Picture here of the groundworks for new lower sunk dugouts.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CTFCofficial ... 28/photo/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Funding for the project from the tremendous 500 Club.
New dugouts being built
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
Yea, me too. Doesn't look more than 4" down from the pic.hepple wrote:When I hear the dig outs are being sunk into the ground I was expecting them to be going lower than that.
Unless, of course, we're awaiting 400t of topsoil to raise the pitch up another 12".
Sorry didnt make the point very clear ctfc Bences do supply and give us a good deal hence we use Bencectfc-fan wrote:Thanks for the reply Steve.shevates wrote:Bences have supplied some of the materials, as they have done for a lot of the 500 club projects, but we still pay for them
Keep up the good work.
The depth of the hole dug was 13 inches deep then a 4 inch concrete base was laid with a 9 inch surrounding support wall layed on top of the base, leaving a 9 inch step down into the dugouts. To go deeper would of been ideal but with drainage and power cables running just below that 13 inch depth, to divert those obstacles it would of cost us thousands more, money the 500 club do not have. The project is costing us £13,000 as it is. Just for that depth of 9 inches the supporters in the Paddock and Tunnel Enclosure will see and extra 4 metres of the pitch. So its more than double the 4 inches you think it may have been. Well i hope it is as im on my hols and not there to oversee the project.asl wrote:Yea, me too. Doesn't look more than 4" down from the pic.hepple wrote:When I hear the dig outs are being sunk into the ground I was expecting them to be going lower than that.
Unless, of course, we're awaiting 400t of topsoil to raise the pitch up another 12".
-
- Posts: 29817
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Thanks for the technical explanation Shevates. Always great to have the facts and context outlined, especially when people make unfounded criticism of good work being done.
-
- Posts: 29817
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I never named individuals so assume your response is a sign of guilt.asl wrote:Wow...wasn't aware that could come across as 'criticising'. Apologies if that's how it was perceived.