Main Stand. Have we missed a trick?

[Greavsy 2,412]

Just now, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, seriously.

If plans were in place then we could have completed the work with no impact on crowds or match day income.  We could have borrowed at historically low interest rates or via a bond Scheme that would been supported.

We are almost guaranteed at least one year in the Premier league and  parachute payments as a fall back. We also have some very sellable assets to plug any holes that might come up.

Crowd returns next season are not guaranteed 100% but these restrictions cannot last forever.

Some of this we know with hindsight but that doesn't mean we didn't get the gamble wrong.  You can be understandably wrong , but wrong nonetheless.

What circumstances do you think could ever arise that would be more ideal?

 

 

I agree, in part, with a massive amount of hindsight, it would have been a good time, with the missing crowds etc. 

However with losing money, no grantee of returning crowd numbers, and remember the majority of these have already been paid for its just not feasable.

The club didnt feel it was right to go to the fans for another bond so soon after the latest one, and in the current climate. 

It is exactly that,  a gamble. 

[Darth Vadis 150]

The way in which I would hope the club are planning for it is to set aside money for it every year, say £10m (if we're in the premier league). It would annoy me if the club got relegated in a third season and came out and said, "We need 4 sustained seasons to do it". We would then be back to where we were in 2014. I want NCFC to have something to show for being in the Premier League, like the new training ground. If we can keep in place the structure we have at the moment, particularly the recruitment team, then I would be confident that the club could sign players of the right calibre whilst saving money for a redevelopment.

 

£30m of TV money + Bond Scheme + excess money from player sales would surely be enough. Possibly even only 2 seasons of prem money? Then again that may be wishful thinking.

[The Gingerking 5]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, seriously.

If plans were in place then we could have completed the work with no impact on crowds or match day income.  We could have borrowed at historically low interest rates or via a bond Scheme that would been supported.

We are almost guaranteed at least one year in the Premier league and  parachute payments as a fall back. We also have some very sellable assets to plug any holes that might come up.

Crowd returns next season are not guaranteed 100% but these restrictions cannot last forever.

Some of this we know with hindsight but that doesn't mean we didn't get the gamble wrong.  You can be understandably wrong , but wrong nonetheless.

What circumstances do you think could ever arise that would be more ideal?

 

 

Terrific concise reply👏🏻

Made a better case than me in so many less words. 

Just to say the window for this chance is still open for me, which is why I raise the topic (I’m sure the board read this forum regularly😉)

When we eventually do ALL go back, how many of us would be super excited to rock up into a 35k capacity with a new state of the art main stand(?).

[The Gingerking 5]

5 minutes ago, Darth Vadis said:

The way in which I would hope the club are planning for it is to set aside money for it every year, say £10m (if we're in the premier league). It would annoy me if the club got relegated in a third season and came out and said, "We need 4 sustained seasons to do it". We would then be back to where we were in 2014. I want NCFC to have something to show for being in the Premier League, like the new training ground. If we can keep in place the structure we have at the moment, particularly the recruitment team, then I would be confident that the club could sign players of the right calibre whilst saving money for a redevelopment.

 

£30m of TV money + Bond Scheme + excess money from player sales would surely be enough. Possibly even only 2 seasons of prem money? Then again that may be wishful thinking.

What’s the cost do we think? 20-30million maybe? Or is it more? 
I think you’d have to go for something that can handle decent large scale events too (darts, consumer shows, etc)

As I said, a real ‘future proofer’

Im thinking glass frontage, attractive curved infills some nice visible livery facing the City. Great lighting. Perhaps an access tunnel underneath for coaches to deliver the players along the old Carrow Rd.

Edited March 15, 2021 by The Gingerking

[Darth Vadis 150]

1 minute ago, The Gingerking said:

What’s the cost do we think? 20-30million maybe? Or is it more? 
I think you’d have to go for something that can handle decent large scale events too (darts, consumer shows, etc)

As I said, a real ‘future proofer’

I'm assuming it would be somewhere between £30m - £40m to do a complete rebuild (which I think is the best way to do it, that stand needs a major upgrade). But that is just supposition.

 

I think McNally and Bowkett quoted £20m for an extra 7k seats back in 2013(?), so adjusted for inflation then somewhere around 30/40(?) - would need to look up inflation rates 

[Darth Vadis 150]

1 minute ago, Darth Vadis said:

I think McNally and Bowkett quoted £20m for an extra 7k seats back in 2013(?), so adjusted for inflation then somewhere around 30/40(?) - would need to look up inflation rates 

Bank of England reckons it'd only be £23m... 😅 So in summary, f*** knows

[The Gingerking 5]

1 minute ago, Darth Vadis said:

Bank of England reckons it'd only be £23m... 😅 So in summary, f*** knows

I think your initial estimate is right and these days likely nearer 40mill.
So for ease, in scruffy builder quote form “it’ll cost you a Buendia, guvnor”

[Nuff Said 5,088]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, seriously.

If plans were in place then we could have completed the work with no impact on crowds or match day income.  We could have borrowed at historically low interest rates or via a bond Scheme that would been supported.

We are almost guaranteed at least one year in the Premier league and  parachute payments as a fall back. We also have some very sellable assets to plug any holes that might come up.

Crowd returns next season are not guaranteed 100% but these restrictions cannot last forever.

Some of this we know with hindsight but that doesn't mean we didn't get the gamble wrong.  You can be understandably wrong , but wrong nonetheless.

What circumstances do you think could ever arise that would be more ideal?

That's like saying everyone who entered but didn't win the lottery got the gamble wrong. As well as those who didn't buy a ticket.

And circumstances that would clearly be more ideal are ones where we have the money in the bank already.

We still don't know:

1. If we will be in the Premier League next year. At the start of the season, it was hugely less certain.
2. Whether things like new Covid variants will set back the recovery from lockdown.
3. The future of TV deals with PL.
4. Whether we could actually fill 35K seats in the post-Covid world.
5. Whether the amount of money we intend to spend on the squad in the summer will keep us up, if we are up, and how much would be "surplus" for something like this.
6. Whether one or more of our saleable players will break a leg before we can cash in on them.
7. Whether a bond scheme could raise the money needed to cover enough of a chunk of the cost of a new stand, which is likely to be in the region of *10* times the Colney bond.
8. And we (the Pink Un hive mind) have no idea how advanced plans are. These sorts of projects don't happen overnight. There could well be 12 months of detailed planning needed before ground could be broken.

So gamble would be exactly the right word to describe a decision to redevelop the City stand as we were going into last season. Given that the board's stated priority is (absolutely correctly IMHO) to put survival of the club first, it was never going to happen.

[alex_ncfc 644]

Shouldn't have gone with a naff, small stand when it was rebuilt back in the 80s. I wouldn't know but the stand it replaced looked far bigger/more capacity?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

31 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

Shouldn't have gone with a naff, small stand when it was rebuilt back in the 80s. I wouldn't know but the stand it replaced looked far bigger/more capacity?

Our attendances, following a history of playing in the top division for many years, a criteria the club uses now, were 16/17K. And the old City stand wouldn't pass muster.

[Van wink 2,994]

2 hours ago, The Gingerking said:

When we eventually do ALL go back, how many of us would be super excited to rock up into a 35k capacity with a new state of the art main stand(?).

Now wouldnt that be nice, but realistically nobody with any sense is going to commit to a major capital project of this nature in the middle of a pandemic. Its only recently that the outlook has become a bit more rosey for fans returning, in the UK at least. Its not that long ago however that the future of the game as now know it and its finacial model was seriuosly under threat. It probably is still is.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Van wink

[Nuff Said 5,088]

14 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Now wouldnt that be nice, but realistically nobody with any sense is going to commit to a major capital project of this nature in the middle of a pandemic. Its only recently that the outlook has become a bit more rosey for fans returning, in the UK at least. Its not that long ago however that the future of the game as we know with and its finacial model was seriuosly under threat. It probably is still is.

And it is entirely possible that some of the potential returning fans won't be keen on sitting in a crowd of potential virus carriers. In particular, if I can dare suggest it, those of a more mature vintage. The River End could be half empty for years yet.

[Van wink 2,994]

15 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

And it is entirely possible that some of the potential returning fans won't be keen on sitting in a crowd of potential virus carriers. In particular, if I can dare suggest it, those of a more mature vintage. The River End could be half empty for years yet.

Lots more room at the urinals

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

2 hours ago, alex_ncfc said:

Shouldn't have gone with a naff, small stand when it was rebuilt back in the 80s. I wouldn't know but the stand it replaced looked far bigger/more capacity?

It was an insurance job though, so replacing like with like. I can't remember if and how much the club contributed as an 'upgrade', or if there was scope to do more.

[......and Smith must score. 1,332]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Our attendances, following a history of playing in the top division for many years, a criteria the club uses now, were 16/17K. And the old City stand wouldn't pass muster.

Certainly not with an 'effin great hole in it caused by that mysterious 3am fire 😉

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

13 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Certainly not with an 'effin great hole in it caused by that mysterious 3am fire 😉

Arthur South could never get rid of the smell of petrol he spilt on his Hush Puppies.

[shefcanary 2,383]

A few considerations:

The loss of revenue from the 4,500 seats in the City Stand for a couple of years- £5-6m?  Would EPL allow no visiting fans for instance?

The practical issues of relocating dressing rooms, VIP hospitality suites, journalists, et al - that would cost and could also lead to loss of further ticket revenue (good use of the hotel?).

Who recently gets any kind of return on their savings - I certainly don't?  The Colney bond paid out a healthy interest payment, which was why it was such a success.  If this was repeated then demand would be healthy enough to probably raise the full cost of the build.  Not just fans were interested in the Colney bond for instance, a number of companies piled in.  The downside is obviously making enough revenue  to pay the interest, but it is not impossible to set up some form of insured underwriting in case of relegation or loss of TV money - there are plenty of financial institutions with cash piles willing to "bet" on such things.  How many on here are looking both to support the club, but earn a bit more interest than their bank offers?

I am absolutely convinced that if it is built, the new stand and the ground would still be regularly filled.  It would change things though- it could result in relocation of away fans for instance.  Would everyone be happy with the changes made?

Interested to see what others think?

Edited March 15, 2021 by shefcanary

[Midlands Yellow 3,924]

Was there a Guy Fawkes on top of the old stand? Bl00dy kids hey, couldn’t wait another 11 days for the main event. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

11 hours ago, Felixfan said:

We easily raised the money for the academy upgrade so probably should have done the same during the pandemic.

Bit of a difference in the cost though isn't there! 

[......and Smith must score. 1,332]

3 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

And it is entirely possible that some of the potential returning fans won't be keen on sitting in a crowd of potential virus carriers. In particular, if I can dare suggest it, those of a more mature vintage. The River End could be half empty for years yet.

With 21,000-odd ST holders and a likely return to the Premier League there’s no way we wouldn’t have full houses for almost all our games.

Any ST holders who didn’t want to go wouldn’t affect the finances as the club has already banked their money.

[essex canary 491]

£35 million pound cost with a maximum potential return of 10%. Any would be bondholders would need to come up with far more money for more modest returns than last time. Also the money needs to stay in rather than come out. More Directors or shareholders putting in long term money for more modest returns might be a better option but still risks remain as others have outlined.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

6 hours ago, Darth Vadis said:

I'm assuming it would be somewhere between £30m - £40m to do a complete rebuild (which I think is the best way to do it, that stand needs a major upgrade). But that is just supposition.

 

I think McNally and Bowkett quoted £20m for an extra 7k seats back in 2013(?), so adjusted for inflation then somewhere around 30/40(?) - would need to look up inflation rates 

From memory the Bowkett-McNally quote came to £50m. £30m for the work and £20m in interest.

[Van wink 2,994]

49 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Bit of a difference in the cost though isn't there! 

Massive difference. The bond scheme for the Academy was a great success for all concerned, the club and bond holders, I was fortunate to benefit from it myself.

We are talking a totally different order of magnitude here as you say, however I will say, from memory, that the bond issue sold out extremely quickly, it was packaged in an attractive way to potential investors.

[birchfest 397]

Time to dig out this bad boy I did last week haha.

 

I wonder if we had stayed up convincingly last season we might have done it? I think it’s viewed as a medium term priority, but that’s probably been pushed back because of Covid. Now more than ever top flight football and the money it generates will be essential and I think this summer every spare penny will be put into the squad in the hope that a solid run in the top flight would finance a stadium expansion.

[essex canary 491]

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Massive difference. The bond scheme for the Academy was a great success for all concerned, the club and bond holders, I was fortunate to benefit from it myself.

We are talking a totally different order of magnitude here as you say, however I will say, from memory, that the bond issue sold out extremely quickly, it was packaged in an attractive way to potential investors.

An alternative way of making my previous point. 

A further alternative would be it is hard to justify the economics of the bond issue.

[Van wink 2,994]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

An alternative way of making my previous point. 

A further alternative would be it is hard to justify the economics of the bond issue.

I dont know enough about the costs or how things may be packaged on a larger scale, you are probably right. There may be more innovative ways it could be done to make for an attractive package, but I cant really see how.

[Nuff Said 5,088]

58 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

From memory the Bowkett-McNally quote came to £50m. £30m for the work and £20m in interest.

Where were they going to borrow from??? Wonga?

Edited March 15, 2021 by Nuff Said

[Surfer 1,547]

Cost and time. Constructions costs have not doubled in the past decade. Construction times have not doubled in the past decade. It’s a stand - which is a really a glorified multistory car park. How long did it take to build the South Stand or the River End or the Barclay End? Should take six to nine months tops. 

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I dont know enough about the costs or how things may be packaged on a larger scale, you are probably right. There may be more innovative ways it could be done to make for an attractive package, but I cant really see how.

Capital Cost of a seat say £7,000. Those who could afford could say provide £21,000 for 3 seats, 1 for their own use giving them say a 3.3% return with 2 seats for the Club. Smaller investors could per scale down with a percentage reduction on their season ticket.

This is pretty much the situation that was adopted with the share issue and South Stand development in 2002. Problem was it was undersubscribed. Further problem was that the Club made it seat for life only, thus your heirs are stuck with the shares and no return which has happened to some people. In the light of peoples current sense of vulnerability that will need a different approach.

That said AFC Wimbledon raised £5million plus for their new stadium using a similar method which for them is over £1,000 per average attendee. They did it as a bond scheme with a choice of interest rate between 0 and 4 per cent and repayment terms of between 5 and 20 years. 

If Norwich fans really want to fulfill the dream then maybe the new supporters panel could explore? The danger is that the previous bond scheme has created unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps some new younger faces in the Boardroom introducing Capital should also be part of the equation?

 

[Greavsy 2,412]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Capital Cost of a seat say £7,000. Those who could afford could say provide £21,000 for 3 seats, 1 for their own use giving them say a 3.3% return with 2 seats for the Club. Smaller investors could per scale down with a percentage reduction on their season ticket.

This is pretty much the situation that was adopted with the share issue and South Stand development in 2002. Problem was it was undersubscribed. Further problem was that the Club made it seat for life only, thus your heirs are stuck with the shares and no return which has happened to some people. In the light of peoples current sense of vulnerability that will need a different approach.

That said AFC Wimbledon raised £5million plus for their new stadium using a similar method which for them is over £1,000 per average attendee. They did it as a bond scheme with a choice of interest rate between 0 and 4 per cent and repayment terms of between 5 and 20 years. 

If Norwich fans really want to fulfill the dream then maybe the new supporters panel could explore? The danger is that the previous bond scheme has created unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps some new younger faces in the Boardroom introducing Capital should also be part of the equation?

 

I get a sense of de ja vue reading that.........