Can’t say for sure.. but I think the original one was big enough . But seemed have few glitches with it .
But IMG have changed the dimensions wanting bigger screens…
Either way it needed replacing because of the iffy picture.

IMG have changed the stadium criteria to benefit those clubs that own their ground. They allow the value of the ground to be part of the financial section of the submission.

So I guess that helps us significantly? Especially with the new development adding some serious value.

Would that put the likes of Salford at a disadvantage too?

I see, misunderstood where it had been added

As for our Big screen, the one we originally bought was the correct size under the grading criteria that was brought out in June 2023, but it's just been updated. Not that it matters that much because we've had problems with ours from day one just about and it appears it was a bit of a cheap one. The new criteria that were updated in March 2024 for the big screen are below -

You couldn’t build a stand like ours without a lift, no matter how cheap a bodge you did, you wouldn’t get it passed as it’s against the law.

The reason the boxes got away with it is because they are deemed a temporary structure and didn’t need to meet the full criteria.

Something has now happened with the boxes imo but not sure want. Originally they only had a ten year lifespan before they would requiring removing or rebuilding. I can only assume that through the years they have been continually upgraded to meet criteria. It could be that the addition of a lift allows them to be reclassified as permanent.

This is quite important as it sets the template for what we can build at the south end of the ground if it is now a permanent structure. Considering its height, that would be almost anything.
Pretty shrewd for the cost of a lift but I might be wrong.

Must say the flats looks so much better with the recent paint job

Those flats are probably the best business decision and investment and Ted ever made.

It was Pearman not Ted who purchased them, but sadly never paid for them. We were lucky in that we got them by default. I think we paid about 10% of the cost back via the CVA.

Weren't they supposed to be going to Silverstone but the removal and transport costs made the deal financially unviable?

Don’t know tbh. I think in the end we paid what the CVA required and then Ted weighed in with a bit extra. Whatever, we didn’t pay what we should have, and as the poster said, it turned out to be one hell of a deal for us.

It’s been great over the years but I can’t help but think if the flats weren’t there then what could have been done with the money from developer etc.

It is great but in another way it’s a hindrance to futther development.

I can’t help but think it could be an ideal area for a basic stand much like that at York with a half open underside area to walk through.

In a way because it’s there we are forced to further develop the west/north. The space on south stand is considerable.

Hypothetical ofcourse and I am thankful we have a solid structure there that’s unique and has character.

Even after all these years I still find the flats an eyesore. But I think they'll bring in more income than a stand would based on crowds in recent years. That may change if we can start selling out over the coming seasons.

They look great on the inside now though. A lot of time, money and effort has gone into sprucing them up and ultimately are still a 365 days a year revenue earner for the club.

It would be nice when we get to a point where we are busting capacity so often that serious consideration needs to be made to replacing them, but until then there is no point going to the expense of the development of a stand that is only going to decrease our utilisation score for the short term. A simple terrace along the bottom would do for now, and I'm sure I read that is in the pipeline.