nice thread

looking at the work going on at salford and saitns cant help but get excited

the saints ground espeically looks something special

average crowds will rise, clubs will get more corporate revenus allowing clubs a more sustainable business

odsal will be the worst ground in SL but their average crowds makes it irrelevant

think cas wil deliver on theirs as well

Here's the problem: Stadiums are only part of the reason for attendance growth. Far more grassroots stuff needs to take place in English RL before these new facilities can be used to their full potential. That's not to say that they aren't welcome, but they shouldn't be used a sign of "flying crowds" to come. Again, crowds are the result of grassroots work, not new stadiums.

To answer your question: Poland will in 2011 complete a total of 19 new stadium/redevelopment projects.

As someone who ardently follows stadium development, I can assure you that at this point, of the 93 projects currently under construction of stadiums over 30,000 and arenas over 10,000, 72 are for football, 11 for basketball, 2 for baseball, 2 for gridiron, 3 for Union and 3 for cricket. So that doesn't even include the plethora of stadiums which are under 30,000 (where the SL stadiums would be a part of).

Don't mean to be a downer, but you asked the question. As I said, stadium sell outs in new facilities will follow good work done at grassroots level. All of it will be for nothing if more people aren't playing/being introduce to the game.

All this rhubarb about if you build a new stadium they will come.

I'll SIMPLIFY IT!!!!!! for those who failed thinking at the 1st fence.

If you have a WINNING team they may come, if you don't you will only get a few diehards.

Not that there is much evidence to prove such thing.

Look at the lock outs at the Keepmoat for example and LSV, and as for the halton stadium, be there Widnes or Saints playing the congestion and gridlock on the roads and the clamouring to get into the stadium are all evidence that the theory works!!!

Yep.

Once again a brand new shiny stadium guarantees a massive attendance. It has nothing to do with what happens on the field

The fact the southstand is being rebuilt has more to do with franchising than it does H&S.

In fact it highlights the benefits as well as is possible really.

The southstand could be continually used as it is, but it would take extensive, regular, and expensive remedial work to keep it at a reduced capacity. Had there not been franchising it would have been very very difficult for Leeds to raise the £10m plus they need to rebuild the stand and it would have been much more likely they had an expensive problem in the southstand, rather than, what will be an asset.

The revised build cost for the amended version is about £5.5m. Leeds can cover most of this out of their existing and available cash reserves (£2.3m at the last set of accounts with £1.7m due back from a loan to Leeds RU to cover their operating losses (presumably Caddick will have to write a cheque for that one but it has been guaranteed.)) Leeds would have no trouble at all sourcing the balancing £1.5m or so either within the group or from third party funding.

Would they replace the SS if it wasn't being condemned? Definitely, but probably not right now and not when the planners are forcing them to accept the cut down version that is going to be built - although there is no indication that there will ever be an option to build anything bigger in the future. Retrospectively, they should have done the SS instead of the Carnegie when the planners were more amenable but that observation is with the benefit of massive hindsight.

.

That is a joke, moving the temporary stand. It should be scrapped. When Rovers got promoted to Super League, that was only supposed to be in place for a couple of years. How the RFL can give a franchise to a club with a permanent temporary stand is laughable

Please explain why you think that whilst not making the same suggestion of Wakefield! I am fairly confident that BOTH will achieve what they are chasing - despite the relative situations, however both still have challenges ahead!

It will be a while before both are in brand new stadiums unless the join up IMO.

No, not really. Since they're being shared with Ukraine, there are only 4 Euro stadiums in Poland. That leaves 15 stadiums being constructed/redeveloped by councils. Either way you look at it, it trumps SL by some margin.

Would you prefer to watch the game from the existing South stand then?

Incidentally how many of these clubs own the grounds.
A rugby clubs only real asset is it's home, and sadly many have cashed in to become tenants.
I'm not saying that's wrong, perhaps in modern RL there is no need to own your home, but I do think it's a little sad.

It's not sad , it's potentially disastrous , you cannot run a pro,semi pro RL team on one revenue stream ( fans through the turnstiles ) , so any club not owning/running their own stadium has real problems , I include the likes of Huddersfield , Hull , Salford , Widnes in this as well as the Championship clubs

I would suggest this is the reason Cas are so against sharing a council stadium and are doing all they can to actually fund and build their own , as that is the only way they will ever be in position to challenge the big teams

Salfords stadium is being built with footings in place for another 2 phases of building. Both phases will have an affect on the 3 smaller stands and corners if/when attendances improve. Once the club can show a need for increasing the capacity the next phase will be built. Phase 3 will take the ground to a 20-22,000 capacity.

If you go onto the turkey there are photo's available of the different phases