Building work starting 5 Jan

[cables]

Heineken Cup: Tickets for Ulster v Harlequins On Sale Now Exclusively Online
22 December 2008, 10:24 am
By Lyndsey Irwin
Tickets for Ulster's Heineken Cup clash against Harlequins on Saturday 17th January are now available to purchase exclusively online...
Ulster v Halrequins: Saturday 17th January 2009, 1.35pm

Tickets will be available to purchase online only at this stage and anyone purchasing a ticket can expect that it will be posted after the Christmas break.

Harlequins, who currently sit mid-table in the Guinness premiership but who top Pool 4 after back to back wins over Stade Francais, last visited Ravenhill for Heineken Cup action back in the 1996-97 season.

With building work for the new stand starting on the 5th January, supporters are reminded that the numbers which can be accommodated on the terrace will be greatly reduced and that overall the Ravenhill capacity will drop to approx 9500. If you are a regular terrace ticket purchaser please be advised that there are less than 500 tickets available for sale in this area.

[bigchiefally]

Not sure how I feel about this. Glad they seem to be moving forwards. Sad as it doesnt appear the much hoped for christmas pressie of 20000 seat stadium in the city centre isnt happening

[Windeos]

sorry to ask this here if it is in the wrong place, but could we not just knock ravenhill down and build a new stadium from scratch if we had the dollar) or is there not enough room, something listed or community wouldn't have it or what?

[Rem99]

A wee bridie told me the contractor has been appointed for new stand/terrace.

how certain would you be of this?
anyone else heard similar rumours from wee bridies? or someone with a bit of inside knowledge got any shight to led on the matter?

Lucky guess from wee Bridie!

[bigchiefally]

sorry to ask this here if it is in the wrong place, but could we not just knock ravenhill down and build a new stadium from scratch if we had the dollar) or is there not enough room, something listed or community wouldn't have it or what?

Other than cash, which is a pretty big one, I'd say 2, maybe 3 reasons.

The first would be the size of the ground. There isnt a huge amount of room in the ground, though if space behind the main stand and the carpark were used better I think a clever set of architect and engineers would do OK with it.

The second and probably main one would be planning. Residents who live right next to the ground would make a lot of noise about the loss of light etc by the construction of larger structures near by. The residents of the slightly wider area would complain, as they pretty much do now, about the match day disruption and even more so if the ground was to be twice the size it is now. To get round this you would need some serious political support and I would think the residents would be much more likely to have that than UR.

You could maybe throw in a thirds reason of - if we are building a spanking brand new stadium, is Ravenhill, in the middle of a residential area with only decent transport links, really the place for it?

[Jackie Brown]

with only decent transport links

Last metro bus down the Ravenhill road on a Friday evening? 7.15pm. Decent transport links my Brennan.

[browner]

Very welcome news and long overdue.................a wee roof will enhance the atmosphere and keep the punters reasonably dry.It'll also help to attract the neutral or occasional fan on wet nights as well as bolster the hard core.
No doubt it'll cost us more, but hey................roll on next season.

[bigchiefally]

with only decent transport links

Last metro bus down the Ravenhill road on a Friday evening? 7.15pm. Decent transport links my ar$e.

Buses every 15 minutes, more in peak times, down the Cregagh road that run till 11 and drop you off 5 minutes walk from the doors. Buses every 15 mutes down the Ormeau road that drop you off 10 minutes walk from the ground and run till 11. 5 minutes drive from a dual carriage way. It could be worse.

[Neil F]

The first would be the size of the ground. There isnt a huge amount of room in the ground, though if space behind the main stand and the carpark were used better I think a clever set of architect and engineers would do OK with it.

The second and probably main one would be planning. Residents who live right next to the ground would make a lot of noise about the loss of light etc by the construction of larger structures near by. The residents of the slightly wider area would complain, as they pretty much do now, about the match day disruption and even more so if the ground was to be twice the size it is now. To get round this you would need some serious political support and I would think the residents would be much more likely to have that than UR.

You could maybe throw in a thirds reason of - if we are building a spanking brand new stadium, is Ravenhill, in the middle of a residential area with only decent transport links, really the place for it?

BCA:

There is one logical solution to the space problem; rotate the Ravenhill pitch by 90 degrees. There isn't much space left behind the goals but seats behind the goals generally don't offer great views for rugby anyway so that would be no great loss. In terms of space available, a correctly placed and rotated pitch would allow for an effective doubling of the size of the terrace and of the grandstand; a couple of small stands or open terraces at either end would easily allow capacity to encroach on the mythic 20,000 mark. Space on the site isn't a problem but the alignment of the pitch makes it a serious issue and a realignment clearly isn't on UR's minds just now.

The second is much more problematic; in recent times, the only major stadium construction plan in the kind of residential area in which Ravenhill finds itself that has been given the green light is the expansion of Tynecastle here in Edinburgh. This project did build political support because, as a part of the project came a hotel, new flats and other forms of serious regeneration for what is a comparatively run-down part of Edinburgh. By comparison, I can't see anything in this vein that UR could do in order to win over political and residential support - certainly, nothing so easy and relatively cheap.

The third major issue is egress from the site - I made my views on internal access at Ravenhill clear in another thread but these problems could, easily, be overcome by the way a new stadium would be built - access to stands from behind and beneath, rather than from one end and set entrances for each stand. What is key is getting people away from the vicinity of the ground more easily and it is difficult to see how this could happen as, given possible configuration of exits, there are still only two egress roads which pass Ravenhill and managing to open up a third would require sending 6,000+ fans through out the Aquinas End and I'm not so sure that would go down to well with the school.

Ultimately, Ally is right - if Ulster are looking to build from scratch, and they would have to in order to build a 20,000 capacity stadium, then it makes little sense to remain at the Ravenhill site. Unlike Hearts, Ulster's would be a total rebuild; what Hearts are losing out on the difficulty of remaining on the Tynecastle site they are gaining by already having three modern(ish) and comfortable(ish) stands already built on that site. Ulster do not have that same kind of incentive. Largely, the only reason why Ulster could even consider staying at Ravenhill and constructing an entirely new stadium on the site is because of the costs involved in purchasing new land for a new stadium.

Realistically, Ulster's long-term future lies away from Ravenhill and if the executive can't agree or if Belfast City Council won't get off their asses and make something happen then Ulster must take the lead in this themselves. The plans for Ravenhill seem designed to milk as much cash from the stadium as possible in the short-term but without a significant increase in capacity as well, it would be foolish to consider what we're seeing as long-term plans.

[Windeos]

Obviously I knew that there were reasons but just wondered. Still pleased UR have made a move and gone ahead with this, hopefully it moves the club forward

[Rooster]

The first sod is expected to be cut in the construction of the new stand at Ravenhill in the next couple of weeks.

It is understood that the project could be underway by as early as January 6, although there may be a little slippage as the final funding agreements are signed off.

The new stand, which will be operational by September 2009 will cost £4.5 million to build and the capacity of the terrace will be reduced during the construction period.

Boasting 20 corporate boxes and 530 premium seats as well as an exclusive glass front bar/lounge facility offering an elevated view of the Ravenhill pitch, the new grandstand will provide opportunities for individuals and or organisations to enjoy rugby at Ravenhill in more comfort than ever before.

Financial projections expect that the new stand will be self-financing by its third year of operation at which stage the next step in the ground redevelopment process, which is to build a new stand at the Memorial end of the ground, will have begun.

[cables]

It is understood that the project could be underway by as early as January 6, although there may be a little slippage as the final funding agreements are signed off.

The new stand, which will be operational by September 2009 will cost £4.5 million to build and the capacity of the terrace will be reduced during the construction period.

Two things jump out to me.

Final funding agreements - not yet signed.

Cost - still £4.5m at a time when it is generally accepted that construction tenders would come in considerably cheaper - perhaps by 30%.

Hope the BT has only picked up on their archived material and used it in the article.

[bogboy]

Who says buillding contracts are going to be 30 % cheaper

I doubt if the costs ( plant wages and Materials) will be 30 % cheaper

But the analysis of the Contract costs and the estimates used in the preliminaries better be close to reality or the contract goes pear shaped

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Whilst there's little doubt that some builders would be bitin' their leg off to get a contract like this, and some of the costs associated with such a contract will have come down since it was first mooted, I'm led to believe that the cost of steel has risen considerably (although dropping again), and the original may not be too far away from the current price. Six months to a year ago, it may have been considerably more...... or so I'm told (not by UR, I hasten to add).

Perhaps there are some out there in a better position than me to confirm or refute.

[cables]

Quoted figures have actually increased since the development was first 'priced'. By around 50% IIRC. The highest quoted figure I have read was £5m but that was not by UR.

I believe RHH quoted the 30% initially. I discussed this with a QS very recently and he accepted that it could well be within the ballpark BUT he also made comments about companies tendering low - "just to tide them over".