The Infrastructure Projects

[Sausage Roll]

Why?

Because the new financial regulations restrict how much you can spend to a fixed percentage of a clubs income. Without a much bigger capacity and massively improved hospitality Forest will not be able to compete in the premier league. Nearly all premier league clubs have either fairly recently moved to much bigger stadiums or enlarging capacity at existing stadiums and upgrading hospitality facilities. Hence Forest plans to upgrade the City Ground to potentially 52,500 capacity and improved facilities. A direction to build a new bridge  over the River Trent before any expansion scuppers that at least in the foreseeable future. It will entail further planning permission, purchasing suitable plots of land, formulating building plans and significant expenditure. In the meantime our competitors get on with developing their stadiums, maximising income as Forest fall behind. It is more than possible that objectors to City Ground expansion know that this direction by the planning authority scuppers the plans for an expanded City Ground. Who knows. Alternatively Forest could find a new site to build the stadium they need to compete in the premier league, which does not have the complications and objections expanding the City Ground has generated. As i say asking the club to build a new river trent crossing probably stops the expansion from ever happening. We need the increased income from a bigger stadium and we are not going to get that at the City Ground. So that is why.

I thought that Ground related expansion/building didn’t come under SCR?

Like when Everton built their ground.

It's an AI response but it agrees with you:

"No, infrastructure costs are excluded from the Premier League's Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) calculations. [1] (https://theesk.org/2025/11/21/the-analys...rules/)The Premier League designed the SCR to focus solely on on-pitch squad expenses like player transfers, wages, and agent fees. This allows clubs commercial freedom to invest off the pitch without restriction"

[Username]

At some point someone is going to get killed walking over Trent Bridge post match.

Something needs to be done if we are going to create an increased capacity.

[Squarered]

Can we not use a ferry type boat(s) on match days to ferry people across the river in batches? It's only a short crossing. Saw this in Thailand (Bangkok) and it was very efficient, not sure how sustainable though? Might be cheaper than a bridge

[JohnG]

Why can't they pause the traffic over the bridge, and once numbers are down re-open it?
At Prideless Park the road through past the ground is closed a bit before kick off until a while after. Trent Bridge wouldn't need that, maybe just 20-30 minutes. Many vehicles struggle to get through post games anyway.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

They already shut Lady Bay bridge to traffic , probably can’t shut both bridges. May be an argument for shutting TB instead of LBB.

I like the ferry idea but it would never get passed due to ‘elf and safeteh. Basically some idiot will fall in the river and the council gets sued. Trent Bridge is an accident waiting to happen though.

[ToryTom]

Why?

Because the new financial regulations restrict how much you can spend to a fixed percentage of a clubs income. Without a much bigger capacity and massively improved hospitality Forest will not be able to compete in the premier league. Nearly all premier league clubs have either fairly recently moved to much bigger stadiums or enlarging capacity at existing stadiums and upgrading hospitality facilities. Hence Forest plans to upgrade the City Ground to potentially 52,500 capacity and improved facilities. A direction to build a new bridge  over the River Trent before any expansion scuppers that at least in the foreseeable future. It will entail further planning permission, purchasing suitable plots of land, formulating building plans and significant expenditure. In the meantime our competitors get on with developing their stadiums, maximising income as Forest fall behind. It is more than possible that objectors to City Ground expansion know that this direction by the planning authority scuppers the plans for an expanded City Ground. Who knows. Alternatively Forest could find a new site to build the stadium they need to compete in the premier league, which does not have the complications and objections expanding the City Ground has generated. As i say asking the club to build a new river trent crossing probably stops the expansion from ever happening. We need the increased income from a bigger stadium and we are not going to get that at the City Ground. So that is why.

I thought that Ground related expansion/building didn’t come under SCR?

Like when Everton built their ground.

It's an AI response but it agrees with you:

"No, infrastructure costs are excluded from the Premier League's Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) calculations. [1] (https://theesk.org/2025/11/21/the-analys...rules/)The Premier League designed the SCR to focus solely on on-pitch squad expenses like player transfers, wages, and agent fees. This allows clubs commercial freedom to invest off the pitch without restriction"

SCR is based upon income. A 60,000 + stadium such as the one at Spurs generates way more income than a 30,000 one with poor hospitality facilities. Therefore those teams such as Spurs are allowed to spend so much more. I guess that is the main reason Forest are looking to expand the City Ground, only it is not going to happen because of hurdles such as no new stands until a new bridge across the river trent is built.

[ToryTom]

At some point someone is going to get killed walking over Trent Bridge post match.

Something needs to be done if we are going to create an increased capacity.

Maybe we should look for a new stadium at a different location which does not have these problems.

[Paplane]

I dont think anyone cant see that there's not going to be a problem dispersing an additional 22,00 fans. It's bad as it currently is, never mind with the additional people. But what irks me is that the three council's do f-all to assist in finding a solution and just present problems rather than answers. Crowd flows has been highlighted as an issue by the councils. They should be saying, no problem, you're investing £1.5bn pounds in our area, we'll improve the local infrastructure in the form of building you a £20m bridge and we'll make sure it's finished and ready for your opening date. Instead they say, you need a new bridge, it's your problem.

I briefly ran through the planning report last night and it highlighted to me just how bogged down development in this country has become. The number of consultees is incredible and each and every one of them just want to raise issues that in the grand scheme of things is utterly trivial. Is it the end of the world if a swift box doesn't get put up? Does it matter if really matter if the historical record document of the boat club hasn't been prepared in accordance with the correct standard? Does it matter if the wind & microclimate impact has been considered?

Are the Chinese doing all this shit as they go about developing their country on a mass scale? Are they f**k.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Agree Pap. As I said above we clearly didn’t put in nearly enough to our initial application in 2019 which if I remember culminated in our former CEO, Vrentzos apparently having a very public row with some council reps. But if he was just given a truck load of obstacles and objections can you blame the bloke?

By the way Tom ,were you to get your way about the new stadium (you are in a minority I think but you raise some valid points) don’t kid yourself we wouldn’t get similar objections. We would have to look at everything from traffic flow on the M1 to the breeding cycle of newts in the Erewash canal. It’s pathetic at times.

[Username]

Why?

Because the new financial regulations restrict how much you can spend to a fixed percentage of a clubs income. Without a much bigger capacity and massively improved hospitality Forest will not be able to compete in the premier league. Nearly all premier league clubs have either fairly recently moved to much bigger stadiums or enlarging capacity at existing stadiums and upgrading hospitality facilities. Hence Forest plans to upgrade the City Ground to potentially 52,500 capacity and improved facilities. A direction to build a new bridge  over the River Trent before any expansion scuppers that at least in the foreseeable future. It will entail further planning permission, purchasing suitable plots of land, formulating building plans and significant expenditure. In the meantime our competitors get on with developing their stadiums, maximising income as Forest fall behind. It is more than possible that objectors to City Ground expansion know that this direction by the planning authority scuppers the plans for an expanded City Ground. Who knows. Alternatively Forest could find a new site to build the stadium they need to compete in the premier league, which does not have the complications and objections expanding the City Ground has generated. As i say asking the club to build a new river trent crossing probably stops the expansion from ever happening. We need the increased income from a bigger stadium and we are not going to get that at the City Ground. So that is why.

I thought that Ground related expansion/building didn’t come under SCR?

Like when Everton built their ground.

It's an AI response but it agrees with you:

"No, infrastructure costs are excluded from the Premier League's Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) calculations. [1] (https://theesk.org/2025/11/21/the-analys...rules/)The Premier League designed the SCR to focus solely on on-pitch squad expenses like player transfers, wages, and agent fees. This allows clubs commercial freedom to invest off the pitch without restriction"

SCR is based upon income. A 60,000 + stadium such as the one at Spurs generates way more income than a 30,000 one with poor hospitality facilities. Therefore those teams such as Spurs are allowed to spend so much more. I guess that is the main reason Forest are looking to expand the City Ground, only it is not going to happen because of hurdles such as no new stands until a new bridge across the river trent is built.

So the issue is do the Club want to also cover the cost of building the bridge on top of the stadium development?

How much are we talking?

[JohnG]

The Waterside bridge cost around £18m apparently because the final cost doubled due to inflation, design changes, and delays

[Username]

In the context of a £1.5bn development project then get the f****r done.