The Infrastructure Projects

[BomberBowyer]

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

Problem is say EM or the club do fork out for a new bridge then what will the council ask for next? The council just see the City Ground development as a chance to get infrastructure that they have that neglected for years improved for free. 

Whilst don’t want to see us move it does feel like everything possible to block the development is being done unless EM and the Club are prepared to pay for this, that and everything. Part of me thinks just find land out of the city centre and build a new stadium, put in transport links etc and it will probably be both cheaper and quicker. Then the council, local business and locals objecting to the development can suffer the consequences of lost revenue etc

[JohnG]

But in the new location it might well still gets loads of objections

[ToryTom]

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

Who knows if another bridge is even feasible between the existing bridges. It isn’t just the cost which is significant enough, it is finding a suitable location, devising a model, acquiring the land, getting planning permission, building it. Could take years in which time Forest become less and less able to compete with teams who deriving way more income from their stadium than us and the eventual building costs keep increasing. Move to a less problematic location where building work could start quickly imagine what £1.5 billion buy.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Forget the new bridge. There won’t be a new bridge. It won’t happen.
The ground will be developed regardless.

[JollyLollyAussie]

If the planning approvals get bogged down further then we can still use the existing plans on a new site with more space, if we want a river and sporting location how about Colwick Park?

[Widdow]

Nottingham actually needs another road bridge over the trent not another pedestrian one if they want to improve traffic across the city

[Username]

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

Who knows if another bridge is even feasible between the existing bridges. It isn’t just the cost which is significant enough, it is finding a suitable location, devising a model, acquiring the land, getting planning permission, building it. Could take years in which time Forest become less and less able to compete with teams who deriving way more income from their stadium than us and the eventual building costs keep increasing. Move to a less problematic location where building work could start quickly imagine what £1.5 billion buy.

Well we’ve been talking about his next for years and the Club have dragged their heels on it more than the Council.

[ToryTom]

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

Who knows if another bridge is even feasible between the existing bridges. It isn’t just the cost which is significant enough, it is finding a suitable location, devising a model, acquiring the land, getting planning permission, building it. Could take years in which time Forest become less and less able to compete with teams who deriving way more income from their stadium than us and the eventual building costs keep increasing. Move to a less problematic location where building work could start quickly imagine what £1.5 billion buy.

Well we’ve been talking about his next for years and the Club have dragged their heels on it more than the Council.

If a new bridge is feasible in proximity to the City Ground, and it is a big if, I think it is reasonable that Forest contribute to financing it as the Club will benefit from it. However, we probably have 30 home matches maximum per year, maybe a bit less, where fans will be arriving and leaving over a four-five hour period each time. That is not really a lot of use generated by Forest. However, other local business's in the City and West Bridgford can potentially benefit all year round by improving transport links to ease congestion, Notts County and Nottinghamshire Cricket Club could benefit, as would local residents and the local councils. They will all potentially benefit some of them 365 days a year. No problem Forest contributing up to  half the costs but so should some of the other potential beneficiaries especially the councils.

[JollyLollyAussie]

Tory Tom, not a fan of your politics! but totally agree about joint funded bridge/infrastructure.

[Jimmygordon]

If the planning approvals get bogged down further then we can still use the existing plans on a new site with more space, if we want a river and sporting location how about Colwick Park?

20 x 20 vision, I assume you dont go every other week to watch Forest?

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

If the club leaves it's present location then I am done.

And there are thousands and thousands who feel the same way.

[JollyLollyAussie]

Jimmy lad I was going to watch Forest well before you were just a twinkle in your old mans eyes!