| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:44 - Sep 4 with 2351 views | Uxbridge |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:21 - Sep 4 by Millie |
The Landore halt would be good but let's be realistic, it would only be used on match day, making it unviable.
The council need to forget park and ride as it's just not something that appeals no matter how much they try, would you park in swansea vale, wait for a bus, watch game then take chances on the return journey... I wouldn't, that's for sure
There is a solution, use the banks, call centre and retail unit car parks on swansea enterprise park, put a number of cheap, reliable, regular buses picking up en-route from fendrod public house to Landore training academy, make sure walkway is well lit with plenty of stewards for the short walk to the Liberty, would work, surely? |
Fine for one side of the city, but for those of us on the civilised side of Carmarthen Road  I can't see much takeup for that.
Why more isn't made of the walkway from the stadium to the city via the Tawe is beyond me. Would have hoped the Hafod bypass would have presented an opportunity in that regard too. It's only 15 minutes walk to the High St station after all.
One does wonder how much the council may be trying to use the club to solve all its existing traffic ills in that area. That'd be terribly unsporting of the council. |  |
|  |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:51 - Sep 4 with 2337 views | Landore_Jack |
Closing the dual carriageway by the Liberty doesn't help. Unless they kept it closed and opened the section of road on Neath Road which is currently buses only (opposite MPN Windows). That will allow cars to use Neath Road coming from the MPN Windows roundabout to Plasmarl roundabout.
Do you think that will add to the chaos or slightly improve the traffic? |  |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:04 - Sep 4 with 2306 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 13:48 - Sep 4 by Uxbridge |
Ah, it's greater Swansea these days mun. Plus if it gets the clubs away from the parasitic mitts of Swansea Council then it may not be all bad. |
That's helpful!
The council's statement was unnecessarily defensive and was disingenuous re the income.
The club's response was equally disingenuous. If those notes in the programme were not meant to imply that the council were to blame for all delays, then I'm not quite sure how they could be read.
The council are transparently fairly useless on this, however, the club are also using them as a handy shield to abdicate all responsibility for not moving this forward as well. A large part of the past 12 months has been taken up with individuals trying to sell their stake in the club - that led to all sorts of complications re sale of the stadium and so on that had not previously reared their heads.
The only thing I would say about the defensive bit from the council is that there have been instances when senior club people have effectively said (on social media etc) that the club have never had anything from the council. Well they did have the stadium without which none of this would have happened, and they would not have been made personally extremely wealthy. Some seem to want the same unquestioning support from the council as Cardiff have appeared to receive.
However, in as much as the club is a huge asset for the city, it also should be borne in mind that the taxpayers of Swansea should not have to in anyway subsidise the club given its riches (bearing in mind that it's not the club that's being subsidised as much as individuals having a more valuable asset).
The talk of 'let's move' is dreadful and I don't feel the trust should be a part of it. If the club was to move, that decision would hurt the city and its taxpayers beyond all reason - and why? To make a few people even wealthier so that they can become even more adamant that they are unprepared to secure the 'forever' status of the club by transferring shares to the supporter' trust.
I very rarely disagree with you Ux, but I think that post, however tongue in cheek, is badly thought out.
If we're going to move the club to Neath, why not go the whole way and transfer us to Milton Keynes eh? |  | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:07 - Sep 4 with 2296 views | Landore_Jack |
What about having a Ferry or water taxis that take you from the Marina to the Liberty Stadium?
The water taxi or Ferry could possibly up the River Tawe towards Clydach. | |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:27 - Sep 4 with 2255 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:04 - Sep 4 by londonlisa2001 |
That's helpful!
The council's statement was unnecessarily defensive and was disingenuous re the income.
The club's response was equally disingenuous. If those notes in the programme were not meant to imply that the council were to blame for all delays, then I'm not quite sure how they could be read.
The council are transparently fairly useless on this, however, the club are also using them as a handy shield to abdicate all responsibility for not moving this forward as well. A large part of the past 12 months has been taken up with individuals trying to sell their stake in the club - that led to all sorts of complications re sale of the stadium and so on that had not previously reared their heads.
The only thing I would say about the defensive bit from the council is that there have been instances when senior club people have effectively said (on social media etc) that the club have never had anything from the council. Well they did have the stadium without which none of this would have happened, and they would not have been made personally extremely wealthy. Some seem to want the same unquestioning support from the council as Cardiff have appeared to receive.
However, in as much as the club is a huge asset for the city, it also should be borne in mind that the taxpayers of Swansea should not have to in anyway subsidise the club given its riches (bearing in mind that it's not the club that's being subsidised as much as individuals having a more valuable asset).
The talk of 'let's move' is dreadful and I don't feel the trust should be a part of it. If the club was to move, that decision would hurt the city and its taxpayers beyond all reason - and why? To make a few people even wealthier so that they can become even more adamant that they are unprepared to secure the 'forever' status of the club by transferring shares to the supporter' trust.
I very rarely disagree with you Ux, but I think that post, however tongue in cheek, is badly thought out.
If we're going to move the club to Neath, why not go the whole way and transfer us to Milton Keynes eh? |
As someone has said, the council built the stadium In order to secure the franchise for the Ospreys, the swans were a by product. It was also mindful of outsiders ie keeping it out of the mitts of the likes of McLure.
As we know, 50 years ago it was a barron moonscape that would have been handed over to the council by our forefathers, the build itself was paid for by WAG, grant aid, football trust money and the lease of land to B&Q as an anchor tenant plus all the other retail units.
A conservative economic study says that us in the PL is worth £60m to the economy, I'd say that's closes to £100m, so that's half a billion and counting, what other industry is bringing that return in plus it's a major employer with perhaps near 500 employees.
Finally, had the council believed in the Swans, they would have built the 25,000 that we were promised maybe making this debate redundant? | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:39 - Sep 4 with 2240 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:27 - Sep 4 by Millie |
As someone has said, the council built the stadium In order to secure the franchise for the Ospreys, the swans were a by product. It was also mindful of outsiders ie keeping it out of the mitts of the likes of McLure.
As we know, 50 years ago it was a barron moonscape that would have been handed over to the council by our forefathers, the build itself was paid for by WAG, grant aid, football trust money and the lease of land to B&Q as an anchor tenant plus all the other retail units.
A conservative economic study says that us in the PL is worth £60m to the economy, I'd say that's closes to £100m, so that's half a billion and counting, what other industry is bringing that return in plus it's a major employer with perhaps near 500 employees.
Finally, had the council believed in the Swans, they would have built the 25,000 that we were promised maybe making this debate redundant? |
Re The Ospreys - that's crap - what on earth are you talking about?
Re the build costs - nothing from the WAG - so that's crap. The council granted the land etc and paid for it all (with leases, grants, etc etc - nothing from the club or the Ospreys although obviously the football trust money was dependent on there being football so that could be attributed).
Re the 25,000 seats - the grants were NOT available at that capacity - only at 20,000 (they fitted a few hundred more in to the design). The ground could have received the grants for 20,000 but made expandable, but the money wasn't available at the time to do that.
The Vetch was never handed over by the way - the council at the time bought it to keep the club going.
Re the half a billion to the local economy - what a load of crap that is. Where is the half a billion then? You really think that £100m a year is going into the economy of Swansea? Where? Who? | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:09 - Sep 4 with 2191 views | Glyn1 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:21 - Sep 4 by Millie |
The Landore halt would be good but let's be realistic, it would only be used on match day, making it unviable.
The council need to forget park and ride as it's just not something that appeals no matter how much they try, would you park in swansea vale, wait for a bus, watch game then take chances on the return journey... I wouldn't, that's for sure
There is a solution, use the banks, call centre and retail unit car parks on swansea enterprise park, put a number of cheap, reliable, regular buses picking up en-route from fendrod public house to Landore training academy, make sure walkway is well lit with plenty of stewards for the short walk to the Liberty, would work, surely? |
I agree with Millie!
(And yes, I did read Huw's message.) |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:10 - Sep 4 with 2189 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:39 - Sep 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Re The Ospreys - that's crap - what on earth are you talking about?
Re the build costs - nothing from the WAG - so that's crap. The council granted the land etc and paid for it all (with leases, grants, etc etc - nothing from the club or the Ospreys although obviously the football trust money was dependent on there being football so that could be attributed).
Re the 25,000 seats - the grants were NOT available at that capacity - only at 20,000 (they fitted a few hundred more in to the design). The ground could have received the grants for 20,000 but made expandable, but the money wasn't available at the time to do that.
The Vetch was never handed over by the way - the council at the time bought it to keep the club going.
Re the half a billion to the local economy - what a load of crap that is. Where is the half a billion then? You really think that £100m a year is going into the economy of Swansea? Where? Who? |
Lisa, I was polite to you, please do me the same courtesy,
The football trust paid in over £3m, the Swans paid into the FT for over 100 years so I count that as a Swans contribution.
You brought up the Vetch and bar for the economic downturn the council stood to make a handsome profit and still might, I read recently that there is movement at the site.
Yes, my guesstimate on economic impact may have been out but it's a fact that £60m was a conservative estimate and 500 jobs have been created as opposed to perhaps 50 at the Vetch.
The 20,000/25,000 debate was something a professor from the Cardiff business school sold to the counci basing his argument on the Swans in the First Division during the depressing days of Margaret Thatcher Britain, I remember the supporters meeting Berwyn Price at an open meeting at the Vetch telling him in no uncertain terms that the council were extremely short sighted and BP crassly saying be grateful for what you are getting. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:24 - Sep 4 with 2154 views | Uxbridge |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:04 - Sep 4 by londonlisa2001 |
That's helpful!
The council's statement was unnecessarily defensive and was disingenuous re the income.
The club's response was equally disingenuous. If those notes in the programme were not meant to imply that the council were to blame for all delays, then I'm not quite sure how they could be read.
The council are transparently fairly useless on this, however, the club are also using them as a handy shield to abdicate all responsibility for not moving this forward as well. A large part of the past 12 months has been taken up with individuals trying to sell their stake in the club - that led to all sorts of complications re sale of the stadium and so on that had not previously reared their heads.
The only thing I would say about the defensive bit from the council is that there have been instances when senior club people have effectively said (on social media etc) that the club have never had anything from the council. Well they did have the stadium without which none of this would have happened, and they would not have been made personally extremely wealthy. Some seem to want the same unquestioning support from the council as Cardiff have appeared to receive.
However, in as much as the club is a huge asset for the city, it also should be borne in mind that the taxpayers of Swansea should not have to in anyway subsidise the club given its riches (bearing in mind that it's not the club that's being subsidised as much as individuals having a more valuable asset).
The talk of 'let's move' is dreadful and I don't feel the trust should be a part of it. If the club was to move, that decision would hurt the city and its taxpayers beyond all reason - and why? To make a few people even wealthier so that they can become even more adamant that they are unprepared to secure the 'forever' status of the club by transferring shares to the supporter' trust.
I very rarely disagree with you Ux, but I think that post, however tongue in cheek, is badly thought out.
If we're going to move the club to Neath, why not go the whole way and transfer us to Milton Keynes eh? |
It was rather blatantly tongue in cheek I thought but hey ho! It's all Swansea to me anyway, and will be officially sooner rather than later.
I agree there's fault on both sides for the reasons we are where we are, and I wouldn't disagree when you say that the council have helped the club historically. However I'm talking about the here and now, and the club clearly feel the council are being, at best, less than supportive and possibly obstructive.
We know that the council are seeking to sell the stadium, that much has been made public. Are they putting undue pressure on the club to buy when the club would rather focus on other priorities? I could only speculate. | |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:31 - Sep 4 with 2136 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:10 - Sep 4 by Millie |
Lisa, I was polite to you, please do me the same courtesy,
The football trust paid in over £3m, the Swans paid into the FT for over 100 years so I count that as a Swans contribution.
You brought up the Vetch and bar for the economic downturn the council stood to make a handsome profit and still might, I read recently that there is movement at the site.
Yes, my guesstimate on economic impact may have been out but it's a fact that £60m was a conservative estimate and 500 jobs have been created as opposed to perhaps 50 at the Vetch.
The 20,000/25,000 debate was something a professor from the Cardiff business school sold to the counci basing his argument on the Swans in the First Division during the depressing days of Margaret Thatcher Britain, I remember the supporters meeting Berwyn Price at an open meeting at the Vetch telling him in no uncertain terms that the council were extremely short sighted and BP crassly saying be grateful for what you are getting. |
Apologies for sounding short, but the misinformation is frustrating.
I agre the the football trust which is why I said you could count that as a club contribution.
On the Vetch - I didn't bring it up - you had said about the 50 years previously when the council (twice) bailed out the Swans at the Vetch. The council may well make a profit in years to come, but it was their asset - they bought it from the Swans to help them out (and at the club's request) years previously.
Yes - the jobs have been created at the stadium which is great (although there are nowhere near 500 full time people working at the stadium - a lot are part time bar jobs etc), but the impact on the local community is being grossly exaggerated. If there is really north of £60m / £70m coming into he City each year via hotels / shops / bars etc, then where on earth are the new ones that have been built in the last 5 years? Not one big hotel. Now you could say that the Marriott / Morgans would have shut down in that time, but it's pretty difficult to see the real benefit to the community in the sort of £0.5bn terms you talk about.
On the 20,000 / 25,000 debate - I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The council wanted to build at 25,000 but could not get the grant you refer to if they did that. The money was simply not available from other sources, hence the capacity. It was not short sightedness but economics. I'm sure you're right about what was said (I vaguely remember the fuss) but BP was not a councillor - he was project managing it from memory as someone employed by the council for sport etc.
Both parties need to sit down in a mature fashion and sort it out, but in as much as the council are useless (as I said), the club are also at fault (in my opinion). | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:37 - Sep 4 with 2117 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:24 - Sep 4 by Uxbridge |
It was rather blatantly tongue in cheek I thought but hey ho! It's all Swansea to me anyway, and will be officially sooner rather than later.
I agree there's fault on both sides for the reasons we are where we are, and I wouldn't disagree when you say that the council have helped the club historically. However I'm talking about the here and now, and the club clearly feel the council are being, at best, less than supportive and possibly obstructive.
We know that the council are seeking to sell the stadium, that much has been made public. Are they putting undue pressure on the club to buy when the club would rather focus on other priorities? I could only speculate. |
Neath is not Swansea - never has been, never will be.
Nothing to do with the council (we were all West Glamorgan for years and years) - still not Swansea.
And I referenced your tongue in cheek but, but still think there is fault on both sides.
The club do clearly feel that - hence the programme notes, but it was interesting that when pushed on it, they wouldn't stand behind what they said, but rather came out with the 'we weren't saying it was the council's fault' bit.
Either it is their fault (in which case state the problems, and why) or not (in which case stop insinuating it).
Quite possibly they are putting pressure on to the club to buy, but the whole 'buying' thing was caused last year, and we can all speculate on why that was. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:48 - Sep 4 with 2092 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:31 - Sep 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Apologies for sounding short, but the misinformation is frustrating.
I agre the the football trust which is why I said you could count that as a club contribution.
On the Vetch - I didn't bring it up - you had said about the 50 years previously when the council (twice) bailed out the Swans at the Vetch. The council may well make a profit in years to come, but it was their asset - they bought it from the Swans to help them out (and at the club's request) years previously.
Yes - the jobs have been created at the stadium which is great (although there are nowhere near 500 full time people working at the stadium - a lot are part time bar jobs etc), but the impact on the local community is being grossly exaggerated. If there is really north of £60m / £70m coming into he City each year via hotels / shops / bars etc, then where on earth are the new ones that have been built in the last 5 years? Not one big hotel. Now you could say that the Marriott / Morgans would have shut down in that time, but it's pretty difficult to see the real benefit to the community in the sort of £0.5bn terms you talk about.
On the 20,000 / 25,000 debate - I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The council wanted to build at 25,000 but could not get the grant you refer to if they did that. The money was simply not available from other sources, hence the capacity. It was not short sightedness but economics. I'm sure you're right about what was said (I vaguely remember the fuss) but BP was not a councillor - he was project managing it from memory as someone employed by the council for sport etc.
Both parties need to sit down in a mature fashion and sort it out, but in as much as the council are useless (as I said), the club are also at fault (in my opinion). |
Lisa, splitting hairs on the 500 'full time' jobs.
The 50 years I was referring to was the ground in which the Liberty in now built not the Vetch.
Whilst the 20/25k debate is irrelevant now, many councillors I have spoken to since believe that we were short changed and leaders at the time were only too happy to listen to the advice of the Cardiff professor. My point here is that whilst a few million would have been difficult at the time to lose, it was short sighted and would it have happened in other Cities? Also, whilst it's possible, Cardiff built its stadium with an easy fix solution should they wish to expand, we didn't, again short sighted.
As for the economy, I've read many times the Swans being in the PL is worth £60 to the local economy, i feel that this is conservative. Where the new hotels are I have no idea but the city is crying out for more hotel room and who knows what's in the pipeline, a bigger capacity would help 😉 | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 18:01 - Sep 4 with 2066 views | Uxbridge |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:37 - Sep 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Neath is not Swansea - never has been, never will be.
Nothing to do with the council (we were all West Glamorgan for years and years) - still not Swansea.
And I referenced your tongue in cheek but, but still think there is fault on both sides.
The club do clearly feel that - hence the programme notes, but it was interesting that when pushed on it, they wouldn't stand behind what they said, but rather came out with the 'we weren't saying it was the council's fault' bit.
Either it is their fault (in which case state the problems, and why) or not (in which case stop insinuating it).
Quite possibly they are putting pressure on to the club to buy, but the whole 'buying' thing was caused last year, and we can all speculate on why that was. |
I wasn't a fan of the club statement either for what it's worth, for pretty much the reasons you say, and I'm sure we'll agree on who instigated the whole idea of stadium purchase.
However I do hope the council realise that a strong Swansea City is good for the city and that if they put roadblocks or seek to use the club to plug their own shortfalls then they may find themselves causing a lot of problems which fans will remember for some time to come. There's plenty of scope for the council to use the Swans' status without it specifically draining the club's coffers, increasing the club's risk or causing other things to be delayed. | |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 19:27 - Sep 4 with 1971 views | 3swan |
I've heard the comment about £60m into the local economy before, but when you look at the clubs revenue, most of it goes to the playing staff. Do they spend it all in Swansea as I can't see more than £5m tops coming from any other source.
As far as the stadium purchase you would have thought that £5m per year for 6 years would be acceptable from both sides | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 20:52 - Sep 4 with 1889 views | morningstar |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:07 - Sep 4 by Landore_Jack |
What about having a Ferry or water taxis that take you from the Marina to the Liberty Stadium?
The water taxi or Ferry could possibly up the River Tawe towards Clydach. |
That would be a great idea! Especially, if we have a night game in February and it's -4c. The Ferries can take everyone down the Tawe and drop us off by Sainsburys. And then we can all ummm..... Walk into town too get a bus home or something like that! |  |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 23:33 - Sep 4 with 1814 views | westside |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 19:27 - Sep 4 by 3swan |
I've heard the comment about £60m into the local economy before, but when you look at the clubs revenue, most of it goes to the playing staff. Do they spend it all in Swansea as I can't see more than £5m tops coming from any other source.
As far as the stadium purchase you would have thought that £5m per year for 6 years would be acceptable from both sides |
how much money just per game gets generated with ticket sales, hospitality, food/drink, commercial/retail , 500 jobs at stadium, policing costs, stadium bills/running cost, local pubs/restaurants/take aways/shops, car parking, taxis/buses/trains, hotels with fans/away team/officals/media.
walkabout, varsity and yates have all just done six figure refurbishments and they all show premier league football and are investing in swansea as people want to watch the premier league with swansea in it.
pubs are packed out when the swans are playing as well as watching other games.
grand hotel and morgans are both expanding.
hotels are full up across the region when the swans are playing.
lots of returners to the area after they come here first time to come to the liberty.
university applications have gone up since the swans have been in premier league.
swans on motd every week and shown worldwide and in newspapers.
players wages and accommodation costs must be huge alone.
even rangel building an house.
it's got to be more than £5m |  | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 00:16 - Sep 5 with 1785 views | morningstar |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 23:33 - Sep 4 by westside |
how much money just per game gets generated with ticket sales, hospitality, food/drink, commercial/retail , 500 jobs at stadium, policing costs, stadium bills/running cost, local pubs/restaurants/take aways/shops, car parking, taxis/buses/trains, hotels with fans/away team/officals/media.
walkabout, varsity and yates have all just done six figure refurbishments and they all show premier league football and are investing in swansea as people want to watch the premier league with swansea in it.
pubs are packed out when the swans are playing as well as watching other games.
grand hotel and morgans are both expanding.
hotels are full up across the region when the swans are playing.
lots of returners to the area after they come here first time to come to the liberty.
university applications have gone up since the swans have been in premier league.
swans on motd every week and shown worldwide and in newspapers.
players wages and accommodation costs must be huge alone.
even rangel building an house.
it's got to be more than £5m |
Sounds good the way you've put it across, but I reckon £5m a year is about right. How much do you think the Swans bring to the local economy? | |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 07:56 - Sep 5 with 1689 views | longlostjack |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:07 - Sep 4 by Landore_Jack |
What about having a Ferry or water taxis that take you from the Marina to the Liberty Stadium?
The water taxi or Ferry could possibly up the River Tawe towards Clydach. |
A very good idea and one that should be seriously looked at. Great novelty value too. Werder Bremen in the Bundesliga use boats to ferry in quite a few supporters on match day. |  |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 08:19 - Sep 5 with 1666 views | dgt73 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:10 - Sep 4 by Millie |
Lisa, I was polite to you, please do me the same courtesy,
The football trust paid in over £3m, the Swans paid into the FT for over 100 years so I count that as a Swans contribution.
You brought up the Vetch and bar for the economic downturn the council stood to make a handsome profit and still might, I read recently that there is movement at the site.
Yes, my guesstimate on economic impact may have been out but it's a fact that £60m was a conservative estimate and 500 jobs have been created as opposed to perhaps 50 at the Vetch.
The 20,000/25,000 debate was something a professor from the Cardiff business school sold to the counci basing his argument on the Swans in the First Division during the depressing days of Margaret Thatcher Britain, I remember the supporters meeting Berwyn Price at an open meeting at the Vetch telling him in no uncertain terms that the council were extremely short sighted and BP crassly saying be grateful for what you are getting. |
Don't worry about it, Lisa is very aggressive these days and doesn't half get her knickers in a twist. |  |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 08:31 - Sep 5 with 1650 views | dgt73 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:31 - Sep 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Apologies for sounding short, but the misinformation is frustrating.
I agre the the football trust which is why I said you could count that as a club contribution.
On the Vetch - I didn't bring it up - you had said about the 50 years previously when the council (twice) bailed out the Swans at the Vetch. The council may well make a profit in years to come, but it was their asset - they bought it from the Swans to help them out (and at the club's request) years previously.
Yes - the jobs have been created at the stadium which is great (although there are nowhere near 500 full time people working at the stadium - a lot are part time bar jobs etc), but the impact on the local community is being grossly exaggerated. If there is really north of £60m / £70m coming into he City each year via hotels / shops / bars etc, then where on earth are the new ones that have been built in the last 5 years? Not one big hotel. Now you could say that the Marriott / Morgans would have shut down in that time, but it's pretty difficult to see the real benefit to the community in the sort of £0.5bn terms you talk about.
On the 20,000 / 25,000 debate - I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The council wanted to build at 25,000 but could not get the grant you refer to if they did that. The money was simply not available from other sources, hence the capacity. It was not short sightedness but economics. I'm sure you're right about what was said (I vaguely remember the fuss) but BP was not a councillor - he was project managing it from memory as someone employed by the council for sport etc.
Both parties need to sit down in a mature fashion and sort it out, but in as much as the council are useless (as I said), the club are also at fault (in my opinion). |
Sorry to burst your bubble Lisa, but a study carried out by a Cardiff university- stated that in the first season of PL football (Swansea) was worth £58 million to the Welsh economy- safe guarding 400 jobs, 340 of which are in Swansea.
Also that figure would grow season on season- especially if European football could be archived, well it has and since this is now our 5 th season in the PL, no doubt that £58 million is now much bigger. [Post edited 5 Sep 2015 8:40]
| |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 08:33 - Sep 5 with 1648 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 07:56 - Sep 5 by longlostjack |
A very good idea and one that should be seriously looked at. Great novelty value too. Werder Bremen in the Bundesliga use boats to ferry in quite a few supporters on match day. |
It is something of a novelty which both home and away supporters could use after a few pre match drinks in wind street. It's only a short stroll to the river. But that's far too radical for Swansea I'm afraid. The place seems to have a serious case of arrested development. I know Cardiff gets more money but them seem to have a council that is hungry to make the most of their city. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 08:44 - Sep 5 with 1627 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:27 - Sep 4 by Millie |
As someone has said, the council built the stadium In order to secure the franchise for the Ospreys, the swans were a by product. It was also mindful of outsiders ie keeping it out of the mitts of the likes of McLure.
As we know, 50 years ago it was a barron moonscape that would have been handed over to the council by our forefathers, the build itself was paid for by WAG, grant aid, football trust money and the lease of land to B&Q as an anchor tenant plus all the other retail units.
A conservative economic study says that us in the PL is worth £60m to the economy, I'd say that's closes to £100m, so that's half a billion and counting, what other industry is bringing that return in plus it's a major employer with perhaps near 500 employees.
Finally, had the council believed in the Swans, they would have built the 25,000 that we were promised maybe making this debate redundant? |
I think both of you are missing an important point. It doesn't matter what that Professor Berwyn said or not, at the time we were in league 2 with top attendances of under the 10k mark so 20k at the time was perfect.
The mistake was not being easily able to bolt on extra capacity like Cardiff so seamlessly did at the CCS.
Does anyone think that even with a capacity of 32/33 k we still may not have enough seats? If we keep up our development as a club and steadily keep growing into a regular top 8 side would 33k be enough? Serious question.
Personally I think we should be looking at 40 thousand for the future , which could mean the return of international football here too .
The big question then would be are we able to extend the west stand upwards too? I think not but would be happy to be proven wrong. [Post edited 5 Sep 2015 8:46]
| |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 09:18 - Sep 5 with 1572 views | Brynmill_Jack |
The council it must be said are guilty of showing no enthusiasm for helping the transport situation to and from the stadium. Try and get a bus after a Sunday late kick off . Impossible!
Bus travel is the key if the train to landore is an impossibility then the bus service had to be maximized.
The park and ride by St Helens proved very popular at the time and they scrapped it because it wasn't breaking even.
Well at £2 return it was never going to be. It costs £4.20 for an all day ticket in Swansea, why not charge £4 return? The buses pulled up on the waste ground opposite the landore park and ride and it was a nice easy and safe walk to the stadium from there.
You would think that the club and council were able to organise this when we were in league one and with the extra money the PL brings surely it would be easy to do now? If it's demand they are worried about how about having a travel option on our season tickets so subscriptions for the buses could be accurately gauged and provided for ? | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 10:15 - Sep 5 with 1531 views | NeathJack |
Regarding thst disingenuous statement from the council regarding no income from the stadium, predictably it has been picked up upon elsewhere.
http://www.bluebirdsforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6732
While the club shouldn't be getting into a slanging match, I really do think this is one issue that they need to publicly state the millions of pounds that have been paid over the years to put this type of nonsense and blantant disinformation to bed. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
