Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Mark Attanasio

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

GMF, I am unfamiliar with that posh part of the ground! But seriously, I remember that when Bowkett was talking about this he said one of the arguments for knocking the whole stand down was that the facilities there were outdated and it might be better to start from scratch. However if it is now thought feasible to build on top I assume that is what they would do, but with that refurbishment you are talking about.

To use the Club’s terminology, there’s standard seats (the majority) and premium seats (the lounges and central seats in the City and South Stands, which are charged at higher rates.

Most clubs operate similar pricing structures and it’s likely that any redevelopment of the City Stand, whether over or behind the existing structure, would result in increased revenues per seat once completed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Ticket sales are outstripped by TV income in the top flight, but when in the Premier League we have traditionally been right at the bottom of the TV income ladder. Greater capacity would make a difference in comparison to our mid- and bottom-table rivals, not least because larger crowds bring in extra revenue from catering and commercial. There is a reason why clubs with incomes way above what we have ever achieved still want to increase capacity. 

There is also the valid argument that the lack of casual tickets  when he team is doing well (and this has applied in the Championship as well as in the EPL) risks losing a generation of new fans.

It is true that when Bowkett gave some figures at least ten years ago now for redeveloping the City Stand the assumption was the whole thing would be knocked down, with a start from scratch. But recently, given the purchase of the old Carrow Road, the club has talked about the possibility of building a second tier on top of the existing one.

Don't buy this at all, apart from the fact as fans we would all like to see CR as the kind of shiney stadia we could all be proud. The break even point would be possibly decades in the future and the costs are now. The point is we have never had the cash to cover those costs.

Always willing to have a FPA prove me wrong though 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Don't buy this at all, apart from the fact as fans we would all like to see CR as the kind of shiney stadia we could all be proud. The break even point would be possibly decades in the future and the costs are now. The point is we have never had the cash to cover those costs.

Always willing to have a FPA prove me wrong though 😉

That was arguably true, when the assumption was that the whole cost would have to be met by external debt. And the mantra was that all available money had to go into the squad. But there are now potential ways of reducing what would be owed externally well below 100 per cent.

And there are two realities. That when the club is doing well the capacity at Carrow Road is simply too low. And that, as the doubling of the South Stand showed, in the long run extra capacity, even if not fully utilised all the time, or even any of the time, represents profit the club would not otherwise have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GMF said:

Perhaps there’s an alternative perspective @nutty nigel, as I don’t think anyone is actually accusing someone of lying.

There has, historically, been a reluctance to sell, often because the approaches were unsolicited and either weren’t genuine, or lacked sufficient financial backing to generate interest. 

What has changed however, for the first time in over a quarter of a century, is that the second largest shareholder decided to sell. MF, rightly in my opinion, decided to involve D&M in the process. That in itself was the trigger for movement in the dial, which hadn’t existed previously. 

Ok, always happy to be proved wrong. I was under the impression the execs brought Attanasio to the party. Apologies to Michael Foulger. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve always presumed that any redevelopment would be funded in part from Premier League TV monies, but mainly with debt finance.

It’s very easy to suggest that the payback is long term to dismiss the case against redevelopment, but presenting a robust business case is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BigFish yes, TV money (or media rights income) is the dominant income stream, but the rules are changing under FFP (or its equivalent) with spending on players remuneration to be limited. Maybe not 70% of revenue immediately, but the aspiration is there. Given we apparently missed out on a couple of targets recently for the want of a couple of million quid, with sponsorship being a moral hazard and with aging facilities it really is a necessity to replace the City Stand, which in my view would address all of that. Or we do nothing and condemn our club to being also-rans in the Championship (the 27th biggest club indeed). 

I would argue with you over the income stream to recover the expenditure not being there. Sure, not as things stand, but this shouldn't be the hurdle that others make out is unassailable. The project can be designed, marketed and operated as a separate self funded activity within the club, then once built generate enough cash to repay the capital build as per scheduled whilst contributing to playing squad development. It does not have to impact on squad development during the build if funded correctly. After all we're not looking at a North London style stadium rebuild here, just the re-devlopment of the smallest stand. 

We can argue back and forth on this. My fellow FPA's have already pointed out the successes previous capital builds have made. I also have personal experience of capital builds which have been designed to deliver similar outcomes within similar restrictions. Trust me, it can be done if the will is there, the right project partners are appointed, hard work put in and with attention to detail involving all stakeholders.  

The outcome will definitely impact on what current supporters experience in following the club - some good, some bad, some preconceptions having to be amended and some surprises with a good deal of compromise from others.  We have Tilly's main point for not doing it being where will the current City Standers go during re-build. Again, it is possible the South Stand being the obvious place, most likely in league matches away fans and casual tickets reduced and relocated. I accept it may alienate a few, irreversibly so. But the outcome for the majority should maintain, ideally improve, our status in the football continuum.

@nutty nigel I do look back at what has happened, but try to learn lessons to inform the next steps. I appreciate I may appear to be fixated at times, but truly I feel the club has not worked hard enough off the pitch to support what has happened on it. My fear is we are in great risk of losing what little status in the football world we have. My argument above is lost if the vast majority of our supporters is happy with that. Given the current "disconnect" the evidence is there that a majority are not.

If nothing else, Attanasio's arrival heralds a fresh look at things. I for one am excited by what comes next.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Ok, always happy to be proved wrong. I was under the impression the execs brought Attanasio to the party. Apologies to Michael Foulger. 

 

We now know from the Attanasio interview that he was alerted to the opportunity by an email forwarded to him by Sport Consultants in the US. The content of that email has never been shared. However I really cannot see why Attanasio would be interested in an offer by the club executives to introduce would be investors in the club to a shareholder looking to sell their holding. It must have had more than that, something implying that investment now could lead to control in future for the right person.

So the Board and Executives were all involved in the text of that email, otherwise the prize that has attracted Attanasio could not have been there. 

An email ..... 🤔

Edited by shefcanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@BigFish yes, TV money (or media rights income) is the dominant income stream, but the rules are changing under FFP (or its equivalent) with spending on players remuneration to be limited. Maybe not 70% of revenue immediately, but the aspiration is there. Given we apparently missed out on a couple of targets recently for the want of a couple of million quid, with sponsorship being a moral hazard and with aging facilities it really is a necessity to replace the City Stand, which in my view would address all of that. Or we do nothing and condemn our club to being also-rans in the Championship (the 27th biggest club indeed). 

I would argue with you over the income stream to recover the expenditure not being there. Sure, not as things stand, but this shouldn't be the hurdle that others make out is unassailable. The project can be designed, marketed and operated as a separate self funded activity within the club, then once built generate enough cash to repay the capital build as per scheduled whilst contributing to playing squad development. It does not have to impact on squad development during the build if funded correctly. After all we're not looking at a North London style stadium rebuild here, just the re-devlopment of the smallest stand. 

We can argue back and forth on this. My fellow FPA's have already pointed out the successes previous capital builds have made. I also have personal experience of capital builds which have been designed to deliver similar outcomes within similar restrictions. Trust me, it can be done if the will is there, the right project partners are appointed, hard work put in and with attention to detail involving all stakeholders.  

The outcome will definitely impact on what current supporters experience in following the club - some good, some bad, some preconceptions having to be amended and some surprises with a good deal of compromise from others.  We have Tilly's main point for not doing it being where will the current City Standers go during re-build. Again, it is possible the South Stand being the obvious place, most likely in league matches away fans and casual tickets reduced and relocated. I accept it may alienate a few, irreversibly so. But the outcome for the majority should maintain, ideally improve, our status in the football continuum.

@nutty nigel I do look back at what has happened, but try to learn lessons to inform the next steps. I appreciate I may appear to be fixated at times, but truly I feel the club has not worked hard enough off the pitch to support what has happened on it. My fear is we are in great risk of losing what little status in the football world we have. My argument above is lost if the vast majority of our supporters is happy with that. Given the current "disconnect" the evidence is there that a majority are not.

If nothing else, Attanasio's arrival heralds a fresh look at things. I for one am excited by what comes next.

Don't get me wrong, @shefcanary, I am not arguing against redevelopment. I was answering a different question from @nutty nigel about why the City Stand wasn't redeveloped. The possible involvement of MA does move the dial on this; he has financial firepower and an absence of sentimentality not open to S&J. It would require a degree of ruthless financial reengineering and inconvience that many fans would find upsetting. Be careful for what you wish for. But that doesn't mean I think it cannot, or indeed should not be done. Although it should be acknowledged that there is an element of risk for all involved.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember Joe Kosich who claimed to have American investment lined up back in the league one days? (I had to look up his name my memory's not that good). It came up at a fans forum. I think Bowkett wouldn't entertain him. 

Does anyone think we might have shunned being established in the PL with a new stand to watch from?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Does anyone remember Joe Kosich who claimed to have American investment lined up back in the league one days? (I had to look up his name my memory's not that good). It came up at a fans forum. I think Bowkett wouldn't entertain him. 

Does anyone think we might have shunned being established in the PL with a new stand to watch from?

 

 

 

 

 

I had two long phone conversations with Kosich at the time. He wasn't claiming to have investment lined up. He was saying, which had a fair bit of sense to it, that US investors would do well to look at lower-league clubs, and particularly us. McNally misrepresented what he was, which was essentially someone who hoped to promote a deal and make some money that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Here you go @nutty nigel

The Glazers used reverse leverage to use the existing equity inherent to Manchester United, to raise the funds to buy the company.

The equity win is now how they make a huge return on their investment (much of which they have extracted from the business itself). 

Delia will also receive such equity return - let’s say approximately £50m - upon any sale to Attanasio. 

The equity can therefore be used in any number of ways. It is also often a primary focus for any buyer-owner in terms of the ‘cash out’ day.

Parma 

This is from The Guardian today:
 

Nils Pratley on finance

Glazer’s supposedly reckless financial Man Utd gamble has proved a triumph

Malcolm Glazer’s purchase of the team was an enormous risk. As his sons prepare their exit, they appear on the precipice of victory

The Glazers, assuming they find a buyer, will depart Old Trafford as loathed by Manchester United fans as they were on arrival. They won’t give a damn, obviously. Malcolm Glazer, the penny-pinching patriarch who led the £800m takeover in 2005, was never hard to read and nor are his sons. They are interested in sporting success to the extent that it delivers financial success for them.

By the time Glazer died in 2014, the club’s equity was valued by the market at £1.5bn, which was a commercial triumph given the thin sliver of hard cash, as opposed oodles of debt, that supported the buyout. Leverage turned a good investment into an excellent one – for the Glazers, that is, rather than the club.

Strange as it now sounds, 17 years ago many thought the family would fall flat on its face. Yes, Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB had bid £623m for Man Utd in 1998 (and been blocked by competition authorities) but the value of TV football rights, some argued, would deflate with the popping of the turn-of-the-century dotcom bubble. The club’s revenues in the 2003-04 financial year were only £169m, so £800m looked a severe overvaluation. In late 2002, shares in Man Utd fell as low as 100p; Glazer paid 300p.

To get the deal done, the American was forced to the limit. Irish property and horse-racing tycoons JP McManus and John Magnier held a combined 28.7% stake, and the duo never knowingly undersell anything. They rebuffed Glazer’s first bid and rolled over only when the price was improved. Financial pips squeaked as the buyer had to pay interest at 14.25% – paupers’ terms – on the notorious PIK, or payment-in-kind, a higher-risk tranche of debt. It took until 2010 to get the PIKs off the books.

The first half of the gamble, in effect, was that Sir Alex Ferguson would get the club into the Champions League every year, that Old Trafford would remain full, that merchandising revenues could be boosted and Premier League TV rights had further to rise. On all scores, Glazer was correct. The moment of maximum financial danger passed when a minority stake was sold by listing Man Utd in New York in 2012.

The second half of the Glazer years has been a quieter financial affair. Before Monday’s announcement of a sale process, the stock had gone roughly sideways for a decade. The hundreds of millions of pounds being paid by the club in debt interest payments, plus the post-Ferguson decline on the pitch, also weighed on the valuation.

The real game for Glazers, then, has always been about the exit. If the £4bn-plus speculation is to be believed, they are about to win for a second time. Their victory will feel dispiriting to many. But one has to concede that a supposedly reckless financial gamble has proved anything but. Football just keeps inflating, which only feels obvious with hindsight.

Let me be clear, the reference to the Glazers was only to indicate the real world importance - not mythical or hypothetical - of the share value gain for @nutty nigel. This is where the £4bn - £5bn they - as individuals, not the club - now stand to receive comes from. 

The use of Pik notes and reverse leverage was an example at the extreme end of the spectrum of aggressive borrowing for context. Not an endorsement of it, or even necessarily a rejection of a very conservative approach. 

Manchester United is also certainly recognised as a profitable company, which has not been typical in football. 

It is also well understood that typically - though not necessarily - individuals own shares. 

It should however be noted that football club owners - who may own shares individually in an annually loss-making football club business - may still make a fortune selling their shares. This is the equity gain. 

Norwich have lost money - or perhaps been self-sustaining, or made a very little profit - for 25 years. Nevertheless the original (say) £5m input is now worth (say) £50m upon sale. 

Other fans of other clubs might see an owner - say Mike Ashley - ‘making’ this kind of profit on shares and ask why he didn’t make a quid-pro- quo investment in the club. Particularly if he had promised ‘never to take a penny out’

Thus ‘leveraging’ the individual’s ‘theoretical’ share value gain for use  - which is real upon selling - in the company might well be considered a reasonable expectation of a football club owner in context. 

Parma 

@GMF

@BigFish

@littleyellowbirdie

@shefcanary

@essex canary

@PurpleCanary

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I had two long phone conversations with Kosich at the time. He wasn't claiming to have investment lined up. He was saying, which had a fair bit of sense to it, that US investors would do well to look at lower-league clubs, and particularly us. McNally misrepresented what he was, which was essentially someone who hoped to promote a deal and make some money that way.

Thanks Purple, it was McNally at that fans meeting but I understood Bowkett sent the guy packing saying we'd hired Deloitte.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GMF said:

To use the Club’s terminology, there’s standard seats (the majority) and premium seats (the lounges and central seats in the City and South Stands, which are charged at higher rates.

Most clubs operate similar pricing structures and it’s likely that any redevelopment of the City Stand, whether over or behind the existing structure, would result in increased revenues per seat once completed.

The typical English style Business Case that prioritises the middle aged semi interested prawn sandwich brigade as distinct from encouraging the kind of younger person atmosphere driven approach we see in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I had two long phone conversations with Kosich at the time. He wasn't claiming to have investment lined up. He was saying, which had a fair bit of sense to it, that US investors would do well to look at lower-league clubs, and particularly us. McNally misrepresented what he was, which was essentially someone who hoped to promote a deal and make some money that way.

A few years later he was instructed by Tranmere Rovers to try and find them a buyer and he proceeded to list the club on eBay for £10m, so McNally was quite correct to not want anything to do with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

We now know from the Attanasio interview that he was alerted to the opportunity by an email forwarded to him by Sport Consultants in the US. The content of that email has never been shared. However I really cannot see why Attanasio would be interested in an offer by the club executives to introduce would be investors in the club to a shareholder looking to sell their holding. It must have had more than that, something implying that investment now could lead to control in future for the right person.

So the Board and Executives were all involved in the text of that email, otherwise the prize that has attracted Attanasio could not have been there. 

An email ..... 🤔

It was well known for a while that he had been looking at football clubs in Europe, I'm sure it wasn't the first time he'd been tipped off about opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

A few years later he was instructed by Tranmere Rovers to try and find them a buyer and he proceeded to list the club on eBay for £10m, so McNally was quite correct to not want anything to do with him.

I think that was actually before he recommended us, but you are missing the point, just as McNally cynically pretended to at the time (as Michael Bailey found to his cost).

 Kosich was not suggesting he would be an investor or be seriously involved in any takeover, apart from perhaps getting a kind of finder’s fee from the buyers.

He was making the perfectly valid point that some lower-league English clubs, and specifically us, were worth looking at as far as rich Americans, who otherwise would only have contemplated a Premier League club, were concerned.

A point which has been proved to be true, not least with us now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the rumours about Attanasio buying Foulger’s shares first started back in May there was a lot of debate on here whether he should take over from Delia.

Yes: Think I read that he is supposed to be worth about £700m, Delia’s is just £20m

No: American, and we all know how much the Manure fans love the Glazers. Being a Norwich fan herself Delia respects us and doesn’t treat us nastily

Me: Undecided. Seems a nice friendly guy and saw someone say that apparently he has a good reputation amongst the fans of his baseball club, which is a positive sign. Maybe wait and see what he’s like over the next year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HazzaJet said:

Yes: Think I read that he is supposed to be worth about £700m, Delia’s is just £20m

If the club is now worth £100m.

And Delia and hubby have 51 percent of the shares. 

Then doesn't that mean they are worth at least £51m? 🤷 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find the arguments for and against expanding CR to be fascinating because there are valid points on both sides, it's a huge risk with huge potential rewards and the financial landscape is ever changing which makes it's viability change frequently. 

For me the idea lives or dies on whether you believe we can fill another 6-8'000 seats every home game from as soon as it's completed. If we build the new stand at the right time, say right before a great promotion season like 18/19 and then manage to survive in the PL for 2 years we should get close to filling it week in week out and have it become profitable pretty quickly. If we time it poorly (which is more likely as we have more average and poor seasons historically than good ones) I think right now and in mid table Championship seasons the capacity is right where it needs to be and we won't need any extra seats except for derbys and the occasional big game and it doesn't make financial sense to spend 30m on redevelopment for a few extra 100k's in ticket revenue for the odd game.

The argument for bringing new fans in is a good one as well, but it would require either some excellent marketing strategies (combined with good results on the pitch regularly) or a drop in ticket prices which will mean the new stand would take much longer to start becoming profitable. 

Even though I really don't like this idea I think the stadium won't be expanded and the future will be in increasing revenues through streaming. Eventually clubs will be allowed to live stream all of their games no matter what time or day of the week for a fee and that's how we'll be able to increase match day revenues without having to pay for bricks and mortar and how a lot of newer generations of fans will become supporters and follow the club. It's a shame and it doesn't compare to going to CR to watch a match but that's just the way things are going and if I was in charge of the clubs finances I'd consider it a much safer bet than building a new stand. 

Edited by Christoph Stiepermann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

If the club is now worth £100m.

And Delia and hubby have 51 percent of the shares. 

Then doesn't that mean they are worth at least £51m? 🤷 

Sorry TVB but I suffer from learning difficulties and so don’t really know anything about shareholding. The £20m that I’ve put for Delia is just based on what I’ve seen loads of times in the past decade in articles related our poor wealth/questioning her ownership. The £700m that I put for Attansio was from what I saw in an article on here when he was first linked to Foulger’s shares 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HazzaJet said:

Sorry TVB but I suffer from learning difficulties and so don’t really know anything about shareholding. The £20m that I’ve put for Delia is just based on what I’ve seen loads of times in the past decade in articles related our poor wealth/questioning her ownership. The £700m that I put for Attansio was from what I saw in an article on here when he was first linked to Foulger’s shares 

I've been seeing £20m or £30m bandied about by newspapers for years, however suspect this is based on an outdated valuation of the club itself.

Still, we all know that aren't rich compared with most football club owners... definitely a game for the super rich these days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I always find the arguments for and against expanding CR to be fascinating because there are valid points on both sides, it's a huge risk with huge potential rewards and the financial landscape is ever changing which makes it's viability change frequently. 

For me the idea lives or dies on whether you believe we can fill another 6-8'000 seats every home game from as soon as it's completed. If we build the new stand at the right time, say right before a great promotion season like 18/19 and then manage to survive in the PL for 2 years we should get close to filling it week in week out and have it become profitable pretty quickly. If we time it poorly (which is more likely as we have more average and poor seasons historically than good ones) I think right now and in mid table Championship seasons the capacity is right where it needs to be and we won't need any extra seats except for derbys and the occasional big game and it doesn't make financial sense to spend 30m on redevelopment for a few extra 100k's in ticket revenue for the odd game.

The argument for bringing new fans in is a good one as well, but it would require either some excellent marketing strategies (combined with good results on the pitch regularly) or a drop in ticket prices which will mean the new stand would take much longer to start becoming profitable. 

Even though I really don't like this idea I think the stadium won't be expanded and the future will be in increasing revenues through streaming. Eventually clubs will be allowed to live stream all of their games no matter what time or day of the week for a fee and that's how we'll be able to increase match day revenues without having to pay for bricks and mortar and how a lot of newer generations of fans will become supporters and follow the club. It's a shame and it doesn't compare to going to CR to watch a match but that's just the way things are going and if I was in charge of the clubs finances I'd consider it a much safer bet than building a new stand. 

My view has always been that the expansion should be somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000. Certainly not more than that. And it depends how the project would be financed (see shef's post above on that subject) but I think it is potentially a fallacy that with that kind of sensible expansion all the seats would have to be sold all of the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Even though I really don't like this idea I think the stadium won't be expanded and the future will be in increasing revenues through streaming. Eventually clubs will be allowed to live stream all of their games no matter what time or day of the week for a fee and that's how we'll be able to increase match day revenues without having to pay for bricks and mortar and how a lot of newer generations of fans will become supporters and follow the club. It's a shame and it doesn't compare to going to CR to watch a match but that's just the way things are going and if I was in charge of the clubs finances I'd consider it a much safer bet than building a new stand. 

Streaming rights would have to be sold in some form of collective agreement, otherwise it would be the final nail in the coffin for football as a competitive sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

The argument for bringing new fans in is a good one as well, but it would require either some excellent marketing strategies

I think this is a very valid point here coupled with the notion of timing. 

We are, by and large, the biggest football club in the area until Leicester. For me this has always been our biggest asset but one that never really, for me anyway, felt tapped into. 

I know there’s the community outreach programs etc but that’s not the same as smart marketing to potential new fans. Again, the public are fickle, and it does come down to on pitch success to tie this down. A perfect storm if you will. 

It’s a shame that all the brilliant hyperbole around the club has been “pissed up the wall” by recent actions from the powers that be. 

I do think Attanasio will bring a better mentality which will filter from the top down and maybe his nous and experience with the Brewers might help address this point about the Norwich brand and the marketing but again, this will only work if on pitch play pulls in the right direction as well. Either way, Carrow Road expansion will happen at some point, if you take a look a the ground inside when it’s near empty it’s looking tired and badly in need of a facelift. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re stadium expansion it's also about the quality of the product. At the moment lots of seats are available next to the away fans for most games. In the EPL they won't be, meaning you have to find available seats dotted around the ground, difficult for a group of friends to sit together. A whole new tier increases the possibilities no end and increases demand because it appeals to a wider target market and the view will be better!

The club has to increase demand for casual tickets before it looks to increase the number of ST holders.It's a medium to long term investment but well worth it in my view.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GMF said:

To use the Club’s terminology, there’s standard seats (the majority) and premium seats (the lounges and central seats in the City and South Stands, which are charged at higher rates.

Most clubs operate similar pricing structures and it’s likely that any redevelopment of the City Stand, whether over or behind the existing structure, would result in increased revenues per seat once completed.

I believe the central seats in the City and South Stands are also at the standard rate Gary it is just they do not offer any concessions for coffin dodgers and kids.

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I believe the central seats in the City and South Stands are also at the standard rate Gary it is just they do not offer any concessions for coffin dodgers and kids.

The Club still classifies them as premium seats @TIL 1010 and charges higher prices, with no concessions (although not as high as the lounges) than in comparison to other stands, either behind the goals and corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, essex canary said:

The typical English style Business Case that prioritises the middle aged semi interested prawn sandwich brigade as distinct from encouraging the kind of younger person atmosphere driven approach we see in Germany.

It’s not unique to England, or football for that matter, it’s a common theme throughout the leisure industry, with multiple pricing points in an effort to attract a variety punters.

Your comments typify the stereotyping of common premium pricing practices, but totally ignores that the majority of fans are still catered for.

There’s a wider issue of the club’s specific renewal process, which actively encourages season tickets and the expense of the casual fans, but that’s a separate matter.

Share this post


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

The Club still classifies them as premium seats @TIL 1010 and charges higher prices, with no concessions (although not as high as the lounges) than in comparison to other stands, either behind the goals and corners.

My friend and i used to sit in ' premium ' seats but when we became eligible for coffin dodger rate we moved literally 10 seats across a gangway and saved £230 each. Every little helps. 😜

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

If the club is now worth £100m.

And Delia and hubby have 51 percent of the shares. 

Then doesn't that mean they are worth at least £51m? 🤷 

Plus theor non-Norwich fortune which was put at £17m in the Times Fortune list a few years back. So is that c.£70m now, sort of 10% of Attanasio?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...