Stadia development

[RobJames 883]

One blindingly obvious flaw, Mr Paddon. This is Norfolk, that is London. People are prepared to pay a huge sum to watch European football.  There are ten million plus within easy travelling distance.

Now take a look at Cardiffs empty new stand. Why is that not full ? They like so many other Championship clubs have found that once outside the PL interest begins to wane, and even being the country's capital there is not the demand.

And the US pension fund has not invested in the binners. They have lent the money to a third party who have. Work is slowly being carried out to bring the binners ground up to the facilities we had years ago, thats all.

The idea that Carrow Road is going to become Las Vegas of the east is beyond laughable. You are living in fantasy land if you imagine us or the binners would see that. An example is Brighton. Where were these supposed investors there ? What better place than a thriving resort/entertainment location. Why not a stadium to rival White Hart Lane, instead of one half the size.

Though sticking with your thinking, perhaps these investors will see the money to be made through building a combined monorail/casino/hotel complex above the pitch where fans can be whisked from the airport in a matter of minutes and either gamble the night away or watch Madonna in cabaret on the 5th floor of this sumptious complex.

[......and Smith must score. 1,351]

On 29/12/2023 at 17:32, Canary73 said:

https://www.cpfc.co.uk/crystal-palace-main-stand-redevelopment/

I thought away fans were put in the Arthur Waite Stand in those rickety wooden seats. The ground is going to look really odd unless they develop the other stands. 

 

It’ll look pretty impressive on TV with the cameras in the Arthur Wait unlike us lot with the sad little City Stand in full view

[Sheva 123]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

A quick google gives me CR 17 feet above sea level. Both St Mary's and the KC are lower. The whole flooding question/global warming question is purely for the tin foil hat brigade.

 

Elevation of Carrow Road Stadium, Carrow Rd, Norwich NR1 3JE, UK

Location: United Kingdom > Norfolk >

Longitude: 1.3093062

Latitude: 52.6221535

Elevation: 2m / 7feet

Barometric Pressure: 101KPa

*****************************
Having  just returned from a pub a little  down river from CR, which was flooded out, I think it’s a real possibility that the ground, in the future could  get flooded. I spuz they could build a wall or contribute to a barrier further down river  but it’s an added expense and will make any borrowing  more difficult and expensive. 
 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Sheva

[NewNestCarrow 202]

2 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

At what point does the Tottenham Hotspur stadium pay back the investors? 10 years? 
 

It cost 1.2 billion. 
 

It is a venue and was part of a regeneration project. It is a wide ranging facility and venue. 

It wasn’t financed on the back of how many hot dogs they would sell at a concert. 
 

Global investors are out there. You need to put a case to them , which I know the club will do/ have done. When the ground gets regenerated it will be as a venue / facility and it will use investment money. Large quantities of it. Even if it was Anastasio fronting it it will be funded . 
 

With the greatest respect this is different league stuff that none of us truly understand as we don’t fish in those pools. 
 

If I had come on here 3 years ago and said a US pension fund was going to invest in the Binners I would have got the how many hotdogs argument. One of the next phases at Portaloo will be a ground regeneration. 

The new Spurs stadium is being paid for by local property development (a bit like Arsenal & the Emirates)

THFC have 1,000+ residential units planned near the ground, plus a 180-room hotel & 49-apartment tower block at the old Away end.

And, unlike NCFC, Spurs regularly make operating profits (£97m & £112m in last two seasons) & are very unlikely to get relegated.

Not sure the finances of the two clubs can be meaningfully compared!

Edited December 30, 2023 by NewNestCarrow

[Sufyellow 222]

On 28/12/2023 at 16:09, By Hook or Ian crook said:

We also have a season ticket waiting list that’s almost certain to fill the extra capacity and leave some room for casuals. 

Do we ? I think someone might be just saying that. 

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

1 minute ago, Sufyellow said:

Do we ? I think someone might be just saying that. 

I believe we do. Although it does depends how many seats people are waiting for and how fussy about where they sit. 

[NewNestCarrow 202]

7 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Thanks for at least playing the game NNC. So using your criticism, let's recalculate. So reduce the future ticket income by £1m p.a. to reflect an even more Conservative increase in ticket income, and cut naming orders by half (why, the new brand is guaranteed TV exposure as well as being prominent on the inner ring road -talk about underselling). Anyway, that £1.5m reduction in annual income reduces total capital and finance cover by c.£45m to £170m. Well that's still a capital build budget of £50 to 60m, although I have no doubt that Attanasio would look to get more cost effective financing to move that amount up. 

Do you still feel it unfeasible? Be positive!

The civil interaction is appreciated! but I still don't think the numbers add up (in particular the lack of demand for Corporate & Hospitality seats)

I think of it this way; twice a year, when family visit, I could do with a bigger dining room & an extra bedroom. But have I considered building a new 2-storey extension? No, partly because I can't afford it (and it would outprice my house for the street) but also because, in reality, I don't need it.

There is no doubt that Attanasio has access to cheap money, but I doubt that spending £80m on infrastructure is one of his priorities.

[NewNestCarrow 202]

On 29/12/2023 at 08:38, Yobocop said:

Then how on earth did LTFC demolish the bobbers stand and rebuild it within 3 months? 

genuine question 

Luton's project cost less than £10m while Norwich's could be £80m

It's like wondering why putting in a loft extension is more expensive & difficult than replacing your garden shed!

[RobJames 883]

The real point about Luton is they have permission to build a new stadium - with costs last year estimated to be £100m plus. Now some might query why they are not looking for global investors to stump up for one of these multi purpose venues that will attract visitors in their tens of thousands. Or even aim for 30,000 seater plus. No, they are building a 23,000 seater stadium.

Could it be that unlike one or two on here they do not think they can guarantee to be PL club for all of the next 25 years so are budgeting accordingly. City will have the cost of not only building an 8000 seater stand but have the cost of removing the old stand. For an increase of only 4000 seats. Which at current prices is estimated in total (hospitality inc) to generate £1.8m. A figure less than the £2.2m awarded for every place higher in the PL you finish.

Take a look at Brentford and the size of their new stadium, or Bournemouth who have no plans to move out of their small stadium. They recognise, as do City, that the income from attendees is minimal compared to TV money, irrespective of the number of concerts held or pies and pints sold.

I often wonder if we will not reach a stage where the admission fee is kept low so as to fill up the ground with the majority watching the game on a screen, be it at home, the pub or or social club. the same technology that allows people to watch streams with ease will undoubtedly be able to block that ability. It is the Luddites with their head in the sand who imagine we are still in the last century and seeing the game live is the only way football can be funded.

[Darth Vadis 151]

If increasing stadium capacity and improving facilities has no benefit then why have Brentford and Luton decided to move from Griffin Park and Kenilworth Road?

[BigFish 1,988]

3 hours ago, Sheva said:

 

Elevation of Carrow Road Stadium, Carrow Rd, Norwich NR1 3JE, UK

Location: United Kingdom > Norfolk >

Longitude: 1.3093062

Latitude: 52.6221535

Elevation: 2m / 7feet

Barometric Pressure: 101KPa

*****************************
Having  just returned from a pub a little  down river from CR, which was flooded out, I think it’s a real possibility that the ground, in the future could  get flooded. I spuz they could build a wall or contribute to a barrier further down river  but it’s an added expense and will make any borrowing  more difficult and expensive. 
 

 

Strangely though, the Environment Agency think there is a 1 in a 1000 chance of Carrow Road suffering flooding in any one year.

[RobJames 883]

1 hour ago, Darth Vadis said:

If increasing stadium capacity and improving facilities has no benefit then why have Brentford and Luton decided to move from Griffin Park and Kenilworth Road?

`No one has stated that, other than you.

 

[essex canary 504]

7 hours ago, RobJames said:

 

I often wonder if we will not reach a stage where the admission fee is kept low so as to fill up the ground with the majority watching the game on a screen, be it at home, the pub or or social club. the same technology that allows people to watch streams with ease will undoubtedly be able to block that ability. It is the Luddites with their head in the sand who imagine we are still in the last century and seeing the game live is the only way football can be funded.

Is it socially and physically more healthy for people to watch at the ground rather than at home?

If so the TV punters should subsidise the match going fan including any appropriate stadium expansion. Allocate a portion of the TV receipts for that purpose.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,435]

12 hours ago, RobJames said:

One blindingly obvious flaw, Mr Paddon. This is Norfolk, that is London. People are prepared to pay a huge sum to watch European football.  There are ten million plus within easy travelling distance.

Now take a look at Cardiffs empty new stand. Why is that not full ? They like so many other Championship clubs have found that once outside the PL interest begins to wane, and even being the country's capital there is not the demand.

And the US pension fund has not invested in the binners. They have lent the money to a third party who have. Work is slowly being carried out to bring the binners ground up to the facilities we had years ago, thats all.

The idea that Carrow Road is going to become Las Vegas of the east is beyond laughable. You are living in fantasy land if you imagine us or the binners would see that. An example is Brighton. Where were these supposed investors there ? What better place than a thriving resort/entertainment location. Why not a stadium to rival White Hart Lane, instead of one half the size.

Though sticking with your thinking, perhaps these investors will see the money to be made through building a combined monorail/casino/hotel complex above the pitch where fans can be whisked from the airport in a matter of minutes and either gamble the night away or watch Madonna in cabaret on the 5th floor of this sumptious complex.

What is blindingly obvious Mr City1st or Bill or whatever you call yourself these days is that only an imbecile would suggest  that I was comparing anything that happens at CR to Spurs new ground. I was (trying) to show that when the ground gets developed it will not simply be based on extra seats and  income therefrom. 

We’ll leave it there now . Bit disturbed by the Maddona Cabaret reference. I assume that’s not the first time you have thought of that. 

 

 

 

[Yobocop 1,105]

9 hours ago, Darth Vadis said:

If increasing stadium capacity and improving facilities has no benefit then why have Brentford and Luton decided to move from Griffin Park and Kenilworth Road?

If you’d been to griffin park or Kenilworth road you would know why 

[Darth Vadis 151]

So just as an outdated 12000 stadium wasn't right for Brentford & Luton, 27k Carrow Road isn't right for Norwich

[Mello Yello 2,298]

As there seems to be a threat of flooding in the future in and around Carrow Road....If and when they upgrade or rebuild the City Stand, may I suggest that they rename it 'The Noah's Ark Stand'....?

Then those who are seated in 'The Noah's Ark Stand' will have to enter through the turnstiles 'two by two'....FACT!...

[kingsway 94]

15 hours ago, Darth Vadis said:

If increasing stadium capacity and improving facilities has no benefit then why have Brentford and Luton decided to move from Griffin Park and Kenilworth Road?

100%!

 

With the theory of some on here the old Barclay terrace would have had seats bolted onto it, the old South Stand and corner infill to the old Barclay would still be here rotting away and with reduced capacities and the old roofless River End terrace would still be here no doubt nearly ready to collapse into the rising water levels of the Wensum! Only the City stand minus the snakepit and maybe the Wensum infill to the river end would be the only new stands, the club being forced into building a new stand after the 1984 fire! -If all this actually was reality then Norwich would now be on a similar level to clubs like Peterborough, Bristol Rovers, etc and the 12,000 (at tops) remaining regulars would be up in arms!

As time goes by you have to replenish facilities, like your property wouldn't be how it was in the mid 1980's or even the mid 1990's cause you would have had money spent on it fighting the inevitable wear and tear. Football stadiums are the same. Plus you cannot stand still in this World or you get left behind!

 

Also in modern times it wouldn't viable to have old "cowsheds" that would only be used 27 times a season for games only. Football grounds need to be multi use to enable clubs to be more viable.

 

A new City stand in the next decade while being a drain on finances, would set the club up for the next 50 years and the increase in capacity would enable more fans to go regularly, encouraging more younger fans to attend and enable the club to be more competitive. There are ways like outside investment, debenture schemes and Bond schemes that can help to make the project more financially comfortable at the time of construction.

 

The River end stand has been outdated for at least the last 15 years so I'd say that stand probably only has another 30 years lifespan before that needs replacing?

Edited December 31, 2023 by kingsway

[NewNestCarrow 202]

36 minutes ago, kingsway said:

100%!

 

With the theory of some on here the old Barclay terrace would have had seats bolted onto it, the old South Stand and corner infill to the old Barclay would still be here rotting away and with reduced capacities and the old roofless River End terrace would still be here no doubt nearly ready to collapse into the rising water levels of the Wensum! Only the City stand minus the snakepit and maybe the Wensum infill to the river end would be the only new stands, the club being forced into after the 1984 fire! -If all this actually was reality then Norwich would be on a similar level to clubs like Peterborough, Bristol Rovers, etc and the 12,000 (at tops) remaining regulars would be up in arms!

As time goes by you have to replenish facilities, like your property wouldn't be how it was in the mid 1980's or even the mid 1990's cause you would have had money spent on it fighting the inevitable wear and tear. Football stadiums are the same. Plus you cannot stand still in this World or you get left behind!

 

Also in modern times it wouldn't viable to have old "cowsheds" that would only be used 27 times a season for games only. Football grounds need to be multi use to enable clubs to be more viable.

 

A new City stand in the decade while being a drain on finances, would set the club up for the next 50 years and the increase in capacity would enable more fans to go regularly, encouraging more younger fans to attend and enable the club to be more competitive. There are ways like outside investment, debenture schemes, Bond schemes that can help to make the project more financially comfortable at the time of construction.

 

The River end stand has been outdated for at least the last 15 years so I'd say that stand probably only has another 30 years lifespan before that needs replacing?

Why does the River End (built 1979 and only used 70 days p.a.) need "replacing" while my house (built one hundred years earlier and used 320+ days p.a) only require regular maintenance?

Exactly how much luxury should we be giving fans for their 30 quid?  Heated floors? heated seats? wider seats? padded seats? more legroom? lifts to all levels? cupholders on every seat? tv screens at every seat?

 

 

[kingsway 94]

The River End with its restaurants and function areas is likely used more than 70 days a year!

 

The concourse area in the River End is like the ones in the City Stand, very claustrophobic and the lower tier seats are very cramped having been bolted onto the terrace that was there until 1992.

 

I'm sure a newer better, bigger (could a stand holding up to 2000 more than the current stand be accomodated there?) River End stand will eventually in time replace the existing version, probably long after I've departed!  Also if a new City stand was built then couldn't the fresh stands be designed so they wrapped round the Wensum corner as one big stand starting at the South stand corner right up the Barcay corner.

 

- Obviously such a project would be done a few decades after a new City stand.

Edited December 31, 2023 by kingsway

[NewNestCarrow 202]

1 hour ago, kingsway said:

The River End with its restaurants and function areas is likely used more than 70 days a year!

 

A small part of the interior is, yes. But new carpets & a lick of gloss paint is very different to replacement of the whole structure!

[shefcanary 2,437]

On 30/12/2023 at 15:06, RobJames said:

Yet all these wildly over optimistic delusions are based on that being the income.

A new two tier stand would generate an extra 4000 seats. Which would equate to 1/7th of our current income.... £1.8m extra. Fulhams new stand has cost £120m, so far. That is why the club has repeatedly 'kicked this into the long grass'. More so now as building costs have rocketed.

Fulham can afford to spend, as being in one of the wealthiest parts of London they can generate considerable 'premium' income from the corporate market. We cannot. It is those burying their head in the sand and believing in the magic fairy godmother who will make it all happen.  It is not about what is possible either. It is what is feasible. What makes financial sense. And the delusion that some fairy godmother from over the seas is prepared to cough up £50m odd for nothing is beyond absurdity.

Rob, please do my sums yourself and you will see I have neither over-inflated attendances or additional income. I ain't going to repeat my calculations, but my starting point is a new 10,000 seat stand, not a 7,000 one! Your criticism falls immediately you don't recognise it. It also falls as Fulham's stand had to be built by having building materials transported to the site by boat with an artificial port having to be built for the purpose. It put on as much as 30% of total build costs. That kind of expenditure will not be needed at NR1!

How many capital projects have you fund raised for, built and run successfully? 

Absurdity? I can take criticism, but stop pulling apart my working experience with falsities in an attempt to prove your point! 

Happy new year.

 

[shefcanary 2,437]

On 30/12/2023 at 15:12, RobJames said:

What on earth is that !

An extra 4000 seats does not cover the cost of redeveloping the main stand, even at your lowest cost, £50m.

See above - my start point is an additional 7,000 seats - I have ambition! Any more false criticism?

[shefcanary 2,437]

On 30/12/2023 at 18:24, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but those figures just don't work. At the moment 25,000 people pay £10m. That's £400 each. Even if an extra 5,000 tickets were sold it would bring in £2m a year or £50m over 25 years.

That doesn't even cover the capital costs and assumes we could sell 5,000 extra seats for every match for 25 years. 

Naming rights are worth around £50/£100k a season. 

The main issues remain flooding, the European Super League and continued Championship football. Build it and they won't come is the phrase that springs to mind. @RobJamesis right. It doesn't make commercial sense. 

Yes, my calculations are based on £400 per seat. I am working on 30 years. I am confident that Attanasio with his experience in Milwaukee will sell those extra 5,000 seats. Naming rights in my last proposal after criticism from NNC I reduced to £0.5m p.a. Given the prominence of Carrow Road, and the fact the stand will be in front of TV cameras, unlike the other three stands Which already generate more than the £100K / season you quote, and £0.5M per season is prudent enough. 

I can't do anything about global warming, but Carlisle, Sheffield Wednesday and a few others seem to survive the odd flooding of premises, the potential of this can be engineered in, it might even reduce some of the finishing costs. However the report you are fixated on still only predicts an occasional flooding of the Wensum flood plain, not that it will be under water constantly. 

With funding wholly from Attanasio's "in-house facilities" it is perfectly doable. 

Positivity.

[shefcanary 2,437]

On 30/12/2023 at 22:27, NewNestCarrow said:

There is no doubt that Attanasio has access to cheap money, but I doubt that spending £80m on infrastructure is one of his priorities.

It was the way he galvanised things at the Brewers - you should not underestimate the feelgood factor generated by such investment and its impact on both the team and supporters, plus the wider community. 

Positivity.

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

29 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, my calculations are based on £400 per seat. I am working on 30 years. I am confident that Attanasio with his experience in Milwaukee will sell those extra 5,000 seats. Naming rights in my last proposal after criticism from NNC I reduced to £0.5m p.a. Given the prominence of Carrow Road, and the fact the stand will be in front of TV cameras, unlike the other three stands Which already generate more than the £100K / season you quote, and £0.5M per season is prudent enough. 

I can't do anything about global warming, but Carlisle, Sheffield Wednesday and a few others seem to survive the odd flooding of premises, the potential of this can be engineered in, it might even reduce some of the finishing costs. However the report you are fixated on still only predicts an occasional flooding of the Wensum flood plain, not that it will be under water constantly. 

With funding wholly from Attanasio's "in-house facilities" it is perfectly doable. 

Positivity.

I'm still not sure where your figures are coming from. Assuming a cost of £50m over 25 years the loan repayments would be £4.5m a year. Assuming we sold 5000 extra seats for EVERY game over that period we would bring in £2m a year. We won't sell that many unless we stay in the Premier League and this season proves that. If our top clubs leave for a European competition we would never sell the extra seats. If anything, we should currently be worrying about how on earth we sell the seats we do have. 

Your naming rights figures are hopelessly out. There simply isn't any money in naming stands. It's currently called the City Stand for a reason which is that no one will pay. That's why very big clubs name their stands after old players and it's why even with two years in the Premier League it's still called the City Stand. 

I'm not "fixated" by flooding but I am rightly concerned about it and so should everyone. You can't compare fresh water flooding at Carlisle with sea water flooding in Norwich anyway  but to simply suggest it's an inconvenience is hopelessly wide of the mark. Flood a grass/synthetic pitch with salt and see what happens. The same goes for buildings. 

I've assumed a cost of £50m. When it was questioned at an AGM 4 or 5 years ago it was £40m so £50m is likely on the very low side. 

Ipswich Town borrowed £30m for ground improvements around 20 years ago. Look what happened to them. Bournemouth recently considered a new stadium but decided it wasn't worth the investment. Other clubs of a similar size to us have expanded but needed a sugar daddy to do it. Attanasio isn't a sugar daddy, he's here to make money. 

[essex canary 504]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, my calculations are based on £400 per seat. I am working on 30 years. I am confident that Attanasio with his experience in Milwaukee will sell those extra 5,000 seats. Naming rights in my last proposal after criticism from NNC I reduced to £0.5m p.a. Given the prominence of Carrow Road, and the fact the stand will be in front of TV cameras, unlike the other three stands Which already generate more than the £100K / season you quote, and £0.5M per season is prudent enough. 

I can't do anything about global warming, but Carlisle, Sheffield Wednesday and a few others seem to survive the odd flooding of premises, the potential of this can be engineered in, it might even reduce some of the finishing costs. However the report you are fixated on still only predicts an occasional flooding of the Wensum flood plain, not that it will be under water constantly. 

With funding wholly from Attanasio's "in-house facilities" it is perfectly doable. 

Positivity.

So Swansea get around 17,000 and Hull 21,000 on a typical yield of £250pppa yet Norwich could get 32,000 on £400pppa? Maybe if we can retain a PL place? In the Championship once the legacy fans have rolled over must be a question mark? Perhaps a Munby/Cullen style ebullient input could get us there?

[MrFruit 28]

On 29/12/2023 at 17:02, Naturalcynic said:

Thank you so much.  That said, if plans had already been drawn up and permissions applied for etc in case an opportune time occurred, then perhaps it wouldn’t have seemed so dumb.

So where do you get the labour from during the lockdown period?

[percy varco 199]

Flog the land for houses. Move to Postwick park and ride area and have new train station. 
Stadium doesnt have to be huge. 
Sorted. 

[BigFish 1,988]

8 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm not "fixated" by flooding but I am rightly concerned about it and so should everyone. You can't compare fresh water flooding at Carlisle with sea water flooding in Norwich anyway  but to simply suggest it's an inconvenience is hopelessly wide of the mark. Flood a grass/synthetic pitch with salt and see what happens. The same goes for buildings. 

Currently the EA has the chance of a tidal flood event at Carrow Road as 1 in a thousand per annum.  Even if if those chances increased ten fold it only gets to about 1 in 100 and that is without mitigating actions. That you think it will be salt water demonstrates that beyond some scarey hyperbole you haven't really researched this very well. Perhaps you should share your insights with the City Council and Broads Authority as the Greater Norwich Local Plan has the land downstream of the ground between the Yare and the railway lines, including the May & Gurney site, earmarked for development.