Move Ground to move forward.

[king canary 7,580]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

The big clubs in Spain, France, Germany etc would also join any European league. As it stands, the Championship on its own in one of the biggest leagues in Europe, the premiership purged of the top six would be even bigger.

I've long been of the opinion that a European Super League could be a short term (significant) pain for long term gain for clubs such as ours.

If the remaining clubs were sensible then something equitable, competitive and far more exciting could be built from the ashes. It would have to come with the knowledge that it likely wouldn't include the very top players but if fans can live with that it could be just what football needs.

[Indy 3,286]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Don't want to get into politics, and I didn't vote for either last time, but as a matter of accuracy the Conservatives have borrowed far, far more than Labour govts.

It is one of the big myths of current politics that the Conservatives have been more fiscally prudent - that is not to say, of course that people might find other reasons to vote for them.

I was only having a laugh, i could have used Tory too, I don’t do politics as it’s as corrupt in this country as in any other.....just more subtle!

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

I was only having a laugh, i could have used Tory too, I don’t do politics as it’s as corrupt in this country as in any other.....just more subtle!

Not that much more subtle...

[Indy 3,286]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not that much more subtle...

Very true! 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

But it doesn't address the 'elephant in the room'

That the cost of any redevelopment will not be covered by ticket sales - even when budgeted at maximum capacity for all ga,es.

Sp anything that causes those maximum salses to drop will an extra charge to the club.

Relegation would be the top of that list - and only a fool would gamble on Cty being in the PL for 20 years.

And the moment we drop out this debate will end, as usual.

 

ps we have had 2 years for anyone to buy a season ticket, that they didn't is because tere was no bandwagon' to jump on

I understand your point about not covering the cost of the stand with ticket sales, especially in the event of relegation, but that's not the point that I, and others, are making. 

5,000 extra seats and a redevelopment of the City Stand would set us up for probably the next 50 years. The current City Stand is older than me (just) so would need some work doing to it at some point over the next couple of decades anyway. Not taking into account inflation/deflation, we probably need to sell those extra 5,000 seats around 200 times, or ten full seasons, to cover the cost, using that £30m figure as a guide. That should happen over a long period of time. I know you keep mentioning interest, but...

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

It's not the planting that's the problem. It's leaving the people who come after you with the bill.

...we may not necessarily need to leave a bill. Like I've said before, we're in the strongest position financially we've been in for years, and it could be the strongest position we'll be in for years to come.

If we stay up this season, we'll receive £200m in TV money over the next 24 months, plus extra income through commercial, sponsorship, merchandising and all the rest. Added to the tens of millions we receive when (not if) we sell our young talents to the big boys, we could cover it, I'm sure. If we get relegated as a result of lowering the playing budget, at least we'd have something to show for it other than a bunch of Naismiths and van Wolfswinkels. We'd have a new stand and no debt, which would serve us well when we get promoted again.

If we get relegated this season then obviously there's no way anyone can justify the cost, but if we stay up it's doable...

[Woodman 92]

41 minutes ago, king canary said:

I've long been of the opinion that a European Super League could be a short term (significant) pain for long term gain for clubs such as ours.

If the remaining clubs were sensible then something equitable, competitive and far more exciting could be built from the ashes. It would have to come with the knowledge that it likely wouldn't include the very top players but if fans can live with that it could be just what football needs.

Sky and BT would take all their money out of British football if that were to happen.  They're barely interested in the Championship as it is.  UEFA are already trying to do this with the league format of the Champions and Europa Leagues - after all, this year's Champions League final was played between clubs who finished 3rd and 4th in the League.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

25 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

If we stay up this season, we'll receive £200m in TV money over the next 24 months, plus extra income through commercial, sponsorship, merchandising and all the rest. Added to the tens of millions we receive when (not if) we sell our young talents to the big boys, we could cover it, I'm sure. If we get relegated as a result of lowering the playing budget, at least we'd have something to show for it other than a bunch of Naismiths and van Wolfswinkels. We'd have a new stand and no debt, which would serve us well when we get promoted again.

If we get relegated this season then obviously there's no way anyone can justify the cost, but if we stay up it's doable...

I made this argument a while back, on another thread (we do seem to have a few!), with the additional point that staying up a season would guarantee three years of parachute payments. And if we stick to the sensible financial model then we would presumably not be in the position - if relegated - where we had to sell a player or two to cover a looming black hole in the accounts.

Based on our recent record of developing young talent, there is likely to be at least one player each summer we simply cannot hold on to, because a big club wants them, and at a very good price. Some of that money for the squad and perhaps some put aside.

I would not be sure we could pay for the project without going into debt (all my viable working assumptions have been that we would have some debt to pay off) but we ought to be able to find a good chunk of the basic cost from funds.

A possible timetable is that if we stay up, then this time next year the decision could be taken to rebuild at the end of the 2020-21, meaning the work would encompass the 2021-22 season.

[Badger 2,405]

40 minutes ago, Woodman said:

Sky and BT would take all their money out of British football if that were to happen. 

They would certainly pay less but I doubt that they would take it all!

I think that they pay about £250 million a year for cricket rights in England alone and I'd have thought that English football would command much more.

Of course, it would not match the EPL riches, but English teams would remain very competitive with all other leagues - other than the Euro Super league that is - and who'd want to be part of that plastic festival!

[shefcanary 2,389]

Noting a couple of comments elsewhere in this thread, it has been observed that the City Stand would need to have quite a substantial amount spent on it anyway, now it is approaching 34 years of age.  Webber also mentioned earlier that the return to the EPL had meant 30 capital projects had had to be undertaken to meet the latest requirements which has made a big hit on the first year's EPL monies.  Although some of these works are VAR related, some will have been to do with the facilities within the City Stand for visiting teams and their hangers on (no more pink walls for instance?). 

Thinking positively, staying up for a few years there will come a point like in Milan, where throwing money at piece meal renovations to the City Stand makes little economic sense.  Throw in the potential to increase the number of regular attending spectators and the money per head they and the current ST holders spend per game, the likelihood of a bond issue to part fund it, then potentially the only real issue is the cost of transformation and the technical difficulties (including planning permission) involved that could prevent progression of an extension to the City Stand even from a financial perspective.

I'm not a pip squeaking irresponsible young'un as I've been supporting Norwich over 50 years.  I just think if we are to progress as an EPL club, we need to act like one and have the courage to demonstrate it both on and off the pitch.  The progress at Colney now needs to be replicated at the Carra'.

So I'm pinning my flag to the masthead, given the membership furore this year, it is time to progress City Stand extension now, whatever happens on the pitch.  

[Indy 3,286]

Everyone is on about the City stand being 34 years old now but the river end is a few years older, are both these stands in need of refurbishment or rebuilding in the near future? I did watch a couple games from the upper tier of the river end, it’s certainly looking it’s age.

[ricardo 7,349]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Everyone is on about the City stand being 34 years old now but the river end is a few years older, are both these stands in need of refurbishment or rebuilding in the near future? I did watch a couple games from the upper tier of the river end, it’s certainly looking it’s age.

Lots of houses near me are over 140 years old. Very desirable residences if you look at the money they ask for them.😀

[Indy 3,286]

24 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Lots of houses near me are over 140 years old. Very desirable residences if you look at the money they ask for them.😀

That’s true, but I bet they’ve a bob or two spent on them to modernise them over the years? Just asking as the top tier was a tad tired looking in most departments.

[Bill 1,788]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

 Throw in the potential to increase the number of regular attending spectators and the money per head they and the current ST holders spend per game, the likelihood of a bond issue to part fund it, then potentially the only real issue is the cost of transformation and the technical difficulties (including planning permission) involved that could prevent progression of an extension to the City Stand even from a financial perspective.

I don't think there is anyone against developing the main stand - it is the ignorance that has been shown in the idea that the club don't seem to grasp the thought that by increasing the capacity you increase the income.

Thankfully that idiocy has finally been put to bed, with simple basic calculations. So don't confuse the two.

However one the of the main problems with redeveloping the main stand is where do you put the 4,000 current ST holders while the working is ongoing ? Would they be happily 'scattered to the four winds', even if 4000 seats could be found.

So let's not get carried away by the belief that those pointing out the problems are against redevelopment. If we could transform the main stand into a new 8000 stand and bulldoze down the hotel and put in more seats overnight I would be as pleased as punch, as I'm sure almost everyone else would.

But those ideas have to be carried forward on the basis of what is possible and what is required to be done to achieve that - not some pie in the sky bollox, as much on here has been.

[Indy 3,286]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

I don't think there is anyone against developing the main stand - it is the ignorance that has been shown in the idea that the club don't seem to grasp the thought that by increasing the capacity you increase the income.

Thankfully that idiocy has finally been put to bed, with simple basic calculations. So don't confuse the two.

However one the of the main problems with redeveloping the main stand is where do you put the 4,000 current ST holders while the working is ongoing ? Would they be happily 'scattered to the four winds', even if 4000 seats could be found.

So let's not get carried away by the belief that those pointing out the problems are against redevelopment. If we could transform the main stand into a new 8000 stand and bulldoze down the hotel and put in more seats overnight I would be as pleased as punch, as I'm sure almost everyone else would.

But those ideas have to be carried forward on the basis of what is possible and what is required to be done to achieve that - not some pie in the sky bollox, as much on here has been.

Hello Elf, still angry then? If you don’t like the bollox on this thread **** off it then! 😘

[shefcanary 2,389]

Bill, this thread has discussed how it is possible to add an extension behind and over the existing stand a la Liverpool & Wednesday.  The updated facilities will initially be in the new stand with old brand's facilities updated at the end.  The only issue is the funding package and whether the road at the back can technically be built on or over.  This would be a Council planning and funding issue rather than a technical one; most cities see much tighter spaces where interesting buildings are squeezed in.  

[shefcanary 2,389]

7 hours ago, shefcanary said:

So I've just seen that AC & Inter Milan have agreed to knock down the San Siro and build a new stadium next to it for £660 Million to open in 2022.  Both clubs agree that the quality and quantity of amenities (bars, food outlets, toilets, corporate facilities) were falling way behind modern standards and it would be too costly to update compared to new build.  Now of course there is plenty of spare land to achieve this, the stadium will continue to be owned by the local municipal authority and Milan is bidding for the 2026 Winter Olympics so the new stadium will be the centre-piece for the games, so all in all it is a relatively easy and no doubt affordable from the clubs' perspective.  But still very ambitious and no doubt not without implications for the playing side.  

However, if we really want to play at that sort of level ….

Just confirmed Milan has been awarded the 2026 Winter Games.  I'm sure the promise of a new stadium helped.  Fortune favours the brave.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

8 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

A couple of pages have passed in my absence so I'll pick out the highlights:

What Bowkett and McNally said in 2012 bears little relevance now. Seven years is a long time in football and the personnel, opinions, circumstances and most importantly the finances involved have all changed. 

The comment about 'people wanting a seat when the times are good without wanting to pay for it' is a little bit out of place here. I think pretty much everyone getting involved in this debate are either season ticket holders or exiles, all of whom would be just as prepared to watch us against Wycombe in League One as they would against Man Utd in the Premier League. This isn't the club's Facebook page, which is full of fair-weather fans.

In conclusion, I'm still of the belief that should we stay up this season, we could and should invest while we're in arguably the best financial position we've ever been in, and possibly the best financial position we'll be in for years to come. £100m guaranteed in TV money this year, another £100m next year if we stay up, plus we'll inevitably sell a couple of our young stars for £20m+ each. In addition to the other revenue streams we get in the Premier League, I'm sure we can find a way to free up £30m to build the stand without taking out a massive bank loan and risking the club's future. Should we go down, £30m or a big bank loan is too much to spend/risk on something that is desirable but would not be essential in the event of relegation, so we wouldn't do it, that's obvious.

 

Wacky, I just don't agree that what Bowkett said back then is of little relevance. How can it be of little relevance compared to some of the suggestions on here? At least his comments came on the back of seriously investigating the various possibilities and costs. He told us at an AGM that putting a top tier on the present stand wasn't an option. He said if it was done it would entail a new build. Have these various schemed where by we build on top of the present stand been investigated and costed?

I'm not arguing for not increasing the capacity just that it comes with financial risks and logistical problems.

Whether the new board view things differently is an unknown. If the question is asked at the AGM we may find out. But the signs aren't good as they sold the newly available season tickets as fast as they could. 

[ricardo 7,349]

12 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Just confirmed Milan has been awarded the 2026 Winter Games.  I'm sure the promise of a new stadium helped.  Fortune favours the brave.

Im sure Norwich City Council would be overjoyed to foot the bill😂

we could have a ski jump on Gas Hill.

[Bill 1,788]

20 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Just confirmed Milan has been awarded the 2026 Winter Games.  I'm sure the promise of a new stadium helped.  Fortune favours the brave.

A motto well suited to our impoverished neighbours - who like yourself (it would appear) thought that their club would certainly be in the PL for the following 25 years.

 

ps remind us all how many winter events take place in a stadium

[Van wink 2,994]

16 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Im sure Norwich City Council would be overjoyed to foot the bill😂

we could have a ski jump on Gas Hill.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/weather/man-snowboards-gas-hill-norwich-beast-from-the-east-1-5413306

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

23 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Wacky, I just don't agree that what Bowkett said back then is of little relevance. How can it be of little relevance compared to some of the suggestions on here? At least his comments came on the back of seriously investigating the various possibilities and costs. He told us at an AGM that putting a top tier on the present stand wasn't an option. He said if it was done it would entail a new build. Have these various schemed where by we build on top of the present stand been investigated and costed?

I'm not arguing for not increasing the capacity just that it comes with financial risks and logistical problems.

Whether the new board view things differently is an unknown. If the question is asked at the AGM we may find out. But the signs aren't good as they sold the newly available season tickets as fast as they could. 

I am on the move and cannot quote it now, nutty, but in the quote I have seen Bowkett indicated it probably would be feasible to add a tier but that perhaps the best thing to do would be to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. I imagine perhaps the facilities in the current stand could do with a total upgrade anyway.

 

 

[Mr Angry 1,547]

26 minutes ago, Bill said:

 

 

ps remind us all how many winter events take place in a stadium

32 at the last Games-why do you ask?

[nutty nigel 7,513]

30 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am on the move and cannot quote it now, nutty, but in the quote I have seen Bowkett indicated it probably would be feasible to add a tier but that perhaps the best thing to do would be to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. I imagine perhaps the facilities in the current stand could do with a total upgrade anyway.

 

 

I am sure at the AGM they said that a new build was the only viable option. But as you say, the facilities are out of date and I think it would be crazy to have a new stand incorporating them. Let's be honest it wasn't state of the art when it was first built amid controversy 35 years ago. 

 

[Barbe bleu 816]

So to summarise. We all agree that expansion of the current stadium is a good thing and better than the alternatives of a new stadium elsewhere or standing still but should be funded out of the player sales or from unspent premier riches. Expansion should be timed/ phased/ engineered to minimise disruption.

Anyone disagree?

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I don't think we all agree that Barbe. There seems to be an argument on here to grab the bull by the horns because the time is now. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

11 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

So to summarise. We all agree that expansion of the current stadium is a good thing and better than the alternatives of a new stadium elsewhere or standing still but should be funded out of the player sales or from unspent premier riches. Expansion should be timed/ phased/ engineered to minimise disruption.

Anyone disagree?

Mainly or significantly funded by those kinds of cash reserves. Some debt is likely, and quite manageable. And I would need to see an up to date assessment of the costs and practicalities. The most recent we seem to have is six years old.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

Given the fact there are clearly not enough spare seats in the ground to re-home the season tickets holders in the City Stand, is the idea of a total demolition and reconstruction even possible? I don't see how the project could be phased in such a way that it can be done, although I'm not an engineer. Should the project ever come to fruition, the only realistic option seems to be what Liverpool did- build around/above the stand whilst allowing the existing part to be fully operational and then redevelop the existing parts over a couple of summers.

[splendidrush 700]

Just asking the question, as I don't get to many games, is the fact that we almost sell out every game preventing us from encouraging a new fanbase?

The Big Clubs are constantly looking to expand into new markets, whether that be TV channels or foreign tours.

Someone mentioned 'plastics' and glory hunters, not something The Club worries about too much, ultimately we're all customers and our money is of equal value. 

When did the Club last employ someone to promote our games because there were tickets available? How many people are missing out because it's too difficult to get regular tickets?

[Bill 1,788]

7 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Given the fact there are clearly not enough spare seats in the ground to re-home the season tickets holders in the City Stand, is the idea of a total demolition and reconstruction even possible? I don't see how the project could be phased in such a way that it can be done, although I'm not an engineer. Should the project ever come to fruition, the only realistic option seems to be what Liverpool did- build around/above the stand whilst allowing the existing part to be fully operational and then redevelop the existing parts over a couple of summers.

at last

now you recognise why others have been dismissing this 'airy fairy' idea that the club could simply redevelop and increase income - whilst the economics and=d logistics of that could be blithely ignored

however my thought would be that the club could seek a temporary block on away support and use that area to house some of that 4000 - no new ST's would be sold and so they would become casual tickets whereby once the away support and casual tickets amounted to that 4000 and more work could go ahead. Even then it would mean a fair bit of swapping seats to ensure couples and others still sat together

so yes it could be done...eventually, but lets not blind ourselves to what would need to happen, and also drop this bollox about extra income

[splendidrush 700]

34 minutes ago, Bill said:

at last

now you recognise why others have been dismissing this 'airy fairy' idea that the club could simply redevelop and increase income - whilst the economics and=d logistics of that could be blithely ignored

however my thought would be that the club could seek a temporary block on away support and use that area to house some of that 4000 - no new ST's would be sold and so they would become casual tickets whereby once the away support and casual tickets amounted to that 4000 and more work could go ahead. Even then it would mean a fair bit of swapping seats to ensure couples and others still sat together

so yes it could be done...eventually, but lets not blind ourselves to what would need to happen, and also drop this bollox about extra income

You are an angry man Bill......