The view from the away end

[Free Elvis Hammond]

My priority would be to sort the acoustics - close those gaps at the back of the Hammy End and join things up a bit better (obviously can't touch the JH)

[bill taylors apprentice]

I believe that only the brick facade of the JH stand is listed, or at least the main issue in any development.

As much as I would like the HE to be rebuilt it seems likely the PE is a more practical option.

Retaining the area in the park if possible would be the sensible option IMO and developing that end to join the Riverside.

Continuing the Riverside business around to the PE facing the park would make better business sense if it could be achieved.

I read many years ago that Tommy Trinder (Chairman at the time) was offered the land occupying the wood yard behind the HE by the owners when the site closed before the flats were built there.
He turned it down, what a mistake that was!

[Dr Know]

I would like to see them redevelop the putney end similar to the riverside, would have great views over the park and still see the river and make that the home end.
[/quote
The Hammersmith End is the home end and should stay that way !

so you want to develop the Hammersmith stand and look at a block of flats or develop the putney end which would make far more money and can be accessed from the park and give it to the away fans to enjoy?

Erm I would be facing the pitch watching my team play not looking the other way !

[acji]

I believe that only the brick facade of the JH stand is listed, or at least the main issue in any development.

As much as I would like the HE to be rebuilt it seems likely the PE is a more practical option.

Retaining the area in the park if possible would be the sensible option IMO and developing that end to join the Riverside.

Continuing the Riverside business around to the PE facing the park would make better business sense if it could be achieved.

I read many years ago that Tommy Trinder (Chairman at the time) was offered the land occupying the wood yard behind the HE by the owners when the site closed before the flats were built there.
He turned it down, what a mistake that was!

I believe that only the brick facade of the JH stand is listed, or at least the main issue in any development.

As much as I would like the HE to be rebuilt it seems likely the PE is a more practical option.

Retaining the area in the park if possible would be the sensible option IMO and developing that end to join the Riverside.

Continuing the Riverside business around to the PE facing the park would make better business sense if it could be achieved.

I read many years ago that Tommy Trinder (Chairman at the time) was offered the land occupying the wood yard behind the HE by the owners when the site closed before the flats were built there.
He turned it down, what a mistake that was!

JH is even less likely than you think  as the upper tier of the stand has retained its original "Bennet" wooden seating, which is explicitly protected by the Grade II listed status. Think the overall structure could be too.

[acji]

I chanced on a You Tube post from a Boro fan, hopefully linked below.

What struck me was how great the new stand looks from the Putney End, the architect has really nailed it IMO. I sit in the lower Riverside so don't see it from other angles.

What also struck me was how great would an expansion of the Haynes Stand to level things up but I'm guessing that's unlikely any time soon?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOglzN_ILjA

The Johnny Haynes Stand (and the Cottage) has listed building status which severely limits any alterations.  I don't know specific details but any significant 'redevelopment' isn't going to happen.

The listing is here, No chance of it being redeveloped or upgraded  ever although better seating on the lower tier would obviously be possible. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1079754?section=official-list-entry. The stand along with the cottage is also part of the view from the Riverside Stand and we all know how important that kind quaintness is to the tourists!

[SimonDaviesEnjoyer]

I guess it depends on whether we'd be able to build something that goes up at a similar angle that the Riverside does at both the Hammy & Putney ends. In theory you'd get a fair few more seats in by virtue of a steeper angle, and if you filled in the corner of the hammy end to meet the Riverside you could get some more seats in there as well. The only thing I would say is that the Riverside feels quite steep when you're up the top of it and given some of the back of the Hammy end are quite lively when we score, I would be worried about the human waterfall effect.

Whatever we do in terms of sorting out the Hammy & Putney ends, we would need to think about how we create a better atmosphere. I know we're not the noisiest bunch usually but we should look at ways of getting the more hardcore supporters into an area that keeps people making noise for 90 mins without people getting annoyed at them like you sometimes get in sections of the Hammy End for example

TBF I was in my spot for a good few years and never saw anyone getting annoyed at the lads at the back of the stand.

I also wouldn't move them. Given their position they couldn't be better placed to start songs.

[Thailand Mick]

Given that the club has 'occupied' a chunk of Bishops Park for many years as part of the stand construction I would have thought they could with some negotiation retain that permanently in order to develop the Putney end. The away fans would still be restricted to 10% of capacity so could have some upper and some lower (if it became two tier) seats in the corner as now. The club could say undertake to maintain the park area so that the field could stage regular junior sports activities - it used to years ago - as a quid pro quo.
The Hammersmith end has significant restrictions mitigating against developments due to the flats/gardens and restriction of daylight to the flat occupiers if it were to be developed.

Having said that we only just manage to sell out for most games with the current capacity. Would adding say a further 2/3000 seats at the Putney end make economic sense

The economic gain would be another facility that could be used 365 days a year like the riverside.Having safe standing for the top tier would increase the atmosphere with seating below for those that like to sit.

[acji]

Given that the club has 'occupied' a chunk of Bishops Park for many years as part of the stand construction I would have thought they could with some negotiation retain that permanently in order to develop the Putney end. The away fans would still be restricted to 10% of capacity so could have some upper and some lower (if it became two tier) seats in the corner as now. The club could say undertake to maintain the park area so that the field could stage regular junior sports activities - it used to years ago - as a quid pro quo.
The Hammersmith end has significant restrictions mitigating against developments due to the flats/gardens and restriction of daylight to the flat occupiers if it were to be developed.

Having said that we only just manage to sell out for most games with the current capacity. Would adding say a further 2/3000 seats at the Putney end make economic sense

The economic gain would be another facility that could be used 365 days a year like the riverside.Having safe standing for the top tier would increase the atmosphere with seating below for those that like to sit.

Unlikely i.e. will not happen!
Statutory Trust: Under the Open Spaces Act 1877–1890, Bishops Park is held in a statutory trust for public exercise and recreation in perpetuity.
Restrictive Covenants: The original 1900 conveyance contains restrictive covenants that require the Church Commissioners' express release for any disposal of the park land.
Usage Conditions: Historical agreements with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (now Church Commissioners) mandated that the land must be maintained as a public recreation ground.
Third-Party Lease Restrictions: Temporary uses, such as the lease of a portion of the park to Fulham Football Club for a works compound, require prior written consent from both the Council and the Church Commissioners.

[Thailand Mick]

Given that the club has 'occupied' a chunk of Bishops Park for many years as part of the stand construction I would have thought they could with some negotiation retain that permanently in order to develop the Putney end. The away fans would still be restricted to 10% of capacity so could have some upper and some lower (if it became two tier) seats in the corner as now. The club could say undertake to maintain the park area so that the field could stage regular junior sports activities - it used to years ago - as a quid pro quo.
The Hammersmith end has significant restrictions mitigating against developments due to the flats/gardens and restriction of daylight to the flat occupiers if it were to be developed.

Having said that we only just manage to sell out for most games with the current capacity. Would adding say a further 2/3000 seats at the Putney end make economic sense

The economic gain would be another facility that could be used 365 days a year like the riverside.Having safe standing for the top tier would increase the atmosphere with seating below for those that like to sit.

Unlikely i.e. will not happen!
Statutory Trust: Under the Open Spaces Act 1877–1890, Bishops Park is held in a statutory trust for public exercise and recreation in perpetuity.
Restrictive Covenants: The original 1900 conveyance contains restrictive covenants that require the Church Commissioners' express release for any disposal of the park land.
Usage Conditions: Historical agreements with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (now Church Commissioners) mandated that the land must be maintained as a public recreation ground.
Third-Party Lease Restrictions: Temporary uses, such as the lease of a portion of the park to Fulham Football Club for a works compound, require prior written consent from both the Council and the Church Commissioners.

I might be wrong but surely the putney end has a greater depth to it than the riverside had. Don't think they would need to purchase land from the park.