New plans for Don Valley Stadium

[green 10]

I'm not defending your council. I've got nothing to do with them.

 

I just find it odd that so many people are arguing in favour of keeping DVS when it's costing you all so much money every year, and will continue to do so forever.

 

Surely flattening it (and removing Flame Hill to create even more development land at the same time) and doing something else with the land that will make money is preferable?

 

Do you really need 2 athletics stadiums?

 

Im not in a position to know whether we should keep one or two, and neither are you. The books, p&ls are not online. Lets see the P&Ls. Will SIV / SCC in our era of transparency do this?

[RobWilson 10]

Ah right, makes some sense then. But now Woodburn Road is OK for what it's needed for?

 

Sheffield will never again be in a financial position to regularly fill a massive stadium like DVS. Other cities can afford to pay much more to host events.

 

Woodbourn Road will be just fine for the athletes of Sheffield. It will suit the needs of the athletes themselves, rather than trying to be a spectator facility.

 

Why does DVS cost 10 times more to run per year than Woodburn Road?

 

DVS is a 25,000 seater stadium with an expensive roof that imminently needs replacing.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 10:56 ----------

 

I'm not in a position to know whether we should keep one or two, and neither are you. The books, P&Ls are not online. Lets see the P&Ls. Will SIV/SCC in our era of transparency do this?

 

Outside of London I'm not sure that any UK city could afford to run two publically owned athletics stadiums.

 

Sure, there are several grass tracks in cities like Manchester, but you'd hardly class them as stadia.

 

 

Are you asking me to get SIV and SCC's books for you to read?

Edited March 13, 2013 by RobWilson

[green 10]

You have missed the point Rob. I wasnt asking them to run 2 sites. I was stating neither you nor I know whether they are viable because we cant see and P&Ls for SIV.

 

Why? If the people of Sheffield are paying for these facilities are the books not online or available?

[CorkerSWFC 10]

It's like the old day's bringing back Woodburn Road back up to scratch, a great little venue with a lot of memories for a lot of people I would imagine.

Not all is bad from this situation with Don Valley...

[RobWilson 10]

You have missed the point, Rob. I wasn't asking them to run 2 sites. I was stating neither you nor I know whether they are viable because we can't see P&Ls for SIV.

 

Why, if the people of Sheffield are paying for these facilities, are the books not online or available?

 

I took your point, but as a member of an internet forum (and not even a Sheffield resident) I am not in a position to answer questions on SIV's finances. I suggest you ask them directly, or your elected representatives. My MP is very good at that sort of thing.

 

What I am fairly certain of is that DVS runs at a large loss now that Rotherham United have moved out. It will never make an annual profit unless major money is pumped into it, providing additional facilities, which is an alternative.

 

Woodbourn Road is hardly likely to turn a profit, either. It is likely to be another public service like libraries, parks, skate parks or street cleaning. It is up to you residents of Sheffield to petition your leaders to spend money on the services that you want to support, and those that you don't.

[Olive 10]

Thanks for the clarifications Rob.

 

So essentially, DVS was needed for the student games, as Woodburn wasn't adequate, but other than that, it's been OTT for other requirements. Too late to question the thinking of the time, sounds like it's been a noose around our necks for many years. Pity.

[green 10]

Thanks for the clarifications Rob.

 

So essentially, DVS was needed for the student games, as Woodburn wasn't adequate, but other than that, it's been OTT for other requirements. Too late to question the thinking of the time, sounds like it's been a noose around our necks for many years. Pity.

 

They were happy to remortgage it twice as well Olive.... Whilst it was OTT for requirements... If that is the case.

[Brian Hanson 10]

It'll turn out to be another costly White Elephant. Wait and see.

[alchresearch 215]

Pretty much like the Millennium Dome. Although the new owners are doing all right with it.

[ormester101 10]

I'm not defending your council. I've got nothing to do with them.

 

I just find it odd that so many people are arguing in favour of keeping DVS when it's costing you all so much money every year, and will continue to do so forever.

 

Surely flattening it (and removing Flame Hill to create even more development land at the same time) and doing something else with the land that will make money is preferable?

 

Do you really need 2 athletics stadiums?

 

surely if they actually had maintained it all the time then they wouldnt need to do 7 million pounds worth of work the council knew what they were doing this has been drawn up a long time ago .

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 16:54 ----------

 

so the 700k subsidy is made up of 600 k wage costs and the 100k is made up of maintence 600k wage costs is very high dont you think

[rickilee 10]

I like the new plans, but if it didn't go ahead and don valley closed. Would the cost saving be passed on? I doubt it!

[RobWilson 10]

Surely if they actually had maintained it all the time then they wouldn't need to do 7 million pounds worth of work? The council knew what they were doing. This has been drawn up a long time ago.

 

You might be right. I don't know. Clearly if the council had spent a lot more money every year on DVS it would be in a better condition than it is now. It still wouldn't be attracting any more events even if they had, though.

 

I do understand that the teflon roof strucure is almost at the end of its expected lifespan. I have no idea if it is imminently going to collapse or not, but it will need replacing in the not-too-distant future.

 

So, the £700K subsidy is made up of £600K wage costs and the £100K is made up of maintenance. £600K wage costs is very high, don't you think?

 

I've got no idea whatsoever how the £700K figure was arrived at. It seems slighty suspicious to me, especially if Sheftival losses were attributed to DVS. As the Liberal Democrats point out, it's a 40% increase on their figure of £500K.

 

£600K would be 30 people employed on £20K, perhaps? I can't imagine that there are quite that many staff working there.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 18:32 ----------

 

I like the new plans, but if it didn't go ahead and don valley closed. Would the cost saving be passed on? I doubt it!

 

It wouldn't be a cost saving, it would just mean that SCC aren't losing as much money as they would otherwise be doing.