Move Ground to move forward.

[Surfer 1,547]

Carrow Rd is not on an ideal site for.a ground, road access and parking are not up to expectations for some people, but it does have lots of things going for it - not the least being rail access. But focusing on construction costs, there is no way a new stadium is going to cost anything like a rebuild of one stand at Carrow Rd. Someone is telling porkies if they suggest that, they have to be estimating out of city land acquisition cost + building cost - sale of Carrow Road for redevelopment  v the total rebuild of one or two stands. 

Then there is the demand equation. Maybe 32,000 seat stadium? O.K. We are close to 28,000 now, so 4,000 seats? I believe that is the capacity of the current City Stand, so just building a standalone extension on the back of it (like Fulham have proposed for Craven Cottage) would probably add that many seats - without having to solve the structural and crowd logistics problems of adding a second tier. 

Or if an out of our city site with 32,000 seats is OK for everyone, I know of an existing facility near a rail station that could be taken over fairly easily... it's a bit far out of the City, and it would need some new paint and seats, but then quite a bit of our support (and probably a growing portion of our future support) seems to live within 20 miles of it 🙂

[Nuff Said 5,079]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

This whole story is awful and yet another example of why Liverpool probably have the biggest claim to scummiest club in the land. They literally destroyed people's lives and communities to expand their stadium. Utterly scummy and shameful. 

I believe Leicester tried something similar - are they scummy too? I knew someone who was told his house behind the old Filbert Street would be compulsorily purchased if he didn’t sell for I think 10% more than market value. Which at the price at the time would barely have covered his costs, ignoring disruption and upset. Obviously it all fell through in the end.

[smooth 114]

I think many of us agree a redevelopment of the city stand is the logical and aesthetically pleasing option.

The lounges, changing rooms, offices etc have not moved forward. TBH many look the same from when I used to go around in the early nineties at the end of the season open days.

An upper and lower tier would really make the stadium look impressive, I guess as well it could keep the noise in the ground.

After visiting many NFL and college stadiums in the US I am looking forward to seeing the Spurs stadium. It's going to need to go a long way to reach the standard in the US.

But I feel it is great to see these advancements and make ours a very unique 32-34 seater stadium.

I also wonder though if after the wolves experiment with the safe standing seats this season if other clubs will so the same. We know there our fanbase is in favour of these solutions. Be great to see this in the lower river and Barclay.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,775]

2 minutes ago, smooth said:

I also wonder though if after the wolves experiment with the safe standing seats this season if other clubs will so the same. We know there our fanbase is in favour of these solutions. Be great to see this in the lower river and Barclay.

That's a very good point. If safe standing is brought back then we could add a few thousand extra places without expanding the current stadium.

[Felixfan 53]

There doesn’t seem the will amongst the board to do it.

I don’t think finance is the major stumbling block as I have said before. There could be share and bond issues, Commercial sponsorship, letting retail outlets, local authority and sports foundation grants, ten year season tickets paid in advance for your preferred seat, all in addition to manageable bank loans and a sizeable contribution from the club coffers.

Where there is the will there is a way.

[Surfer 1,547]

The City Stand may also have policing and health and safety issues like emergency vehicle access, crowd control and fast egress in an emergency  because it’s hemmed in by the access road and that could be preventing any low cost re-development - those rules have trended to become stricter in recent years. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Surfer

[kingsway 94]

This subject crops up every now and again probably brought up by persons with the attitude that everything else is better!

 

In this case it isn't.

 

The traditional heartland that is Carrow Road is in the perfect place in that its walking distance from the City Centre, 10 mins walk from the train station, near to the Riverside complex  and not far from the A47.

 

The buzz created on matchdays around the City and relative ease of getting the train to the ground for many of the fans proves this.

Anyone that's been to Stoke City, and Bolton will understand that out of City grounds built on retail parks beside motorways are soulless, very detached from the area the clubs meant to be representing and actually make transport issues more difficult cause they are built away from train stations meaning most fans have to drive to the ground which means you spend over half an hour getting out of cramped industrial estate car parks. Likewise if you go to Bristol City on the train you then have to get a shuttle bus to the ground which takes over half an hour on the wayback after a game.

Carrow Road can be increased to about 45,000 if necessary though personally  think 35-40,000 is the natural highest capacity Norwich City FC would probably need.

 

The City stand has the foundations to add an upper tier but I believe and those in power at the Club believe that the tight 1980's designed confines of the City stand means knocking it down and building a modern bigger stand makes more sense.

 

Some says the South Stand hasn't got the foundations to build an upper tier and some say it does. All I know is that Glasgow Rangers in 1991 put an upper tier on their main stand at Ibrox that was built in the late 1920's. Theres no way that in the late 1920's that stand was built with provisions for an upper tier to be built 60+ years later! Sheffield Wednesdays main stand is old yet had an upper tier added to it in recent times many years after the original structure was built. This indicates that an upper tier on the South Stand is possible. I was told by a high ranking club official that the costs of an upper tier for the South Stand would be huge.

 

A new City stand and an upper tier on the South Stand would increase capacity to 37-40,000. Then after that knocking down the Barclay and Hotel and replacing them with a new Barclay that wrapped round the corner would increase capacity by up to 6000.

 

Theres also limited space behind the River end stand for a new stand to be built there that would likely increase capacity in that area by about 2000.

 

Unfortunately for Norwich City in modern big crowd times, 3 sides of Carrow Road was built when the club were getting 13-16,000 in the top flight so the capacities were seen then as adequate. Nowadays if a new Barclay was being built then it would have been a 10,000 capacity stand instead of the 6000 and bit it currently is, likewise with the City stand. Though the much maligned Robert Chase was crafty in getting the vast majority of the cost of the Barclay stand paid for by Football league grants in order to comply with the new all seater rules that came in during the early 1990's, so the previous poster who suggests that Robert Flecks transfer to Chelsea in 1992 paid for the Barclay stand is probably wide of the mark.

 

Personally I think its obvious the club need a larger capacity at Carrow Road and in the top flight would likely still sell out a 32,000 capacity. I think the best way to start increasing the capacity without causing disruption by reducing capacity would be to put an upper tier on the South stand.

 

So to summarise when every aspect is looked at, staying at Carrow Road is by far the best option because it is close to the City Centre, train station and can be increased to a sufficient capacity level.

Edited June 22, 2019 by kingsway

[shefcanary 2,377]

I have had the pleasure (!) Of a tour of Wednesday's ground and actually the upper tier of Wednesday's South Stand is separate to the original Archie Leitch stand from the 1920's.  The upper tier comprises a 5 storey building with a cantilevered upper tier projecting out of it and over the old stand, which was relatively untouched.  The dressing rooms still have wood chip on the wall, with the original 1920's plumbing in the main. There are some awkward connections between the two buildings, but essentially they are two separate buildings.   And there is a road between the two buildings as well!  And it was built without kicking out season ticket holders.  So I'm convinced a similar build can be done at Carra it just needs some gumption by the Board.

[Surfer 1,547]

Agreed. And this is the relative space available if you mirror the South Stand depth to the City Stand side - i.e. with the back of the stand at the edge of the road. Also I don't see why you couldn't add the roof first on such a "standalone" addition - especially if the result  is not a two tiered stand, but a large and deep single tier like the South Stand. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Surfer

[Mr Angry 1,542]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

  The dressing rooms still have wood chip on the wall

Was this the inspiration for Pulp’s “Disco 2000”?

[City 2nd 191]

19 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Great location where it already is . Just needs modernising a little and the hotel knocking down . 

Well that isn’t going to happen. It brings in much needed revenue to the club who are % owners. That’s what it was built in the first place!

[City 2nd 191]

20 hours ago, Indy said:

http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2019/06/21/with-the-carra-about-to-burst-at-the-seams-whats-the-answer-is-there-an-answer/

 

I know we’ve had some previous conversations on expanding the ground, but is it time to consider moving to a new ground to move forward?

 

With demand high and to attract the best players should we not think about a state of the art ground to go alongside our Cat 1 status and great training ground?

 

I know the old school don’t like it but what about the modern generation? Would a be 38k stadium be something you’d like to see?

And the cost would be borne by whom? 

Edited June 23, 2019 by City 2nd
Addition

[City 2nd 191]

EG.

Spurs new stadium is thought to have cost around £850 million!

[lake district canary 4,530]

The op lost me in the first sentence "CR is not on an ideal site". It's in a super spot for access from the city and station and even has space around it for expansion if wanted, especially on the CR side of the ground. Three stands are pretty good already and the city stand is ripe for development if and when wanted. Even the hotel isn't so much of an issue as it used to be now there is a screen there.  

[JF 694]

If we wanted a brand new stadium I would have thought that three quarters of it could be pre built and finished in the car park land behind the ground, whilst still using the existing one at the time. Bobs your uncle, new stadium, same location.

[shefcanary 2,377]

8 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Was this the inspiration for Pulp’s “Disco 2000”?

There was a lot of it about in Sheffield in the 80's.  

[Bill 1,788]

Dear god, is this shy.te still being churnd out ?

The accounts ending June 2018 show we took in £9.8m in ticket income. Adding another 400 seats would mean an extra 14% to that figure presuming all seats were sold at the current prices = £1.4m being generous

Double it and you still only have £2.4m. Hardly an amount that is going  to make the slightest difference in the PL.

And this assumes we accept the nutters view that there would be no building costs ! Whereas it has been repeatedly shown that the extra income would not even cover the interest charges.

Check how much extra we earned by winning at Man City and so moving up the table and earning around an extra £5m (?) in prize money.

We will receive a minimum of £98m in TV money this season - that is what pays the bills, not ticket income.

 

ps take a look at the respective ground capacity of B'mouth and S'land

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

"Dear god, is this shy.te still being churnd out ?"

 

It is not "****," it is a sensible debate and a debate that other clubs up and down the country have embarked upon during the last decade or so. A debate in which many have decided that upgrading the facilities they offer to their fans is the real way forward.

A debate that has led to many lesser clubs throughout the leagues investing in the future and which in many cases involves increasing capacity whenever possible or feasible financially.

To reduce it to counting seats and pound for pound income suitably ignores all the other factors, all put forward repeatedly in debate, that point towards the need to upgrade Carrow Road in order to bring the Main Stand into the 21st. Century and cope in some way with current bums on seats demand, whilst also cementing greater support for the future. A future which might well mean that we will need all the "ticket income" we can get.

If the examples of individual clubs need be brought into the equation then we have to ask ourselves why a situation has come about whereby even lowly Rotherham's New York stadium (with a tiny 12, 000 capacity) puts our own main stand to shame in terms of aesthetics, safety, comfort and probably even in the level of the state-of-the-art facilities it offers to the few.

Edited June 23, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[Bill 1,788]

It appears you did not read the OP.

....or much of the idiocy that followed

The empty seats at CR for much of last season should have shown you that attendance figures have a direct correlation to sucess - there fore having a bigger capacity does not mean larger crowds (see poorman road).

And as those extra seats would be an extra cost above what MIGHT be generated I see no reasoned argument for increased capacity - even you accepted that, as in 'feasible financially'.

And to lumber ourselves with a huge debt that would be a massive drag on our finances were we to be out of the PL is absurdity in a nutshell.

You can rehash flawed arguments until the cows come home but it will not stop them from being flawed.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

This is a sensible debate on an important issue City1st.

[Bill 1,788]

8 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

This is a sensible debate on an important issue City1st.

No it is the same malcontents regurgitating the same misinformation

 

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

"It appears you did not read the OP."

I am fully aware of just what and what I have not read and need nobody to put me right on the matter.

The fact that you reduced the whole debate that has evolved in this thread and others to "****" speaks volumes for the level of your own thought processes on the matter.

You continue to insist upon ignoring the many other factors in support of an upgrade whilst persevering with your own short-term and narrow  financial calculations, which may or may not be sound for the time being, but which nevertheless fail to take into account the obvious necessity for our club to move forward in a way that improves much needed and antiquated facilities and provide for a healthy support base for years to come. 

This all seems beyond you, profanities do not.

The fact that NCFC might, sooner rather than later, once again become a second tier club need always be taken into account when considering any expenditure. If this consideration takes over the whole of the debate then we will be a second tier club forevermore, and deserve to be so. Either way, I would hope that fag packet calculations are not the only consideration of the powers that will be when approaching this matter.

Edited June 23, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I am fully aware of just what and what I have not read and need nobody to put me right on the matter.

The fact that you reduced the whole debate that has evolved in this thread and others to "****" speaks volumes for the level of your own thought processes on the matter.

You continue to insist upon ignoring the many other factors in support of an upgrade whilst persevering with your own short-term and narrow  financial calculations, which may or may not be sound for the time being, but which nevertheless fail to take into account the obvious necessity for our club to move forward in a way that improves much needed and antiquated facilities and provides for a healthy support base for years to come. 

The fact that NCFC might, sooner rather than later, once again become a second tier club need always be taken into account when considering any expenditure. If this consideration takes over the whole of the debate then we will be a second tier club forevermore, and deserve to be so.

Assuming English football, and our general place in it, stays roughly as it is then in the long-term there is no doubt that increasing capacity would make financial sense. For a club of our size, far from any extra tickets sales being irrelevant, they are crucial, especially in the second tier but almost as much in the Premier League.

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Assuming English football, and our general place in it, stays roughly as it is then in the long-term there is no doubt that increasing capacity would make financial sense. For a club of our size, far from any extra tickets sales being irrelevant, they are crucial, especially in the second tier but almost as much in the Premier League.

oh dear

as the best view of income would not cover the cost that is rather a silly delusion

probably why the club shares my thought on this

[kingsway 94]

If increasing ground capacities is as irrelevant as some on here have recently commented on, then we'd still be playing in a 20,000 Carrow Road, Old Trafford would still hold 44,000, Arsenal would still be at Highbury, Brighton still playing at the Withdean Athletics stadium and Spurs would be in the 36,000 old WHL ground!

 

To progress your club, keep up with other clubs, replace past their sell by date stands like the original Carrow Road which if not replaced end up costing more to keep renewing and YES actually increase income  streams then you have to replace stands like the now past its  sell by date City stand with bigger and better replacemens!

 

In Norwichs case, our crowd levels ever since the early 00's are a firm indication that the club could average 30-32,000 in the top flight and that's not taking into account the growing population. Apart from potential increased ticket sales a new City stand of a similar size to the South stand and with the same corporate and office facilities would earn much more than the present City stand.

Those thinking we don't need to increase capacity are right in that it can be a gamble and must be done at the right time hence why we've been playing in a ground that hasn't been big enough foe the last 10 years!

As has been the case for many years, many Norwich fans have been brainwashed by the "little ole Norwich" myth and have opinions influenced by that.

 

Like I said in my last post, Norwch City FC should be playing in a Carrow Road holding 35-40,000 in order to reach their full potential.

 

[Bill 1,788]

oh dear, more nonense

given that any increase in capacity would not over the building cost you nutters are yet to explain where the money would come from

and when did Carrow Road only have a 20,000 capacity ?

[Barbe bleu 809]

Just now, Bill said:

oh dear, more nonense

given that any increase in capacity would not over the building cost you nutters are yet to explain where the money would come from

You say this as though it is fact.   Can I see your working please?  

Would your reasoning change if, for instance,  we had to sell one of the academy lads for a sum similar to the building costs? Or if we didn't go for a new forward with the premier money.

 

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You say this as though it is fact.   Can I see your working please?  

Would your reasoning change if, for instance,  we had to sell one of the academy lads for a sum similar to the building costs? Or if we didn't go for a new forward with the premier money.

 

you already have

[kingsway 94]

The build it and people will come theory has also not been thought about and is not so relevant to Norwich cause we already have the proven support.

 

Yes certainly funding the ground improvements is the big issue (hence why Carrow Road isn't already a 30,000+ stadium!) but where there's a will there's a way. The recent oversubscribed bond scheme (many people who wanted to buy some couldn't get in!) for the Colney improvements could be replicated on a larger scale, 5 year/10 year season ticket deals would also raise more money for those who could afford it and long term lease of potential office space like what happens in the South stand would raise money!

[Badger 2,404]

Bill does have a point in that TV income is far more important than gate receipts in the PL and that in the championship we would not fill the ground. I am not an engineer but have some scepticism about the suggestion that we could build extra capacity without seriously impacting the capacity and atmosphere during seasons when out home record is likely to critical to our ability to remain in the EPL with the TV cash. The worst case scenario is that we are relegated and then struggle to make the payments, which will inevitably reduce the sums available for player recruitment etc. I'm not sure that the decision to expand the ground would be seen as so obvious in those circumstances.

On the other side of the equation there are a number of factors, but to me far the most important is the "next generation" of fans.  At the moment, it is both expensive and difficult to obtain casual tickets and I wonder how young people manage to get into their home town club given the price and availability of tickets. Failing to create the capacity to enable city youngsters to "catch the bug" will result in an increasingly aged fanbase and ultimately mean that we miss large sections of a potential generation of fans.

Ultimately we have to expand and upgrade  the ground for the long term health and prosperity of the club however, we need to do from a position of financial strength, which will probably require at least a season or two of premier league football and for the vast majority of the cash to pay for the upgrade coming from player sales rather than taking on debt.