Not in a new installation though. That really is tin pot.

Not in a new installation though. Ahem! Bristol Rovers.

That really is tin pot. See above.

Seriously though. Not ideal. But still better than nowt.
 

Jolly that money, apart from a very small amount, from the Council was never spent on the East Stand, the Stand will not have had £15m spent on it whichever way you look at it.  £4/5m seems a more reasonable figure.
Or is this just another of your anti owner rants ?

Do I make anti owner rants? Any criticisms I've ever made about KT and DB have been based around concerns and questions that most logical fans would want answering. Isn't this partially what message boards are for?
Maybe you're getting your timelines a bit mixed up. I was one of those who previously raised issues about the original Cardoza works, writing letters to NBC that noted legitimate concerns about the East Stand build - such as it was. The handful of us who originally called out what was happening were regularly slated on here (including by members of the Trust), as Tel and a few others can confirm.

As for who spent the £15 million, or where did it go? True, not relevant to the forthcoming build, but it was certainly secured to improve the stadium and therefore is relevant to overall costing. Certainly though, the current owners carry no stains from the previous corruptions. My point was that this whole sorry saga has been a f***ing shambles that should never have been allowed to happen. Beyond the usually named suspects, I think everyone realises the council bear the weight of guilty ineptitude on that one. But the club will always carry the brunt in the eyes of the public.

Are you genuinly suggesting that new seats, should come with an obscured view? 

In an ideal world, no! But ours is far from an ideal situation. Most of us have visited grounds where there is a degree of obstructed viewing, and I'd rather put up with having to move my head than miss a big game.

What if the boxes and corporate facilities make more money than an extra tier on the North stand?

But would they though? Eight or ten boxes? Certainly not if the team was successful and selling out every week. Plus, adding additional capacity can be seen as a sign of intent. And, once in and paid for, will always be available for future use.

Oh. Are you using my very obvious joke, as an opportunity to state a point. 

Yes. Obviously.

Jolly cobblers, who has/will spend £15 million ?
Just interested where this figure has come from .

The club initially borrowed in excess of £12 million for ground improvements (ie. the East Stand build), which was later boosted to a figure of £13.5 million. The current incumbents have intimated somewhere in the region of £3 million max will be used to complete the build. Ergo, in excess of £15 million pounds for a few extra seats. It's a staggering figure, especially when you consider it was never a completely "new build". The East previously housed 1749 fans, is it really acceptable only to end up with so few additional seats?

Incidentally, I think the fact the owners haven't even adjusted the plans to accommodate extra seating beyond the existing eleven rows shows the limits of their intent. There is currently room for another three rows of unobstructed seating directly behind the current rows, and even more space available if they were willing to place some with partially obstructed views. Doing it this way would surely be the cheapest way available to install an extra 380 to 980 seats in the ground.

Apparently they have asked him several times. But he keeps sending in a quote for the East, and a 3000 capacity bank of terracing on the South stand.

To be perfectly honest with you, if they intend completion to be in any way resembling that last set of photoshop prints (providing us barely more than 200 additional seats), then I'd rather slap some cladding up behind the existing seating and spend the money slapping another tier on the North Stand. The area behind the seating doesn't need to be fully enclosed under a roof. Just a wider border surrounding the end, with burger bars etc.
Any money left can be put towards doing something similar down at the South Stand.

As it is, absolutely embarrassing. It'll have ended up costing around 15 million for maybe 400 seats?

If Freddie Flintoff says so..

https://www.triplem.com.au/story/freddie-flintoff-legit-believes-the-earth-is-flat-72489

Do you realise the damage a cricket ball can do when it smacks you in the side of the head?!

…..because it’s sold subject to contract and there is no legal avenue at this time to reopen bidding

There is. SSTC is not a binding agreement. Until contracts are exchanged the council can take whichever route they choose. This being said, it would reflect very badly on our elected representatives if they decided on a 'U' turn without real good cause.

You can’t be serious. I absolutely agree in essence you are right. But what in your opinion would happen if they had the spine to put their behaviour and their actions to the test? I go to every home game, plus I attend most away games. I speak to a sizeable cross section of our support on the train and at matches. I could count those that I’ve come across, on the fingers of one hand after a sawmill accident who agree with their actions.

I made it clear that I wasn't suggesting he was wrong. Just that what he said wouldn't stand as evidence in a court of law.

[is any of this really necessary anyway?]

Well, for a start I'd say where are they getting the capital from and what do they want in return? Are we reliant on developing the land for funding the stand, in which case how many years away is that?

Most importantly, what are they going to do about the current leaseholder? I can't see those two playing nicely together so we'll have a stalemate.

Now Thomas has given assurances they will complete the stand as part of the deal, is any of this really necessary anyway?

Well, there is completing the stand and completing the stand. Until we know what is on offer it's difficult to answer your question.

Good news.  Buy the land for £3m, flip it for £20m as it's worth circa £1m an acre according to the Trust.  Then invest the WHOLE profit in to the infrastructure of the football club.  What's not to like?  No greedy land grabbers, no land developers who have no interest in the football club.

No Stand, No Land can be reinserted and an agreement reached with the council where the development land is only released after the completion of the East Stand.  Heck we probably get a better East Stand.  All being delivered in a completely open and trasparent way that is purely about what's best for the football club and it's supporters.

Can someone tell me the downsides as I don't see any?

Sounds great in principle. I'd still like to know where the 3 million is coming from?

[I haven't got a firm opinion on Kelvin Thomas. I think the truth is somewhere between, 'Wants the best for the club' and 'Wants to make a profit' and you can put him nearer to one end or the other scale if you like.]

I haven't got a firm opinion on Kelvin Thomas. I think the truth is somewhere between, 'Wants the best for the club' and 'Wants to make a profit' and you can put him nearer to one end or the other scale if you like. However, reading the posts from the board members of the trust as discussed in the open meeting, I know I would not trust any of those people with the club in the slightest.

I would imagine this is 'Nail on Head.' Anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't begrudge KT and co turning a healthy profit before riding off into the sunset. In the end they'll be judged on the health of the club when they exit; outstanding debts, league status, condition of East Stand etc. We'd all like the stand to have been sorted before now, and preferably to be established in League 1, but beyond this... it's a question of wait and see.

[The reason they don’t communicate or ask the fans is because they aren’t supported by the majority.]

The reason they don’t communicate or ask the fans is because they aren’t supported by the majority. It’s a small group who purport to have the best interests of the club at heart but have gone too far.

They should start a Phoenix club like some of them wanted in 2013.

If they haven't asked the questions then how can you know they wouldn't be supported by a majority? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is solely your opinion rather than a fact.

RIP Derek. Thanks for providing us those wonderful few years. Deepest sympathies to all family and friends.

[hate Oxford United with a passion...more than Posh!]

Is that your personal angle... or speaking for the whole fanbase?
Some, and I am very much in this camp, hate Oxford United with a passion...more than Posh!

I'd lump Luton in with Posh and Oxford. I detest the lot of them (along with a few others ). But if I had to pick one it would be Boro. Bastards got me arrested 4 times!

Edit: I can't count. It was 4 times.

If DB/KT don't get the land who do you think is going to finish the stand? If you think it's the Trust, where are they going to get the money from, more car boots and buckets?

And does the new investor have any ties to Cilldara?

[If it was up to me, we'd have a two tier North and South (2000 capacity each), a single tier big East (4000) and a re-configured West to include boxes on that side instead. (4000), a capacity of 12000 would do us just fine going forward.]

Dale, I do understand what you are saying and the reasons why you are saying it!!

Going back in time, I believe that the so called "minimum requirement" by the Council was to have some boxes, enough extra spaces to push capacity over 8000 and that the work could not cost more than £3m.
I doubt that those requirements exist any more as we have moved from a deal where the stand was going to be completed as a condition before any land deal, to a straight land deal where the stand could not be taken into account when making the decision as to who to sell the land to.

The clubs plans as per the original requirements were published, and the club said there wasn't a lot they could do with that structure now that it is in place. They dismissed the idea of pulling it down and starting again too. We have not seen a final set of plans anyway, as alluded to in my previous posts nothing is set in stone, there will be some boxes, some rooms and some extra space. I suppose I want the stand finishing like that because the club told us that it was the best we were going to get.

If it was up to me, we'd have a two tier North and South (2000 capacity each), a single tier big East (4000) and a re-configured West to include boxes on that side instead. (4000), a capacity of 12000 would do us just fine going forward. 

I'd echo this.

No it doesnt, mine is shove some cladding on the back and waste as little money on this nonsense as possible. Since the board have consistently sought to directly involve themselves in the negotiations by speaking directly to the council, I would say it’s should be inconceivable that they don’t identify the standard. Would you disagree and in your opinion are the board happy to accept whatever transpires or is the standard as stated in your post? Of course the benefit of not clearly stating your objective is it allows for continual objection and renegotiation perhaps prolonging resolution indefinitely. Perhaps that’s the objective?

The council is the landlord. And as such should be the one laying down guidelines for 'an acceptable standard', no one else.

At this stage, if it were up to me, I'd clad the back of the hideous structure that exists, then tear out all of the seating from the East and revert to a (traditional) terrace. It wouldn't be a massive increase in capacity (around a thousand extra bodies), but would at least allow for some extra demand.

Don't agree. I thought he looked better tonight until the slip for their 2nd goal.

Agreed. Very unfortunate as was having a solid game.