New stadium - careful what you wish for

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]4) Arguments are often based on the (correct) assumption that we would not fill 4,000 or 5,000 extra seats most of the time, so that supposedly invalidates the reason for expansion. It does not.5) The argument that, when in the PL, we don''t need expansion, because of the relatively high proportion - see 1) - of TV revenue, is false. [/quote]I have to take issue with both these statements, Purple. The idea that we need to increase capacity to 32k to meet demand is certainly far from proven IMO.An extra 4-5k extra seats would allow many who are now forced to purchase season tickets to pick and choose their games as was the case before full houses became the norm. Gate money in the Championship is obviously a bigger percentage of income than in the Premier League yet we are already seeing an inability to fill the stadium in this league on a fairly regular basis. Thus those extra seats would produce almost no extra revenue while in the Championship. Yes, we might well get the odd 30k plus while in the Premier League but that extra income would be amount to next to nothing compare to Premiership payments.We would all like to see a larger capacity but the risks are far greater than the rewards IMO

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]4) Arguments are often based on the (correct) assumption that we would not fill 4,000 or 5,000 extra seats most of the time, so that supposedly invalidates the reason for expansion. It does not.5) The argument that, when in the PL, we don''t need expansion, because of the relatively high proportion - see 1) - of TV revenue, is false. [/quote]I have to take issue with both these statements, Purple. The idea that we need to increase capacity to 32k to meet demand is certainly far from proven IMO.An extra 4-5k extra seats would allow many who are now forced to purchase season tickets to pick and choose their games as was the case before full houses became the norm. Gate money in the Championship is obviously a bigger percentage of income than in the Premier League yet we are already seeing an inability to fill the stadium in this league on a fairly regular basis. Thus those extra seats would produce almost no extra revenue while in the Championship. Yes, we might well get the odd 30k plus while in the Premier League but that extra income would be amount to next to nothing compare to Premiership payments.We would all like to see a larger capacity but the risks are far greater than the rewards IMO[/quote]

So why don''t the Stowmarket Two mitigate the risk by inviting a money man onto the Board to undertake the task in hand in return for shares that dilute the Stwmarket Two''s stake? Answer: control freakery.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Big Vince"] So why don''t the Stowmarket Two mitigate the risk by inviting a money man onto the Board to undertake the task in hand in return for shares that dilute the Stwmarket Two''s stake? Answer: control freakery.[/quote]

Perhaps you could name this Stadium building benefactor because I don''t see any waiting in the wings.A few years ago McNallly & Bowkett trawled round most of the financial institutions in London in search of someone to finance ground expansion. They were met with sympathetic laughter and shown the door.

[tom cavendish 0]

As I''ve said before... the spending priority is to support the manager to build a squad to achieve promotion to the Premier League. Once promoted the priority will be to stay there.As others have said, replacing the City Stand isn''t great value for money for a relatively small increase in capacity.A way to fund a much better stadium without it having a detrimental impact upon the playing budget is to involve other partners such as the UEA and local council. If Norwich have failed to be promoted by the time the parachute payments have stopped then the prospect of a new/improved stadium is likely to increase as it could help to provide new revenue streams to help increase the playing budget.Investing in the stadium etc. to provide additional funds for the playing budget is also a way that some use to help get around fair play rules.If people don''t like the idea of moving far from Carrow Road, there is a site available close to the stadium which was where there were plans for a Power Generation Park.You can see the site here:http://www.generationparknorwich.com/

[Bill 1,788]

" inviting a money man onto the Board to undertake the task in hand in return for shares that dilute the Stwmarket Two''s stake?"

perhaps you could explain to us lesser mortals how that would actually work "no need for names as this stagejust what those shares would behow much they would be worth etc will doas I am sure you have this all worked out and are not just making up some old bollox to attack the club with.... are you ?

[Bill 1,788]

Perhaps young master ovendish might care to tell us all what happened to the much vaunted tie up between Bristol Rovers and the local uni which was to deliver a brand new stadium that would not cost anyone anything  ! ! !That was in September 2011... what news ?

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="Betty Swallox"]" inviting a money man onto the Board to undertake the task in hand in return for shares that dilute the Stwmarket Two''s stake?"

perhaps you could explain to us lesser mortals how that would actually work "no need for names as this stagejust what those shares would behow much they would be worth etc will doas I am sure you have this all worked out and are not just making up some old bollox to attack the club with.... are you ?

[/quote]

The Stowmarket Two''s shares are worth about £32 million (£100 per share).

The City Stand could be replaced most cost effectively for £20 million. It would be a two-tier 12000 seater and joined up at each end on both tiers.

The said money man would put £16 million towards the rebuild in return for 160,000 of the Stowmarket Two''s shares. The club would then have to find only £4 million internally to make up the difference.

[Bill 1,788]

that pile of idiotic nonsense is worthy of only these few wordsyou haven''t a clue, have you ?

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="Betty Swallox"]that pile of idiotic nonsense is worthy of only these few wordsyou haven''t a clue, have you ?

[/quote]

Have you really taken time to read and digest this proposal or have you had a jerk knee response?

[Bill 1,788]

a jerk knee response, eh ?sounds rather as if you replied before thinking (what irony)to take down the old stand and built a new 12,000 seater for£12m is laughable - it cost Wolves over £18m to put up their new stand that hold 7,000do you know exactly how much of the club Delia Smith and her husband own, as by your rather bizarre calculations the club would be worth in excess of £60m !

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Not often do i agree with City1st but what a load of old twaddle Big Vince. You want Delia & Michael to give away 160,000 of their own shareholding to this mystery man in return for him funding the new stand ? Have i got that right ?

[Bill 1,788]

one that not only would hold 12,000 but be built for only £20m !whereas Liverpool''s new stand (20,00 seats) will cost around £114m

[SwindonCanary 455]

With inflation, the longer we wait to build, the more it will cost and we''ve been talking about this for years.

[Bill 1,788]

what you mean is the more we will risk losing as even the most gormless accept that the seats themselves will nowhere near cover the cost.... and that is all seats sold, at ALL matches and at top pricemaybe you could work out how much more we would have lost so far this season were we to have embarked on this nonsense, and how that would be impacting on the team budget up to now and up till May 2017

[Barbe bleu 814]

So which is it? accept where we are and the possibility of being left behind as others invest in infrastructure or find the cash and hope the damage your the transfer kitty doesn''t hold us back ?

I''d like to think there was a third option but why would the uni or the council (or anyone else for that matter)invest in a stand?

[Bill 1,788]

Please explain how you can be certain that -we will still be able to pay for this in 20 years time ?how are we being left behind (an investment is putting money towrds something that would return a profit - this will cost the club millions in losses year in year out... for what ?) ?

[? 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"]And by "refurbishment" I mean that they have already stated it would be demolished and completely rebuilt, as opposed to just being tarted up.[/quote]Could be done in two stages. Build a top tier or extension, get that useable, then refurbish or indeed rebuild the old stand.

[/quote]I would doubt that very much, fairly sure new foundations would need to be laid if we were increasing the capacity and size of the stand. At very best they could perhaps build the new bottom tier ( if its a two tier design) and then do the upper over time, but that greatly increases the build time.[/quote]

Morty, my recollection of the City stand being enlarged was dependent on the club being able to purchase Carrow Road from the council because it would interfere with the road. This would obviously have an effect on the total cost as well.

During those discussions it was stated that when the foundations were laid, they were suitable for an upper tier to be added to the stand. The stand would not need to be demolished and then rebuilt. However, I can''t really see how a second tier could be built above the existing one and not effect the lower tier as LDC has mentioned. The necessary structural supports would surely impinge on the lower tier.

Anyway, that''s how I seem to recall the situation. Perhaps its a question that could be put to the next management forum that Angel so well organises, when there is one.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Ron Manager"] I can''t really see how a second tier could be built above the existing one and not effect the lower tier [/quote]

Ron, take this side on view and see how the main part of any upper tier or extension would not impact that greatly on the existing lower part (marked in red on here.  Remove the roof, build upawards and backwards, all supports behind the existing structure.

[Bill 1,788]

unfortunately it would impact on the pavement, if not the roadso it would be a no go until the club acquired Carrow Road

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Chief executive David McNally said

the Canaries had to look at increasing ground capacity if they became

re-established as a top-flight club.

But, speaking at the club’s annual

meeting, he warned that adding 8,000 to the current capacity of 27,000 would

cost £20m, money it would take years to recoup.

Not since the 1970s have City been

able to accommodate 30,000-plus crowds. The final home match of the 1974-75

season, against Aston Villa, was watched by 35,999 fans, but three sides of the

stadium were still terracing.

McNally said City’s current average

home gate of 25,277 was “a distance ahead” of the Championship average of about

16,000, but he said the average Premier League crowd was about 35,000.

“We do have to consider looking at

the opportunity to increase capacity when the time would be right,” he said.

Some Premier League clubs managed on

much smaller gates, but survived thanks to big benefactors such as Dave Whelan

at Wigan and Mohamed Al Fayed, who had put £200m into Fulham, he said.

“If there is no major investor we

have to make the club self-sustainable and in the Premier League we would have

to have 35,000,” said McNally.

But he pointed out that it cost about

£2,500 per seat in a “new build”, so it would cost £20m to increase capacity by

8,000.

City would lose £1.4m in gate income

from lost capacity while building work was in progress and it would take nine

years to pay back the building cost, he said, adding that they would consider

expanding the stadium only after two consecutive years in the Premier League.

“Only then would it be a viable

proposition,” he said.

Club chairman Alan Bowkett said after

the meeting that one side of the stadium was a prime candidate for

redevelopment.

He said: “The obvious route is the

Geoffrey Watling City Stand and whether you throw another layer on it, or you

take it down and rebuild I don’t know.

“I think probably the sensible thing

to do is bite the bullet, take it down and build a new stand but it means 18

months, possibly two years, without revenue. Then what do you do to the people

in the Geoffrey Watling Stand, who tend to be the people who have been

supporters for many generations? So it’s difficult.”

Bowkett said City were confident

there would be an extra 8,000 fans keen to see Premier League football.

“We’ve done a lot of looking at the

greater Norwich conurbation and the commuting population,” he said.

“About 500,000 people are in

commuting distance of Norwich, compared to what, a 150,000 population. There

isn’t another club for 50 miles.

There isn’t really another large

scale sporting attraction like a rugby club or rugby league club, so we’ve got

a captive market. We just have to make it accessible. The trade-off is between

capacity and price.

“I’ve had some private conversations

this evening with people saying ‘It’s getting a bit expensive, Alan’. And I

know it is. There is only so far we can put the price up. And in the current

environment when people are paying higher taxes, high inflation, flat salaries,

one has to be realistic.

“But we’ve started our renewal programme

for season tickets which, I’m absolutely amazed, has gone superbly well and

we’ve got another six or seven hundred new subscribers for season tickets out

of the blue.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/norwich_city_may_up_capacity_to_35_000_1_778088?usurv=skip

Okay, so this was five years ago. Of course since then the tv money has gone up by a huge amount.

However, if transfers are anything to go by Ed Balls appears to have taken off some of Bowkett''s shackles. (Which most fans seemed to want) Perhaps he may have a different view of any stadium expansion too (Which not so many fans seem to want). However if Blue Rinse and his ilk are correct we won''t be a PL team while Delia owns the club so we won''t need to worry about it. (Even though she has been in the PL more than at least half of football''s richer owners.)

The big sticking point is the question of being established in the PL. People have different ideas about how that works. Last season many were saying the likes of Swansea are established. I have my doubts about this. The season''s well underway now. So how many established PL clubs are people confident won''t be fighting relegation? 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Interesting view of Anfield''s new stand going up over the top of the old one, with a gap for the access road underneath.

[morty 0]

There wouldn''t be the room for that between Carrow road and Koblenz avenue. They are literally about 15 feet apart.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Interesting view of Anfield''s new stand going up over the top of the old one, with a gap for the access road underneath.[/quote]and that cost around £114m (20,000 seats)whereas the nutjobs on here think £20m would do it !

ps it is also an access road, not a main thoroughfare as Carrow Road is

[Herman 9,713]

It was an example of how it could be done.

[Bill 1,788]

at Anfield, not at Carrow Roadwhich given the ground we are atlking about.......

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]There wouldn''t be the room for that between Carrow road and Koblenz avenue. They are literally about 15 feet apart.[/quote]

Anything like that would be on a smaller scale at CR and if the gap for access was limited to the width of one vehicle, it is possible that there would be room. The distance as you say being about 15 feet, then making CR one vehicle width instead of two would add on around another ten feet. Is 25 feet enough for foundations/construction of something like at Anfield?  Maybe, maybe not - but a different design could be made where the access road could be incorporated into the structure rather than be seen as a separate entity.  In other words the construction work would start at the edge of the present wall of the ground, rather than across the access road. The access road could then be "built in" to the new construction. 

[morty 0]

You should mail your plan to the club.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I''m sure the club don''t need my help to come up with ideas.  It''s just interesting to speculate on what might happen or what might be possible.

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="Betty Swallox"]at Anfield, not at Carrow Roadwhich given the ground we are atlking about.......

[/quote]It was an example of how modern architectural techniques can be utilised so as to cut down on as much disruption of supporters as possible. Obviously it would be slightly different at CR due to money constraints, site size etc.

[Bill 1,788]

Physically possible, perhaps.Financially viable, not in our life times