Move Ground to move forward.

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

When the South Stand was replaced, it was more through necessity, the Old South Stand was on the verge of being condemned. The City Stand is in no such peril, and as such any ground improvement would have to be undertaken knowing it would be purely choice with a view to allow more folk to get to see games.

Some things should maybe not be purely down to the bottom line and some element of providing for what the fans want should be considered. However, the Club must not be reckless with the finances. 

[Bill 1,788]

The 'next generation is a fallacy.

Why did B'mouth suddenly find a next generation...through succees, perhaps ?

Why did this 'next generation' take dvantage of all the empty seats last season ?

Why do the 'next generation' not take advantage of ticket availability for cup games ?

Why have the binners so many empty seats, as surely they should be filled with the next generation ?

The club outlied the flaws with all this guff way back, when McNally highlight all this. And anyone with the slightest idea would grasp that had we stayed down and around mid table there would be even more seats available to the 'next generation' who unsurprisingly would not be so keen to take part of the ;experience'.

[Indy 3,283]

Well it’s nice to be singled out by the normal culprits, LDC where did my OP say anything about CR is not on an ideal site? I just asked about a new state of the art stadium to alongside, I was referring to the article.....this could be built anywhere, wasn’t being specific! Stick to the thread to attack me don’t make things up.

City first with a dear god is this **** still being churned out statement! Talk about pot and kettle with all your **** on Brexit and other threads, you really need to take a chill pill , it’s just being an old man makes you super grumpy!

 

This was a debate bought about by a question to debate the question of a new state of the art stadium being better, for attracting players to play for us, increase in capacity to meet demand, increase revenue for club and more opportunities for younger fans to get hooked into football by being taken to City matches.

 

I’m all for moving if the finances were in situ and it moved us forward. I don’t buy into just relying on TV money, as shown a lot of clubs have moved to new grounds, some benefiting others not so, but that can be said of clubs who haven’t too.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Indy

[Badger 2,405]

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

Why did B'mouth suddenly find a next generation...through succees, perhaps ?

Exactly! They found their next generation through a combination of success and capacity. We are currently enjoying the success but do not have the capacity to find the next generation as you  identify has been the case at Bournemouth.

[Bill 1,788]

eh ?

Bournemouth have a capacity of less than 12,000

how has that hindered them ?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I haven't been to Carrow Road since Chris Hughton's first home game wwhen I took two of my Grandsons on a behind the scenes visit to the ground.

From what I saw, it did the job required. I have no idea of any maintenance issues of course and accept that the River End is very old now and the City stand not far behind it.

But if we are talking of increasing capacity or a new ground just to increase income then that is up to the number crunchers at the club.

But I would imagine that many of those that have season tickets at the moment are happy with the ground location, capacity and facilities.

I would think that it would be unlikely that the club would envisage a clamour for too many more seats. I do not believe there will ever be above 30K on a regular basis.

[kingsway 94]

49 minutes ago, 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

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

For a couple of years in the early 1990s before the UEFA cup season of 93/94, Carrow Road held 20,000!

 

In the 1960's Bristol Rovers were a similar sized club to Norwich. We owned our ground, improved it and were progressive. Rovers didn't own their old Eastville ground which wasn't improved and ended up as a old unsuitable relic by the time they left the ground in 1986. They then spent 10 years playing at Bath in the lower Divisions eventually getting relegated out of the FL at one point. Now they play in a mish/mash old fashioned Rugby ground which offers very other little income streams for the club.

 

If the Board  had your attitude in the 1960's our subsequent history would have been closer to Bristol Rovers.

 

No one with any sense doubts that increasing the capacity of Carrow Road will be expensive which makes it very risky but to improve the club and get a capacity that is closer to the clubs potential its something that has to be done. If done the right way the cost elements can be overcome. Increasing the ground capacity is like getting your first mortgage in that if you looked at all the negative aspects and potential hard slog in the future you'd never do it.

 

If Norwich were struggling to get 20,000 in the current ground I'd agree wholeheartedly that increasing the capacity would be wrong but that is not the case!

 

The main reason I liked David Mcnally was that he is a very clever bloke who could see the true potential of Norwich City. You ask him what he felt the capacity of Carrow  Road should be and he'd tell you the same as me - 35-40,000! 

Edited June 23, 2019 by kingsway

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

If you did't have a season a ticket, getting 2 tickets together for a match last season was difficult.

I suggest next season may be more difficult.

I believe the demand for greater capacity has been present, on average, for a many seasons. Comparisons to Bournemouth just don't seem relevant, nor to Ipswich, we have increased our fan base over the past 15 years. 

Any increased capacity that is taken up doesn't end at the ticket price either, I know this from personal experience, the Club has to consider ground expansion in a multi faceted way, and whilst there are no guarantees that increased capacity would be sold in enough numbers to pay for itself, careful consideration to the future fanbase has to be made.

 

[Bill 1,788]

" If done the right way the cost elements can be overcome. "

What as at poorman road - we simply default ?

Now why not have a read up on why McNally said it woud not be financially feasible to subsidise fickle fans.

Any loan would be over a long period, one in which we cannot be sure of our position. The talk back in 2011 was of a cost of £2000-3000m per seat. What now ?

That woud require a minimum o seven years of full capacity to break even - assuming there was no interest charged on the loan. Can you really say for certain we will be in the PL or the next 7 years minimum ?

[kingsway 94]

14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I haven't been to Carrow Road since Chris Hughton's first home game wwhen I took two of my Grandsons on a behind the scenes visit to the ground.

From what I saw, it did the job required. I have no idea of any maintenance issues of course and accept that the River End is very old now and the City stand not far behind it.

But if we are talking of increasing capacity or a new ground just to increase income then that is up to the number crunchers at the club.

But I would imagine that many of those that have season tickets at the moment are happy with the ground location, capacity and facilities.

I would think that it would be unlikely that the club would envisage a clamour for too many more seats. I do not believe there will ever be above 30K on a regular basis.

We could of sold 40,000 for some games against the more attractive clubs when we've been in the top flight in recent seasons and this I was told by a high ranking official at the club. I think if Carrow Road currently held 32,000 we'd be getting 31-32,000 every game next season in the top flight especially when you add in the rule that 30,000 capacity grounds in the top flight have to offer 3000 seats to away fans, currently we offer a maximum of 2500!

Increasing the ground capacity would increase income while in the top flight with extra ticket sales, corporate sales and potential office space rentals but it would also be about allowing more people into see games and get hooked on supporting the club cause crowd levels  of the last 17 years indicate we could get bigger crowds!   

Edited June 23, 2019 by kingsway

[ThorpeCanary 71]

Could do with having a capacity of around 35k Imo. 

Whether that would have to be a long term project requiring the South stand to be extended first to house supporters from a city stand rebuild I have no idea but i'm sure we've pretty much topped the charts of % capacity full for the last decade or so. 

The profits are indeed minimal but over a big enough timeline the new stands will pay for themselves. It's not something I expect to happen soon but eventually all that premier-league TV money just gets sunk into an ever increasing wage budget until the club eventually finds itself back in the Championship (however long that might take) May as well sort the ground out and raise the stature of the football club. With an ever increasing population and a massive catchment area the club do have an opportunity to move our support onto the next level imo.

[Badger 2,405]

24 minutes ago, Bill said:

Why did B'mouth suddenly find a next generation...through succees, perhaps ?

You correctly identified that success has enabled Bournemouth to find the next generation through success. Indeed they have doubled average attendances from a decade or so ago when they were far less successful. (2009 the average was under 5,000.)

Of course their attendances are still far lower than ours but as you say they have managed to find new supporters (the next generation) through success: we will not be able to with current capacity limits. We start from a much higher base but we would benefit from expanding and upgrading at the right time, if we do it in the right way. There are however many dangers and we should only do so if we able to do so without taking on much debt.

[Bill 1,788]

" Comparisons to Bournemouth just don't seem relevant, nor to Ipswich, we have increased our fan base over the past 15 years.  "

That is by having a situation where demand is often more than supply. If that changed then so would that situation. Which negates the arguments put forward.

I cannot imagine there is any City supporter who would not welcome Carrow Road becoming a 35,000 capacity ground but that does not mean it would not be one hell of a drain on the income.

As long as the cost of increased capacity is greater than the revenue earned it will always be a no no. Of course that loss can be covered in the PL but what happens when we are not ? That debt remains..

And comparisons with B'mouth and Ipswich are in fact highly relevant as the former is successful without this magical capacity and Ipswich demonstrate that having the capacity does not deliver the next generation.

[Barbe bleu 814]

36 minutes ago, Bill said:

you already have

Ok, your previous post suggested extra income of £1.4 million as a result of expansion.

If that is correct we can borrow £12.5 million at a rate of 8%  over 25 years and be cash flow neutral

For the purpose of this exercise assume ticket prices are constant for the whole term and assume also that there are no incidental benefits (concerts, events  hospitality, reduced player salary due to prestige).

That means a capital sum of £7.5 to £17.5 million  is still required (build costs I read to be between 20 and 30 million)and presumably to be taken out of player sales or diverted away from a purchase. 

I think that this is possible, worth it is another issue of course.

Is my maths way off?

[kingsway 94]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

" If done the right way the cost elements can be overcome. "

What as at poorman road - we simply default ?

Now why not have a read up on why McNally said it woud not be financially feasible to subsidise fickle fans.

Any loan would be over a long period, one in which we cannot be sure of our position. The talk back in 2011 was of a cost of £2000-3000m per seat. What now ?

That woud require a minimum o seven years of full capacity to break even - assuming there was no interest charged on the loan. Can you really say for certain we will be in the PL or the next 7 years minimum ?

Football is all about risks and navigating through a minefield of potential financial mishaps. The club messed up when spending the best part of 17 Million on RVW and Naismith but they had to have a go didn't they?

Replacing the City stand with a bigger/better stand that is more appropriate to a club of Norwichs size won't be done until we've had 2- 3 seasons of Premiership football bare minimum. Then the clubs finances will be better place to undertake such a massive project.A Bond Scheme on a larger scale too the recent Colney improvement Bond scheme could also generate more finance to pay for it. Possible share issues, 5 yr/ 10 yr ST deals could also be possible avenues!   - Where theres a will!

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

You correctly identified that success has enabled Bournemouth to find the next generation through success. Indeed they have doubled average attendances from a decade or so ago when they were far less successful. (2009 the average was under 5,000.)

Of course their attendances are still far lower than ours but as you say they have managed to find new supporters (the next generation) through success: we will not be able to with current capacity limits. We start from a much higher base but we would benefit from expanding and upgrading at the right time, if we do it in the right way. There are however many dangers and we should only do so if we able to do so without taking on much debt.

eh ! ! !

No, that example is proof of the flaw in your argument

Why are they not weeping over the loss to the next generation ?

How come they have been able to sustain their position without this magical 35,000 capacity ?

They couldn't even sellout that number !

The bottom line is until someone can demonstrate a good reason for the club to subsidise glory hunters as Kingsway says then it will not happen

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

And comparisons with B'mouth and Ipswich are in fact highly relevant as the former is successful without this magical capacity and Ipswich demonstrate that having the capacity does not deliver the next generation.

I don't agree that comparison to Bournemouth is relevant, their success without increased capacity is however undeniable.

Ipswich have had a dwindling fanbase ever since expanding Portman Road, we have not. I will repeat my previous assertion that the financial consideration of expansion should not be the ONLY one, careful consideration needs to given to nurturing the future fanbase.

I myself am a season ticket holder and could quite easily say no need to fix that which isn't broken, but the future has to be planned for. The quoted figure of almost £1 billion for the new White Hart Lane must surely have exceeded it's £ per seat over the next ten years, but it went ahead all the same, we are not talking a fraction of that cost.

[kingsway 94]

27 minutes ago, Bill said:

" Comparisons to Bournemouth just don't seem relevant, nor to Ipswich, we have increased our fan base over the past 15 years.  "

That is by having a situation where demand is often more than supply. If that changed then so would that situation. Which negates the arguments put forward.

I cannot imagine there is any City supporter who would not welcome Carrow Road becoming a 35,000 capacity ground but that does not mean it would not be one hell of a drain on the income.

As long as the cost of increased capacity is greater than the revenue earned it will always be a no no. Of course that loss can be covered in the PL but what happens when we are not ? That debt remains..

And comparisons with B'mouth and Ipswich are in fact highly relevant as the former is successful without this magical capacity and Ipswich demonstrate that having the capacity does not deliver the next generation.

A 32,000 capacity Carrow Road next season in the Premiership would still have the same issues that the current 27,000 capacity would have I think. Don't ever underestimate the pulling power of the Premiership and Norwichs large fanbase.

 

Bournemouth are actively seeking to relocate to a 20,000 capacity stadium so why would they want to do that cause with your theories they wouldn't be doing so!

 

Ipswich get poor crowds nowadays cause they've had 18 years of underachievement and a continued downward spiral. We've been in the main, successful in the same time period so why not strike when the fires hot? - If Ipswich were now in our position they'd average 28-30,000 next season in the Premiership!

 

I don't doubt for a second that making Carrow Road bigger will come with financial hardships but with astute management of the club, innovative ideas and general careful planning (which we are already seeing!) it can be done and can be done with the knowledge that if the teams doing well fans will come which makes such a project justified! 

Edited June 23, 2019 by kingsway

[Bill 1,788]

7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Ok, your previous post suggested extra income of £1.4 million as a result of expansion.

If that is correct we can borrow £12.5 million at a rate of 8%  over 25 years and be cash flow neutral

For the purpose of this exercise assume ticket prices are constant for the whole term and assume also that there are no incidental benefits (concerts, events  hospitality, reduced player salary due to prestige).

That means a capital sum of £7.5 to £17.5 million  is still required (build costs I read to be between 20 and 30 million)and presumably to be taken out of player sales or diverted away from a purchase. 

I think that this is possible, worth it is another issue of course.

Is my maths way off?

not sure, as those figures are not clear

but the bottom line is that we would struggle to pay the interest on a loan, from the extra income

and that is with ALL seats sold at the current maximum price something that would require us to remain in the PL for a fair number of years

it is not the desirability of increasing the capacity or upgrading the facilities I am arguing against by the looney tune refusal to acknowledge what the club has stated and 'bag of a fag packet' calculations show is a major cost

I can only empathise with John Cleese (below) - when reading the clueless guff on here

 

[Bill 1,788]

5 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

I don't agree that comparison to Bournemouth is relevant, their success without increased capacity is however undeniable.

Ipswich have had a dwindling fanbase ever since expanding Portman Road, we have not. I will repeat my previous assertion that the financial consideration of expansion should not be the ONLY one, careful consideration needs to given to nurturing the future fanbase.

I myself am a season ticket holder and could quite easily say no need to fix that which isn't broken, but the future has to be planned for. The quoted figure of almost £1 billion for the new White Hart Lane must surely have exceeded it's £ per seat over the next ten years, but it went ahead all the same, we are not talking a fraction of that cost.

err, that's because they do not have the risk of relegation like us - so it is unlikely their forward planning could be thrown totally off kilter like us

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

48 minutes ago, Badger said:

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.

Badger, with respect, these arguments are flawed. Yes, if we are in the PL the TV money is the biggest source of income, but everybody gets it. And we almost invariably get less than most. I suspect that since the PL TV money took off into the stratosphere we have always been in the relegation zone as far as that goes.

Certainly in our previous season there, in 2015-16, we  were 19th, with £67m. Watford, for example, a similarish-sized club, got £74m and Swansea £75m.

The point about increasing capacity is that it would bridge that income gap and even surpass it by boosting not just tickets sales but money from catering and commercial. The idea that extra money wouldn't be welcome just because it isn't our main source of income doesn't hold up. Especially if we keep to the self-funding model over the next few decades. Far from being irrelevant, such money is crucial.

In the Championship, no, I imagine we would not fill a ground with a capacity increased, say to 31,000. But you don't have to use all the extra seats for the project still in the long run to be profitable. On another thread I produced figure relating to the South Stand to demonstrate that. Once paid for, then any usage of extra seats is pure profit. If, say, over 40 years  only half the extra seats were filled and only every other season that would still be a significant amount of extra income.

There is a valid argument about whether the club can afford to get into debt, as it did before, now or at any time in the foreseeable future, and a valid argument about what the capacity increase should be. But in the long-term (defined as until the stand collapses several decades ahead) there is no doubt it would make financial sense.

[Badger 2,405]

27 minutes ago, Bill said:

Why are they not weeping over the loss to the next generation ?

Because they have nearly doubled average attendance in the last decade. Far from losing a generation, they have gained one at a very high speed.

How come they have been able to sustain their position without this magical 35,000 capacity ?

TV revenue and a very rich Russian owner helps

 

[kingsway 94]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Badger, with respect, these arguments are flawed. Yes, if we are in the PL the TV money is the biggest source of income, but everybody gets it. And we almost invariably get less than most. I suspect that since the PL TV money took off into the stratosphere we have always been in the relegation zone as far as that goes.

Certainly in our previous season there, in 2015-16, we  were 19th, with £67m. Watford, for example, a similarish-sized club, got £74m and Swansea £75m.

The point about increasing capacity is that it would bridge that income gap and even surpass it by boosting not just tickets sales but money from catering and commercial. The idea that extra money wouldn't be welcome just because it isn't our main source of income doesn't hold up. Especially if we keep to the self-funding model over the next few decades. Far from being irrelevant, such money is crucial.

In the Championship, no, I imagine we would not fill a ground with a capacity increased, say to 31,000. But you don't have to use all the extra seats for the project still in the long run to be profitable. On another thread I produced figure relating to the South Stand to demonstrate that. Once paid for, then any usage of extra seats is pure profit. If, say, over 40 years  only half the extra seats were filled and only every other season that would still be a significant amount of extra income.

There is a valid argument about whether the club can afford to get into debt, as it did before, now or at any time in the foreseeable future, and a valid argument about what the capacity increase should be. But in the long-term (defined as until the stand collapses several decades ahead) there is no doubt it would make financial sense.

Spot on though I think a Norwich City team pushing at the top of the Championship would be able to get 31,000 crowds at Carrow Road for some games!

 

Having the potential to generate extra income through increased seating, catering, improved corporate facilities is handy to have available even if in less successful times they aren't fully utilized.  

[kingsway 94]

I struggle to understand the theory that if we increased the capacity to 35,000 and we weren't getting 35,000 every game it'd be wrong?

 

If we increased to 35,000 from the current 27,000 and we averaged 32,000 surely the extra 5-6000 ticket sales would be beneficial and that's not taking into account extra income generated through catering, corporate and office space rental?

Edited June 23, 2019 by kingsway

[Badger 2,405]

13 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

...

There is a valid argument about whether the club can afford to get into debt, as it did before, now or at any time in the foreseeable future, and a valid argument about what the capacity increase should be. But in the long-term (defined as until the stand collapses several decades ahead) there is no doubt it would make financial sense.

Purple, I don't actually think that there is much difference between our positions. I finished the section you quoted by sayingby saying:

"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."

It is difficult to talk with any certainty because of the absence of definite figures, but it would be prudent to assume that at some stage we are likely to be relegated. The biggest danger to fairly rapid re-promotion after this would be a large level of debt, hence my belief that the best way forwards is to fund a necessary upgrade from a position of financial strength without major debt. I know that selling players for capital upgrades is anathema to some but it is, I believe preferable to long term debt, the servicing of which could be highly problematic and disabling if relegated. 

[Barbe bleu 814]

I agree  with the above.

Eventually we will sell one of our young guns.  When that time comes we wont spend much on a replacement.  The club will instead be looking at using  the excess to build. 

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

err, that's because they do not have the risk of relegation like us - so it is unlikely their forward planning could be thrown totally off kilter like us

Err, we're not talking about spending £1 Billion.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

3 hours ago, Bill said:

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

There is far more to this debate than just increasing income. The main purpose of building a new stand isn't to give us the financial muscle to crack the top six or anything like that. Even if we increase capacity and break even it would be a positive, for the reasons I stated on the first page and for the reasons Kingsway has stated, particularly the post below:

2 hours ago, kingsway said:

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.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by canarydan23

[ricardo 7,347]

1 hour ago, kingsway said:

I struggle to understand the theory that if we increased the capacity to 35,000 and we weren't getting 35,000 every game it'd be wrong?

 

If we increased to 35,000 from the current 27,000 and we averaged 32,000 surely the extra 5-6000 ticket sales would be beneficial and that's not taking into account extra income generated through catering, corporate and office space rental?

Averaging 32K????

based on what data exactly?

A huge leap of faith in my opinion.

You may not agree with the way Bill expresses an opinion but in this case he is in much closer touch with reality than a lot of the wishful thinking shown so far on this thread.

There are huge risks attatched to any major expansion and the Board have every reason to be cautious. Everyone would like to see a bit more capacity but it there was an easy path it would have been done by now.