A New Stadium at Broadland?

[Tumbleweed 106]

Under Chris Hughton, and also others such as Roeder and Hamilton, having a drink and a bite to eat close to the ground pre match was frequently the most enjoyable part of an afternoon''s trip to CR. The time between 3pm to 4.50pm was rather dull in comparison. By moving us out of town Tom would take even that away from us.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="chicken"]Also to save people clicking the link. The York stadium is projected to cost £35million for 8,000 seats.

[/quote]The stadium aspect of the project is £16m. York City are to pay only about £2m towards the build cost and they are to get a lot of that money from football grants.A lot of the money for the new York Community Stadium hub is from the local council, local developers, and uni. York Community Stadium hub includes a swimming pool, 3G pitches, sports hall, library, NHS, gym etc.Now consider that 7,000 to 10,000 new homes are to be built in the Broadland growth triangle and the council and developers will need to provide facilities for local people... There is a fantastic opportunity for NC.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

York City as someone has rightly pointed out is for an 8,000 seater stadium and dear old Tom earlier in this thread put a link to an example of how buses can pick up and drop off right outside the ground and that turned out to be Oxford who have a 3 sided ground with a very small capacity. Hardly like for like examples when we are on about a new stadium for 35,000.

[/quote]Here is one of the bus stops outside the Derby Stadium:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.915835,-1.448037,3a,75y,148.59h,79.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skl_W2kUL3xZ27XQ_ILNDLg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]There is a fantastic opportunity for NC.[/quote]

Nope.  The only opportunity is for any powerful ego tripper who fancies putting their mark on things by creating a wonderful new stadium, regardless of the effect on the fans.  Something like this could potentially ruin the club, make things difficult for many fans to get to the stadium. How many can walk to the stadium now and how many will have to drive/bus to any new stadium?   Parking may be easier, but traffic would be ridiculous.  At the moment you can walk from virtually anywhere in Norwich to CR.   Not so if it is out of the city.

You don''t ever seem to have an answer to the critics who talk about the social/community side of the argument. It''s always "it will be great for the club" - and the fans seem to come second in the argument. Shouldn''t it be the other way round? 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

I haven''t been following this in detail, but I would defend Tom Cavendish''s continued attempts to discuss the subject. The point is that stadium expansion/move away from Carrow Road is a serious topic. It comes up at pretty much every fans'' forum or McNally webchat or AGM. But what you then get is a statement that is often ambiguous, or leaves open several questions, none of which then get asked, let alone answered. For example, how come the £20m cost of raising capacity to 35,000 became £20m-£30m and then £30m all within a very few years?The truth is that this important subject, with the competing claims of expansion versus a move, and the associated practicalities/difficulties and costs, should have been gone into rigorously by the EDP, but as far as I am aware (just as with Cullumgate) it has never made the slightest effort. What Tom is doing in effect is the EDP''s job for it. He may be right or he may be wrong, but at least he is putting the case for one solution to a very knotty problem.

[TimDim 0]

In reality what is is doing is not so much floging a dead horse but waving a whip over a long buried corpse. It is neither a serious topic, nor a credible one. Merely one that ONLY comes up with the regularity that April Fools day re-occurs. As many have pointed out this Walter Mitty character (who would have us believe us that he is a professional scout) has consistently avoided backing his arguments or providing reasoned and tangible evidence for his ludicrous hopes. Previously much had been pinned on the scam that was Bristol Rovers new stadium. We now have York Ccity being held up as the template for something that is pretty much unwanted and unneeded. And, unsurprisingly we still have the same belief. That this can be achieved at a cost to no one, based on some notion of linking various outside interests. I don''t doubt that as has he has now landed upon the Broads we will get some nonsense about the new stadium being funded by pleasure boats, reed growing, all powered by water mills erected around the stadium. Nnone of which will stand up to a more cursory glance. As does Purple''s rather silly contibution. The earth is not flat, the Pope is not a Hindu and Tom Cavendish has nothing of any worth to say. And shame on Purple for trying to wind him up by encouraging him.

[Syteanric 1]

i''m still waiting for Tom to tell me which part of Broadland Business park the UEA owns, considering he was convinced we''d agreed planning permission to build a new stadium on UEA owned land...

[hogesar 9,618]

Don''t understand all the criticism Tom''s getting. Least he''s thought about it and stuck to his guns. I can see some logic behind it, even though I don''t agree with it.

Beyond that, this is probably the most interesting thing being discussed on the entire forum right now!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I haven''t been following this in detail, but I would defend Tom Cavendish''s continued attempts to discuss the subject. The point is that stadium expansion/move away from Carrow Road is a serious topic. It comes up at pretty much every fans'' forum or McNally webchat or AGM. But what you then get is a statement that is often ambiguous, or leaves open several questions, none of which then get asked, let alone answered. For example, how come the £20m cost of raising capacity to 35,000 became £20m-£30m and then £30m all within a very few years?

The truth is that this important subject, with the competing claims of expansion versus a move, and the associated practicalities/difficulties and costs, should have been gone into rigorously by the EDP, but as far as I am aware (just as with Cullumgate) it has never made the slightest effort. What Tom is doing in effect is the EDP''s job for it. He may be right or he may be wrong, but at least he is putting the case for one solution to a very knotty problem.
[/quote]

 

I have no axe to grind in the matter, Purple, but I''m not sure I see it as "a knotty problem."

In the bigger picture, surely there is a recognition by most that Norwich City FC, even with good management, will occasionally have seasons where we participate at Championship level. Our current capacity and level of attendance is at the top end of likely Championship teams. If one accepts that as a given, then obviously the need to increase capacity is essentially only pertinent to those seasons we are participating in the Premiership. However, the economic dependability upon income from attendance, as we all know, has diminished such that clubs comparable to us ( e.g.WBA or even bigger, evergreen clubs such as Spurs ) are less driven to take risk to increase capacity.

 

Surely this is what has driven Norwich management to consider taking one step forward in considering the situation only to be followed by two steps backward. It may be apropriate to call it an ongoing agenda item, worthy of discussion or contemplation but, a knotty problem, I don''t think so.   

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Scout_hat"]In reality what is is doing is not so much floging a dead horse but waving a whip over a long buried corpse. It is neither a serious topic, nor a credible one. Merely one that ONLY comes up with the regularity that April Fools day re-occurs. As many have pointed out this Walter Mitty character (who would have us believe us that he is a professional scout) has consistently avoided backing his arguments or providing reasoned and tangible evidence for his ludicrous hopes. Previously much had been pinned on the scam that was Bristol Rovers new stadium. We now have York Ccity being held up as the template for something that is pretty much unwanted and unneeded. And, unsurprisingly we still have the same belief. That this can be achieved at a cost to no one, based on some notion of linking various outside interests. I don''t doubt that as has he has now landed upon the Broads we will get some nonsense about the new stadium being funded by pleasure boats, reed growing, all powered by water mills erected around the stadium. Nnone of which will stand up to a more cursory glance. As does Purple''s rather silly contibution. The earth is not flat, the Pope is not a Hindu and Tom Cavendish has nothing of any worth to say. And shame on Purple for trying to wind him up by encouraging him.[/quote]So what is your solution? I missed that in your post. If you think how to create extra capacity is "neither a serious topic, nor a credible one" then you haven''t understood a word the directors have said on the subject since 2011.

[tom cavendish 0]

lake district canary,I have gone into detail to explain how:Bus: Bus stops at a new stadium would make it more convenient for a lot of people than CR, particularly when the weather isn''t very good.Car: Those who currently go by car could park nearer to a new stadium than at CR and they could use the NDR so avoiding congestion in the city centre. Consider too that the car park at CR has been sold for housing, the council may consider raising charges to park at County Hall and introduce congestion charges to enter the city centre by car.Rail: The council want new railway stations at Broadland which would mean shorter and cheaper journeys for the majority of fans who currently travel by rail. It would also help to attract fans from a wider area.Walking: Those who park in the city centre and then walk go to a match whilst their family go shopping could save money by parking at a park and ride close to a new stadium.A lot of fans will be working at Broadland so for evening matches they could walk to a stadium from where they work.Some people would have to walk further, other less. Some will find other modes of transport. Some who currently use cars and public transport would be able to walk to the stadium instead.7,000 to 10,000 new homes to be built (est 22,000 more local people). Cycling: Broadland growth triangle is to be part of the Norwich cycle network so it would be convenient for a lot of people to cycle to a new stadium.Here is an example of bikes parked at the Southampton Stadium:http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/other/cycle-area-sized148-1005836.jpg

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I haven''t been following this in detail, but I would defend Tom Cavendish''s continued attempts to discuss the subject. The point is that stadium expansion/move away from Carrow Road is a serious topic. It comes up at pretty much every fans'' forum or McNally webchat or AGM. But what you then get is a statement that is often ambiguous, or leaves open several questions, none of which then get asked, let alone answered. For example, how come the £20m cost of raising capacity to 35,000 became £20m-£30m and then £30m all within a very few years?The truth is that this important subject, with the competing claims of expansion versus a move, and the associated practicalities/difficulties and costs, should have been gone into rigorously by the EDP, but as far as I am aware (just as with Cullumgate) it has never made the slightest effort. What Tom is doing in effect is the EDP''s job for it. He may be right or he may be wrong, but at least he is putting the case for one solution to a very knotty problem.[/quote]

 

I have no axe to grind in the matter, Purple, but I''m not sure I see it as "a knotty problem."

In the bigger picture, surely there is a recognition by most that Norwich City FC, even with good management, will occasionally have seasons where we participate at Championship level. Our current capacity and level of attendance is at the top end of likely Championship teams. If one accepts that as a given, then obviously the need to increase capacity is essentially only pertinent to those seasons we are participating in the Premiership. However, the economic dependability upon income from attendance, as we all know, has diminished such that clubs comparable to us ( e.g.WBA or even bigger, evergreen clubs such as Spurs ) are less driven to take risk to increase capacity.

 

Surely this is what has driven Norwich management to consider taking one step forward in considering the situation only to be followed by two steps backward. It may be apropriate to call it an ongoing agenda item, worthy of discussion or contemplation but, a knotty problem, I don''t think so.   

 

[/quote]Yankee, I think it is knotty. I may (or may not) have time later on to explain why I believe that!

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]lake district canary,I have gone into detail to explain how:Bus: Bus stops at a new stadium would make it more convenient for a lot of people than CR, particularly when the weather isn''t very good.Car: Those who currently go by car could park nearer to a new stadium than at CR and they could use the NDR so avoiding congestion in the city centre. Consider too that the car park at CR has been sold for housing, the council may consider raising charges to park at County Hall and introduce congestion charges to enter the city centre by car.Rail: The council want new railway stations at Broadland which would mean shorter and cheaper journeys for the majority of fans who currently travel by rail. It would also help to attract fans from a wider area.Walking: Those who park in the city centre and then walk go to a match whilst their family go shopping could save money by parking at a park and ride close to a new stadium.A lot of fans will be working at Broadland so for evening matches they could walk to a stadium from where they work.Some people would have to walk further, other less. Some will find other modes of transport. Some who currently use cars and public transport would be able to walk to the stadium instead.7,000 to 10,000 new homes to be built (est 22,000 more local people). Cycling: Broadland growth triangle is to be part of the Norwich cycle network so it would be convenient for a lot of people to cycle to a new stadium.Here is an example of bikes parked at the Southampton Stadium:http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/other/cycle-area-sized148-1005836.jpg

[/quote]

you said that the Club, after a study, had  planning permission to build a new stadium on UEA owned Land... you now say this stadium should be built in Broadland... where in Broadland is this UEA owned land that you were so sure had been agreed with the club and was to be funded by the Uni?

none of it happened, did it?

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Old Trafford has a tram station, any chance we could get the trams back my old Nan loved them and loved telling us how great they were.

 

 

 

[TimDim 0]

he[quote user="jas the barclay king"]i''m still waiting for Tom to tell me which part of Broadland Business park the UEA owns, considering he was convinced we''d agreed planning permission to build a new stadium on UEA owned land...[/quote]Rather like those who jump off the end of Worthing Pier dressed as a bird or a plane, each one is a different one. This is a different plan, but as with the fancy dress, it retains the same reasoning  behind itie it can all be paid by some fanciful tosh that other organisations will pay for it all. The Bristol Rovers stadium fell apart not simply be cause it was a scam driven by some shyster keen to line his pockets, but because it relied upon too many variables. Which by their nature can and will vary ie the supermarket dynamic changed, meaning in was no longer viable for Sainsbury''s to purchase the land. What we have with this nonsense is some idea that a railway station could be built to the same time frame and in cordination to a football stadium. Likewise various other entities would have to similarly all fit into the same timetable. Even with all that we have to presume that NCFC and television money will remain the same for the next twenty years ! Absolute nonsense from first to last. Far better for this young lad to go back to imagining that he is a professional scout.

[Syteanric 1]

not sure why but Reading Tom''s posts always remind of Joe Kinnear...

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]lake district canary,I have gone into detail to explain how:Bus: Bus stops at a new stadium would make it more convenient for a lot of people than CR, particularly when the weather isn''t very good.Car: Those who currently go by car could park nearer to a new stadium than at CR and they could use the NDR so avoiding congestion in the city centre. Consider too that the car park at CR has been sold for housing, the council may consider raising charges to park at County Hall and introduce congestion charges to enter the city centre by car.Rail: The council want new railway stations at Broadland which would mean shorter and cheaper journeys for the majority of fans who currently travel by rail. It would also help to attract fans from a wider area.Walking: Those who park in the city centre and then walk go to a match whilst their family go shopping could save money by parking at a park and ride close to a new stadium.A lot of fans will be working at Broadland so for evening matches they could walk to a stadium from where they work.Some people would have to walk further, other less. Some will find other modes of transport. Some who currently use cars and public transport would be able to walk to the stadium instead.7,000 to 10,000 new homes to be built (est 22,000 more local people). Cycling: Broadland growth triangle is to be part of the Norwich cycle network so it would be convenient for a lot of people to cycle to a new stadium.Here is an example of bikes parked at the Southampton Stadium:http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/other/cycle-area-sized148-1005836.jpg

[/quote]But you haven''t gone into detail at all. You just rehash the same $hit.I''ve told you before that a ''majority'' of people who catch trains come from the west of the city - not the east - on trains terminating in Norwich. You have provided no answer to my questions as to how these people - as well as the people who walk from the city - would get to the ground, other than to say that ''we could put a bus stop out the front'' - when we all know there would be massive capacity issues on the roads and rails between Norwich and Broadband to make this even remotely workable for the numbers of people we''re talking about.This is what is so frustrating with this thread, and why you get a hard time. You argue the same points over and over again without addressing any genuine questions or problems.It''s also the well though out arguments such as;A lot of fans will be working at Broadland so for evening matches they could walk to a stadium from where they work.and....Some people would have to walk further, other less. Some will find other

modes of transport. Some who currently use cars and public transport

would be able to walk to the stadium instead.These are just random thoughts with no base of fact.

Tom - we get it. You think it''s a great idea. Others don''t. Nothing on this thread will change any of those opinions. Just let the thread die. You''ve had a good run.....

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

you said that the Club, after a study, had  planning permission to build a new stadium on UEA owned Land...

[/quote]No I haven''t said that at all.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Can''t public transport increase capacity on game days? Add a few cars to the trains, increase capacity their frequency.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Gainer the Gopher"]Can''t public transport increase capacity on game days? Add a few cars to the trains, increase capacity their frequency.[/quote]I''m sure they could if there was ever a need for it but we are not planning to leave Carrow Road anytime soon, if ever, so discussing the possibility is a pointless exercise.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]we all know there would be massive capacity issues on the roads and rails between Norwich and Broadband to make this even remotely workable for the numbers of people we''re talking about.[/quote]The NDR and the Postwick Hub are being built and so would make a new stadium at Broadland more accessible than CR for a huge number of people including those from areas in the west of Norwich such as Drayton, Taverham, Fakenham etc. particularly as a new stadium could have lots of parking available and stadium bus stops.For those who currently use rail services from the east (Ely etc.) a journey to a new stadium at Broadland would involve waiting 6 minutes for a connection to a new stadium. That journey would only take about 4 additional minutes to get to Broadland. This is based upon the existing Saturday rail timetable.

[tom cavendish 0]

Some additional info... for people in the west of Norwich there is already a direct bus service route that goes from Wymondham, Hethersett, Cringleford, down Newmarket Road through east Norwich to Broadland Business Park.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]lake district canary,I have gone into detail to explain how:Bus: Bus stops at a new stadium would make it more convenient for a lot of people than CR, particularly when the weather isn''t very good.Car: Those who currently go by car could park nearer to a new stadium than at CR and they could use the NDR so avoiding congestion in the city centre. Consider too that the car park at CR has been sold for housing, the council may consider raising charges to park at County Hall and introduce congestion charges to enter the city centre by car.Rail: The council want new railway stations at Broadland which would mean shorter and cheaper journeys for the majority of fans who currently travel by rail. It would also help to attract fans from a wider area.Walking: Those who park in the city centre and then walk go to a match whilst their family go shopping could save money by parking at a park and ride close to a new stadium.A lot of fans will be working at Broadland so for evening matches they could walk to a stadium from where they work.Some people would have to walk further, other less. Some will find other modes of transport. Some who currently use cars and public transport would be able to walk to the stadium instead.7,000 to 10,000 new homes to be built (est 22,000 more local people). Cycling: Broadland growth triangle is to be part of the Norwich cycle network so it would be convenient for a lot of people to cycle to a new stadium.Here is an example of bikes parked at the Southampton Stadium:http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/cms_images/other/cycle-area-sized148-1005836.jpg[/quote]

I''ll give you the same criticism again - because you''ve just repeated the same thing, and you ignore the effects of what your idea would have  - puttting on extra pressure on transport, putting more traffic on the roads  - and the main point - the effect it has on the social side of having a stadium well out of the centre, when a large part of the success of Carrow Road is down to the fact that it is very near the centre. 

You might make some people happy by putting the new stadium away from the city centre, but you will make many, many more people unhappy - and the club took years to get to the stage of enticing so many people to become season ticket holders.  You make a large proportion of the older fans start having to catch buses/trains/drive even bicycle to matches and I''ll tell you what will happen...........they will stop going.  And there are a lot of older fans, as well as younger ones - and the club can''t afford to ignore that.   You risk your income stream and most of all - the goodwill of the fans.   You mess with that at your peril.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

These buses conveying thousands from the city out to Broadland........Who will be paying for the extra fleet that will be needed or will other routes be depleted on a match day to provide them ?

As for trains a similar question seeing as the rail network from Norwich going virtually anywhere is old stock and already insufficient to meet demand especially for games in London which are packed to bursting in both directions.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

It is a good topic to discuss, but I agree with other posters that Tom is coming from the angle of "its a really good idea" but with little substance to back it up, a photo of a bus stop outside the DCFC ground or some bikes outside the Southampton ground do not really make the argument.

The reality is that the current ground is probably in an ideal position, close to the city centre, which makes it more family centric, close to the railway station, within walking of the bus station with plenty of parking. pubs and eateries within walking distance.

The other reality is that the current stadium does not need to be expanded that much particularly if we stay up and reap the financial benefits of the new TV deal......

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]we all know there would be massive capacity issues on the roads and rails between Norwich and Broadband to make this even remotely workable for the numbers of people we''re talking about.[/quote]The NDR and the Postwick Hub are being built and so would make a new stadium at Broadland more accessible than CR for a huge number of people including those from areas in the west of Norwich such as Drayton, Taverham, Fakenham etc. particularly as a new stadium could have lots of parking available and stadium bus stops.For those who currently use rail services from the east (Ely etc.) a journey to a new stadium at Broadland would involve waiting 6 minutes for a connection to a new stadium. That journey would only take about 4 additional minutes to get to Broadland. This is based upon the existing Saturday rail timetable.[/quote]I''ll repeat - CAPACITY ISSUES. You can''t get the answers by googling timetables and routes. Even if you do cater the ''just 10 mins'' extra journey time for those coming from the other side of Norwich (even though you were previously claiming that a 3min less time for people the other side was a massive win for your idea - in the very first post) THE WHERRY LINE CURRENTLY CAN NOT COPE WITH THAT MANY TRAINS BETWEEN NORWICH & POSTWICK. So, you either have to hope someone shells out millions to upgrade it, factor that into your ''plans'', or expect people to be mighty pi$$ed off when they have to wait 90mins to get on a train after the game, as only 2 or 3 trains can stop there an hour.[quote user="tom cavendish"]Some additional info... for people in the west of Norwich there is already a direct bus service route that goes from Wymondham, Hethersett, Cringleford, down Newmarket Road through east Norwich to Broadland Business Park.[/quote]Again, that''s excellent, but THERE ARE CAPACITY ISSUES, as only 2 buses an hour run for each of those. So, once the first 100 people from those places get on the bus, you''re going to have lots of pi$$ed off people.Therefore - as previously mentioned - you''d need to run loads of ''special'' buses. I''m not sure how much you know about these buses running down Yarmouth Rd, but again you''d need a massive upgrade to get all the buses you need along that narrow road - You also have the issue of the one-lane restriction going below the rail fly-over as well, which may require upgrade.Your plans are not feasible. They would require massive investment in the road and rail infrastructure you haven''t catered for - making the idea a very expensive one. You can''t just ''build a bus stop out the front, and a platform at Postwick''.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]we all know there would be massive capacity issues on the roads and rails between Norwich and Broadband to make this even remotely workable for the numbers of people we''re talking about.[/quote]The NDR and the Postwick Hub are being built and so would make a new stadium at Broadland more accessible than CR for a huge number of people including those from areas in the west of Norwich such as Drayton, Taverham, Fakenham etc. particularly as a new stadium could have lots of parking available and stadium bus stops.For those who currently use rail services from the east (Ely etc.) a journey to a new stadium at Broadland would involve waiting 6 minutes for a connection to a new stadium. That journey would only take about 4 additional minutes to get to Broadland. This is based upon the existing Saturday rail timetable.[/quote]And an even larger number of people who live in the City and at present can quite easily walk to the stadium would now find that they would have to use a car or public transport to get to the new ground. Only a small number of walkers would find somewhere like the Poswick hub convenient, the vast majority would not. Those on the west side of the City would either have no choice but to drive or get a bus into the City and then change to either another bus or short train ride. Oh deary me, this all creates far more problems than it can ever solve. Thankfully it will never come to fruition.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I haven''t been following this in detail, but I would defend Tom Cavendish''s continued attempts to discuss the subject. The point is that stadium expansion/move away from Carrow Road is a serious topic. It comes up at pretty much every fans'' forum or McNally webchat or AGM. But what you then get is a statement that is often ambiguous, or leaves open several questions, none of which then get asked, let alone answered. For example, how come the £20m cost of raising capacity to 35,000 became £20m-£30m and then £30m all within a very few years?The truth is that this important subject, with the competing claims of expansion versus a move, and the associated practicalities/difficulties and costs, should have been gone into rigorously by the EDP, but as far as I am aware (just as with Cullumgate) it has never made the slightest effort. What Tom is doing in effect is the EDP''s job for it. He may be right or he may be wrong, but at least he is putting the case for one solution to a very knotty problem.[/quote]

 

I have no axe to grind in the matter, Purple, but I''m not sure I see it as "a knotty problem."

In the bigger picture, surely there is a recognition by most that Norwich City FC, even with good management, will occasionally have seasons where we participate at Championship level. Our current capacity and level of attendance is at the top end of likely Championship teams. If one accepts that as a given, then obviously the need to increase capacity is essentially only pertinent to those seasons we are participating in the Premiership. However, the economic dependability upon income from attendance, as we all know, has diminished such that clubs comparable to us ( e.g.WBA or even bigger, evergreen clubs such as Spurs ) are less driven to take risk to increase capacity.

 

Surely this is what has driven Norwich management to consider taking one step forward in considering the situation only to be followed by two steps backward. It may be apropriate to call it an ongoing agenda item, worthy of discussion or contemplation but, a knotty problem, I don''t think so.   

 

[/quote]

Yankee, as threatened (!) why I think this is a knotty problem (albeit not one that is going to be solved any time soon by a move away from Carrow Road).What started this off was a very bullish statement from Bowkett and McNally in the autumn of 2011. It was that they hoped to begin work on turning Carrow Road into a 35,000-seat stadium (with a City Stand holding 10,000 people) "if we stay in the Premier League for three years”.A year later (although still in the Premier League and with the prospect of staying there) McNally sharply watered that down in a webchat and (to mix a metaphor) kicked the project into the long grass: "Once we have become an established Premier League side then we may consider it viable to invest in the development of Carrow Road.So the definite "three years" has become the much vaguer "...once we are established...", the "hope to begin" has become a "may consider" and the 35,000-seats have become another much vaguer "development". (And this kicking into the long grass was later emphasised, as ricardo has said, at AGMs by Bowkett saying how the cost (I take it of the project itself rather than the capital costs plus debt interest) had risen spectacularly from £20m to £30m).But what was significant about that September 2012 statement was that McNally went out of his way to stress how much they believed in the idea in the long run: "This independent research project is really important as it deals with facts, such as population growth, and real numbers, such as socio-economic data, and not instinct or intuition. And so we are convinced that an expansion of Carrow Road is something that the club should contemplate."Under the circumstances you might have expected McNally to downplay the UEA survey, or even not mention it, but he does the opposite. And he has quoted the survey positively as recently as last December, adding: "Ultimately we would like to expand Carrow Road and to allow all of those on the season ticket waiting list the opportunity to attend games."But for now: "However the cost of such a project is circa £30m and at present we simply do not have the funds to invest. Currently, all spare cash is re-invested in football and we think that this strategy will need to continue, certainly for the mid-term."That doesn''t seem very knotty. We can''t afford it. But then there is this contradictory quote from McNally, reported by the EDP:

Mr McNally said the 35,000 figure would “produce a self-sustainable Premier League football club”, but the current capacity of 27,000 would not.On this thread some posters have said the recent TV deals invalidate that view, and that we don''t need expansion to be self-sufficient. I am not at all sure about that. The eye-watering figures make fans go all starry-eyed, but the truth is that everybody gets the TV money, we get less than most, and in any event it goes in one door at Carrow Road and straight out the other in higher wages and transfer fees. We have already seen this summer how the prospect of the mega-mega TV deal for the season after this one has affected prices now. Bear in mind that in 2013-14 (the first year of the much-trumpeted previous mega-TV deal) we only made a profit - and a small one at that - becase we got relegated and so didn''t have to pay out certain bonuses.The way in which we can gain an advantage over our rivals with similar-sized stadiums is by expansion, bringing in extra revenue from ticket sales, catering and commercial. And would it actually cost so much? Chairman Alan Bowkett said "rebuilding the City Stand for a capacity of 35,000 would cost around £30m, which would be mortgaged over 20 years and cost around £2.5m per year in payments".

 

Not so much £50m but more £2.5m a year - that makes it all sound quite affordable, especially if you assume that as a yo-yo club we will spend ten of those 20 years in the Premier League. Again being realistic, not all that £2.5m would come from the extra ticket sales (I don''t believe for a moment we would anything like fill a 35,000-seat stadium even in the Premier League) but adding £1m or so a year from the TV income would hardly make a great difference to the playing budget.And eventually those extra seats become a money-spinner, even if hardly ever all filled. As with the 4,000 extra seats in The Jarrold - now paid for (in part by Premier League TV money). From now on, even if we on average only sell 2,000 of those seats a season that is pure profit. So it would be with an enlarged City Stand. And it realistically can only be the City Stand. We are, as I understand it, legally stuck with the hotel, and in any even that space would nowhere near produce enough seats.So. We can''t afford to expand, but there is an argument we can''t afford not to. Knotty or what?

[chicken 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]we all know there would be massive capacity issues on the roads and rails between Norwich and Broadband to make this even remotely workable for the numbers of people we''re talking about.[/quote]The NDR and the Postwick Hub are being built and so would make a new stadium at Broadland more accessible than CR for a huge number of people including those from areas in the west of Norwich such as Drayton, Taverham, Fakenham etc. particularly as a new stadium could have lots of parking available and stadium bus stops.For those who currently use rail services from the east (Ely etc.) a journey to a new stadium at Broadland would involve waiting 6 minutes for a connection to a new stadium. That journey would only take about 4 additional minutes to get to Broadland. This is based upon the existing Saturday rail timetable.[/quote]

Yup.

All of you folk in Taverham, Drayton and Fakenham - there is already a bus that goes twice as far as you need to go currently - to take you to a game at the site for the proposed new stadium.

Even better is that if you wanted to do a bit of shopping, have a pint in a traditional Norwich supporting pub, you won''t be able to, so saving you more pennies you can spend at the ground and, well, time you can spend looking at the outside of a beautiful industrial estate.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are already buses and trains that go direct into Norwich from that direction, some even stop at Tombland which gives you the option of walking down Prince of Wales Road or sauntering through the beautiful Cathedral grounds.

I lived in Hellesdon and had the option of the buses that traveled down Drayton Road, Reepham Road or to go and use the park and ride. All got me within ten minutes stroll of the ground where it is now.

And those folk coming in on the train are even closer. And other folk coming in from different directions can all, at the very least get to castle meadow. If you live Costessey way, you can get a bus to next to the trainstation.

The really obvious problem you seem to keep avoiding addressing is that instead of all of these people coming in nicely spread over public transport into the city centre - most would have to do this AND THEN get another bus out to Broadland Business Park - this is where the extra demand would be and where it utterly defeats what you are saying. You could not possibly make all of those buses terminate there. It would royally nark off a lot of supporters.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="chicken"]

The really obvious problem you seem to keep avoiding addressing is that instead of all of these people coming in nicely spread over public transport into the city centre - most would have to do this AND THEN get another bus out to Broadland Business Park - this is where the extra demand would be and where it utterly defeats what you are saying. You could not possibly make all of those buses terminate there. It would royally nark off a lot of supporters.[/quote]

Spot onAnd the thousands of people like me that live within a 20-40 minute walk to Carrow Road would now have to walk to Castle Meadow or the station and catch a bus out to Poswick and the reverse coming back. It makes no sense at all. You make it easier for the few and much more difficult for the many.