Leaderboard

I think it's a shortsighted view. OK, we can invest in the playing squad, gain £1.9m by finishing 15th instead of 16th or whatever, and we'll reinvest the money straight back in the playing squad and aim for the same thing next year. Then, fast forward to 2025, and no matter how established we are, we'll still end up getting relegated eventually anyway. Stoke, West Brom and Swansea showed last year despite being established sides with ten, nine and seven consecutive years respectively that clubs of our size will always recycle themselves between the top two tiers. But oh well, at least we have that £1.9m in the bank still from five years earlier, thanks to the £15m striker we bought from the sale of Max Aarons, instead of putting the money towards a new stand. Oh wait! No we don't. We gave it to a new signing as a loyalty bonus, so now we have no £1.9m, we've been relegated, the City Stand is decaying, the season ticket holders are in their 70s and no teenager has been able to get regular tickets at any point in their childhood. Meanwhile the other sides have been improving off the pitch as well as on, they have bigger and better grounds than us now, and we've just been twiddling our thumbs as Carrow Road got neglected, the season ticket holders got older and the next generation couldn't get tickets. Also, is there anyone out there who is thinking 'Bloody hell, what a waste of money the Jarrold Stand was! We could've spent that money on new players and been a Premier League regular by now with several European campaigns.' Anyone? I'm guessing not. We're all looking back and thinking what a fantastic long term investment it was. Imagine the state of the ground, and to a lesser extent the club, if we still had a 20,000 capacity ground that was out of date. Prospective new signings wouldn't be impressed, revenue streams would be down and our standing as a club would be lower. You have to keep moving forward in order to not fall backwards. It's a shortsighted view to not invest in the ground now, as we're guaranteed £100m in TV money this year and we can easily gain £40-50m next summer by selling any two out of Aarons, Godfrey, Lewis or Buendia. A new stand would cost a fraction of the amount we'll bring in over the next 12 months, and even if it meant having a smaller playing budget, we'll be glad we did it in 20 years' time, when the population of the city has risen again, younger fans can get tickets to set the club up for future generations, the ground is comparable to other clubs our size who have all invested and our club has seen a general reputation boost (or maybe just not a decline) as a result of investing in more modern facilities. Even if we make a slight loss now, it needs to be done for long term success.

My first home game! Peters what a player, Keelan & Peters my childhood heroes for City.

Old fuddy duddys getting a hard time? Stop being so entitled; it's not all me, me, me you know. There is more important things to worry about than people being mean to you on the Internet. Bloody snowflakes.

We'll easily average 32k when we're in the Premier League. In the Championship we might end up with 22-24k for games against Rotherham, Millwall or the latest Yeovil/Burton type even when we're playing poorly, but you'll get 32k sellouts for the bigger games I'm sure. This would probably give us at least a 28k average and enough scope to attract the younger generation, and to fill the ground longer term (and I'm talking at least 20 years) as the population creeps up and that younger generation have hopefully been bitten by the bug. It's something that needs to be done sooner rather than later. I can't imagine this stadium will be fit for even a mid-table Championship club in 20 years (bearing in mind Father Time will have an effect on it) so the only way not investing is a good idea is if we 'do an Ipswich'. Surely now is a great time to invest while we have £100m in TV money and £100m worth of young talent in the squad? There will arguably never be a better time to invest in work that will definitely need to be done within the next 20-30 years anyway.

Liam's an arrogant c0ck that knows he's an arrogant c0ck and embraces it. Noel is a pretentious, arrogant c0ck without the self-awareness to realise it.

Here's a treat. First game in top division and first goal...

Interesting Felix... How I remember it one of the the biggest risks I've seen our club take was two summers ago with the restructuring that ultimately led us to this debate. Don't remember younger posters in particular getting behind it. Then we had the bond issue for the training ground. Plenty of risk there. Wasn't very popular with many younger posters. Then we had last summer's decision to stick with the project and not caving in like many younger posters were advocating. I don't remember too many older ST holders putting their parts on and not renewing. Ten years is a long time. How many times have we changed divisions in the last ten? Twenty is even longer.

phwoar

perhaps they are hers😉

Completely agree but can I be fussy about one thing - it’s not the “Living Wage”, it’s a higher minimum wage that George Osborne disingenuously decided should be called the “National Living Wage”. It’s disappointing that the media swallowed this con trick whole. There’s a 79p/hour difference between what the Living Wage Foundation say it should be and the minimum wage, which is about £1,400 a year for a 35 hour week.

Glorified ping pong. 🤣

If there is a wide-ranging restructuring going on, and perhaps Joe and Gemma will not be the only people to leave, the question arises as to who is in charge of this. We do not have an executive or semi-executive chairman, as we did with Bowkett, and to an extent with Balls. In fact we don't have a chairman at all. And we don't have a CEO, as we did with Doncaster or McNally or Moxey. That seems to leave the triumvirate - operating below board level - of Webber, Ward and Kensell. That would indicate them having a large amount of practical power. I hope they are coming under sufficient scrutiny at board level, no matter how good a job they might appear to be doing..

Why the F would you want anything to remind you of that arrogant pr*ck?

An ambitious owner could build a leisure facility at the show ground giving the club a state of the art stadium and surrounding facilities that would generate income for the club eg dry ski slopes, spa, leisure pools etc etc we would need a rich owner with ambition for us to move to the next level. It isn’t going to happen

Stay where we are and rebuild the City stand. There is no transport infrastructure to move it out of the city to a desolate wasteland where there are no pubs,restaurants etc to provide for 30,000 plus fans.

I know some dont like the guy (never understood it personally) but for tennis fans in general it's been great to see him start his comeback with doubles. He played God knows how long through pretty consistent pain so it will be interesting to see how far he can go again, assuming he makes it through Queens and Wimbledon doubles.

What did they call plastics before plastic was invented?

What an odd fellow you are 🤪 clueless, some might say

This is what I mean Indy. Can you really not see the difference?

Which is rather odd as Bowkett stated in the same quote that the extra ticket income would only cover the cost - so how would a bigger stadium keep us in the PL ? B'mouth v Sunderland springs to mind And the talk was of 20 years. Can anyone seriously say what will happen in 20 years time ? PL in 2005, LI 2009

That’s the problem with VAR, it’s brilliant with black and white decisions but it cannot be blamed for subjective decisions. The foul on Kirby in the box should’ve been a pen, why wasn’t it? The ref will say the ball had gone, however that should be irrelevant. The foul on Houghton should’ve been a red, why wasn’t it? I have no defence for that decision other than the ref wanted to just end the game and get out of the stadium (and tournament) alive. VAR will just replay what’s happened. If there’s a poor ref officiating or having a bad day, there’ll still be some bad decisions and ultimately, results. However because technology is now being used, the fallout will be greater

Have a look at who actually owns those stadiums.😉

TBH, I dislike Oasis so much I haven’t even engaged enough to know which brother is which. But if we all liked the same thing it would be be a very bland world.

How sure are you that it’s Liam’s daughter ? 😁

Calling people 'mouse brain' and 'clueless numpties' isn't exactly helping your cause and you're spoiling you're a healthy debate.

Times are always moving on. Gates are larger than they were 30 years ago but also smaller than they were 60 years ago. Hooliganism didn't exist then either. If we could accurately envisage every change we'd all be millionaires and no clubs would ever go bust through making unwise financial decisions. The thing with history is that it is concrete while projections of the future quite often turn out to be pie in the sky.

A lot of those arguments don't hold much water though. Unless I've missed it there was never a pecking order in home tickets. Just sale dates for members, ST holders, general sale. I may be wrong but I thought there was no advantage in having attended 10 games the previous year. Everybody seems to have a case for more entitlement to tickets than other fans.

Just get a retro 70s/80s shirt. They look far classier, they're half the price and they don't get dated. That's been my line of thought for the last decade.

The children and grandchildren go now Indy. If youngsters aren't getting in there are ways, even with the capacity as it is now. If the demand is there then 500 casual tickets could be set aside for family memberships. If there were 1,000 of these members they'd get 10 games each. I'm not against expanding the stadium either. I'm just against the debt. Glad you're getting more involved with PUPs, we need you.

My ex missus had a pair of pants like that

Even then it's not the most expensive! Leicester directly below is £1 more than the max ours can be so I didn't even check further down, but man utd could be at least a tenner more...

No one is saying they’re on an ever ascending glide path but demand is there for the current catchment and football requirements for now and foreseeable future, there’s little doubt we need a bigger capacity! My original question was really not aimed to this old chestnut of a debate and it’s noticeable the same older fans are the ones with a very narrow view point. I was more interested in the youngsters who now have season tickets, who would like season tickets, what would they like to see in the future?

Does he now wear bigger pants ?

There was a time we drew nearly 44,000 to a match involving Leicester (!) who even then weren't exactly world class. In the 1960's, when the population of Norwich and Norfolk was about 2/3 rds what it is today! So currently capacity is 60% of what was achievable in 1960's with a potential catchment population that's grown by 50%. This is where I see potential opportunity without being reckless. We could be talking a potential max. draw of 60,000 extrapolating from those figures - sure there are other demands on people's leisure time but as Leicester, Southampton and others have shown with similar catchment areas, with a modicum of EPL stability, 30,000 attendances can be sustained, only half of say maximum potential. If we had a modicum of ambition and a board only being risk moderate it is affordable. A reasonable capital investment of £30 million, funded by loans (secured on future income) and a bond issue would require annual repayments of £4 - 5 million p.a. over 10 years. Although this would only generate conservatively an extra ticket income of £2million p.a. based on 4,000 increase in average attendance, surely £3million can be generated through other streams. Or if payback over 25 years the ticket income alone from the 4,000 would cover it. As others have said, this extra capacity is as important to secure fans into the future. I've seen people quote 5,000 memberships for home matches have been snapped up with only 1,500 available. I'm struggling to see why people suggest this potential audience be frozen out for the medium to long term because of a lack of ambition. Perhaps I am talking **** and too Percy Positive, but faint heart etc.

Would you believe me if I said that Liam is alright and that it's actually his brother that is the complete nobber?

Obviously it's that time of year where we all imagine things work just like in Football Manager and we look at trying to improve the team in the weakest areas. People seem to have identified the DM role as the main weakness, but there has also been plenty of talk about the defence too. This seems to be based on the notion that we conceded loads of goals last season and need to sure things up otherwise we'll get mullered every week in the prem. I really don't agree with this. In my opinion, for reasons which are fairly obvious and previously covered at length, we have the best defenders ever seen at the club. I also believe that the DM position is well covered with Trybull and Tettey, and Thompson to compete if fit enough. We also have options for playing more creative or attacking players in that area where required. Thompson is the one who fits best with the recent strategy of bringing through and developing young players. This is more of a medium to long term concept which accepts the possibility that we may not wind up spending the next decade basking in the riches of the premier league and might need to sell players to remain successful. This is definitely paying off when you look at recent player sales and the assumed astronomical increases in value to our young defenders. I don't expect many signings this window. Possibly a few more youngsters with potential and hopefully a striker (ideally a combination of the two). We are unlikely to be able to improve our squad without spending silly money or blowing the dressing room harmony by paying much higher wages to the new players. That won't happen.

Could do with having a capacity of around 35k Imo. Whether that would have to be a long term project requiring the South stand to be extended first to house supporters from a city stand rebuild I have no idea but i'm sure we've pretty much topped the charts of % capacity full for the last decade or so. The profits are indeed minimal but over a big enough timeline the new stands will pay for themselves. It's not something I expect to happen soon but eventually all that premier-league TV money just gets sunk into an ever increasing wage budget until the club eventually finds itself back in the Championship (however long that might take) May as well sort the ground out and raise the stature of the football club. With an ever increasing population and a massive catchment area the club do have an opportunity to move our support onto the next level imo.

For a couple of years in the early 1990s before the UEFA cup season of 93/94, Carrow Road held 20,000! In the 1960's Bristol Rovers were a similar sized club to Norwich. We owned our ground, improved it and were progressive. Rovers didn't own their old Eastville ground which wasn't improved and ended up as a old unsuitable relic by the time they left the ground in 1986. They then spent 10 years playing at Bath in the lower Divisions eventually getting relegated out of the FL at one point. Now they play in a mish/mash old fashioned Rugby ground which offers very other little income streams for the club. If the Board had your attitude in the 1960's our subsequent history would have been closer to Bristol Rovers. No one with any sense doubts that increasing the capacity of Carrow Road will be expensive which makes it very risky but to improve the club and get a capacity that is closer to the clubs potential its something that has to be done. If done the right way the cost elements can be overcome. Increasing the ground capacity is like getting your first mortgage in that if you looked at all the negative aspects and potential hard slog in the future you'd never do it. If Norwich were struggling to get 20,000 in the current ground I'd agree wholeheartedly that increasing the capacity would be wrong but that is not the case! The main reason I liked David Mcnally was that he is a very clever bloke who could see the true potential of Norwich City. You ask him what he felt the capacity of Carrow Road should be and he'd tell you the same as me - 35-40,000!

If increasing ground capacities is as irrelevant as some on here have recently commented on, then we'd still be playing in a 20,000 Carrow Road, Old Trafford would still hold 44,000, Arsenal would still be at Highbury, Brighton still playing at the Withdean Athletics stadium and Spurs would be in the 36,000 old WHL ground! To progress your club, keep up with other clubs, replace past their sell by date stands like the original Carrow Road which if not replaced end up costing more to keep renewing and YES actually increase income streams then you have to replace stands like the now past its sell by date City stand with bigger and better replacemens! In Norwichs case, our crowd levels ever since the early 00's are a firm indication that the club could average 30-32,000 in the top flight and that's not taking into account the growing population. Apart from potential increased ticket sales a new City stand of a similar size to the South stand and with the same corporate and office facilities would earn much more than the present City stand. Those thinking we don't need to increase capacity are right in that it can be a gamble and must be done at the right time hence why we've been playing in a ground that hasn't been big enough foe the last 10 years! As has been the case for many years, many Norwich fans have been brainwashed by the "little ole Norwich" myth and have opinions influenced by that. Like I said in my last post, Norwch City FC should be playing in a Carrow Road holding 35-40,000 in order to reach their full potential.

"Dear god, is this shy.te still being churnd out ?" It is not "****," it is a sensible debate and a debate that other clubs up and down the country have embarked upon during the last decade or so. A debate in which many have decided that upgrading the facilities they offer to their fans is the real way forward. A debate that has led to many lesser clubs throughout the leagues investing in the future and which in many cases involves increasing capacity whenever possible or feasible financially. To reduce it to counting seats and pound for pound income suitably ignores all the other factors, all put forward repeatedly in debate, that point towards the need to upgrade Carrow Road in order to bring the Main Stand into the 21st. Century and cope in some way with current bums on seats demand, whilst also cementing greater support for the future. A future which might well mean that we will need all the "ticket income" we can get. If the examples of individual clubs need be brought into the equation then we have to ask ourselves why a situation has come about whereby even lowly Rotherham's New York stadium (with a tiny 12, 000 capacity) puts our own main stand to shame in terms of aesthetics, safety, comfort and probably even in the level of the state-of-the-art facilities it offers to the few.

I'm going to raise this as a question but is there a close connection to the whole membership furore here - who is in charge of engagement at the Carra at the moment and who made the wrong call?

We are going to keep the ball so well and be so good at getting it back when needed that the DM position will not be necessary. We are going to wow the PL next season - the opposition won't get a look in and we will sail to the title on a wave of total football the kind of which not seen in this country before.

Interesting spin on it from Parma. Just shows things aren't always what they seem. Webber is obviously a good operator in the world of transfers and agents, so there would be no surprise in the idea he is developing his network by doing favours here and there.

92-93 were the team that made me a Norwich supporter, makes it kinda easy for me....

If you are the agent and you know that your client only has his eyes set on a particular Club, you actually have a difficult job framing what the player is worth - particularly when increasing wages dramatically from £600 per week to say £15,000 per week - equally the selling club wish to achieve maximum value, though a buying club in a monopoly position can easily stonewall. A Dutch auction. Enter a credible third party, playing all the cards correctly, dragging both the sales price higher and increasing the weekly wage. Such a third part would have done quite a favour to both Selling Club and Agent, potentially raising fee and wages considerably, the returns on which are the lifeblood of Agents. Parma

The cost has been quoted at £20-30m I think, and with Premier League riches there is no better time to do it, especially with such saleable assets in the first team squad right now. We probably have four players that could fund a new stand on their own, and these players will all be sold on within the next few years when they outgrow us so it makes sense to invest some of this windfall on something we'll see the benefits of for generations to come. We may be slightly less competitive on the pitch for a season or two by not reinvesting all available funds in the playing squad, but the stand will last 50 years. Will we fill it? I think so. The population of Norwich has been growing slowly but steadily over the last few decades and it will probably continue to do so. Therefore it stands to reason that as the population of the area increases slightly, demand for tickets will slightly increase too, and what better time to take advantage than now, when we're in the Premier League and our main rivals are languishing in the third tier? Prospective 'new' fans, whether they're youngsters or they've moved to the area, who are in between Norwich and Ipswich are likely to choose us, but if they can't get tickets it's a problem. Also, think of the new generation. With such limited casual tickets available, it's hard for kids to be able to tag along with their parents. Even if we offer some of the new seats at reduced prices for youngsters, we may make a slight loss on tickets but we'll be still be selling plenty of merchandise to a new generation of fans which will set us up for years to come. Furthermore, other clubs of our size are redeveloping their grounds or building new ones, and as a result we risk being left behind if we don't expand as we'll end up with a ground that's smaller and less modern than the other yo-yo clubs, which will risk us falling behind them. In conclusion, not expanding the ground now because it's too expensive is a shortsighted view that will not do us any favours in the long run.

Good stuff. I am inclined to think that if the cost of upgrading Carrow Road is prohibitive then a completely new ground, whatever the proposed "complex" and shared nature of the development, would be totally out of the question for the club. Comparing anything to the Spurs development is totally unrealistic. That reportedly cost a billion pounds after all. Tottenham has London prices and Spurs are guaranteed Premier League existence forever. I disagree that the hotel is the bigger problem. Sure we could do without it, but doing something about the ageing and 'dinky toy' main stand should be top of the list of priorities. The points about the changing face of football and football grounds and the fact that delay in decision making results in rising costs should be taken on board. A decent rule for successful businesses is to expand when the going is good, otherwise you stand still and others, better equipped to face the potential of the future, overtake you. Speculate to accumulate, as they say. Nobody ever knows what the future will bring, but they still built the railroads to excess in Victorian Times because they new nothing of the motor car and the upheaval and cost of that extra runway at Heathrow is still planned even though lessons learnt from space travel could transform the nature of air travel within a few decades. In sum, question: Why climb Everest? Answer: Because it's there. Question: Why build a new main stand. Answer: Because it's there (or could be.)

A fully fit and on form Thompson could possibly do a good job there, the problem is that he hasn't been fully fit for the past 2 years...

Was a good gig, two things stick in my mind, one the guy with a flag running along the corporate box roofs and getting kicked out before they played and meeting a few fellow supporters from the lower Barclay there. They were pretty damn good though along with Keiser Chiefs the best live bands I’ve seen.