Leeds announce stadium upgrades and capacity increase

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

From 37,000 to 50,000

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

9 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

From 37,000 to 50,000

 

Massive club, fill it easily more often than not. 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

We should file it, along with:

2013   Swansea - increase to 33,000 *

2015  Chelsea - rebuild to 60,000 *

2017  Sheff Utd - increase to 38,000 *

           C Palace - new Main Stand by 2021

2019   Wolves - increase to 50,000 *

              Luton - rebuild to 20,000

2022  A Villa - increase to 50,000

          Nottm Forest - increase to 35,000

 

Note: Not a single one of the above have been completed, indeed many (*) have been quietly shelved

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,633]

7 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

We should file it, along with:

2013   Swansea - increase to 33,000 *

2015  Chelsea - rebuild to 60,000 *

2017  Sheff Utd - increase to 38,000 *

           C Palace - new Main Stand by 2021

2019   Wolves - increase to 50,000 *

              Luton - rebuild to 20,000

2022  A Villa - increase to 50,000

          Nottm Forest - increase to 35,000

 

Note: Not a single one of the above have been completed, indeed many (*) have been quietly shelved

Should we? Palace and Villa plans are advanced, and forest are serious too. Leeds will do it, and sell out 50k for big games too. Not to mention gigs and other event potential.

I think the bureaucratic and archaic planning system has more to do with delays and spiralling costs. Glad to see this finally being reviewed and changed by the government.  

Edited September 24 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[DraytonBoy 249]

The new owners certainly have the money but the cynic in me thinks this will be tied to promotion, another couple of seasons in the Championship and there won't be a need for a 50K seater stadium despite the massive season ticket waiting list.

[chicken 3,084]

31 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Should we? Palace and Villa plans are advanced, and forest are serious too. Leeds will do it, and sell out 50k for big games too. Not to mention gigs and other event potential.

I think the bureaucratic and archaic planning system has more to do with delays and spiralling costs. Glad to see this finally being reviewed and changed by the government.  

More to do with actual costs... And material prices being unpredictable...

Planning isn't that big a problem for football clubs. We already know how we'd like to expand the stadium.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,633]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

More to do with actual costs... And material prices being unpredictable...

Planning isn't that big a problem for football clubs. We already know how we'd like to expand the stadium.

Incorrect. 

Planning and associated consent from statutory third party undertakers is a huge problem for all development, which impacts ‘actual’ costs significantly. Hence why the Govt are trying to change it. 

 

[BigFish 2,282]

34 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Incorrect. 

Planning and associated consent from statutory third party undertakers is a huge problem for all development, which impacts ‘actual’ costs significantly. Hence why the Govt are trying to change it. 

 

The big problem is always how you operate a football club on a building site. Planning only really becomes an obstacle if you want to relocate, upgrading in place is straight forward. Development in place requires compromises in terms of cost, time and quality which is why clubs find it easier to move or play somewhere else for a couple of years.

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

That article says they have 26,000 on their season ticket waiting list. That's nearly as big as our entire stadium.

It also says they've also sold out every home game for the last 6 seasons.

They probably need to crack-on!

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

41 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

That article says they have 26,000 on their season ticket waiting list. That's nearly as big as our entire stadium.

It also says they've also sold out every home game for the last 6 seasons.

They probably need to crack-on!

Much as it pains me to say it given I have never been the biggest Leeds fan there are arguments to be made that when it comes to clubs outside the top six they are probably one of if not the biggest in terms of fanbases. I have no doubt they probably could fill up a 50,000 seater stadium on a good day.

[Yobocop 1,444]

9 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

We should file it, along with:

2013   Swansea - increase to 33,000 *

2015  Chelsea - rebuild to 60,000 *

2017  Sheff Utd - increase to 38,000 *

           C Palace - new Main Stand by 2021

2019   Wolves - increase to 50,000 *

              Luton - rebuild to 20,000

2022  A Villa - increase to 50,000

          Nottm Forest - increase to 35,000

 

Note: Not a single one of the above have been completed, indeed many (*) have been quietly shelved

Luton plans still ongoing, have change design about 3-4 times, the Newland’s project is well underway next to M1 which was the prerequisite of the project at Power Court 

expected to start construction later this year if not early next, it’ll be some stadium 

[shefcanary 2,950]

11 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

We should file it, along with:

2013   Swansea - increase to 33,000 *

2015  Chelsea - rebuild to 60,000 *

2017  Sheff Utd - increase to 38,000 *

           C Palace - new Main Stand by 2021

2019   Wolves - increase to 50,000 *

              Luton - rebuild to 20,000

2022  A Villa - increase to 50,000

          Nottm Forest - increase to 35,000

 

Note: Not a single one of the above have been completed, indeed many (*) have been quietly shelved

Yeah, agree none have been built, but there are as always a myriad reasons for this not happening but as far as I am aware, all those plans apart from Swansea are all definitely being discussed at present.

Only last week Chelsea were looking at relocating to Earl's Court due to difficulties getting planned permission at Stamford Bridge.

Sheff Utd's replacement of their Kop and another tier on their main stand are very much still on the agenda. The delay has been acquiring the rest of the stadium's footprint from the former owner, McCabe, which was achieved in the summer. Once their ownership change is authorised by the EFL, the changes will be progressed, funded by new apartments that can be built behind the Kop and on their new temporary fan park.

Palace's rebuild of their old stand is being held up by uncertainty again over ownership - is Textor now going to re-focus again at Palace now Everton have gone elsewhere?

As others have said, Wolves, Villa and Forest are all at planning permission stage, and as Yobocop has said the spades are already in the ground for Luton's new ground. 

As for Leeds they have only just bought back the ground from the Council. They have large enough footprint around the ground, in what is primarily an industrial area, that the only major planning issue will be access issues to the M621

Yes, nothing happens overnight with Stadium re-builds etc. But your "plans quietly shelved" is really very wide of the mark in those that you highlighted. 

 

[shefcanary 2,950]

Oh, and the issuing of this report seems to be a first play by Norfolk Holdings on ground expansion at the Carra.

Norwich City publish socio-economic impact report - Norwich City (canaries.co.uk)

impact-report.pdf (canaries.co.uk)

Why do I say that? Well the information contained in there is the sort of information I have been used to presenting when seeking financial help from local authorities, trusts and funders to bankroll major construction work. And the fact it is co-authored by Aldermore who specialise in finance raising for construction projects within the sporting world is also quite telling.  

Nothing will happen overnight, but the arguments for expansion, and the ask for external funding, are being created. The signs are all there...

[Commonsense 802]

13 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Massive club, fill it easily more often than not. 

Dead right. That is why over the last 10 years their average attendances have varied between 22,000 and 36,000, whereas ours have varied between 25,300 and 26,900. All those wonderfully loyal fans turning up season in season out!

[NewNestCarrow 290]

14 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yeah, agree none have been built, but there are as always a myriad reasons for this not happening but as far as I am aware, all those plans apart from Swansea are all definitely being discussed at present.

Only last week Chelsea were looking at relocating to Earl's Court due to difficulties getting planned permission at Stamford Bridge.

Sheff Utd's replacement of their Kop and another tier on their main stand are very much still on the agenda. The delay has been acquiring the rest of the stadium's footprint from the former owner, McCabe, which was achieved in the summer. Once their ownership change is authorised by the EFL, the changes will be progressed, funded by new apartments that can be built behind the Kop and on their new temporary fan park.

Palace's rebuild of their old stand is being held up by uncertainty again over ownership - is Textor now going to re-focus again at Palace now Everton have gone elsewhere?

As others have said, Wolves, Villa and Forest are all at planning permission stage, and as Yobocop has said the spades are already in the ground for Luton's new ground. 

As for Leeds they have only just bought back the ground from the Council. They have large enough footprint around the ground, in what is primarily an industrial area, that the only major planning issue will be access issues to the M621

Yes, nothing happens overnight with Stadium re-builds etc. But your "plans quietly shelved" is really very wide of the mark in those that you highlighted. 

 

It depends if your definition of planning is "intending to" or "plans & designs submitted to authorities for formal approval".  Indeed, you could argue that City 'plan' to increase the capacity of Carrow Rd, but there ain't much to show for it so far!

My whole point was that it is very easy to pander to a fanbase by announcing a stadium increase but often the talk is not backed by something actually being built.

I maintain that the Swansea & Wolves concepts have been shelved, while Forest have yet to formally resolve their lease issue, with Luton & Palace being AT LEAST five years behind their own schedule.

As for Villa, please show me anything newer than Dec 2023 when the CEO said: “During the summer months, I became more concerned that we were adding too many seats too fast and so I do believe that it is important that we took a step back and re-evaluate what is best for our fans....   We have 42,000-plus seats. It’s a substantial amount and to add on 10,000 right now doesn’t seem practical to me."

 

 

[ncfcstar 342]

32 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Oh, and the issuing of this report seems to be a first play by Norfolk Holdings on ground expansion at the Carra.

Norwich City publish socio-economic impact report - Norwich City (canaries.co.uk)

impact-report.pdf (canaries.co.uk)

Why do I say that? Well the information contained in there is the sort of information I have been used to presenting when seeking financial help from local authorities, trusts and funders to bankroll major construction work. And the fact it is co-authored by Aldermore who specialise in finance raising for construction projects within the sporting world is also quite telling.  

Nothing will happen overnight, but the arguments for expansion, and the ask for external funding, are being created. The signs are all there...

It's a bit of a foot race with the team in Blue down the road now too.  East Anglia needs an arena size venue for gigs/shows that can be reliably used year round, not just when the pitches are free in the summer.  One of either us or Ipswich are going to have to build it, no one else will, and the US investors at Ipswich have made it clear that they want to turn the area around the ground into a venue for events year round.

There is significant land available for regeneration around the ground, and with a bit of ingenuity could even be linked to the old Colman's site on the other side of the Wensum.  I know a lot of it is earmarked for housing but I'm sure MA and his team have the wherewithal to influence the council if they wanted to.

If we don't build the 'premier' destination for events in the East, which should also include a new City Stand, then it does seriously look like Ipswich will.  

[essex canary 622]

4 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

The new owners certainly have the money but the cynic in me thinks this will be tied to promotion, another couple of seasons in the Championship and there won't be a need for a 50K seater stadium despite the massive season ticket waiting list.

 If our season ticket waiting list is massive, why are there persistent empty seats at Carrow Road? Either some of the waiters aren't serious or the Club doesn’t make enough effort to get them to attend when there is space or both.

[ncfcstar 342]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 If our season ticket waiting list is massive, why are there persistent empty seats at Carrow Road? Either some of the waiters aren't serious or the Club doesn’t make enough effort to get them to attend when there is space or both.

The season ticket waiting list isn't massive, I got another one for my son this season and he was only on the waiting list for a couple of months.  If you are looking for multiples in one location then of course you'll be waiting longer, but if you just want a single season ticket it's not a long wait.

Also ground expansion, whilst nice for the fans, is really irrelevant if we are in the Premier League.  Having an extra 5-10k fans in the stadium isn't going to propel us into the next level financially, we'd already become one of the richest clubs in the world just by being there.  The big thing is what else you can do with the space you generate inside and around the stand and how you monetise it.

[Monty13 2,736]

13 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

The season ticket waiting list isn't massive, I got another one for my son this season and he was only on the waiting list for a couple of months.  If you are looking for multiples in one location then of course you'll be waiting longer, but if you just want a single season ticket it's not a long wait.

Also ground expansion, whilst nice for the fans, is really irrelevant if we are in the Premier League.  Having an extra 5-10k fans in the stadium isn't going to propel us into the next level financially, we'd already become one of the richest clubs in the world just by being there.  The big thing is what else you can do with the space you generate inside and around the stand and how you monetise it.

I don’t think this view is correct personally. You want to maximise your income in any business. TV money is massive but the basic payout is the same for all PL clubs.

Seats aren’t just for tickets, they encourage spending on food and drink as well as merchandise. 

You have the space for people to bring their kids you grow a fanbase and their interest in giving you more money.

Football, like politics, encourages a short term view. However well run clubs will be here for many years to come and long term planning is necessary to maximise their potential. 

 

[ncfcstar 342]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I don’t think this view is correct personally. You want to maximise your income in any business. TV money is massive but the basic payout is the same for all PL clubs.

Seats aren’t just for tickets, they encourage spending on food and drink as well as merchandise. 

You have the space for people to bring their kids you grow a fanbase and their interest in giving you more money.

Football, like politics, encourages a short term view. However well run clubs will be here for many years to come and long term planning is necessary to maximise their potential. 

 

I understand that POV, and I'd tend to agree if we were talking about adding 15-20k on top of our current capacity.  But the problem with expansion is that it's still ultimately reliant on those seats then being used, we all know how fickle fans can be (I appreciate our attendances have been fairly stable even with relegation).  The real money is made with what else a new stand can bring IMO, and the seats are an added bonus. 

Food/drink/merch bring in pennies in comparison to the PL money, especially if you spend a significant period of time in the league.  That's why ultimately, 'success' is staying up.  I don't disagree with what you say, but selling 5k more shirts is just insignificant in comparison to consecutive seasons of PL reward money.

What can make a significant impact is the club, as I said in another post, regenerating the whole area around the river and benefitting from revenue generation outside of the football team and their fans.

[Monty13 2,736]

13 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I understand that POV, and I'd tend to agree if we were talking about adding 15-20k on top of our current capacity.  But the problem with expansion is that it's still ultimately reliant on those seats then being used, we all know how fickle fans can be (I appreciate our attendances have been fairly stable even with relegation).  The real money is made with what else a new stand can bring IMO, and the seats are an added bonus. 

Food/drink/merch bring in pennies in comparison to the PL money, especially if you spend a significant period of time in the league.  That's why ultimately, 'success' is staying up.  I don't disagree with what you say, but selling 5k more shirts is just insignificant in comparison to consecutive seasons of PL reward money.

What can make a significant impact is the club, as I said in another post, regenerating the whole area around the river and benefitting from revenue generation outside of the football team and their fans.

Revenue is revenue. Of course staying up is the big win (although a big chunk of that is just swallowed by wages) but unless you can generate more TV money somehow you need to look elsewhere to be more profitable. Merchandising and ticket sales are not insignificant.

Edited September 24 by Monty13

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,633]

4 hours ago, BigFish said:

The big problem is always how you operate a football club on a building site. Planning only really becomes an obstacle if you want to relocate, upgrading in place is straight forward. Development in place requires compromises in terms of cost, time and quality which is why clubs find it easier to move or play somewhere else for a couple of years.

Planning is always an 'obstacle.' The process is generally quicker to re-develop an existing stadium rather than build HS2. But it can still be a timely and costly process that ultimately can be rejected. Particularly if your a London club, such as Chelsea.

I agree with your first sentence. Particularly relevant to Norwich, with directors boxes, changing rooms, etc, all located in the city stand. 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

 If our season ticket waiting list is massive,

Says who ?

[essex canary 622]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Says who ?

@DraytonBoy but I didnt believe he was correct.

Demand to fill more seats at Carrow Road will only follow being in the Premier League. Even then more realistic pricing especially for young people below age 25 would also help.

[chicken 3,084]

15 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Incorrect. 

Planning and associated consent from statutory third party undertakers is a huge problem for all development, which impacts ‘actual’ costs significantly. Hence why the Govt are trying to change it. 

 

Not 'incorrect'. Getting something through planning can take time, especially if you don't do your research and prepare. It can then become an expensive loop of adjusting plans, going back, being asked to adjust further.

The 'planning' the government is talking about changing isn't going to reduce cost, but is designed to speed up the process so that housing can be built faster.

The costs for things like HS2 are because it's a government contracted project which means it goes out to tender. Government contracts are some of the most abused part of government processes. You get companies pricing a job lower than is realistic to get the contract, then mid project state that materials have gone up in cost or some other 'unpredictable' hike in costs and end up costing more.

That and an actual lack of proper preperation for plans, or it just being a horrific project in the first place.

[Duncan Edwards 2,424]

Tom Cavendish had some ideas around our future in terms of expansion and development. I believe rail stations and peppercorn rents were key. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,633]

7 hours ago, chicken said:

Not 'incorrect'. Getting something through planning can take time, especially if you don't do your research and prepare. It can then become an expensive loop of adjusting plans, going back, being asked to adjust further.

The 'planning' the government is talking about changing isn't going to reduce cost, but is designed to speed up the process so that housing can be built faster.

The costs for things like HS2 are because it's a government contracted project which means it goes out to tender. Government contracts are some of the most abused part of government processes. You get companies pricing a job lower than is realistic to get the contract, then mid project state that materials have gone up in cost or some other 'unpredictable' hike in costs and end up costing more.

That and an actual lack of proper preperation for plans, or it just being a horrific project in the first place.

Speeding up the process, by its nature, will reduce costs. It’s being sped up by cutting red tape which a contractor or business would normally need to spend resources on. 

The majority of construction projects, wether it’s a public or private client go out to competitive tender in some form. If contractors price the job too low, then they’re at risk of losing money regardless. They can only claim additional money if they can demonstrate entitlement against the contract. If not, then it’s not due a penny. Regardless of the client,  the contract is king. 

The main reason(s) HS2s costs have spiralled is to do with third party stakeholders and consent. £100s of Millions have been spent on consent blockers with landowners, ecology, archeology and planning. Large scale infra projects typically go over budget for these reasons, which can be nearly impossible to plan for years in advance of a spade touching the ground.

Edited September 25 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[TIL 1010 5,246]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

@DraytonBoy but I didnt believe he was correct.

 

So  without questioning something you now claim you did not believe correct you went ahead and printed it as fact ?

Edited September 25 by TIL 1010

[essex canary 622]

7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So  without questioning something you now claim you did not believe correct you went ahead and printed it as fact ?

I began my response to @DraytonBoy with the word 'if'.

That is conditional within the meaning of the English Language. In no sense does it mean confirming a fact which clearly isn't a fact.

[hogesar 10,762]

I suspect there's no chance of this actually happening unless they're promoted and in the Prem for a couple seasons. They're not selling 50k in the champs.