Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment

scousedom

Well-Known Member
Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?

Having zero cover for all standing fans really isn't good.
Not impossible at any cost. But “at any cost” isn’t real life is it?
And to reiterate the earlier point, having no cover is better than having no club.
 

editor

hiraethified
Not impossible at any cost. But “at any cost” isn’t real life is it?
And to reiterate the earlier point, having no cover is better than having no club.
Have you looked at and costed any possible such solutions? How much did they cost?
 

Crispy

The following psytrance is baṉned: All
It may well be possible at a reasonable monetary cost, but including it in this application would be counter-productive if the political cost is too high.
 

tonysingh

Random Clever and Witty Strapline
Surely getting the new stadium is the most important part here. We can add extra cover at a later date, perhaps work together as a club to find a solution? That's as opposed to DHFC supporters arguing amongst ourselves over what should be a hugely positive moment in our clubs history. Meadows fuck off (even though it sticks in the craw that they'll profit at all), our future is 100% secure and we have a stadium that befits a club that's moving on up.
 

Pink Panther

Well-Known Member
Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?
The FA ground grading document linked earlier on the thread states that "temporary structures will not be accepted" so it's probably a non-starter.
 

Emmbeee

Active Member
Temporary structures don't count towards the minimum but aren't banned in excess of the minimum.

This means all the required seating and cover could be provided in the main stand, with another method of providing cover provided elsewhere.

I remember driving along a motorway and seeing a cricket sightscreen in a field advertising something. A billboard will never get permission next to a motorway. At the bottom was the text "we don't need planning permission for something on wheels".
Now who is to say the plan isn't for a temporary gazebo type structure to be erected either side of any matches when weather requires it.
You wouldn't put this on the planning application.
I know nothing btw, this is just a personal opinion.

My mind went to the now demolished Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield which had a tarpaulin roof cantilevered without affecting sightlines. By building A frames into the sunken terrace this could easily be achieved. Top panels could then be slotted in when required.

http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/202jan12.jpg
 
Last edited:

pinknblue

Active Member
Well I’m not going to argue with point one!
Point two wouldn’t be my preference. Selfishly, the trip is prohibitive to a lot of families, and more generally as we saw the club couldn’t sustain itself at anything like its current level in Tooting. I understand keeping to this level is not important to everyone. But it is to many. Not to say that the risks to the club from having to relocate would be very substantial.
Going back to Tooting would mean DHFC going out of existence!
 

pinknblue

Active Member
As one of that demographic, I can confirm that 666 seats should be ample for that. Thanks.
As for the rest of the ground, no cover in Dulwich is infinitely preferable to cover in Tooting. Hardly any local families made the seven mile trip there while hundreds have since returned to our sparsely covered home. So I’d say the priority is
1. Stay in Dulwich
2. See above
I agree but having no cover is still pretty rubbish! It will affect our gates and sightlines from all those umbrellas. We have a ground with some cover now so why would a new ground with some cover be unacceptable? Can one of the directors/planning team answer this please? Presumably, we're not allowed to add cover behind the goals at our current ground either?
 

pinknblue

Active Member
I was under the impression that the existing squash courts are something of a white elephant and were only included at the insistence of then landlords King's College London. As you say, it's a substantial amount of space that can't be utilised for anything else.

It's also been stated in the past that having the current main building on three levels is a prime source of the excessive overheads in running the place, so I'm a bit surprised to see another three storey main building.

A total of 666 seats in the "Damien" stand!
Why the reduction in seats this time? In the original plans I seem to remember it was closer to 900 seats.
 

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
I'm just going on what's been publicly stated elsewhere!
I’m sure. But if we move to tooting, lose our manager and all our players. The fanbase collapses to 100.

We don’t go bankrupt but effectively the club is on its knees.

Things would be bad, but not bankrupt.

I also don’t know why would have to go back to Tooting. Will Meadow kick us out again if they don’t get that way?
 

Pink Panther

Well-Known Member
Going back to Tooting would mean DHFC going out of existence!
You mean relegated.
It would make both more likely the longer we were there. We're Dulwich Hamlet Football Club, we don't belong in Tooting. We wouldn't attract new support while we were there and our existing support would diminish the longer we were there, especially if we began slipping down the pyramid. I'd rather see the club mothballed until it was possible to resume playing in or close to Dulwich, even if that meant resuming at a much lower level like the Kent County League or Surrey Intermediate League.

I agree but having no cover is still pretty rubbish! It will affect our gates and sightlines from all those umbrellas.
Umbrellas have no place in football grounds, and it's amazing how those who bring them always want to stand at the front. I'd ban them from the ground. Anyone who thinks they need an umbrella should wear a suitable hat and coat instead.
 

editor

hiraethified
Umbrellas have no place in football grounds, and it's amazing how those who bring them always want to stand at the front. I'd ban them from the ground. Anyone who thinks they need an umbrella should wear a suitable hat and coat instead.
I agree, but with standing space in the new ground being reduced to absolutely zero, we can surely expect a lot more of this:









 

blueheaven

Well-Known Member
Will Meadow kick us out again if they don’t get that way?
Don't you think they will? I wouldn't like to put it to the test.

From looking at the plans I'd be keen to hear how the attendance could be expanded - it doesn't look like it would be an easy thing to do.
 

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
Don't you think they will? I wouldn't like to put it to the test.

From looking at the plans I'd be keen to hear how the attendance could be expanded - it doesn't look like it would be an easy thing to do.
I think they will. Therefore I have no interest in their plans.
 

scousedom

Well-Known Member
I agree, but with standing space in the new ground being reduced to absolutely zero, we can surely expect a lot more of this:
Two things:
1. Where does it say standing space in the new ground is being reduced to absolutely zero? We're all-seater now are we?
2. Assuming you just mean there will be less space than currently - which I don't accept having not compared the plans with the current layout, but let's ignore that for the moment - why would you assume that our fans would become more anti-social than less? Why would people be more likely to use an umbrella in a cramped environment than a spacious one?
 

editor

hiraethified
Two things:
1. Where does it say standing space in the new ground is being reduced to absolutely zero? We're all-seater now are we?
I meant standing space with no cover, hence the need for umbrellas. Sorry, I thought that was startingly obvious given the context of the comment and the post I was replying to.

2. Assuming you just mean there will be less space than currently - which I don't accept having not compared the plans with the current layout, but let's ignore that for the moment - why would you assume that our fans would become more anti-social than less? Why would people be more likely to use an umbrella in a cramped environment than a spacious one?
I didn't realise using an umbrella in the pissing rain was deemed an 'anti social' activity, but with no cover at all for standing spectators and increased crowds, I'd say there's a distinct possibility that more umbrellas will appear in the ground.
 

Pink Panther

Well-Known Member
I didn't realise using an umbrella in the pissing rain was deemed an 'anti social' activity
Personally I'd say it is when you're at a spectator event and it's blindingly obvious other people have to watch from behind you as there isn't enough room for everyone at the front. I don't even own an umbrella and haven't done for a very long time. I simply check the weather forecast before a match and dress appropriately .If we can ban people from bringing their own booze into the ground we can ban them from bringing in umbrellas.
 
Top