 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
SHORT AND LONG TERM SCENARIOS FOR CRAVEN COTTAGE Summary of points made in a presentation to the launch meeting of BTTC,
SHORT TERM
A capacity of around 17,500 can be obtained by installing seats onto re-profiled terracing at the Hammersmith End and the Stevenage Road Enclosure, and onto temporary structures at a demolished Putney End. A leading specialist firm in this area, Arena Seating, has quoted just under one million pounds for this work. Alternatively, at under half a million pounds per season, the club could hire instead of purchase. Such a scheme could be implemented at about four-months' notice. All the Putney End seating would stay uncovered, as would the front portion of the Hammersmith End. There are many prior examples of uncovered seating at league grounds. The away end at Fratton Park, Portsmouth will remain uncovered next season in the Premiership. BTTC urges the club to adopt this course while it determines its long-term future. In the event that an alternative site within the borough is identified, it will take a number of years to obtain and maintain permission to build. Sharing at a ground elsewhere in the meantime will -- sentiment aside -- be likely to be bad for business. To back this up, BTTC cites the example of Charlton Athletic, who finished 14th in the top division in both seasons 1988-9 and 2001-2. In the latter case, the club enjoyed average crowds of over 24,000 at The Valley, but in the former, of only 9,398. That earlier season was Charlton's fourth spent ground sharing away from its traditional home. Fulham has many historical parallels with Charlton and our board should please heed this precedent. BTTC favours the one million pound quick fix as a way of giving the club breathing space and thinking time. While a capacity of 17,500 is restrictive, our average premiership attendance at Loftus Road was only 16,706 --in a season when only three teams won more home games than us. In the longer-term, a proper re-development of the Craven Cottage site could take place, either in one go or in stages. A capacity of just over 24,000 could be achieved for a cumulative spend of £30 million. BTTC's long-term proposals take into account the club's own explanation for the inordinate cost of the scheme which it abandoned. The main factors cited were the expenses of imposing beyond the current riverbank and of interfering with listed structures. At the loss of some 20% of potential capacity, BTTC advocates doing neither of these ultra-expensive things.
BTTC would leave the Stevenage Road stand (designed by Archibald Leitch) and the Cottage itself untouched, except merely for the installation of five rows of seats in the Enclosure standing area. At the other end of the Leitch stand to the Cottage would be a new corner of matching height. The rest of the ground would comprise a continuous double-decker, with 20 rows in the lower deck, 14 rows in the upper and viewing boxes at the top. The heights of these stands would equate to six storeys -- some 15% less than in the case of the permitted, abandoned scheme.
Both the seat widths (490mm) and row depths (760mm) would accord with new-build regulations and modern practice, whereas Loftus Road does not. The average angles of rake specified are those that normally provide acceptable sightlines, albeit the precise position would need to be calculated individually for each row. Factoring in these widths, depths and lengths, plus those of the football pitch and its surrounds, yields a capacity estimate of 24,250. A `reality check' on this can be obtained by reference to the `Jimmy Hill Scheme,' which was ready to be built in 1997 prior to the present Chairman's takeover. This plan, (for which permission had been won and confirmed at public enquiry) was basically the same as BTTC's, with one crucial difference. Whereas our proposed double-deckers would be of normal depth, the 1997 ones were exceptionally shallow, leaving space for flats to be built around the site perimeter. The Hill scheme would have added some 10,000 seats to those on Stevenage Road, making a total around 15,000. Omitting the perimeter flats -- no fewer than 142 of them -- understandably allows for some 9000 more seats.
Purely from void spaces to the rear of the seating within the proposed stands themselves, it would be possible to create some 20 flats, should the club deem this worthwhile. In general, at least three storeys in the case of each stand would not be required for spectator facilties other than seating. How to deploy that space for the benefit of the club and its neighbours would require careful consultation and consideration. But with one stand overlooking Bishops Park and another overlooking the Thames, there would be possibilities beyond the reach of just about any other ground in the country. Prior to detailed building specification, any cost-estimate for the proposed 24,250 scheme can only be `ball-park', BTTC admits. That does not mean, however, that it needs to be a guess. If, as here, one is eliminating most special cost factors, then it is realistic to expect broad parity with similar developments elsewhere. In this case, the North Stand at Stamford Bridge (The Matthew Harding Stand) is a realistic model. This too is a double-decker, built in London SW6 to a high standard. In 1994 it cost 1000 pounds per seat, inclusive of all concourses, refreshment and hospitality areas. Based on building cost inflation since then (unfortunately running at virtually twice retail price inflation), this equates to just over 1500 pounds today. On that basis, Fulham would need to spend a cumulative 30 million pounds to achieve the full development proposed. However, it could start by merely replacing the temporary seating at the Putney End with a double-decker stand with facilities within it. This would mean spending a cumulative 8.3 million in exchange for just over 19,000 achieved seats -- all under cover except at the front of the Hammersmith End.
PUTTING THIS INTO CONTEXT It must be admitted than any ground on the Craven Cottage site will be on a different scale to the Evertons, Chelseas and Villas (at around 40,000) let alone Old Trafford (68,000). So would the abandoned 100 million pound scheme have been. However, BTTC's proposal gets to within 10% of the size of Charlton's ground, which means that charging 10% more than them for tickets would provide parity in revenue. Bearing in mind Craven Cottage's special location, this ought to prove tenable. While our chairman is pleased to call us a `sleeping giant', the fact is that during our 12 seasons in the top division prior to him, attendances averaged only 25,100 -- and this in an era when the ground held over 45,000 and crowds everywhere were larger than now. On the positive side, residents will have less objection to a 24,250 capacity than one of nearly 30,000, and within a stadium that is less intrusive -- particularly onto Stevenage Road -- than the planned one would have been. This in turn will give more scope for the club, residents and council to agree ways of using aspects of the site outside match days. With a ground stuffed to the gills with seating -- as formerly planned -- there was no prospect for this. According to Simon Inglis, noted football grounds historian and advisor to English Heritage, the wider footballing world would applaud the preservation of Leitch's architecture -- of which Fulham's is one of the last and best examples. "This would bring great honour and credit on the club and its Chairman," he says. "In a crowded London market," adds Inglis, "it would also be a wise business decision to offer something unique and outstanding -- a stadium both modern and historical in a beautiful riverside location."
CLICK HERE TO JOIN (WORD - 65K) : 
CLICK HERE TO JOIN (TEXT - 1K) :  |
