Brunton Park

Interesting view from a Yeovil fan on BP. As a newcomer it's a view that resonates with me. Something very special about Brunton Park. It might be creaking at the seams but it oozes heart and soul.
For all of the issues and problems BP has, when you go to Crawley, Macclesfield, Stevenage etc you realise what a grand old dame she really is.

www.the92.net/news-blog/the-pilgrimage-t...rlisle/#.XC4kMlz7REY

I've been mostly a paddock man all my life but when you see the highlights now which are from the East Stand it looks very grim.

Having said that I'm not sure I'd want to move to some purpose built shoe box which seats 6,000 aboot Kingmoor! Sitting in there in a crowd of 1500 on a bleak Tuesday night wouldn't be for me.

I think it would be a mistake to leave BP. Firstly you cannot replace the location and more important the history of BP cannot be transferred to any new site.
Refurbishment is the key and probably a lot cheaper.

Never EVER thought I would be typing this!

I agree with you Shaldon.

There! I did it!

Sorry!

shaldon1 wrote: I think it would be a mistake to leave BP. Firstly you cannot replace the location and more important the history of BP cannot be transferred to any new site.
Refurbishment is the key and probably a lot cheaper.

One of your best posts ever

The only post that makes sense

I love Brunton park but anyone with any common sense knows , it's would be very expensive to stay at Bruton park due to any refurb having to be flood resilient and have no greater effect on increasing flooding in the area , but what I try and explain the reasons behind this to people on here but their logic is outwayed by nostalgia and it's not about opinions it's about simple construction costs based, that it would cost more money and would not receive funding from and external source due to being too higher risk, ask an architect , cival engineer and a project manger all would tell you this.

I love going to Brunton Park, but can certainly understand why some would want a new shiny stadium. Standards do change for the young and not so young. Personally, I can manage to forsake the food and drink on offer for 90 minutes (told it rubbish, but hey I go for the footy not the pasty). Also don’t really care if I have to piss against a wall (there are worse things in this life). Don’t need to see action replays and as for the scoreboard I think I’m still capable of counting to seven. Anymore I might be struggling but there’s usually another 3,000 to ask if your in late or not sure. Be careful what you wish for, it’s our history.

Tommy Passmoor wrote: I love going to Brunton Park, but can certainly understand why some would want a new shiny stadium. Standards do change for the young and not so young. Personally, I can manage to forsake the food and drink on offer for 90 minutes (told it rubbish, but hey I go for the footy not the pasty). Also don’t really care if I have to piss against a wall (there are worse things in this life). Don’t need to see action replays and as for the scoreboard I think I’m still capable of counting to seven. Anymore I might be struggling but there’s usually another 3,000 to ask if your in late or not sure. Be careful what you wish for, it’s our history.

It's not about having the shinny new stadium as , even if Bruton park was renovated it wouldn't be the same ground as old , It's about securing the long term future of the club and in the current stake Bruton Park holding the club back, No point investing in the pitch untill you have the infrastructure In place to maintain the revenues to do so.

The stadium costs a fortune to maintain , It's like item that old at one point it's not fit for purpose

Unfortunately it mirrors the people who run it,. Old ,tired and need of change.
In hindsight when we had the first flood could have been the ideal time to move.. In the conference,Story at the helm,team on the up,support behind the club etc etc,

The present site that BP sits on isn’t big enough to prove the facilities that a progressive club in this day and age needs all on one site. The club will never be rid of the flood risk that at some point would make it impossible to get insurance. Nostalgia apart there are no good reasons for staying at BP.

Brunton Park, slightly better than a non league ground shocker!

How do you know what the stadiums like

CCU wrote:

pacirv wrote: The present site that BP sits on isn’t big enough to prove the facilities that a progressive club in this day and age needs all on one site.

It would be if they bought the Rugby Club though...

No chance planning permission would ever be permitted, It would be regarded as a 3a flood plain so it will never get planning permission. As building, there would increase the effect of flooding to residential areas,.

CCU wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

CCU wrote:

pacirv wrote: The present site that BP sits on isn’t big enough to prove the facilities that a progressive club in this day and age needs all on one site.

It would be if they bought the Rugby Club though...

No chance planning permission would ever be permitted, It would be regarded as a 3a flood plain so it will never get planning permission. As building, there would increase the effect of flooding to residential areas,.

We wouldn’t be building the Wembley of the North!

And there's the name for our new stadium!

Knighton gave us the east stand, Storey gave us a general ground tidy up, including rebuilding the corner between the paddock and the warwick. The current incumbents have given us........................a dodgy disabled shelter. Eventually.

A investment and development plan for the Club is important for it;s future. Sadly the current incumbents don't appear to give a damn. They are locked into the attitude that it is best to ignore the complainers and live of the apathetic, who are getting to be considerably less.

In an ideal world, PD would invest big style and rebuild BP raised up a bit and, Deepdale style, make sure nothing is at ground level. A Nice 15k rebuild stadium with room to expand as we go up the league's and build our fan base again and fulfil our potential.
With the current owners, we won't ever need more than 10k capacity because we won't ever get higher than league 1 mid table at best.
Step forward PD, keep us at a redeveloped BP and aim for the stars!

Happy wrote:
"The stadium costs a fortune to maintain , It's like item that old at one point it's not fit for purpose"

No it doesn't. You just have top look at how little is done. (Weeds in the guttering etc.)

Mind you it will cost a lot to repair as most of the ground is in disrepair due to the lack of money spent on it in the last eleven years.

Flatcap wrote: Happy wrote:
"The stadium costs a fortune to maintain , It's like item that old at one point it's not fit for purpose"

No it doesn't. You just have top look at how little is done. (Weeds in the guttering etc.)

Mind you it will cost a lot to repair as most of the ground is in disrepair due to the lack of money spent on it in the last eleven years.

Maintenance is more than the cost of guttering and removing Weeds , stuff happens under the skin of the stadium.

Interesting survey this. Carlisle don't do too badly considering most of the short time I've been coming it's been generally quite a flat atmosphere.
Mansfield this last weekend was a very definite exception.
Have to rather sadly agree with the Lincoln decision. Despite the managers and current side it's a great place to watch a game.
Not surprised either MK comes bottom. On paper it ticks all the boxes but something missing there at the moment.
I think for the feel of a ground then Brunton Park should come out top in the league. Nothing really quite like it in the division.
fanbanter.co.uk/every-league-two-club-ra...r-best-atmosphere/5/

Totally agree there is plenty of room for improvement and in this day and age people do expect certain standards, but me been an old one and as I have said previously it’s our home. Most of my ‘match day experience’ is spent in bothergate or the beehive anyway. I can actually manage that 2 hours without queuing for crap food and shit beer, looking for action replays on big screens or needing a score board to tell me the score. I don’t even mind pissing against a wall! At the end of the day It’s just a game of footy.

For me it’s impossible to embrace the thought of a new ground (not stadium).

Exactly

Tommy Passmoor wrote: Totally agree there is plenty of room for improvement and in this day and age people do expect certain standards, but me been an old one and as I have said previously it’s our home. Most of my ‘match day experience’ is spent in bothergate or the beehive anyway. I can actually manage that 2 hours without queuing for crap food and shit beer, looking for action replays on big screens or needing a score board to tell me the score. I don’t even mind pissing against a wall! At the end of the day It’s just a game of footy.

If you said I could stand in the uncovered Paddock, have a pint in the George McVitie Bar, with very basic facilities, ripped out pages of Shoot! magazine on the wall and the big lad behind the bar and leaking gutters and bird shit caking the terraces, or I could go to a swanky stadium like MK with cushioned seats and hotels and chain restaurants on the outside, then no surprise here that I would choose the Paddock, every time.

The biggest problem with Brunton Park, for me is that the capacity is too big relative to the size of the crowd. Therefore the atmosphere is a bit flat , compared to a more compact stadium.

This is notwithstanding the point that it is a money trap, having such a crumbling stadium and we can’t carry on as we are for much longer.

In 10 years time when I am sitting in a new stadium with my foam hand and vuvuzela, watching us play Fylde in The Championship, after we have been taken over, there will be a sadness and longing to be back in the Paddock and in knowing those days will never return, a part of me will have died.

Good post blue, the only thing you’ve missed out is that while you are sitting with your your foam hand and vuvuzela, you will also be waiting for VAR to make half a dozen decisions per game.

We had the highest away following on New Years Day in League 2 (1.784) with only Sunderland higher in League 1 (7,700 at Blackpool)

fanbanter.co.uk/every-leagues-top-5-away...s-day-3rd-january/4/

That field on Warwick Road next to the car wash where they were going to stick a Lidle on before the flood sems to be having work done on it at present.

Could they not dig a massive pit/reservoir on said field keeping it empty somehow meaning that when the floods come then the water would have somewhere to go, preferably down instead of spilling off the fields or even the same thing further up river.

No idea if this is feasible like but it would come in handy if they say filled it up in the spring also if we had a drought, just needs the facility to be able to fill and empty but pumps could be used for that surely.

munchymagic wrote: That field on Warwick Road next to the car wash where they were going to stick a Lidle on before the flood sems to be having work done on it at present.

Could they not dig a massive pit/reservoir on said field keeping it empty somehow meaning that when the floods come then the water would have somewhere to go, preferably down instead of spilling off the fields or even the same thing further up river.

No idea if this is feasible like but it would come in handy if they say filled it up in the spring also if we had a drought, just needs the facility to be able to fill and empty but pumps could be used for that surely.

ooh, the ghost of dark and lonely water would hang around there and catch careless children...

*Johhny Ball mode*
Anyways, the pit would need to be about a mile deep to take all the water from last time. Say you had a field the size of a football pitch (100 x 50m), that's 5000m² and say you made it 20m (60ft) deep. That's a capacity of 100,000 m³, big eh? Except the EA estimated the peak flow under eden bridge at 1700m³ a second - or enough to fill our pit in a minute.

The pit/reservoir wouldn't be taking the whole flow of the river though would it, it would be taking the excess that the river can't handle ?

As I mentioned - am not an expert just an suggestion that I am prepared to be shot down with as I haven't researched it or studied it.

Surely though if you can catch some of it in pockets here and there would ease things massively up the rivers that could prevent the deluge further down.

But orfc could be right and it is a silly notion.

munchymagic wrote: As I mentioned - am not an expert just an suggestion that I am prepared to be shot down with as I haven't researched it or studied it.

Surely though if you can catch some of it in pockets here and there would ease things massively up the rivers that could prevent the deluge further down.

But orfc could be right and it is a silly notion.

Simple answer twice as wide twice as deep in the section from the bridge at Warwick Road to where it meets the Eden but in the case of the Perrill I don't see why they can't just turn the whole of that valley where it twists and turns thru by the side of the railway tracks into a massive flood plain.

A pretty simple solution that wouldn't cost a lot and would also have a knock-on effect in that it would also reduce the levels of the Eden as there would be less water from the Peterill flowing into it

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

munchymagic wrote: As I mentioned - am not an expert just an suggestion that I am prepared to be shot down with as I haven't researched it or studied it.

Surely though if you can catch some of it in pockets here and there would ease things massively up the rivers that could prevent the deluge further down.

But orfc could be right and it is a silly notion.

Simple answer twice as wide twice as deep in the section from the bridge at Warwick Road to where it meets the Eden but in the case of the Perrill I don't see why they can't just turn the whole of that valley where it twists and turns thru by the side of the railway tracks into a massive flood plain.

A pretty simple solution that wouldn't cost a lot and would also have a knock-on effect in that it would also reduce the levels of the Eden as there would be less water from the Peterill flowing into it

Like I was saying, stop it up-river or at least limit it.

A couple of farming fields lost is hardly going to annoy too many people, in fact many folk would be grateful for a fishing/boating lake and the farmer would be quids in.

I once worked with a lad who payed 4k for a water filled quarry, him and his mate raised the cash in about 1982 - worth millions now.

Good old boy he was and his missus said that he still had to get out of the house and work.

Loads of you probably know him too.

Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

I meant as in only dam them in the spring when you might need the water in the summer and have them emptied in the Autumn.

As I said though, not sure if this is possible or feasible.

I think (with absolutely no expertise in the subject) that any flood prevention has to be done up in the hills. The rivers that go through carlisle are brilliantly efficient devices for collecting all the water that falls on a thousand square miles of the north-eastern part of the lake district and the western part of the pennines. By the time that water arrives in carlisle at the rate it was, it's too late.

orfc wrote: I think (with absolutely no expertise in the subject) that any flood prevention has to be done up in the hills. The rivers that go through carlisle are brilliantly efficient devices for collecting all the water that falls on a thousand square miles of the north-eastern part of the lake district and the western part of the pennines. By the time that water arrives in carlisle at the rate it was, it's too late.

At least on here we are coming up with suggestions even if they turn out to prove to be barmy ideas.

The governments idea is to just ignore it and hope that it does not happen again, and if it does they will just send up some senior MP's to look solemn on the news at the poor people who got flooded again.

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Don't agree with all that you said but what would would you do then?

I never said that I was an expert in this field.

munchymagic wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Don't agree with all that you said but what would would you do then?

I never said that I was an expert in this field.

No as you like to argue with facts because you don't like things which don't agree with your opinions.
Would use systems to slow the flow of water from the catchment area , speeding up flow once you get in an area were the land is as low as parts of Carlisle you can't stop it , as the water table is the so close to the level which properties exist. You look at the proven most effective techniques ironically some of these are the ones which are the cheapest, we can't use up up steam damning than can be effective but that's generally done in large areas in large counties (Cumbria may have a low population density but in comparison to other counties it's high ), so you look first at the Fells you look at restoring the Forrest's which have been cut down as a significant rate , these help to dramatically slow the flow of water into the river it also prevents the earth from becoming as saturated , you look at alowing bog land which has been drained for farming to be turned back into marshland.

This is proved to work, it's done by experts in counties were they've had serious flooding problems , but for some reason we still are focussed on using ideas from the past , but like many older ideas they are proved to be useless .

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Oh, go [censored] yourself you sanctimonious think you know it all [censored].

If you can't be told by superior people who clearly know more than you just keep your gob shut once and for all or stick your address on here and i.ll have a ride up there and discuss it with it with your face.

Happyblue wrote:

munchymagic wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Don't agree with all that you said but what would would you do then?

I never said that I was an expert in this field.

No as you like to argue with facts because you don't like things which don't agree with your opinions.
Would use systems to slow the flow of water from the catchment area , speeding up flow once you get in an area were the land is as low as parts of Carlisle you can't stop it , as the water table is the so close to the level which properties exist. You look at the proven most effective techniques ironically some of these are the ones which are the cheapest, we can't use up up steam damning than can be effective but that's generally done in large areas in large counties (Cumbria may have a low population density but in comparison to other counties it's high ), so you look first at the Fells you look at restoring the Forrest's which have been cut down as a significant rate , these help to dramatically slow the flow of water into the river it also prevents the earth from becoming as saturated , you look at alowing bog land which has been drained for farming to be turned back into marshland.

This is proved to work, it's done by experts in counties were they've had serious flooding problems , but for some reason we still are focussed on using ideas from the past , but like many older ideas they are proved to be useless .

What a load of [censored] ing crap WIDER AND DEEPER. WIDER AND DEEPER

Too much information NS.

Your sex talk is just too much for normal messageboarders at this time of night.

howoldboy wrote: Too much information NS.

Your sex talk is just too much for normal messageboarders at this time of night.

Normal ?? None of you [censored].ers are normal if you think planting a few trees up on the fells is gonna cure Carlisles flooding issues

Can't wait to see what crackpot schemes to waste money the EA have dreamt up this time but you have to assume that as they're holding the consultation at BP whats to be done will be centred around the BP/ Warwick Road area.

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

munchymagic wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Don't agree with all that you said but what would would you do then?

I never said that I was an expert in this field.

No as you like to argue with facts because you don't like things which don't agree with your opinions.
Would use systems to slow the flow of water from the catchment area , speeding up flow once you get in an area were the land is as low as parts of Carlisle you can't stop it , as the water table is the so close to the level which properties exist. You look at the proven most effective techniques ironically some of these are the ones which are the cheapest, we can't use up up steam damning than can be effective but that's generally done in large areas in large counties (Cumbria may have a low population density but in comparison to other counties it's high ), so you look first at the Fells you look at restoring the Forrest's which have been cut down as a significant rate , these help to dramatically slow the flow of water into the river it also prevents the earth from becoming as saturated , you look at alowing bog land which has been drained for farming to be turned back into marshland.

This is proved to work, it's done by experts in counties were they've had serious flooding problems , but for some reason we still are focussed on using ideas from the past , but like many older ideas they are proved to be useless .

What a load of [censored] ing crap WIDER AND DEEPER. WIDER AND DEEPER

It's called facts, something you don't understand why can't you face them?.

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Oh, go [censored] yourself you sanctimonious think you know it all [censored].

If you can't be told by superior people who clearly know more than you just keep your gob shut once and for all or stick your address on here and i.ll have a ride up there and discuss it with it with your face.

Grow up .

Happyblue wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

munchymagic wrote:

Happyblue wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Happyblue must be unconcious from banging his head against the wall. A boating lake ffs. To be a lake with boats on it at a wild guess id say it probably already has to be full of water not sit empty waiting for a flood every 10 years.

What is the point , we'll always get northernsoul arguing he's always right despite all facts disproving that and we'll always get munchy believing what ever he says, Whereas I keep saying please talk to a cival and engineer , or geologist and they would explain why these systems wouldn't work , but people prefer to remain ignorant .

Don't agree with all that you said but what would would you do then?

I never said that I was an expert in this field.

No as you like to argue with facts because you don't like things which don't agree with your opinions.
Would use systems to slow the flow of water from the catchment area , speeding up flow once you get in an area were the land is as low as parts of Carlisle you can't stop it , as the water table is the so close to the level which properties exist. You look at the proven most effective techniques ironically some of these are the ones which are the cheapest, we can't use up up steam damning than can be effective but that's generally done in large areas in large counties (Cumbria may have a low population density but in comparison to other counties it's high ), so you look first at the Fells you look at restoring the Forrest's which have been cut down as a significant rate , these help to dramatically slow the flow of water into the river it also prevents the earth from becoming as saturated , you look at alowing bog land which has been drained for farming to be turned back into marshland.

This is proved to work, it's done by experts in counties were they've had serious flooding problems , but for some reason we still are focussed on using ideas from the past , but like many older ideas they are proved to be useless .

What a load of [censored] ing crap WIDER AND DEEPER. WIDER AND DEEPER

It's called facts, something you don't understand why can't you face them?.

Now that really is a classic or are you actually trying to say that a river made twice as wide and twice as deep doesn't have a capacity four times greater ?

Which when combined with an upstream flood plain it would solve the Peterill flooding issue and go a long way to reducing the problems downstream on the Eden. And would have been quite adequate in both of the last two floods.

But a scheme that can be devised on the back of a fag packet by anybody with half a brain doesn't give hundreds of [censored] ing leeching graduate consultants a living does it ?