Will the Carrow Road ever be made larger.

[Johnny Stump 1]

Then only by adding a second tier to the Geoffrey Watling stand . It was designed to be able to take a second tier and it could be done quite cheaply.

Definitely not the case I''m afraid.

[Bill 1,788]

" it is when we are in the top flight that the extra revenue from ticket sales, commercial and catering"

That is absolute nonsense and well you know it purpleIf the extra seats generated like for like income that would not even pay the interest on the loan, never mind the capital.Factor in the variables associated with this and you see a loss growing bigger and bigger ie NOT selling out every game, the hospitality is NOT running a full capacity as it is, extra seats would put a downward pressure on ticket priceSo we borrow a pile of money on the basis that we will certainly lose money and we might even lose quite a lot of money !dearie, dear me       

[Gordon Bennett 783]

I wonder if turning sections of the ground into safe standing areas once allowed could push the capacity up towards 30k?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Gordon Bennett"]I wonder if turning sections of the ground into safe standing areas once allowed could push the capacity up towards 30k?[/quote]Yes, it could, you can get more in with the safe standing.[URL=http://s869.photobucket.com/user/mortymccarthy/media/Seats_zpsjluy0xpc.png.html][IMG]http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab257/mortymccarthy/Seats_zpsjluy0xpc.png[/IMG][/URL]

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Gordon Bennett"]I wonder if turning sections of the ground into safe standing areas once allowed could push the capacity up towards 30k?[/quote]Ed Balls commented at the AGM that safe standing did not imply increased capacity. In fact it is possible that capacity would decrease.There were no details but that is the gist of what he sasid.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

As we come to the end of historically low interest rates and inflation it is clear that Norwich City has missed a once in a generation chance of cheap finance (no pun intended) in order to build a Main Stand fit for purpose.

It isn''t about selling extra seats, it is the whole perception of the Club to sponsors, advertisers and media plus the public duty to provide for the fan base.

But, Delia doesn''t want a bigger dolls house so there!

[Bagster 101]

I would love to see safe standing come into the game hopefully produce a better atmosphere.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

This is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. But the essential point here is correct. Far from not needing ground expansion in the Premier League, it is when we are in the top flight that the extra revenue from ticket sales, commercial and catering would help make us as competitive as or more competitive than our rival medium-sized clubs. Because everybody gets the TV money, and we get less than most, while our ground is generally one of the smallest in the division.[/quote]I should perhaps have added that back in 2011 David McNally, with access to all the financial figures and future projections, said that without a mega-rich benefactor the only way Norwich City would ever become self-sustainable in the Premier League would be if capacity was increased to 35,000. He understood the point made above, that it is non-TV income that can be boosted in comparison with that of rival clubs while TV income by contrast remains static. And that in the long run extra capacity, once paid for, equates to pure profit. Just as with those additional 4,000 seats in the South Stand. Over the next two or three decades, even with the most conservative estimates of usage, those seats will bring in many millions of pounds above the now wiped-out cost of construction and associated debt interest. There is a reason why, despite the TV millions, pretty much every club in the Premier League, now and from the recent past, has either increased capacity or wants to.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Gate money is important.

We currently get about 10, 000 more than ITFC.

They lose money by the shed load

[morty 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Gate money is important.

We currently get about 10, 000 more than ITFC.

They lose money by the shed load[/quote]That and any money they actually make from transfers goes straight into Evans'' back pocket.

[Van wink 2,994]

A club slithering downwards doesn''t need to increase its capacity.

There''s quite a few on here who would prefer to see us as a smaller FL club with fans who are greatful, have low expectations and those that do go to support can have a nice quiet pint with their mates and shake hands with the players.

[Gordon Bennett 783]

I seen to remember reading / seeing that the capacity of Dortmund''s stand doubled with standing as opposed to seating for European matches. Not saying Mr Balls is incorrect but I fail to see how capacity would decrease unless the concrete steps would need making deeper resulting in less rows?

[Syteanric 1]

Tom Cavendish has it all worked out.. apparently we''re moving to the UEA/Dussindale/hethersett rec/The moon.

[Buh 0]

Will lager ever be made at Carrow road?

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="Johnny Stump"]Then only by adding a second tier to the Geoffrey Watling stand . It was designed to be able to take a second tier and it could be done quite cheaply.

Definitely not the case I''m afraid.[/quote]

I seem to recall McNasty stating that a complete new City Stand with 12,000 seats taking the capacity to 35,000 would cost minimum £20 million, maximum £30 million.

Now if the Stowmarket Two diluted their shareholding in half by inviting in an investor that would raise £16 million and so the club then would only have to find £4-£14 million by way of loans/profit on player trading/Premier League status, etc.

But getting the Stowmarket Two to compromise their ownership status is probably not going to happen. Very sad. Very short-sighted.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="Johnny Stump"]Then only by adding a second tier to the Geoffrey Watling stand . It was designed to be able to take a second tier and it could be done quite cheaply.

Definitely not the case I''m afraid.[/quote]

I seem to recall McNasty stating that a complete new City Stand with 12,000 seats taking the capacity to 35,000 would cost minimum £20 million, maximum £30 million.

Now if the Stowmarket Two diluted their shareholding in half by inviting in an investor that would raise £16 million and so the club then would only have to find £4-£14 million by way of loans/profit on player trading/Premier League status, etc.

But getting the Stowmarket Two to compromise their ownership status is probably not going to happen. Very sad. Very short-sighted.[/quote]1) The last public estimate of the building cost (leaving aside any debt interest) was £30m. So an investment of £16m would leave £14m to be found.2) Smith and Jones selling half their shares would not "compromise" (whatever that means) their ownership status. It would end it.3) For their £16m the investor would also end up with only a minority holding of around 25 per cent. No doubt a warm glow from helping to fund increased capacity but not a lot else, and certainly not ownership or even effective control.

[Mr Angry 1,561]

According to Wikipedia we have the 29th largest club stadium in England and there are 6 current PL clubs with a stadium smaller than ours. I''m not really sure we need a bigger one.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="Johnny Stump"]Then only by adding a second tier to the Geoffrey Watling stand . It was designed to be able to take a second tier and it could be done quite cheaply.

Definitely not the case I''m afraid.[/quote]

I seem to recall McNasty stating that a complete new City Stand with 12,000 seats taking the capacity to 35,000 would cost minimum £20 million, maximum £30 million.

Now if the Stowmarket Two diluted their shareholding in half by inviting in an investor that would raise £16 million and so the club then would only have to find £4-£14 million by way of loans/profit on player trading/Premier League status, etc.

But getting the Stowmarket Two to compromise their ownership status is probably not going to happen. Very sad. Very short-sighted.[/quote]1) The last public estimate of the building cost (leaving aside any debt interest) was £30m. So an investment of £16m would leave £14m to be found.2) Smith and Jones selling half their shares would not "compromise" (whatever that means) their ownership status. It would end it.3) For their £16m the investor would also end up with only a minority holding of around 25 per cent. No doubt a warm glow from helping to fund increased capacity but not a lot else, and certainly not ownership or even effective control.[/quote]

There is nothing to stop the Stowmarket Two from scouring the globe to find a trustworthy investment partner(s) who would be prepared to have a shared ownership model of 26% each. After all Gold-Sullivan have always shared their football club ownerships, albeit on an equivalence of wealth basis, which is something the Wynn Joneses could not match.

Anyway, there are alternative ways forward, but there has to be the political will in the first place to think outside the box. And I don''t see that. Putting the boy Smith in charge with no money coming from anywhere is a League 1 model, or worse.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]According to Wikipedia we have the 29th largest club stadium in England and there are 6 current PL clubs with a stadium smaller than ours. I''m not really sure we need a bigger one.[/quote]

If we are 29th on the ladder it means we are outside the Top 20 so therefore not Premier League competitive.

We absolutely do need a bigger one if we want to be competitive at EPL level rather than the perennial relegation fodder.

But it is not just stadium capacity that needs to be competitive. It is all the other departments that need to be right on the money, season in season out: player recruitment, academy, coaching, commercial, corporate governance (Board), etc.