As I have already suggested, any extension of the upper tier of the SKD stand would need to include a completely new roof, similar to the ones at the Main stand and the ARE stand. However, it seems that the angle of the upper tier is not permitting any extension ...
Don't get me wrong, anything can be done - almost nothing is impossible but you are supposed to be able to see a ball in flight 18m above the centre spot, so ANY kind of extension means a new roof.
Thanks, mate. Although it would be nice to know if we can extend the upper tier under the same (permitted) angle, and what would that mean for the wieving lines ...
The even bigger problem is the view of the near touchline. The further back you go at the same angle the worse the view gets. Any extension would need to be at a steeper angle to get over the issue but the existing angle is about or under one degree below the maximum and one degree is unlikely to be enough (the max used to be 34 degrees, it's now 35 degrees).
I worked this all out a few years ago but it was based on a combinations of certain assumptions, a 3D model I had and measuring off pdf. I think it was close enough. At the end of the day, if the existing stand is at the max then anything new is going to be an issue in terms of sightlines - even without touching a calculator.
After distance and angle, the other factor is height (the higher it is for a given angle, the worse the view). The 'answer' would be to demolish the upper tier, reduce the height by getting rid of or putting the boxes under the stand, build a new upper tier at an angle (say 30 degrees) between the lower centenary (25 degrees? - I can't remember) and the new extension at the new maximum of 35 degrees and then angle a new roof to give you the 18m clearance.
Also, because it's actually taking out a tier, it's next to impossible to do this out at the back before demolishing the existing upper tier (like the ARE) - so there's at least a season of lost income to think about (and most hospitality seats at that). In terms of cash flow, it's a season or more of income lost forever.
And then, you are dumping the good-earning hospitality seats in the upper tier, (maybe) losing the boxes income, then re-building them at significant cost for no extra income, then adding less income-generating seats at maximum cost at the back. It's a completely different financial model from both Main and ARE and most likely just doesn't work from that point of view (and that's without thinking about houses to buy etc - or buses).
It could happen. I'd really like to see it happen (all things and people being satisfied with the outcome) but I can't currently think of a way it can happen especially since I suspect the club is in financially recovery mode post Covid (even after the record breaking financial year last year).
Even new money coming in is unlikely to change anything. If it came, who ever it came from would want their money looking after just like anyone else would - no such thing as a free lunch.
