I have to agree with you about the seats.

It wouldn't be home if they we're to remain Maroon & Amber and have Bantams this, Bantams that plastered all over them.

It would have to be a 50/50 split.

A move to Valley Parade will still kill off the club IMO so it's not going to happen.

Just look at what the move did for us in 2001, no away support at all because of the area in which the ground is situated.

That won't be an issue from next season then.

When they first brought that rule in, it was only the Premiership and Championship that had to have all-seaters. That was a while back though and I confess I don't always keep up to date with football rules these days, due to me rapidly diminishing interest in the sport. (Brought about by the seemingly no-end to the constant cheating that goes on).

A few slight impediments to those ideas though:

The "15m for" the OSV was a fraction of the total planned cost, and was NOT for a stadium. The most recent plans did not actually include a physical stadium cost at all IIRC - private capital was required for that I think.

The OSV project requried the Richard Dunn site to be sold for development, the proceeds helping to fund the OSV and especialy the new replacement facilities thereon. No sale of RD, no development at Odsal anyway. If you build a statiumk on the RD site you'd have to sell Odsal for development instead - at much muich higher cost - and still rePlace the RD facilities.

There is no money anywhere to build a stand-alone stadium.

Thats the bit that really bugs me tbh. Alan Carling, the city supporters club chairman, gets articles in t&a repeatedly where he hammers 'fact' that bulls are being given 15 million usually with big headlines too, despite the fact its blatantly untrue and we never as a club seem to correct him on it. think last time he spouted of council actually put a statement out about it but it was given nothing like the coverage that Carlings piece was.

The Tl DAllas does look poor, but as it is only about 3meters from somebody's house, theres not a lot can be done as the stadium doesnt need expanding anyway.

the lower tier of that stand isnt used by City ever, so i would rip the seats out of there and create a standing area there.

I would also rip out the seats from the Betfair, Midland road stand, and replace then with the red amber and black "Bulls" ones!

Simple! I would open up the northwest corner as a bulls family stand (another whoile section that isnt used on city matches) and close the top tier of the Kop for BUlls games. This would reduce the capacity, but keep everybody closder to the action.

As far as I know there is no actual requirement to have 100m for the pitch, and the last time I looked (it may have changed, of course....) the ruling only required clubs to be as "near to 100m as possible". There are still a few clubs in SL with pitches under the maximum length, and it may be that the RFL are simply waiting for all clubs to actually have 100m before making it compulsory, but you never know, and if we were the last I would be worried!

rlFrom the laws of the Game.rl

So as close as possible to 112metres then?

so the 103 at VP is as close as you can get there, so its ok!

A very minor point I know, but a stadium with a mix of Bulls and City signage and coloured seats would look truly horrible.

Obviously no poor relationship between Bulls & Avenue though.

rlClickyrl

It's packed every weekend now, if 10,000 people can manage it for years why can't Bulls fans?

not as simple as that. the 100m pitch length is the maximum. There is also a minimum length which isnt mentioned on that diagram. also it doesnt include the safe zone (not sure of correct terminology) which is usually expected on top of the in goal area. once you add the figures up VP is right at the lower limit ,if not below, of what is allowed and would certainly need extending if it was to be a long term option.

hmmm wonder if thats an early hint of something bigger to follow?

I was trying to track that down earlier, since I did that once before and proved on here VP as it stands was extremely unlikely to meet the minimum effective dimensions.