New stadium - careful what you wish for

[Bill 1,788]

"but if we don''t expand the club cannot grow."What you mean is take on debt that we may not be able to meet in the future.For what ?The huge contradiction in your absurdity is that you talk of a few seasons in the PL then suggest something that would almost certainly guarantee that once out of the PL we would not have the playing budget to get back. Carrying a debt that you cannot meet the payments does not make you a big club.The reality is that even with a full house for every game any redevelopment will need to a ''subsidy''.So please explain to the rest of us why the club should risk it''s stability and why it should divert money away from the playing budget.

ps the guff about loans is just that guff... no one will lend at the rates you suggest, in fact I would be surprised if City could raise that kind of loan without seriously puttuing the club at risk.

[Van wink 2,994]

Can''t wait for the board to decide that the time is right for a nice new expansion of the City stand.

[i,coopius 0]

City 1st - you''re not the nephew are you?

Just wondering

[Bill 1,788]

NoJust answering

[Barbe bleu 822]

[quote user="Humpty Go-cart"]"but if we don''t expand the club cannot grow."What you mean is take on debt that we may not be able to meet in the future.For what ?The huge contradiction in your absurdity is that you talk of a few seasons in the PL then suggest something that would almost certainly guarantee that once out of the PL we would not have the playing budget to get back. Carrying a debt that you cannot meet the payments does not make you a big club.The reality is that even with a full house for every game any redevelopment will need to a ''subsidy''.So please explain to the rest of us why the club should risk it''s stability and why it should divert money away from the playing budget.

ps the guff about loans is just that guff... no one will lend at the rates you suggest, in fact I would be surprised if City could raise that kind of loan without seriously puttuing the club at risk.

[/quote]

Quite an aggressive reply there.

its my belief that in the long run expansion will pay for itself in ticket sales. Clearly though there would be a short term loss to the playing budget as I cannot imagine that the extra match day income will meet loan payments alone.

The club needs to decide: if it is content playing at its current level (is top champs/bottom premier) and to its current crowds (size and profile) it need do nothing. However, If it is to open up the big games to more people, attract bigger names (in the long run) and add ''prestige'' it must think of expansion.

I''m not sure I ever suggested the club taking on debt it cannot meet.

I also find it surprising that you state that "no one will lend at the rates you suggest" as I''m pretty sure I didn''t suggest a rate. I only suggested that the rate now will likely be lower than in the future, hardly a great leap of imagination.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I struggle with this because the southstand loan didn''t seem to pay for itself through increased ticket revenue and that stand generates a big percentage of our total ticket revenue. Why about a new stand be different?

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Why about????? Not my worst typo! ;)

[Indy 3,297]

I think we can safely say that at present, with no near change in ownership, no external investment, we are as big as we are going to get.

Any premiership season money will be eaten up by wages and other higher expenses.

The reality is to be content with what you have and except that we might get promoted / relegated over the next few seasons.

My question is as follows, those clubs being bought by billionaires and large investor groups will in time build these clubs to premiership clubs, leaving clubs like us behind, the likes of Bournemouth, Palace, Watford, Southampton etc. are showing this.

Will this in time make it near impossible for the rest of us to compete with relegated clubs?

At present we have a great chance of getting up, fail this year will it become a ear mission impossible?

[Darth Vadis 151]

Ok let''s never expand. Because, god forbid, if we do we will plunge into the abyss of the the lower football league, possibly even non-league for an eternity.

[Van wink 2,994]

Based on the existing models you may well be right Indy, it''s hard to see things changing in the near future but who knows. Economic changes could precipitate big money investors with drawing their support, taking by their music net somewhere else, saddling small clubs with stadia and commitments that they can no longer finance.

[Van wink 2,994]

And once the music net has gorn you''ve had it.

[Indy 3,297]

And wouldn''t that be nice VanWink, but at present it''s an easy option and one which could leave a big gap between those super rich and the rest.

While there''s a global market for English football it''s always going to attract big money.

[Van wink 2,994]

And house prices were always going to go up Indy!

If we carry on as we are there is bound to be a break away of the top clubs IMO, maybe 6 or 8 clubs.

If that does happen the big money will drain away from those clubs that remain and we could well find ourselves in a very strong position in that group.

[Indy 3,297]

You might well be right Vanwink.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Indy"]You might well be right Vanwink.[/quote]

The trouble with this mutual back slapping is that it doesn''t address the real world. We got relegated in 2014 with two clubs who not only had the same parachute payments but also had the required rich investor. What went wrong? (Or in my world what went right?).

[Indy 3,297]

Nothing Nutty, as already discussed previously there are clubs in this division with very rich investor / owners, say Villa don''t go up, they will still buy and have a bigger budget than us.

I''m sure it''s not only how much you spend, but if there''s 10 clubs in the championship spending 10 times we do each season, then three of them are likely to finish above us in most seasons!

Not so much backslapping but the real world is without premiership money we as a club would be hard pressed to get anywhere near promotion.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

What I have posted is the real world. Not what you and Winky pontificate could happen. Our Premiership seasons are in the record book so theymust be real. Just like Cardiff and Fulham''s failures. And then you get QPR who were relegated twice like us with parachute payments and apparently an owner to die for. What went wrong there?

It seems to me that the vast majority of these owners only invest once. Then if or when it goes wrong they pull the plug. Or maybe the "investmnent" is only a loan against the value of the club so it only works once. 

And finally, and this is the biggie, however many clubs are owned by these rich "investors" there''s only room for 20 in the PL. 

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="Betty Swallox"][quote user="SwindonCanary"]I think the main problem with development is the the people that would be disturbed the most are the Board members ! [/quote]That is just silly. There are 4000 who sit in the main stand.... they are not all board members.nIn reality they would be the least affected as they would have first dibs on seats made available to displaced season ticket holders.There were huge spaces in both the Bristol and Cardiff games. The point consistently overlooked by the not too bright is that we cannot know where the club will be (league wise) in the next 5, 10. 20 years , however we do know that any repayments on a debt will require meeting. Would we be able to meet a £3/4m payment each season without parachute payments?Current figures show that the cost of building a new stand would leave around a £"m shortfall per annum. That presumes all seats being sold at current prices. As shown by home games so far this season outside of the PL we do not sell out games, which would mean a bigger and bigger ''subsidy'' to the new stand. Talk of City being an established PL club is absurd.  At the moment with TV money making up almost 85% of our income it would be sheer folly to risk getting back into the PL because the club should be subsidising a few glory hunters.

[/quote]1) At the moment, since we are in the Championship, the figure is probably between 50 and 60 per cent. It was 52 per cent last time, but the parachute payments have since been altered. In the Premier League, if that is what is being talked about, the figure is around 72 per cent.2) The last time I can recall a figure being mentioned Bowkett said the building cost of redoing the City Stand with an extra 5,000 or so seats would be 30m pounds, with 20m pounds of interest on top, with the 50m pounds being paid off over 20 years at 2.5m pounds a year.3) Relocating the 4,000 from the City Stand is far from an insuperable problem, as was shown with the South Stand. Get a dispensation to reduce away support, stop new sales of season tickets, slash the number of home casual seats, and that pretty much does it.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. Once built and paid for, as with the South Stand, even if only 1,000 or 2,000 extra seats are filled  some or most of the time, that becomes pure profit for as long as the stand/stadium exists.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. On the contrary, in the long run, since everyone gets the TV money and we get less than most, it is an argument for expansion. The way we can get financially level or ahead of, in terms of annual income, our rivals in the bottom half of the Pl is by increasing non-TV revenue. Extra seats boost revenue not just from ticket sales but from catering and commercial.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Any new City stand could be built around the existing one with very little disruption to it.  Put in a new top tier - or alternatively extend the existing stand backwards and upwards - with the foundations mainly outside the ground and across the access road, then once that is useable, modernise/alter the existing one to finish the job. It could be done with imaginative planning, using pillars on the other side of the access road, creating a tunnel so there is still room for vehicles to get through if needed (as at several grounds around the country - eg Old Trafford).  Any foundation pillars needed further forward could be put in at the two ends of the city stand with mimimum disruption to the existing structure.  It would still cost a lot, but would have the effect of raising the city stand to the height of the other stands around he ground.  Would be preferable imo than putting an extra tier on the Coffee Stand. 

[morty 0]

Pretty sure it''s already been said that refurbishment of the city stand isn''t a viable option.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

When expansion of the ground has been discussed in recent years by the likes of Bowkett and McNally all talk has surrounded the City Stand with no mention of redevelopment elsewhere. With the new bus gate near the club shop the road immediately outside the City stand is virtually pedestrian access only so the club needs to buy it from the council then as Lakey says develop back and over that road like at Aston Villa and Sheff Wed. That development could take place without displacing the residents of the City Stand.Where that money comes from is the 64 million dollar question.

[morty 0]

And by "refurbishment" I mean that they have already stated it would be demolished and completely rebuilt, as opposed to just being tarted up.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[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.

[morty 0]

[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.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[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]

The top tier or preferably extension could have the majority if not all it''s foundations outside the ground.  Roof supports can be cantilevered to the new structure to support the roof to cover the whole stand.  I don''t know how Liverpool have managed it, but given the narrowness of the City Stand as it is at present, I would have thought there was plenty of scope behind it to build a new structure over the top of it and then use the new seating to rehouse the fans while the lower part is reconstructed.  It''s all about supporting the weight of the roof and the weight of the new seats and there is ample space behind the stand to be able to achieve that.  The old structure need not have any bearing on that at all. 

[morty 0]

The club has already said that it would be a complete rebuild, and the issue isn''t just the capacity, but the very dated facilities inside.

It would make no sense, and would take considerably longer to try and half tart the old stand up.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Betty Swallox"][quote user="SwindonCanary"]I think the main problem with development is the the people that would be disturbed the most are the Board members ! [/quote]That is just silly. There are 4000 who sit in the main stand.... they are not all board members.nIn reality they would be the least affected as they would have first dibs on seats made available to displaced season ticket holders.There were huge spaces in both the Bristol and Cardiff games. The point consistently overlooked by the not too bright is that we cannot know where the club will be (league wise) in the next 5, 10. 20 years , however we do know that any repayments on a debt will require meeting. Would we be able to meet a £3/4m payment each season without parachute payments?Current figures show that the cost of building a new stand would leave around a £"m shortfall per annum. That presumes all seats being sold at current prices. As shown by home games so far this season outside of the PL we do not sell out games, which would mean a bigger and bigger ''subsidy'' to the new stand. Talk of City being an established PL club is absurd.  At the moment with TV money making up almost 85% of our income it would be sheer folly to risk getting back into the PL because the club should be subsidising a few glory hunters.

[/quote]1) At the moment, since we are in the Championship, the figure is probably between 50 and 60 per cent. It was 52 per cent last time, but the parachute payments have since been altered. In the Premier League, if that is what is being talked about, the figure is around 72 per cent.2) The last time I can recall a figure being mentioned Bowkett said the building cost of redoing the City Stand with an extra 5,000 or so seats would be 30m pounds, with 20m pounds of interest on top, with the 50m pounds being paid off over 20 years at 2.5m pounds a year.3) Relocating the 4,000 from the City Stand is far from an insuperable problem, as was shown with the South Stand. Get a dispensation to reduce away support, stop new sales of season tickets, slash the number of home casual seats, and that pretty much does it.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. Once built and paid for, as with the South Stand, even if only 1,000 or 2,000 extra seats are filled  some or most of the time, that becomes pure profit for as long as the stand/stadium exists.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. On the contrary, in the long run, since everyone gets the TV money and we get less than most, it is an argument for expansion. The way we can get financially level or ahead of, in terms of annual income, our rivals in the bottom half of the Pl is by increasing non-TV revenue. Extra seats boost revenue not just from ticket sales but from catering and commercial.[/quote]

If the plan is to spend £50 million on a new City Stand simply to increase its capacity by only 5000 then that represents extremely poor value for money. What are they planning to do? Line all the floors and walls with marble and have solid gold fittings throughout? I thought the plan was to get the stadium capacity up to 35000 in one go - which would mean increasing the City Stand capacity by 8000. The South Stand replacement cost £8.5 million in 2004 so even allowing for inflation £30 million plus debt interest is way OTT.

The problem is we are run by lifelong Labour Party supporters and that party is notoriously inept at getting value for money. Indeed, the current shadow chancellor is now talking about increasing the national debt by a further half trillion pounds.

[Bill 1,788]

Silly figures and not really any need for this to be a party political thread either.When has the club stated that it would be £50m for 5000 seats.... it hasn''t ?

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

2) The last time I can recall a figure being mentioned Bowkett said the building cost of redoing the City Stand with an extra 5,000 or so seats would be 30m pounds, with 20m pounds of interest on top, with the 50m pounds being paid off over 20 years at 2.5m pounds a year.[/quote]

If the plan is to spend £50 million on a new City Stand simply to increase its capacity by only 5000 then that represents extremely poor value for money. What are they planning to do? Line all the floors and walls with marble and have solid gold fittings throughout? I thought the plan was to get the stadium capacity up to 35000 in one go - which would mean increasing the City Stand capacity by 8000. The South Stand replacement cost £8.5 million in 2004 so even allowing for inflation £30 million plus debt interest is way OTT.

The problem is we are run by lifelong Labour Party supporters and that party is notoriously inept at getting value for money. Indeed, the current shadow chancellor is now talking about increasing the national debt by a further half trillion pounds.[/quote]Apologies. That 30m pound figure from Bowkett (that life-long Labour supporter...) was for an extra 8,000 seats. I must say it is gratifying that the sagely discriminating Big Vince regards me so highly that he automatically assumes I am right even when I am wrong.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]1) At the moment, since we are in the Championship, the figure is probably between 50 and 60 per cent. It was 52 per cent last time, but the parachute payments have since been altered. In the Premier League, if that is what is being talked about, the figure is around 72 per cent.2) The last time I can recall a figure being mentioned Bowkett said the building cost of redoing the City Stand with an extra 5,000 or so seats would be 30m pounds, with 20m pounds of interest on top, with the 50m pounds being paid off over 20 years at 2.5m pounds a year.3) Relocating the 4,000 from the City Stand is far from an insuperable problem, as was shown with the South Stand. Get a dispensation to reduce away support, stop new sales of season tickets, slash the number of home casual seats, and that pretty much does it.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. Once built and paid for, as with the South Stand, even if only 1,000 or 2,000 extra seats are filled  some or most of the time, that becomes pure profit for as long as the stand/stadium exists.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. On the contrary, in the long run, since everyone gets the TV money and we get less than most, it is an argument for expansion. The way we can get financially level or ahead of, in terms of annual income, our rivals in the bottom half of the Pl is by increasing non-TV revenue. Extra seats boost revenue not just from ticket sales but from catering and commercial.[/quote]You are talking guff again purple. Using incorrect figures and making sweeping unfounded generalisations." Once built and paid for"  it''s as easy as that ? dear god"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."No that is you just twisting things.... again. No has said that. What they have said is that if we ARE NOT in the PL then the loan and interest might prove to be very hard to meet. So not the same thing so stop making up stuff. Extra seats boost revenue not just from ticket sales but from catering and commercial.. Again wrong. As those seats will not even pay for themselves how long do we have to wait and what risks lie in our path before this much fabled ''sunny uplands'' you imagine is arrived at ?

The blunt facts are these -The cost of increasing capacity WILL NOT be met by the seats they provide.... even purple accepts that.We cannot know what league or what our income will be in 5,10, 20 years so it would be not only foolish, but against the directors due diligance, to put us at serious risk.Once folk finally grasp that (the figures are freely available) this relentless twaddle should be put to bed.

And purple you should know bettder than trying  ''to stir the pot ''  by putting up innaccurate figures and baseless speculation.