New stand

[Riversider]

If we want non-football revenue, what's to stop Khan funding the purchase, by Fulham FC Limited, of a block of shops or flats on the opposite side of river? If the club owns it surely we still get to use the revenue stream for FFP purposes, or does it only count if the shops/flats are stuck on the side of a stand?

Then we could keep the football ground as a football ground, use the space in the new stand for things like a new club shop and state of the art changing rooms etc.

That would also remedy the problems Tosh's Mate mentions about the ground itself actually being in a poor location for non-football business etc.

There is much diversity of thought at work here, Statto, and it is of the kind I would have guessed Fulham FC paid loads of money to obtain from their various consultations.  I rather doubt they got it and instead should pay you something for your ideas no matter how outrageous they may seem on first reading.  I'm dirt cheap so no problem there.   We need more of this kind of input.

I especially like the housing investment idea as a football club that overcomes the issues I raised about accessibility but achieves a higher profile and income for the Club. 

Equally intriguing for me when I heard the Club were digging deeper (that has to a first in the Khan era), if the area behind and under the stand were large enough (i.e. depth added to height and length) then a cosy indoor arena for boxing, martial arts, music, darts, snooker, pool, etc could be designed in alongside dressing rooms and gymnasium facilities.   There are just a whole host of things that I believe may have been overlooked at all stages of this process. 

My other angle is that with increased traffic to Craven Cottage outside of football there would be a lot more pressure on Transport for London to improve public transport access.

You will note in the plans there is a basement area which has been mentioned as a music venue. With regards the traffic there are more than a couple of reports out of the 201 documents that mention traffic and people flow on both matchdays, non matchdays and the calculations for the extra people at an 'event' held in the stand.

Chelsea have the "Under the Bridge" club, and it's already proving to be a very popular music venue in London, if we came up with something remotely similar I'd be very happy with that.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I would be far happier if we came up with a successful football team, and won something for once. Get rid of the ridiculous Neutrol section, have a safe standing only section for Home supporters, stop laying out the red carpet for opponents, and stop making it a carnival day out for their supporters, and turn Craven Cottage into a Fortress for opponents and their fans to fear and not be comfortable with.
Intstead of turning the Ground and Riverside into Dysney World and a Gentlemans Club.

[mrmicawbers]

Remember going to a few Raves at Stamford Bridge back in the 80s before raves were invented.One of the few venues back then that closed after 4 o'clock.

[b+w geezer]

The pitch-facing side of the proposal is a conventional football stand. If there are plans to exploit the Thames-facing side of the structure on non-matchdays -- a prime site currently wasted -- that has no impact on the situation while games are taking place. 
Meanwhile the extra revenue from the new facilities would yield income that eases the Financial Fair Play strictures, while the money to build the new structure would not form part of the FFP calculations.
As a basic notion, it is therefore of potential benefit if the chairman can be motivated to fund it. We've been through this with previous owners of course. All that's definitely new this time is that the present incumbent could actually afford it if he wanted to. Miles from a guarantee that he would.
Personally I'd wish to encourage him, rather than whinge about it, and I'd certainly not set up an either/or choice between carrying out the development and having a team which wins games at home. Hands up who doesn't want the latter, but it's a strange implication that good home form would somehow be more assured if the development did not go ahead.

[Holders]

The pitch-facing side of the proposal is a conventional football stand. If there are plans to exploit the Thames-facing side of the structure on non-matchdays -- a prime site currently wasted -- that has no impact on the situation while games are taking place. 
Meanwhile the extra revenue from the new facilities would yield income that eases the Financial Fair Play strictures, while the money to build the new structure would not form part of the FFP calculations.
As a basic notion, it is therefore of potential benefit if the chairman can be motivated to fund it. We've been through this with previous owners of course. All that's definitely new this time is that the present incumbent could actually afford it if he wanted to. Miles from a guarantee that he would.
Personally I'd wish to encourage him, rather than whinge about it, and I'd certainly not set up an either/or choice between carrying out the development and having a team which wins games at home. Hands up who doesn't want the latter, but it's a strange implication that good home form would somehow be more assured if the development did not go ahead.

Spot on.

[mrmicawbers]

The pitch-facing side of the proposal is a conventional football stand. If there are plans to exploit the Thames-facing side of the structure on non-matchdays -- a prime site currently wasted -- that has no impact on the situation while games are taking place. 
Meanwhile the extra revenue from the new facilities would yield income that eases the Financial Fair Play strictures, while the money to build the new structure would not form part of the FFP calculations.
As a basic notion, it is therefore of potential benefit if the chairman can be motivated to fund it. We've been through this with previous owners of course. All that's definitely new this time is that the present incumbent could actually afford it if he wanted to. Miles from a guarantee that he would.
Personally I'd wish to encourage him, rather than whinge about it, and I'd certainly not set up an either/or choice between carrying out the development and having a team which wins games at home. Hands up who doesn't want the latter, but it's a strange implication that good home form would somehow be more assured if the development did not go ahead.

Agree with Al of your comments.The thing is it will have tobe done at some point and I would think better to do it now and have it ready for our return hopefully to the Premier league.This is where it will come into its own on Match days.Lets face it the owner can afford and I hope he will treat it as his pet project as these Billionaires can do.The flats alone could generate close to a Million a year on short term managed apartments.As you said could make us even more vulnerable at home while it is being constructed.You never know though as we would have to offer less away tickets it might improve things.

[b+w geezer]

Get rid of the ridiculous Neutral section

It's a ridiculous name, agreed.
If renamed the 'unsegregated' section it would better reflect reality -- a place where supporters of rivals are not fenced off from each other. As applies in parts of the grounds in most other sports and used to in this one within the living memory of some of us (the suggestion you sometimes see that Fulham have invented the notion in football is simply ignorant).
There are excellent arguments for renaming the section, for relocating it away from the Cottage and for limiting its size, at any rate for matches where it will otherwise just become an Away overspill. But doing away with the whole idea of having at least a small portion of the place where fans can mix is (IMO) to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Twig]

The pitch-facing side of the proposal is a conventional football stand. If there are plans to exploit the Thames-facing side of the structure on non-matchdays -- a prime site currently wasted -- that has no impact on the situation while games are taking place. 
Meanwhile the extra revenue from the new facilities would yield income that eases the Financial Fair Play strictures, while the money to build the new structure would not form part of the FFP calculations.
As a basic notion, it is therefore of potential benefit if the chairman can be motivated to fund it. We've been through this with previous owners of course. All that's definitely new this time is that the present incumbent could actually afford it if he wanted to. Miles from a guarantee that he would.
Personally I'd wish to encourage him, rather than whinge about it, and I'd certainly not set up an either/or choice between carrying out the development and having a team which wins games at home. Hands up who doesn't want the latter, but it's a strange implication that good home form would somehow be more assured if the development did not go ahead.

:plus one:

[Twig]

Get rid of the ridiculous Neutral section

It's a ridiculous name, agreed.
If renamed the 'unsegregated' section it would better reflect reality -- a place where supporters of rivals are not fenced off from each other. As applies in parts of the grounds in most other sports and used to in this one within the living memory of some of us (the suggestion you sometimes see that Fulham have invented the notion in football is simply ignorant).
There are excellent arguments for renaming the section, for relocating it away from the Cottage and for limiting its size, at any rate for matches where it will otherwise just become an Away overspill. But doing away with the whole idea of having at least a small portion of the place where fans can mix is (IMO) to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agree with this too. A couple of very sensible posts.

[MJG]

Get rid of the ridiculous Neutral section

It's a ridiculous name, agreed.
If renamed the 'unsegregated' section it would better reflect reality -- a place where supporters of rivals are not fenced off from each other. As applies in parts of the grounds in most other sports and used to in this one within the living memory of some of us (the suggestion you sometimes see that Fulham have invented the notion in football is simply ignorant).
There are excellent arguments for renaming the section, for relocating it away from the Cottage and for limiting its size, at any rate for matches where it will otherwise just become an Away overspill. But doing away with the whole idea of having at least a small portion of the place where fans can mix is (IMO) to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agree with this too. A couple of very sensible posts.

the trouble is Fulham have confused the name of it. On website it uses both neutral and mixed end or sections. Personally I'd have it just renamed mixed area.
The main problem is there is not enough room below the stand to segregate two different sets of fans and hence its a free for all down below and the result is the options we have now. With the extra gates being built with the new stand that may become an option to make away section more permanent.

[mikestrand]

I would be far happier if we came up with a successful football team, and won something for once. Get rid of the ridiculous Neutrol section, have a safe standing only section for Home supporters, stop laying out the red carpet for opponents, and stop making it a carnival day out for their supporters, and turn Craven Cottage into a Fortress for opponents and their fans to fear and not be comfortable with.
Intstead of turning the Ground and Riverside into Dysney World and a Gentlemans Club.

spot on woolly   for me were repeating history ala eric miller stand mk2, a successful football team asap should be the no1 priority if not we will start losing fans that will be hard to get back.

[mrmicawbers]

We all wish for a better football side.The thing is that the Chairman can spend what he likes on the New Riverside stand with no restrictions on FFP.He is not able to spend what he likes on the team. However it is possible his spending on the stand can help contribute towards the team likewise the Academy. I for one hopes he know gets on with it.If he gets it right I would consider replacing my Johnny Haynes season ticket for one in the ñew Riverside providing he gets the concept right.Good beer nice environment decent food.It will cost me more money I'm sure but happy to pay more for my season ticket and spend my hard earned in the ground before and after the match.The club is missing out on plenty and that is only matchdays I'm talking about.

[toshes mate]

IMO We're trying to to achieve two very different things with the same structure here, and the likely outcome is that we'll achieve neither.

For what it is worth that is also my view.  Neither 'need' appears to have received the attention I would expect given the money that has been spent on consultations.  I remain very sceptical of the Khans.   I know the two problems are difficult to reconcile but that does not excuse halfhearted responses.

[hovewhite]

Just get it done even on championship gates.

[b+w geezer]

our club shop and changing rooms are in major need of expansion and upgrade.

Plenty of space within the new structure if reckoned priority, about which there is (I agree) a conversation reasonably to be had, albeit neither is actually about the spectator experience while the match is in progress.

Players and staff park in a local school playground FFS. To build this stand without upgrading [that] is frankly absurd.

It certain limits utility, not just on matchdays but for the holding of functions in the lounges on other days. If they could have found a way to build in significantly more parking, my understanding is that they would have done so,  but frankly the imagination boggles at how that could have been incorporated in any design for the Riverside. (For a start, how would vehicles have reached there? And then what?)

The space to be taken up by flats could be also used for additional seating

No sure they could actually, given their positioning. Certainly not to any appreciable extent. (This based on staring at the model during the exhibition, nothing more, so may be wrong!)

I recognise the FFP benefits but (a) they're not massive (what are we talking here in additional revenue from non-football activity, £2m per year or something?)

My understanding is that they would be anticipating a lot more than that. And while I boggle at the amount that I heard informed talk of, I can also appreciate that it would well exceed £2m extra at such time as we returned to the Premier League. It does stick in the gullet to traditionalists (amongst whom I would also include myself) for a small proportion paying 'premium' prices for the (quote) 'matchday experience' to take priority and dwarf the contributions of the rest of us, but that's how the 'New Wembley etc' model works. And would at a redeveloped Riverside following promotion, though not before. As for the non-matchday stuff, parking is a limitation, but there is still a lot of potential. Even the handful of flats would yield around a million a year in rental between them.
I'm far from predicting the thing will actually get built, let alone by the current owner, but if it did/does I shall be telling myself to be more pleased than not, given that, whatever I think of the modern football environment, that's where the club is compelled to operate.

[toshes mate]

A few car parking spaces is hardly addressing the accessibility problem Craven Cottage has, either in terms of attracting new custom to its bars and restaurants on non-match days, or to its potential as an eye catcher for passing traffic or trade.  Those hospitality facilities will be facing a lot of competition for trade even for local residents who have a lot of choice already about the same walking distance from their homes as Craven Cottage. Income from the flats will either be one large sum from sale of long term leases or regular monthly rental income.  Either way the revenue raisers are going to be hard put to get anywhere near the kind of money Fulham FC needs to be more secure within FFP.  That is why I would like to have seen some diversity and imagination in the offered attractions at Craven Cottage.  I hoped there would be but there seems very little.

But let's suspend judgement until the stand is started and finished.

[MJG]

We have one of the lowest matchday hospitality availability in the championship yet some of you don't want to see us improve that with the new stand. In fact I'm a bit confused in what you would actually do with that space?

[Woolly Mammoth]

We have one of the lowest matchday hospitality availability in the championship yet some of you don't want to see us improve that with the new stand. In fact I'm a bit confused in what you would actually do with that space?

An excellent location for our Trophy Cabinet.

[MJG]

We have one of the lowest matchday hospitality availability in the championship yet some of you don't want to see us improve that with the new stand. In fact I'm a bit confused in what you would actually do with that space?

Not sure if this is directed at me but I've said quite clearly: seats, more seats, changing rooms, a club shop, staff parking, decent toilets, food and drink outlets for fans, some (basic) corporate match day hospitality facilities, and bit more space to reduce queues and congestion. In other words... all the things one would expect to see in a football stand.

Perhaps we could even move the stand back slightly so players can actually take a run up for throw ins and corners, as mad as that sounds

I'm sure you/some will say there's still more space left over, but that's only if you extend into the river, which is surely more expensive and difficult than it would be to buy the same amount of space somewhere else in the local area.

Seat wise your getting almost 4K more.
Changing rooms i must admit was surprised not moved, but I still think that could happen.
Club shop is on the table as part of the retail usage
Parking is a real tough one. Only way would be to go underground. No idea on cost of that or even if thats a good idea and even hopw much work would be required.
Clearly with a new stand comes decent toilets, food and drink outlets.
Why should it be basic corporate match day hospitality? Its as basic as you can get now and its not even a very good standard at that.
The footprint of plan and going out into river gives more space to reduce queues on that side.
There is enough space for taking corners, the issue is the height of the pitch, not the space.

[b+w geezer]

But When we are a PL club FFP won't be relevant and this income will have to viewed in the context of £100m TV money...

Good point about the current situation, but will the football deal at that kind of money last for all PL clubs and not just a select few who carve things up more on the e.g. Spanish model (where the likes of Eibar get peanuts from TV). Rumblings in that direction have already started -- and at this stage been thwarted. If the owner of a club outside the elite, I would be doing my utmost to keep things the way things are but would be rash to bank on it.

I'm not dismissing anything less as totally insignficiant but would it justify the cost of building the stand

It's a more than reasonable question. Applying for permission and discovering what will/won't be allowed will represent an in-depth fact-finding exercise. Calculation can then be made on the basis of what's discovered. You'd imagine the process is being set underway in that spirit -- spec it up, see what we can get, then sit back and do the sums and see how keen we are.

and the total sterilisation of the matchday experience?

This I don't get. Why so? how so? The stand facing the pitch is conventional, never mind what's at the back of it. During the 90 mins people like us will still be watching the pitch (and groaning). What aspect of the proposals makes that improbable?