Think its a bit unfair purely to judge it without any fans inside.
It's the right size so that they could make the place close to full most games, which will add to the atmosphere - can't say that for many other Championship stadiums.
It's better than the dump that was Griffin Park, although I was quite fond of it. As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good. The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird). The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid). Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
It's better than the dump that was Griffin Park, although I was quite fond of it. As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good. The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird). The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid). Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
It's better than the dump that was Griffin Park, although I was quite fond of it. As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good. The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird). The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid). Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
It's better than the dump that was Griffin Park, although I was quite fond of it. As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good. The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird). The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid). Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
Thanks, it explains that it's not temporary, but it's still weird making them yellow.
It's very weird, might look better with fans in there but maybe their time is better spent attracting more fans to come (pretending covid doesn't exist there)
It's better than the dump that was Griffin Park, although I was quite fond of it. As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good. The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird). The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid). Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
Thanks, it explains that it's not temporary, but it's still weird making them yellow.
I was at The Gabba in 2001, they have the same colour design. It's VERY strange. I imagine the seats will get big complaints from Brentford fans, and rightly so.
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
It's better than the dump that was Griffin Park, although I was quite fond of it. As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good. The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird). The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid). Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
They're sharing it with a rugby club, maybe they play in yellow ?
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Kew Bridge station is only 5 minutes walk.
Griffin Park being only a mile away will mean the publicans will still keep a lot of their football customers.
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
If I remember rightly it was all being treated as one development, but the land the other side of the track was going straight to a developer to build flats and as part of the deal they were building the ground and some other buildings (some flats and a hotel?) for the club.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
Very underwhelming. That slope to the corner behind the goal looks awful.
Sky commentator reckons it could generate an extra £4m a year revenue with the executive boxes they can sell.
I imagine compared to Griffin Park the Brentford fans will be pleased with this but this stadium won't have the same character as Griffin Park - unless they've made legroom non-existent like Griffin Park!
£4m extra a year? That’s £160,000 extra a game net of VAT based on 25 games. I don’t know how much of that is boxes, but I doubt it.
Say 5,000 extra spectators on average each paying a (very high) £20 average net price (including kids) = £100k. Add profit on ancillary sales of £3 per head if you’re lucky = £15k. That still leaves £45k from the boxes.
I guess you can whack up existing prices to get more from people already going to Griffin Park, but you need to be careful with that.
Probably valid in the PL, but against the central revenue still peanuts.
I’m not knocking it, I just think these numbers are “hopeful”.
The reason for the horrid seat colors is... they actually admit to this... so that it looks full even when it is not, on the television. If you have a 17,500 seat stadium, only 10,000 seats sold and the rest is made to look like an optical illusion... that's a crap club.
The coloured seats came a thing when they decided to get London Irish in, who get about 10,000 if lucky in the Premiership, and have had 3,000 turn up for Championship games at Reading.
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
If I remember rightly it was all being treated as one development, but the land the other side of the track was going straight to a developer to build flats and as part of the deal they were building the ground and some other buildings (some flats and a hotel?) for the club.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
I think that Spurs had the issue with the yard, pre-new build. I'm sure JohnboyUK wrote something about that on here. That sort of thing no doubt happens a lot though, wth new developments.
The Brentford stadium hasn't really grown on me, but it has a little bit more character than some of the new build stadiums.
Very underwhelming. That slope to the corner behind the goal looks awful.
Sky commentator reckons it could generate an extra £4m a year revenue with the executive boxes they can sell.
I imagine compared to Griffin Park the Brentford fans will be pleased with this but this stadium won't have the same character as Griffin Park - unless they've made legroom non-existent like Griffin Park!
£4m extra a year? That’s £160,000 extra a game net of VAT based on 25 games. I don’t know how much of that is boxes, but I doubt it.
Say 5,000 extra spectators on average each paying a (very high) £20 average net price (including kids) = £100k. Add profit on ancillary sales of £3 per head if you’re lucky = £15k. That still leaves £45k from the boxes.
I guess you can whack up existing prices to get more from people already going to Griffin Park, but you need to be careful with that.
Probably valid in the PL, but against the central revenue still peanuts.
I’m not knocking it, I just think these numbers are “hopeful”.
Griffin Park was VERY old fashioned though, so starting from a minimal base in terms of corporate income in the boxes and lounges etc
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
If I remember rightly it was all being treated as one development, but the land the other side of the track was going straight to a developer to build flats and as part of the deal they were building the ground and some other buildings (some flats and a hotel?) for the club.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
I think that Spurs had the issue with the yard, pre-new build. I'm sure JohnboyUK wrote something about that on here. That sort of thing no doubt happens a lot though, wth new developments.
The Brentford stadium hasn't really grown on me, but it has a little bit more character than some of the new build stadiums.
This video shows you how the site is basically on a triangular island surrounded by railways on all sides. The flats are in the corners and more will be built on the other side of the tracks.
Very underwhelming. That slope to the corner behind the goal looks awful.
Sky commentator reckons it could generate an extra £4m a year revenue with the executive boxes they can sell.
I imagine compared to Griffin Park the Brentford fans will be pleased with this but this stadium won't have the same character as Griffin Park - unless they've made legroom non-existent like Griffin Park!
£4m extra a year? That’s £160,000 extra a game net of VAT based on 25 games. I don’t know how much of that is boxes, but I doubt it.
Say 5,000 extra spectators on average each paying a (very high) £20 average net price (including kids) = £100k. Add profit on ancillary sales of £3 per head if you’re lucky = £15k. That still leaves £45k from the boxes.
I guess you can whack up existing prices to get more from people already going to Griffin Park, but you need to be careful with that.
Probably valid in the PL, but against the central revenue still peanuts.
I’m not knocking it, I just think these numbers are “hopeful”.
Griffin Park was VERY old fashioned though, so starting from a minimal base in terms of corporate income in the boxes and lounges etc
True, but even in the Championship Charlton couldn’t sell their limited number of boxes, which is why you got things like the Valley Gokd box happening, or their lounge space - see various failed and abandoned initiatives around Crossbars and the lounge on the west upper level.
The boxes issue is more pertinent. Not really my specialist subject and the isolation of the east stand boxes from other hospitality didn’t help, but I’m not sure demand in that part of London is significantly stronger. Charlton would be lucky to get £1k a box a game, I would think and would only be able to sell out big matches despite only having about a dozen in the first place.
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
If I remember rightly it was all being treated as one development, but the land the other side of the track was going straight to a developer to build flats and as part of the deal they were building the ground and some other buildings (some flats and a hotel?) for the club.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
Don’t know how true this is but brother in law said that the developers, who bought Griffin Park, paid £30m or something and built/paid for the new stadium and there was a clause re square footage price that would increase Brentford’s payout .
sounds like a great deal if true
there is potential to increase capacity size as well if required .
I spent many happy hours at the old Griffin Park, before they built the flats and converted the great Brook Road End into the silly subbuteo away end. Even after seats were introduced, it was still a good little football ground and at least there was a bit of terracing.
For the limited available space, the new ground looks very well designed. It looks to have the feel of a bigger version of Bournemouth's ground, with all of it's decent commercial aspects. If Brentford continue to play good football and stay high up in The Championship, they could start to average out at about 15,000 (Covid permitting).
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
If I remember rightly it was all being treated as one development, but the land the other side of the track was going straight to a developer to build flats and as part of the deal they were building the ground and some other buildings (some flats and a hotel?) for the club.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
I think that Spurs had the issue with the yard, pre-new build. I'm sure JohnboyUK wrote something about that on here. That sort of thing no doubt happens a lot though, wth new developments.
The Brentford stadium hasn't really grown on me, but it has a little bit more character than some of the new build stadiums.
It is another ultra uniform match box built from mechanno with Lego seats...what character is that?
It's not a bit uniform, when compared to other bowl stadiums or the New Den
Really looks impressive on Sky Sports with them being shown around
Watched that and had the opposite reaction, think it’s really underwhelming - think it’s small size shows a lack of ambition.
It shows that they are a small club with a small support, that's all.
They had to fit the ground into a tiny bit of land, don't know if there was an alternative plot available anywhere nearby. Guess they had to sell Griffin Park to fund land purchase & building costs as first thing I thought of was why not demolish Griffin Park & rebuild while sharing with QPR for a season. Not that they need more than 17,500 capacity but they could have made it more aesthetically pleasing. Whats with the sloping roofs everywhere ? Both ends & either side, can understand if building a new stand at an existing stadium & you want to connect stands but why with a new build ?
It was actually a decent sized plot, but the majority of it has been used for new-build luxury flats instead.
I remember when they showed the site before building commenced hemmed in by railway lines & wondering how they would fit a stadium in, I knew they had built some high rise blocks of flats there but not the majority of the site surely ? The flats are owned by the football club aren't they ? I'm sure I read they would provide steady regular income for the club so they must be rentals.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
If I remember rightly it was all being treated as one development, but the land the other side of the track was going straight to a developer to build flats and as part of the deal they were building the ground and some other buildings (some flats and a hotel?) for the club.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
I think that Spurs had the issue with the yard, pre-new build. I'm sure JohnboyUK wrote something about that on here. That sort of thing no doubt happens a lot though, wth new developments.
The Brentford stadium hasn't really grown on me, but it has a little bit more character than some of the new build stadiums.
It is another ultra uniform match box built from mechanno with Lego seats...what character is that?
It's not a bit uniform, when compared to other bowl stadiums or the New Den
Milllllllll did not fill the corners in to form a wrap around on the advice of safety officers.
When the seats were being used as missiles it was thought that if the muppets were not a good shot they'd end up out of the ground and not on somebody's head.
Comments
It's the right size so that they could make the place close to full most games, which will add to the atmosphere - can't say that for many other Championship stadiums.
As others have said, the inside looks good, the outside not so good.
The seats look almost computer generated to me (weird).
The yellow seats are weird, but apparently it's to give the impression of fans being there (when it's empty due to Covid).
Although why you'd put in thousands of yellow seats for a temporary situation I don't know.
https://bias.org.uk/2019/03/08/multi-coloured-seats-in-the-new-stadium/
I imagine the seats will get big complaints from Brentford fans, and rightly so.
Edit: just seen offits post that some flats are the other side of the railway lines, didn't realise that they had that land as well.
Griffin Park being only a mile away will mean the publicans will still keep a lot of their football customers.
At least, that's where they were about 6/7 years ago, but everything was being held up because someone who owned a strip of land in the middle - a breakers yard, or something like that - wasn't budging and was holding out for more dough.
Say 5,000 extra spectators on average each paying a (very high) £20 average net price (including kids) = £100k. Add profit on ancillary sales of £3 per head if you’re lucky = £15k. That still leaves £45k from the boxes.
I guess you can whack up existing prices to get more from people already going to Griffin Park, but you need to be careful with that.
Probably valid in the PL, but against the central revenue still peanuts.
I’m not knocking it, I just think these numbers are “hopeful”.
Bunch of pricks
The Brentford stadium hasn't really grown on me, but it has a little bit more character than some of the new build stadiums.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/compulsory-purchase-plans-approved-secure-7436088
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/brentford-fc-being-held-ransom-10015670
6/7 years ago. Where's that gone?!
https://youtu.be/0FWqFOZSRqY
The boxes issue is more pertinent. Not really my specialist subject and the isolation of the east stand boxes from other hospitality didn’t help, but I’m not sure demand in that part of London is significantly stronger. Charlton would be lucky to get £1k a box a game, I would think and would only be able to sell out big matches despite only having about a dozen in the first place.
sounds like a great deal if true
there is potential to increase capacity size as well if required .
For the limited available space, the new ground looks very well designed. It looks to have the feel of a bigger version of Bournemouth's ground, with all of it's decent commercial aspects. If Brentford continue to play good football and stay high up in The Championship, they could start to average out at about 15,000 (Covid permitting).
How much are Season Tickets?
When the seats were being used as missiles it was thought that if the muppets were not a good shot they'd end up out of the ground and not on somebody's head.