McNally

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

In the interview McNally did for ITV yesterday, there was a small comment at the very end of that interview - which basically I think outlined the clubs intention in regards to Carrow Road capacity.http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2015-05-26/full-interview-david-mcnally-on-norwich-citys-return-to-the-premier-league-and-the-future-of-alex-neil/.....something along the lines of "We''ll look to put some more seats in, but that might take a while".I read this as - squad / established PL first, more seats second. Which basically confirms what those above have alluded to.

[morty 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]In the interview McNally did for ITV yesterday, there was a small comment at the very end of that interview - which basically I think outlined the clubs intention in regards to Carrow Road capacity.http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2015-05-26/full-interview-david-mcnally-on-norwich-citys-return-to-the-premier-league-and-the-future-of-alex-neil/.....something along the lines of "We''ll look to put some more seats in, but that might take a while".I read this as - squad / established PL first, more seats second. Which basically confirms what those above have alluded to.[/quote]I don''t think he has ever wavered from this. Premiership survival / establishment is worth a lot more to the club than a few more bums on seats.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I thought a whole new message board was made so you two could fight over there rather than here?[/quote]Nope.He won''t post there, because his attention seeking nonsense won''t be tolerated.[/quote]

Rubbish.  I don''t post on there because it simply isn''t interesting enough with so relatively few contributors.

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]You bumped

this whole thread up as a dig at LDC, I call that pretty attention

seeking. You also jump on every post he makes to have a go at him.

His posts aren''t always agreeable, but no need to shoot everyone of them

down relentlessly. If they are nonsense as you claim they will soon

sink away like a lot of the other stuff does on here.[/quote]I

dislike his stupid games, its hardly a secret. Yes I did bump the thread

purely as a dig, maybe eventually he''ll get the message.[/quote]

Ridiculous. There are no games and Bethnal is right. Its not a difficult premise. If you find my posts boring or uninteresting then ignore them. If you disagree then argue them. But just to shoot them down because you have an agenda is just pathetic - and I will out you every time you do it - but then that is giving you the attention you want, isn''t it - and is why its so difficult to have the last word with you on anything. Deep down you love it and is why you perpetuate it. Best thing you could do is to leave trying to control me and concentrate on talking on football. Then we could all have some peace.

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

The problem with committing a large sum towards ground expansion is that Norwich are always likely to be battling against the drop. When is there ever a good time to do it ?Clearly we''d want to try for some sort of mid-table stability first but supposedly secure clubs bigger than ours have found themselves relegated with all the financial consequences that brings. In some cases it''s been pretty disastrous but we''re unlike some others we''re very well run, financially sound and unlikely to gamble on long term player contracts and saddled with huge wage bills.Assuming we stay up I''m all for leaving it for a couple of seasons but sometimes you just have to say " **** it " and take a chance.

[morty 0]

Lol. Anyway, we''re back on topic now, so hush.

[morty 0]

The protests at Carrow road, directed at McNally all seem a long time ago now, and a little bit silly.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Is ground expansion really that important? It won''t generate a lot more revenue and would take 20 years to pay itself off in most likelihood.

The only time to expand the stadium would be if a billionaire owner took over and was prepared to fund the expansion out of their own pocket rather than affect the club''s money.

[ZLF 271]

capacity is a quandary.

We are only likely to sell out a 32k+ stadium week in/out when in the prem - while there we dont need the extra cash it generates as it is dwarfed by the tv income.

We are most dependent on gate receipts from year 3+ outside of the prem money machine - which is when we are least likely to sell any larger ground out.

Any plan of 7 out of 10 seasons in the prem suggests now is the most opportune time to do the work, a small loss of income for a season when getting £120m income while increasing income later is a calculated risk. I am not yet convinced it is one worth taking even in the long term.

[ZLF 271]

more succinctly put than mine - probably started typing at the same time!

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="morty"]The protests at Carrow road, directed at McNally all seem a long time ago now, and a little bit silly.[/quote]

All helped towards getting rid or Adams, which turned out ok!

[morty 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="morty"]The protests at Carrow road, directed at McNally all seem a long time ago now, and a little bit silly.[/quote]

All helped towards getting rid or Adams, which turned out ok![/quote]It helped, did it?Seeing as McNally was already having Alex Neil watched regularly, I suspect it had very little bearing. And it just ended up looking petulant.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

I''d personally like to develop Carrow Road, sooner rather than later.

I understand the club''s stance to a degree, however will there ever be a right time to do it? I think not. There will always be obstacles in the way whether we do it now, or whether its in 5 years time.

The river end and city stand are beginning to look dated. I''d love a new look carrow road, something individual to us, and something of envy to others.

Lets not underestimate the draw to a player a fantastic state of the art stadium can have. It helps to promote "big club" image.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="morty"]The protests at Carrow road, directed at McNally all seem a long time ago now, and a little bit silly.[/quote]

All helped towards getting rid or Adams, which turned out ok![/quote]It helped, did it?Seeing as McNally was already having Alex Neil watched regularly, I suspect it had very little bearing. And it just ended up looking petulant.[/quote]

Well we don''t know that for sure, and even if he was looking at him, he certainly was pushed into making something happen sooner. For all his great achievements, out of his 4 managerial appoints at city, he''s got it wrong as many times as he''s got it right!

Any way not the time for dwelling on negatives. Currently he''s on form.

[morty 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="morty"]The protests at Carrow road, directed at McNally all seem a long time ago now, and a little bit silly.[/quote]

All helped towards getting rid or Adams, which turned out ok![/quote]It helped, did it?Seeing as McNally was already having Alex Neil watched regularly, I suspect it had very little bearing. And it just ended up looking petulant.[/quote]

Well we don''t know that for sure, and even if he was looking at him, he certainly was pushed into making something happen sooner. For all his great achievements, out of his 4 managerial appoints at city, he''s got it wrong as many times as he''s got it right!

Any way not the time for dwelling on negatives. Currently he''s on form.[/quote]Yes, we do know that for sure, because he said so. And I have no doubt he was only too aware of the situation, and what was needed to correct it, but I guess its whether or not you actually trust him to do his job correctly.Its the board that chooses a new manager, not McNally unilaterally. It is my opinion that there have been times when the board goes with McNally''s plan, and times when they choose not to. Lambert and Alex Neil feel like the twice they have listened to his opinion, and acted on it.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?

The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?

 

 

  

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]Lol. Anyway, we''re back on topic now, so hush.[/quote]

[morty 0]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?

The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?

 

 

  

[/quote]What did we do when they rebuilt the South stand? I remember some kind of temporary stand, but maybe the issue wasn''t as big, because there were less season ticket holders?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?

[/quote]

I think that ultimately the City Stand will be built over the top of, with the upper tier not affecting the lower tier that much.  Much cheaper than demolishing the existing stand completely and possibly even allowing the city stand to still be in use during the building process.  Its not so far fetched, as the main foundations would be outside the City Stand, with any supports needed in the present stand engineered with the minimum of disruption during a close season or between matches.  Underneath would be a walkway/road as at Old Trafford.   Could be done and the main thing in its favour is the fact that the space is there to do it in the road outside.

[morty 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?

[/quote]

I think that ultimately the City Stand will be built over the top of, with the upper tier not affecting the lower tier that much.  Much cheaper than demolishing the existing stand completely and possibly even allowing the city stand to still be in use during the building process.  Its not so far fetched, as the main foundations would be outside the City Stand, with any supports needed in the present stand engineered with the minimum of disruption during a close season or between matches.  Underneath would be a walkway/road as at Old Trafford.   Could be done and the main thing in its favour is the fact that the space is there to do it in the road outside.

[/quote]Yes it is that far fetched, the club have previously stated that the foundations are not suitable to just add another tier, and the only option is to demolish and completely rebuild.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Is ground expansion really that important? It won''t generate a lot more revenue and would take 20 years to pay itself off in most likelihood.

The only time to expand the stadium would be if a billionaire owner took over and was prepared to fund the expansion out of their own pocket rather than affect the club''s money.[/quote]I am not so sure about that, Bethnal, because extra capacity is the one likely way in which we can increase income compared to our rivals (which is the key point), assuming we stay in the Premier League and do not start qualifying for Europe.Take last season in the PL. TV brought in £68m, tickets £11m, catering £4m and commercial £9m. So non-TV money amounted to £24m, which is not to be sniffed at out of a total income of £94m.Now we are hardly likely to start getting so much extra TV exposure that the TV income figure shoots up, compared to that of clubs around us. But increased capacity should increase that non-TV income. Around, say, 5,000 extra fans doesn''t just mean more ticket sales revenue - it boost income from catering and commercial as  well. That is where we can make a difference compared with, say Swansea City. At the moment we are hitting a glass ceiling.An this argument actually holds good - arguably is even stronger - if we end up back in the Championship, with greatly diminished TV money but still capacity crowds.There is also a longer-term argument and partly non-financial argument about not denying a new generation of would-be fans the chance to get the Carrow Road habit, given how few casual tickets are available.

[Buh 0]

I used to want e passion but who cares really?

Those that any come for whatever reason still can''t come.

Just continue to squeeze Carrow road for more seats towards 30k. We can''t be far away

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Hmm, those numbers are larger than I expected Purple and do make a case for expansion. I wonder how much of the catering is from non-match days and the say with commercial which I imagine mainly the revenue generated from shirt sales along with the other tat in the club shop.

It is just the number of years the club is lumbered with debt repayments that worries me. Other teams have seen the league position dramatically suffer due to having to divert money to infrastructure costs. I suppose interest rates aren''t massive at the moment so it would be a good time to borrow - wonder if the club could secure the loan against Nathan Redmond. He must be worth about the same as a new South Stand...

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?

[/quote]

I think that ultimately the City Stand will be built over the top of, with the upper tier not affecting the lower tier that much.  Much cheaper than demolishing the existing stand completely and possibly even allowing the city stand to still be in use during the building process.  Its not so far fetched, as the main foundations would be outside the City Stand, with any supports needed in the present stand engineered with the minimum of disruption during a close season or between matches.  Underneath would be a walkway/road as at Old Trafford.   Could be done and the main thing in its favour is the fact that the space is there to do it in the road outside.

[/quote]Yes it is that far fetched, the club have previously stated that the foundations are not suitable to just add another tier, and the only option is to demolish and completely rebuild.[/quote]

Let me expalin. when I say a new tier, I don''t mean one on top, but mean taking the roof off and extending further back - which would not entail affecting the existing structure at all in terms of foundations as new foundations would be outside the ground.   It would not add as many seats as adding a tier on top, but would give valuable extra seats.   Taking the stand up to the height of the N&P or Barclay by going back and up would seem to be the simplest solution. It all depends on what you want the ultimate capacity to be.

[morty 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Is ground expansion really that important? It won''t generate a lot more revenue and would take 20 years to pay itself off in most likelihood.

The only time to expand the stadium would be if a billionaire owner took over and was prepared to fund the expansion out of their own pocket rather than affect the club''s money.[/quote]I am not so sure about that, Bethnal, because extra capacity is the one likely way in which we can increase income compared to our rivals (which is the key point), assuming we stay in the Premier League and do not start qualifying for Europe.Take last season in the PL. TV brought in £68m, tickets £11m, catering £4m and commercial £9m. So non-TV money amounted to £24m, which is not to be sniffed at out of a total income of £94m.Now we are hardly likely to start getting so much extra TV exposure that the TV income figure shoots up, compared to that of clubs around us. But increased capacity should increase that non-TV income. Around, say, 5,000 extra fans doesn''t just mean more ticket sales revenue - it boost income from catering and commercial as  well. That is where we can make a difference compared with, say Swansea City. At the moment we are hitting a glass ceiling.An this argument actually holds good - arguably is even stronger - if we end up back in the Championship, with greatly diminished TV money but still capacity crowds.There is also a longer-term argument and partly non-financial argument about not denying a new generation of would-be fans the chance to get the Carrow Road habit, given how few casual tickets are available.[/quote]You are assuming this capacity crowd bubble will never burst though. I should imagine Portsmouth, Wolves and Ipswich thought the same thing.The only way this would work is with outside investment, that ensured it did not impact, in any way, on the squad budget. We would be stupid to spend out a lot of money that we can ill afford. Its a gamble, there are no hard and fast assurances.

[morty 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?

[/quote]

I think that ultimately the City Stand will be built over the top of, with the upper tier not affecting the lower tier that much.  Much cheaper than demolishing the existing stand completely and possibly even allowing the city stand to still be in use during the building process.  Its not so far fetched, as the main foundations would be outside the City Stand, with any supports needed in the present stand engineered with the minimum of disruption during a close season or between matches.  Underneath would be a walkway/road as at Old Trafford.   Could be done and the main thing in its favour is the fact that the space is there to do it in the road outside.

[/quote]Yes it is that far fetched, the club have previously stated that the foundations are not suitable to just add another tier, and the only option is to demolish and completely rebuild.[/quote]

Let me expalin. when I say a new tier, I don''t mean one on top, but mean taking the roof off and extending further back - which would not entail affecting the existing structure at all in terms of foundations as new foundations would be outside the ground.   It would not add as many seats as adding a tier on top, but would give valuable extra seats.   Taking the stand up to the height of the N&P or Barclay by going back and up would seem to be the simplest solution. It all depends on what you want the ultimate capacity to be.

[/quote]Thats a shit idea.

[SwindonCanary 455]

2022 will be a good time to build, the footy programme will be all over the place due to the Qatar World Cup.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TCCANARY"]Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?[/quote]I think that ultimately the City Stand will be built over the top of, with the upper tier not affecting the lower tier that much.  Much cheaper than demolishing the existing stand completely and possibly even allowing the city stand to still be in use during the building process.  Its not so far fetched, as the main foundations would be outside the City Stand, with any supports needed in the present stand engineered with the minimum of disruption during a close season or between matches.  Underneath would be a walkway/road as at Old Trafford.   Could be done and the main thing in its favour is the fact that the space is there to do it in the road outside.[/quote]Yes it is that far fetched, the club have previously stated that the foundations are not suitable to just add another tier, and the only option is to demolish and completely rebuild.[/quote]Let me expalin. when I say a new tier, I don''t mean one on top, but mean taking the roof off and extending further back - which would not entail affecting the existing structure at all in terms of foundations as new foundations would be outside the ground.   It would not add as many seats as adding a tier on top, but would give valuable extra seats.   Taking the stand up to the height of the N&P or Barclay by going back and up would seem to be the simplest solution. It all depends on what you want the ultimate capacity to be.[/quote]Thats a shit idea.[/quote]Whatever, but any need for the shit response??

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Please stop this nonsense.

[morty 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TCCANARY"]Isn''t the biggest problem how the ground will be redeveloped? As there''s a very small amount of non-season ticket holders seats available what do you do with the season ticket holders when their seats are not available?The primary candidate for change would be The City Stand (had to stop myself from calling it The Main Stand) and that must be about 90% season tickets holders, where do they go whilst it being rebuilt?[/quote]I think that ultimately the City Stand will be built over the top of, with the upper tier not affecting the lower tier that much.  Much cheaper than demolishing the existing stand completely and possibly even allowing the city stand to still be in use during the building process.  Its not so far fetched, as the main foundations would be outside the City Stand, with any supports needed in the present stand engineered with the minimum of disruption during a close season or between matches.  Underneath would be a walkway/road as at Old Trafford.   Could be done and the main thing in its favour is the fact that the space is there to do it in the road outside.[/quote]Yes it is that far fetched, the club have previously stated that the foundations are not suitable to just add another tier, and the only option is to demolish and completely rebuild.[/quote]Let me expalin. when I say a new tier, I don''t mean one on top, but mean taking the roof off and extending further back - which would not entail affecting the existing structure at all in terms of foundations as new foundations would be outside the ground.   It would not add as many seats as adding a tier on top, but would give valuable extra seats.   Taking the stand up to the height of the N&P or Barclay by going back and up would seem to be the simplest solution. It all depends on what you want the ultimate capacity to be.[/quote]Thats a shit idea.[/quote]Whatever, but any need for the shit response??

[/quote]Well come on. this has been discussed to death 400 times.The whole stand, including all the facilities inside it are in need of replacement, its not just about additional seating.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Is ground expansion really that important? It won''t generate a lot more revenue and would take 20 years to pay itself off in most likelihood.

The only time to expand the stadium would be if a billionaire owner took over and was prepared to fund the expansion out of their own pocket rather than affect the club''s money.[/quote]I am not so sure about that, Bethnal, because extra capacity is the one likely way in which we can increase income compared to our rivals (which is the key point), assuming we stay in the Premier League and do not start qualifying for Europe.Take last season in the PL. TV brought in £68m, tickets £11m, catering £4m and commercial £9m. So non-TV money amounted to £24m, which is not to be sniffed at out of a total income of £94m.Now we are hardly likely to start getting so much extra TV exposure that the TV income figure shoots up, compared to that of clubs around us. But increased capacity should increase that non-TV income. Around, say, 5,000 extra fans doesn''t just mean more ticket sales revenue - it boost income from catering and commercial as  well. That is where we can make a difference compared with, say Swansea City. At the moment we are hitting a glass ceiling.An this argument actually holds good - arguably is even stronger - if we end up back in the Championship, with greatly diminished TV money but still capacity crowds.There is also a longer-term argument and partly non-financial argument about not denying a new generation of would-be fans the chance to get the Carrow Road habit, given how few casual tickets are available.[/quote]You are assuming this capacity crowd bubble will never burst though. I should imagine Portsmouth, Wolves and Ipswich thought the same thing.The only way this would work is with outside investment, that ensured it did not impact, in any way, on the squad budget. We would be stupid to spend out a lot of money that we can ill afford. Its a gamble, there are no hard and fast assurances.[/quote]I am not assuming that crowds will always stay as high as they are, but what we have is not a bubble. Ie, something artificially blown up and almost bound to burst. We have capacity crowds because the old regime knew it needed to do something about the absurdly  low crowds we had in Chase''s most successful years. So there was a policy of concessions et al to get numbers up. The new regime, while decrying the policy, has used it (argubaly ruthlessly) to maximise revenues, because the habit of turning up has got inegrained in fans. Hence  full houses in the third tier.I see no sign that crowd numbers will fall off a cliff. We are not those other clubs. There is a danger, as I said, is that we will lose at least part of a generation because of the low number of casual sales. But that problem would be avoided by increasing capacity.