ahead. Some clubs not too far away would give their all to be in our position....

Just because there isn't a roof doesn't mean you can't stand in there, just dont bother on a rainy day

In my opinion, it could improve atmosphere:

making people more likely to go into the covered long side at concentrate support in one stand rather than thinning it out over two stands.

Why cant we afford a roof

we have not been toald that 'we can't afford a roof' and anyway no-one complains about Christie Park not having a roof down one side just be thankful that we can afford to biuld what is going to be a fantastic stadium and anyway we can look at putting a roof on in the future if it does not work out.

heysham_mfc wrote:we have not been toald that 'we can't afford a roof' and anyway no-one complains about Christie Park not having a roof down one side just be thankful that we can afford to biuld what is going to be a fantastic stadium and anyway we can look at putting a roof on in the future if it does not work out.

.....I just hope that we don't have to get a loan from the Banks or wherever and that the Sainsbury deal provides enough finance to start season 2010 / 2011 with all outstanding debt cleared including all Directors loans.

If we can start life in the new stadium with no debt then whatever savings are having to be made now are well worth it.

Christies Child wrote:

heysham_mfc wrote:we have not been toald that 'we can't afford a roof' and anyway no-one complains about Christie Park not having a roof down one side just be thankful that we can afford to biuld what is going to be a fantastic stadium and anyway we can look at putting a roof on in the future if it does not work out.

.....I just hope that we don't have to get a loan from the Banks or wherever and that the Sainsbury deal provides enough finance to start season 2010 / 2011 with all outstanding debt cleared including all Directors loans.

If we can start life in the new stadium with no debt then whatever savings are having to be made now are well worth it.

would be great if we could but where is all the extra money coming from I though we were only getting 6 million from Sainsburys

Regarding the lack of a roof on the north stand didn't Accy announce plans to redevelop the away end at their ground with the addition of a roof, a large part which was to be funded by a grant ?. Maybe this is something the club intends to do in the near future.

Disappointed yes but sad NO WAY. Morecambe FC is on the up and as is said the stadium will be fit for league 2 + 1 I live in sight of (just) the pro-star in Shrewsbury which the local fans think is brilliant but i don't and much prefer the new Bucks Head in Telford. Its modern, clean, doesn't have boring old none painted grey breeze blocks and so looks half finished (as Shrewsbury does), has the minimal 2000 seating requirements, has a bar in each stand with a bar outside also + the atmosphere is very very good! However it does have one open side opposite the main stand and has no training or community pitches. It is football league standard but the new Morecambe stadium looks far better.

CONGRATULATIONS to everyone concerned with the development of the new stadium! A job well done!

nobbyshrimp wrote:Disappointed yes but sad NO WAY. Morecambe FC is on the up and as is said the stadium will be fit for league 2 + 1 I live in sight of (just) the pro-star in Shrewsbury which the local fans think is brilliant but i don't and much prefer the new Bucks Head in Telford. Its modern, clean, doesn't have boring old none painted grey breeze blocks and so looks half finished (as Shrewsbury does), has the minimal 2000 seating requirements, has a bar in each stand with a bar outside also + the atmosphere is very very good! However it does have one open side opposite the main stand and has no training or commuinty pitches. It is football league standard but the new Morecambe stadium looks far better.

CONGRATULATIONS to everyone concerned with the development of the new stadium!!

Talking Shrewsbury having been to the Pro Star I think it's a very nice stadium but i'm glad ours isnt like that at least ours is a bit different to most new grounds which gives it more character which seems to be lacking a bit in some grounds.

am disappointed, all ill say on the matter is if a jobs worth doing do it properly

DawZi wrote:am disappointed, all ill say on the matter is if a jobs worth doing do it properly

To put things in perspective who would ever have thought that we would build a stadium that costs 12 million pounds.

if all of a sudden the money is some how supposedly that tight, then lets not bother with that stand at all and will just have 3 stands, if people think ahhh well it's only going to be half-full most the time anyway where only little Morecambe


can we not have a roof at the expense of them directors boxes and conference rooms, what you see on the virtual stadium

DawZi wrote:if all of a sudden the money is some how supposedly that tight, then lets not bother with that stand at all and will just have 3 stands, if people think ahhh well it's only going to be half-full most the time anyway where only little Morecambe

TWELVE MILLION QUID!!! Read it slowly, that's not money being "tight" it's an amazing amount of cash! But let's not spend TWELVE MILLION QUID!!! let's stay where we are and slowly go under financially.

DawZi wrote:can we not have a roof at the expense of them directors boxes and conference rooms, what you see on the virtual stadium

Yeah, lets get rid of the conference rooms and directors boxes, where people will be paying lots of money to watch the games in exchange for a roof for people who could easily stand somewhere else, that makes sense.

North Stand Shrimp wrote:the totally one sided, depressing, unbalanced and pessimistic view.

totally uncovered one side if you don't mind! And to be fair, you can't say Ned's unbalanced... ...he's got a chip on both shoulders!

just had a bad day and the shocking news of this as topped it off, am sure ill get my head round it in time..

Hurray he's back!!!!!

couldn't say anything while we were on a winning streak, so he jumps on this massive news that we're not having a roof on the new version of the car wash side, where there is presently erm..no roof. FFS

some people will go for any small crumb of discomfort

(couldn't say anything while we were on a winning streak, so he jumps on this massive news that we're not having a roof on the new version of the car wash side, where there is presently erm..no roof.)

not defending neds views...correct me if im wrong but did he have anything to say when we werent winning

Shocking news? Not really. You do know its not going to be much like the car wash side is now, which is shocking. I think the directors are doing the right thing and saving money on something we don't really need. If rumours are true and we get a grant for the roof then even better, well done board everything is ticking over nicely.
A win against Bury will bring an exciting christmas indeed!

Christies Child wrote:However as has been already said 'what's the point in putting a roof on a side that to date only caters for a few hundred at the most?' IF it means that the entire stadium is within the financial framework of what can be afforded...then in my view that is being financially prudent!

I rather suspect most paddock occupiers would have transferred into this side terrace at the new ground. There's no way any member of my family would choose to stand behind the goal so looks like they will now be forced by the club to pay te inflated prices to sit in the main stand (which they also don't like doing). Poor decision in my view.

bloody hell Marky, is Ned part of the family you are referring to???

No one is "forcing" your family to do anything. They may CHOOSE where to go. If it is a nice sunny day, they may not care. If it is raining, they may CHOOSE to go somewhere else... or get wet! If the choice is cutting our cloth accordingly or over spending, I'm happy to go with no roof (yet) rather than going in to debt for something we can live without. It is 'slightly disappointing' but it is far from a disaster!

Actually, with a season ticket they won't have a choice. They'll have to go in whatever part of the ground they get their season tickets for. At Christie Park, the paddock terrace at least provides some cover for people who like to stand at the side. No cover is being provided for these people at the new ground. I can pretty much guarantee that they won't want to buy a season ticket for an open terrace (and why would they when it provides less comfort than at Christie?). I can also guarantee they won't buy season tickets for behind the goal. So this leaves the Main stand which will almost certainly be the most expensive. Very cunning business move if you ask me.

Edit - it is only deemed as 'slightly disappointing' by those who it does't really affect. For those that it does (approximately 10-20% of our custom), it will be very much more than that.

Edit 2 - It also brings up another issue. If my family do choose to get season tickets for the main stand (with associated seat allocations), then when I attend I will no longer be able to be with them, in which case I wouldn't bother.