• Forum has been updated to an interim version. Please advise of any anomalies via the "Care in the Community" thread. Thank you. (You can 'x' this message when you've read it)
  • WIN A FOREST SHIRT!

    Registered members of LTLF can enter a free competition to win a shiny new Nottingham Forest shirt. Choose from home or away, and you can even get a name/number on it into the bargain! There's a question to answer, and the winner will be selected from the right answers. For details and to enter, look at the thread by clicking WIN A FOREST SHIRT!!

    Dismiss this notice by clicking the x in the top right corner

The World Famous City Ground - Home of the PROPER WORLD‘S OLDEST LEAGUE CLUB

Future of the WFCG? What‘s your preference?


  • Total voters
    330
I’ve come to the conclusion that this can’t be viewed with a football fans eyes, construction moves in a different time frame.
I mean, in the time (and counting) the council/NFFC have taken to get this thing moving since it’s announcement Coventry City FC have worked their way through 4 leagues and played home games in 3 different stadiums.
That’s quite remarkable. In a footballing timeframe at least.
Never mind Coventry, we are now on the sixth Prime Minister since the plans were first announced!

May
Johnson
Sunak
Truss
Starmer
and now Burnham
 
I 100% agree with this sentiment. It’s existential for me too and I would be going to whatever new ground there was (it would be crap) through very gritted teeth, if I actually went. So many clubs, medium and small have sold their souls to the developers (mostly for no apparent long term benefit).
Yeah know what you mean. I’ve had a few so bear with me! Probably doesn’t matter too much to a lot of people in the great scheme of things but the Southampton of today aren’t the same club as the Southampton of the Dell, the Shite Park sheep aren’t the same sheep of the baseball ground, Ayresome Park Boro aren’t Riverside Boro.
They’ve all got a new identity but they’re virtually different clubs to who they were before.
 
Yeah know what you mean. I’ve had a few so bear with me! Probably doesn’t matter too much to a lot of people in the great scheme of things but the Southampton of today aren’t the same club as the Southampton of the Dell, the Shite Park sheep aren’t the same sheep of the baseball ground, Ayresome Park Boro aren’t Riverside Boro.
They’ve all got a new identity but they’re virtually different clubs to who they were before.
West Ham and Bolton have to be the worst examples.
The Toughsheet Community Stadium (wtf) is 6 miles outside of Bolton, not a bad stadium but certainly no Burnden Park. But it was old, it had that Nat Lofthouse is going to appear on the pitch vibe at any moment even in the 90’s.
As far West Ham, I’ve no soft spot but could weep for their fans, imagine getting lumbered with that stadium.
 
I really hope to see “home grown” fully Forest branded tobacco-alternative smoking materials available in the food and beverage outlets on Aug 22.
That's weirdly specific 😆😆
 
West Ham and Bolton have to be the worst examples.
The Toughsheet Community Stadium (wtf) is 6 miles outside of Bolton, not a bad stadium but certainly no Burnden Park. But it was old, it had that Nat Lofthouse is going to appear on the pitch vibe at any moment even in the 90’s.
As far West Ham, I’ve no soft spot but could weep for their fans, imagine getting lumbered with that stadium.
Unfortunately from my experience Bolton still piss all over Forest for everything community wise and have done for at least 25 years, the stadium is like mecca for that... if Notts stags or Sheep got in the Prem Forest wouldnt know its arse from its elbow.

Got more chance of Bolton rocking up at a primary school this side of the M1 than Forest.
 
West Ham and Bolton have to be the worst examples.
The Toughsheet Community Stadium (wtf) is 6 miles outside of Bolton, not a bad stadium but certainly no Burnden Park. But it was old, it had that Nat Lofthouse is going to appear on the pitch vibe at any moment even in the 90’s.
As far West Ham, I’ve no soft spot but could weep for their fans, imagine getting lumbered with that stadium.
Burnden Park was ruined in 1986 when NORMID built a superstore on it,Bryn.

I went there for the 1976 Boxing Day fixture when 2 fantastic teams played out a pulsating 1-1 draw in an incredible atmosphere.

Forest had great players like Withe,Woodcock,Robertson and Lloyd playing and Bolton had the likes of Willie Morgan and Peter Reid on the field.

It was the best 2nd tier game I ever saw and the 32,000 people in attendance were given a Christmas treat.
 
A revised travel plan has been uploaded to the planning portal today. Lots of sensible stuff about promoting greater use of the tram and P&R etc.

However the big concession to local residents is the proposal to introduce an extended event day controlled parking zone. The extent to be determined through consultation with RBC and residents groups, but currently proposing to include the whole of Trent Bridge and Lady Bay wards. That would mean no street parking in those areas for eight hours (four before KO and four after KO).

It also says the club will ‘disassociate’ with existing car parking sites where on the day payment is required (e.g. County Hall). As far as I can tell, you will still be able to park there, but the club will be encouraging people not to!

The overall plan does look well-considered and is a huge advance on the current travel planning, which is virtually non-existant. Does it go enough to satisfy the planning committee? Time will tell. However, I’m not sure what else they could propose.
 
There's also another big headline there - that they're proposing to reduce vehicle traffic on Trent Bridge to 2 lanes each way (all the time), instead allocating the space to much wider pavements (especially on the northern side).

They'd also take measures to stop pedestrians using the vehicle lanes after a match, including a queuing system around the Trentside / Pavilion Road junctions.
 
A revised travel plan has been uploaded to the planning portal today. Lots of sensible stuff about promoting greater use of the tram and P&R etc.

However the big concession to local residents is the proposal to introduce an extended event day controlled parking zone. The extent to be determined through consultation with RBC and residents groups, but currently proposing to include the whole of Trent Bridge and Lady Bay wards. That would mean no street parking in those areas for eight hours (four before KO and four after KO).

It also says the club will ‘disassociate’ with existing car parking sites where on the day payment is required (e.g. County Hall). As far as I can tell, you will still be able to park there, but the club will be encouraging people not to!

The overall plan does look well-considered and is a huge advance on the current travel planning, which is virtually non-existant. Does it go enough to satisfy the planning committee? Time will tell. However, I’m not sure what else they could propose.
As an engineer, we have an adage that you don't solve one problem by causing another problem.

People will need somewhere to park, especially for night games. Pushing the parking further and further out will only cause the same problem, just for different people.
 
As an engineer, we have an adage that you don;t solve one problem by causing another problem.

People will need somewhere to park, especially for night games. Pushing the parking further and further out will only cause the same problem, just for different people.
But dispersal to more areas in every direction will see less concentrated disruption?
 
It's a great idea to encourage people to use public transport but it only works if adequate services are in place.

Bus routes are limited and EMR is non-existent post 9pm towards Grantham and Skegness, so useless for evening matches. Is there a plan to work with the wider transport providers in the plan?
 
It's a great idea to encourage people to use public transport but it only works if adequate services are in place.

Bus routes are limited and EMR is non-existent post 9pm towards Grantham and Skegness, so useless for evening matches. Is there a plan to work with the wider transport providers in the plan?
It's what I've always advocated for. Whilst most of the city has good transport routes, the East and South East are very much neglected.
 
I can say with good authority that the closing of 2 lanes on Trent Bridge permanently is not going to happen.
It doesn't need 2 lanes permanently closed

It needs 1 lane closed, ground side, from the bus stop at Turneys Quay, to Pavilion Road for about 30 minutes

JFC it's not rocket science
 
A tweak to the ped crossing timings at Turneys Quay for that period wouldn't go amiss either
 
It doesn't need 2 lanes permanently closed

It needs 1 lane closed, ground side, from the bus stop at Turneys Quay, to Pavilion Road for about 30 minutes

JFC it's not rocket science
There have been many discussions regarding it already and it has vetoed anyway so no need to worry about it ever happening in any way shape or form
 
There have been many discussions regarding it already and it has vetoed anyway so no need to worry about it ever happening in any way shape or form
According to the Transport Assessment report, specifically section 6.34 onwards - the plan to go to 2 lanes each way with widened pavements (referred to in the report as the "Westminster Bridge proposal") was developed jointly between Rushcliffe Council, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, and the East Midlands Combined County Authority - with the final version of the proposal agreed at a meeting that took place last month.

Which of these do you think is vetoing it? I'm not sure there's anyone else that could.
 
According to the Transport Assessment report, specifically section 6.34 onwards - the plan to go to 2 lanes each way with widened pavements (referred to in the report as the "Westminster Bridge proposal") was developed jointly between Rushcliffe Council, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, and the East Midlands Combined County Authority - with the final version of the proposal agreed at a meeting that took place last month.

Which of these do you think is vetoing it? I'm not sure there's anyone else that could.
Because there is a better solution they are looking at, just because it has been proposed doesn't mean it will be implemented.
 
Because there is a better solution they are looking at
They being the combined working group of club/councils/etc?

just because it has been proposed doesn't mean it will be implemented.
Oh, I absolutely agree with that. My gut feeling is that it doesn't happen as currently proposed - but it seems strange that a proposal that was agreed between all relevant parties in the last month and made public about 6 hours ago would already be entirely off the table.
 
Returning to the topic of stadium refreshments, I’ve just got back from Boston and it was $14 for a Coors Light at Red Sox, or $20 for the ‘souvenir draft’.
 
According to the Transport Assessment report, specifically section 6.34 onwards - the plan to go to 2 lanes each way with widened pavements (referred to in the report as the "Westminster Bridge proposal") was developed jointly between Rushcliffe Council, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, and the East Midlands Combined County Authority - with the final version of the proposal agreed at a meeting that took place last month.

Which of these do you think is vetoing it? I'm not sure there's anyone else that could.
Dont forget that the county boundaries will changing in a couple of years which will make planning permission a lot easier around the stadium in all directions.
 
Top Bottom