Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Indy

Move Ground to move forward.

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

Indy, these old fellas have got you in a three pronged pincer manoeuvre. Quick, go to bed! 😂

old fella !

dear me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animosity aside, this has been a great read. My natural position would be to expand, I hate to think how much money we've lost over the last 10 years or so,by not having enough capacity to let everyone in. Also, a generation of kids growing up unable to see the Team play regularly is going to impact on the Club's finances for the next 40 or 50 years. 

On the other hand, despite being a yo-yo Club our financial position has been fragile for as long as I can remember,  with that in mind, I agree that if it is to be done, the timing has to be right. 

That said, ultimately, we will have to rebuild at some stage, that's unavoidable, do we wait until we have no choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think expansion is probably inevitable but that is the route I'd go down over a whole new stadium.

I think we could easily support something between 32-35k at the Premier League level and make it worthwhile financially at Championship level. There is a lot to consider though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

To add some figures to that. In the 15 seasons since the South Stand was doubled,most of those 4,000 seats have been taken up, and not at the expense of other areas of the ground. Impossible to be precise, because attendance figures are not broken down stand by stand. But on average I would say at least 3,000 of those 4,000 seats have been filled per season.

As to how much the stand cost, I remember Doncaster saying it was close to £10m (I dimly recall £9.4m or £9.6m) rather than the £6m said at the time. Perhaps the  difference was the interest we paid. Anyway, add a bit and say, for the sake of argument, it was £12m in total, capital and interest.

If you assume, which is fair, 3,000 seats being filled by season ticketholders paying £500 (or the equivalent from away fans) that will have produced £13.5m over the nine seasons from the work being done to the entire cost, including debt, being paid off. More than my generously rounded-up £12m.

In the six seasons since it was all paid for, so pure profits from then on, 3,000 seats filled at (inflation...) £550 will have brought in £9.9m. And that is without adding on extra money from catering and the club shop etc.

Now it would not be fair to apply that maths to the main stand. It is clear the extra South Stand capacity was necessary, that there were quite enough extra fans out there, and not just in good times. Most of those 15 years were spent outside the PL.

I doubt the same is true now. I would not expect, say, an extra 4,000 seats to be filled all the time, even in the PL. I would be very surprised if that came close to happening. But equally I would be prepared to bet that enough extra seats would be filled enough of the time to make the project very profitable in the long run.

Of course paying off the capital and the debt on the project would be painful, although perhaps not as bad as might be imagined. Six years ago Bowkett put it at £2.5m a year over 20 years. If, say, 2,000 of the extra 4,000 seats were sold every season, at £650 a go, that would produce £1.3m, so  only a bit over £1m to be found from funds.

This discussion tends to get sidetracked by imagining as the club's aim a new capacity figure of 35,000, when I very much doubt it is more than 32,000, by claiming the  extra capacity has to be completely filled all the time to be viable when that plainly is not the case, as the South Stand shows.stand shows, by claiming the club would be financially crippled by having to pay off the debt when that is not the case, and by refusing to look at the long-term picture.

To add one point to the argument that increasing capacity by, say, doubling the size of the main stand would be profitable in the long run. If that is not the case, then why does the club want to increase capacity, which it plainly does, all other things being equal?

There are any number of statements to that effect. The cited problem has always been the short- and medium-term problem of financing the rebuild, particularly while the mantra has been that all available money should go on the playing side. A mantra that may not be so relevant now.

It doesn't make sense that the club would be bothered even to think about expansion if it didn't believe that in the long run, over decades, it would be profitable, bringing in more money than the cost of the project, just as the South Stand has done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, so I'll put on a tin hat and throw this in. Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that finances through the gate do not come close to matching the TV revenue while we're in the Premiership, but eventually the Premiership will change its format,  the Big Clubs are already having discussions with their rivals across Europe. If they decide that the time is right to set up a full time European Super League, TV revenue will drop like a stone overnight. 

We need to make sure that we invest for the future, how ever that evolves, by increasing our capacity and maximizing the potential that the area presents. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, so I'll put on a tin hat and throw this in. Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that finances through the gate do not come close to matching the TV revenue while we're in the Premiership, but eventually the Premiership will change its format,  the Big Clubs are already having discussions with their rivals across Europe. If they decide that the time is right to set up a full time European Super League, TV revenue will drop like a stone overnight. 

We need to make sure that we invest for the future, how ever that evolves, by increasing our capacity and maximizing the potential that the area presents. 

Whilst I see your point and I like the fact you're supporting the expansion, there are two issues with it:

Firstly, the threat of a European Super League has been there for years and probably always will be, but I can't see it happening. The big clubs seem to use it as a bargaining chip to keep getting a bigger slice of the pie, and UEFA and the domestic leagues give in because they don't want to risk losing them to a European Super League.

Also, in such an event, maybe attendances would drop anyway. Domestic football would take a hit, and that would include attendances at pretty much all top division clubs who are left behind. Maybe it would affect us less because we wouldn't have a Super League close by and because our fanbase seems to be more loyal than most, but I'm not sure the English top flight clubs would continue to get the gates it does now without that big six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Whilst I see your point and I like the fact you're supporting the expansion, there are two issues with it:

Firstly, the threat of a European Super League has been there for years and probably always will be, but I can't see it happening. The big clubs seem to use it as a bargaining chip to keep getting a bigger slice of the pie, and UEFA and the domestic leagues give in because they don't want to risk losing them to a European Super League.

Also, in such an event, maybe attendances would drop anyway. Domestic football would take a hit, and that would include attendances at pretty much all top division clubs who are left behind. Maybe it would affect us less because we wouldn't have a Super League close by and because our fanbase seems to be more loyal than most, but I'm not sure the English top flight clubs would continue to get the gates it does now without that big six.

I think a European Super league would be fantastic for British football. Without the top 6 who nearly monopolise the top places in the league, we would have a genuinely competitive league - a sort of Championship double plus.

It would be the biggest domestic league in Europe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think a European Super league would be fantastic for British football. Without the top 6 who nearly monopolise the top places in the league, we would have a genuinely competitive league - a sort of Championship double plus.

It would be the biggest domestic league in Europe.

Would it be the biggest in Europe, though? At the moment we have six big, mega-rich clubs, and if you take those away, would there be anything more interesting than the chasing pack in say, Germany? But anyway, it's all very hypothetical.

6 minutes 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 ….

This is Italy we're talking about. There's more chance of Ipswich winning the Premier League in 2022 than a project of that size being completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, so I'll put on a tin hat and throw this in. Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that finances through the gate do not come close to matching the TV revenue while we're in the Premiership, but eventually the Premiership will change its format,  the Big Clubs are already having discussions with their rivals across Europe. If they decide that the time is right to set up a full time European Super League, TV revenue will drop like a stone overnight. 

We need to make sure that we invest for the future, how ever that evolves, by increasing our capacity and maximizing the potential that the area presents. 

If I had a case of champagne for every time Ricardo has predicted this will eventually happen...

This had occurred to me before, and it plays into the more general argument sometimes used here about whether  expansion is wise when you don't know how English football will change. Well, it might change in such a way that expansion is unnecessary. For example, if more people decided to watch on TV than go to the ground.

Or  football might not  change, or it might change in a way that validated expansion. Such as a super league that took five or six top clubs out of the PL, increasing our chances of staying in the reformed elite, and indeed perhaps reducing TV money. Or the TV-financed model could go completely belly up, so that many more fans wanted tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am naive , but I don't think TV will ever outrival going to the live game... For example : TV country USA ... Green Bay Packers from Wisconsin have a 139.000 long waiting list for a season ticket..., but their games are on TV ... each game is televised... no , going to a game is an experience that can't be matched by TV , only maybe if it were in VR and live...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ROBFLECK said:

Maybe I am naive , but I don't think TV will ever outrival going to the live game... For example : TV country USA ... Green Bay Packers from Wisconsin have a 139.000 long waiting list for a season ticket..., but their games are on TV ... each game is televised... no , going to a game is an experience that can't be matched by TV , only maybe if it were in VR and live...

One think to note with NFL games- local stations can't show the game unless it is sold out. So Green Bay will always be televised in Green Bay as they always sell out. However Jacksonville or Washington often don't get to show their games locally as they don't sell out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, king canary said:

One think to note with NFL games- local stations can't show the game unless it is sold out. So Green Bay will always be televised in Green Bay as they always sell out. However Jacksonville or Washington often don't get to show their games locally as they don't sell out.

American football is a totally different animal entirely, they have a draft pick are franchised and if they fail with a certain level of attendance could lose that team to a different location. So it’s in each cities teams interest to try and keep up attendances, I don’t think this will ever happen in Football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

If I had a case of champagne for every time Ricardo has predicted this will eventually happen...

This had occurred to me before, and it plays into the more general argument sometimes used here about whether  expansion is wise when you don't know how English football will change. Well, it might change in such a way that expansion is unnecessary. For example, if more people decided to watch on TV than go to the ground.

Or  football might not  change, or it might change in a way that validated expansion. Such as a super league that took five or six top clubs out of the PL, increasing our chances of staying in the reformed elite, and indeed perhaps reducing TV money. Or the TV-financed model could go completely belly up, so that many more fans wanted tickets.

Inevitable but impossible to predict the time frame.

The only thing certain about the future is that it will be more expensive.💲

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

If I had a case of champagne for every time Ricardo has predicted this will eventually happen...

This had occurred to me before, and it plays into the more general argument sometimes used here about whether  expansion is wise when you don't know how English football will change. Well, it might change in such a way that expansion is unnecessary. For example, if more people decided to watch on TV than go to the ground.

Or  football might not  change, or it might change in a way that validated expansion. Such as a super league that took five or six top clubs out of the PL, increasing our chances of staying in the reformed elite, and indeed perhaps reducing TV money. Or the TV-financed model could go completely belly up, so that many more fans wanted tickets.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not particularly relevant to the core of this debate but a £30m+ development of the edge of the City centre will surely be a boost to the local economy.

Some should even find it's way back into the Carrow Road coffers one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we gain much from that eyesore of a hotel? Is that one area which with hindsight should have been a mirror of the Community Stand with another 1500 + seats?

Certainly would add to the atmosphere having a corner stand there. Is that something which could be considered, demolishing that, building that corner stand and building the new hotel further along the river?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Certainly would add to the atmosphere having a corner stand there. Is that something which could be considered, demolishing that, building that corner stand and building the new hotel further along the river?"

 

I would have thought that the cost of that, weighed against the gain in seats, would be proportionally much more than re-developing the Main Stand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ricardo said:

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

You mean the Labour model!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

"Certainly would add to the atmosphere having a corner stand there. Is that something which could be considered, demolishing that, building that corner stand and building the new hotel further along the river?"

 

I would have thought that the cost of that, weighed against the gain in seats, would be proportionally much more than re-developing the Main Stand.

 

Possibly I really don’t know the cost of either option, just this one would have least impact on current ground capacity.

 

Just looking at alternatives, it didn’t need to be built where it was, it could have been built elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ricardo said:

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

It’s a rubbish quote anyway, the second best time was 19 years and 364 days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

 

Are you suggesting that we follow the 'Ipswich Model' here?

 

image.jpeg.fc2bd31985ff5c2a2deeff9800581020.jpeg

 

Hope not, besides a few trees planted on the roof of the Main Stand would probably collapse the whole thing.

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the Ipswich model is. I’m just pointing out that if something needs to be done, it’s better to do it sooner rather than later.

The question is whether something needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Would it be the biggest in Europe, though? At the moment we have six big, mega-rich clubs, and if you take those away, would there be anything more interesting than the chasing pack in say, Germany? But anyway, it's all very hypothetical.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Indy said:

You mean the Labour model!

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×