So now...Hotel or infill?

[John Boubepo 0]

The ugly hotel we have built is almost symbolic to the ugly face of football, one day, just like the Berlin wall we will tear it down with our bare hands and set our football club free!

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="Pyro Pete"][quote user="BB FOOTBALL FIRST"][quote user="a1canary"]Why do we keep revisiting the same subjects? We''ve been over this.

The cost of the infill was going to be 2-3 million. The number of seats was going to be 700. Does that really have a serious impact on our capacity? But lets just suppose we fill every one of those seats every fortnight. Then take a very generous average price per seat of £20. That makes 560,000 a season.

Based on those fag packet calculations, it''s going to take 3.5 years to pay an initial £2m outlay. Then bare in mind that we won''t fill every seat, that with concessions, season tickets etc it won''t be anything like £20 a seat, then bare in mind the interest charges on the loan to raise the initial £2m capital outlay, and we''re talking more  like 5 years to pay it off. And that''s also assuming that every penny of revenue raised from the infill goes on paying back the loan. For FIVE years. No doubt most of you lot would expect the infill to pay for a new striker after a year. In reality of course, some kind of finance package would be arranged, and the repayment arranged over 15 years or something, making the total amount payable many times what we originally paid, plunging us further into debt, directing more resources into loan repayments and all for the sake of 700 seats. We''d end up like them down the road, in a position where revenues will never be sufficient to match debt repayments, let alone run the club and buy and pay players. Is that what we want?

Now consider the hotel option. Firstly, there''s no capital outlay. We RECEIVE £1.5 million (around that - can''t recall exact figuret. Then, we get a 30% stake in the business. A permanent revenue stream and £1.5 million. I would congratulate the board but it''s such a total NO BRAINER of a decision to make, that a 5 year-old could have made it. But not, it appears, some of you lot!!!
[/quote]

It was £1.1mil for 150 years lease that''s £7330 a year or 700 seats at £20, say 23 games a year over 150 years......that''s about £48mil. We don''t get a penny from the every day running of the hotel, just a dividend on the shares we hold, a third of the total. NCPLC said the real income will be when the hotel is sold in the future, but remember after that we have no control of the infill what so ever, well not for 150 years anyway!

Apart from seeing the back of an hotel every single home game when there should be a bank of yellow and green singing "on the ball city" its again the perception of yet another none FOOTBALL enterprise pushing FOOTBALL for the real true supporter to the back of the list of must haves at Carrow Rd. When supports see the quality of teams the club are putting out and the dismal performance they produce, we have the right to ask the decision makes at the club (NCPLC) where their priority''s lie?

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST  

[/quote]

Now, now, BB FOOTBALL FIRST. Don''t start using logic and reason to win an argument. You may start a trend...

[/quote]Its just a pity some on here have forgoten we are a FOOTBALL club, just like the board / NCPLC.

Every club in the land wants more fans and bigger crowds...apart from us, unless they are the "prawn sandwich" variety. We could have waited for a real in fill after the investment on the pitch had brought us real success............now i am dreaming.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

What I can''t quite understand is that people who were moaning ad infinitum about our debt only a few months ago seem to think it would have been a good idea to increase it by a further c£3m, and those saying "it must be football first" somewhat contradicting themselves by saying we should undertake another building project, turn down £1.1m cash + a no-risk stake in the hotel, whilst tieing ourselves into this extra debt.   Surely the ''putting football first'' option was to take the money and invest it in players at a time when we were going to be losing £6m parachute money. 

[/quote]Note to Pyro Pete - the above is logic. Something that BBFF has conveniently chosen to ignore despite being confronted with it three times now in this post.

[megson 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="a1canary"]Jas, how do you conclude that the infil WOULD have made money when it would have cost £2-3m to build in the first place? It''s like me saying i WOULD make money if i bought a house and did it up to sell on. All well and good but I still gotta find the cash to buy it and to do it up!

Glad you like BBFF''s post but like yours it''s deeply flawed. He conveniently avoids the small matter of the cash required to build the infil, the resultant debt we''d have to take on to find that cash, and the fact that 700 is 2.6% of current ground capacity. It would represent a cost per seat of over £3,500 (vs £813 for the south stand) and putting it on a par with the new Wembley. If the whole stadium was built on that basis, it would have cost £92 million to build. The Reebok cost £32m (and has a hotel), St Mary''s Southampton £35m. It''s just really BAD business, simple as that. And whatever anyone says and however many yellow and green tubs they may thump, the basic rules of business still apply to a football club. Plenty of people think they don''t, even those running football clubs, and the result is what you have at Bradford, Ipswich, Leeds...

I really don''t understand your logic - you go on about football first and even put it in your user names, yet you are in favour of spending 2-3mil on seats, that add just 2.6% to overall capacity, instead of being given a lump some in excess of a million pounds, for a small square of land, that can go towards PLAYERS. It''s not like we''re selling our chances of future expansion down the Wensum as the existing stands allow for this when the time and the finances are right.

P.S. That''s brilliant by the way BBFF, your calculation. Tell you what, lets just build the infil, wait 150 years, and then we''ll have £48m to build a whole new stadium!
[/quote]

even better still lets just wait 150 years and we can sell the shell of the hotel to make a profit! it will all go round in Circles...

Your right Megson, but bear in mid that the extra 700 seats would be tacked onto the Barclay which always sells out regardless how badly we are doing then money would of drifted in from it.

Supposing the hotel does lose money, what will happen then??? the club is likely to bleed more money this way than it would from the seats.

If the hotel doesn''t make money then the club loses millions. as we dont owe the land and only hold part of a stake what then? It could really harm the club financially.

The clubs with hotels are all established Premiership clubs, Bolton, Chelsea, Reading,... the one difference between us and them is that they own, manage and run their hotels... we are relying on a 3rd party.... Where as if Chelsea or Readings hotel is losing money then their board of directors and hotel management (the staff of those clubs..on the pay roll), If Holiday Inn make changes to the hotel and the hotel starts losing money then the club is powerless...

 Id of been a lot happier if were actually managing the hotel themselves. not hoping things come good... theres an old saying "if u want anything done properly do it urself".. in that sense why are we relying on others to do it for us?

Given the team is piss poor and we are a mediocre championship side then why the hell have we even considered a hotel? if we do get relegated then we will look stupid with our empty stadium and prawn sandwich brigade for the visit of shrewsbury town.

jas :)

[/quote]

Jas, take your point letting the hotle be run by third parties does limit our influence in its success.

However to run it ourselves we''d of had to build it ourselves........................

If the hotel underperforms we don''t lose, the club won''t "bleed millions" as a result of it, we just won''t make an income from it.

And yes the seats may of sold as they are next to the barclay but would they have been 700 ''new'' fans or 700 people from the South Stand/River end? I thhink it would of been the latter, so therefore no extra income for the club.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

i have read through all these posts and the one thing that i don''t get is those moaning that the hotel is an eyesore???? who cares when i go to carrow road i tend to watch the football not stare in amazement at our lovely ground.

it generates us an instant income at no initial cost or risk of loss, there is simply no arguement against that!

p.s why would it be better if we ran the hotel ourselve''s? i think holiday inn are quite successful they''ve been doing this hotel lark for a few years now best leave it to the experts.

[nutty nigel 7,643]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]

i have read through all these posts and the one thing that i don''t get is those moaning that the hotel is an eyesore???? who cares when i go to carrow road i tend to watch the football not stare in amazement at our lovely ground.

[/quote]

It probably is an eyesore and spoils the enjoyment for those who watch on the wireless [~]

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]

i have read through all these posts and the one thing that i don''t get is those moaning that the hotel is an eyesore???? who cares when i go to carrow road i tend to watch the football not stare in amazement at our lovely ground.

[/quote]

It probably is an eyesore and spoils the enjoyment for those who watch on the wireless [~]

[/quote]

"Halloo Neil, I wasn''t at the game today but for me the game was completely ruined by the thought of that big nasty hotel putting me off if I had have been there"

[Jonncfc 28]

Why not get rid of the existing 3 infills and build 3 more hotels.  Come to think of it, the City Stand is a bit of an embarrassment so perhaps we should demolish that and build a much larger resort-style hotel complex with pool and palm-trees etc.  On non-match days the guests could use the pitch for playing tennis and crazy golf.  The opportunities are endless!

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="a1canary"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

What I can''t quite understand is that people who were moaning ad infinitum about our debt only a few months ago seem to think it would have been a good idea to increase it by a further c£3m, and those saying "it must be football first" somewhat contradicting themselves by saying we should undertake another building project, turn down £1.1m cash + a no-risk stake in the hotel, whilst tieing ourselves into this extra debt.   Surely the ''putting football first'' option was to take the money and invest it in players at a time when we were going to be losing £6m parachute money. 

[/quote]

Note to Pyro Pete - the above is logic. Something that BBFF has conveniently chosen to ignore despite being confronted with it three times now in this post.
[/quote]

Read again a1 I said "we could have waited for a real in fill after the investment on the pitch had brought us real success" I called it a dream, with this board (NCPLC) it is but that''s what real FOOTBALL clubs boards do. We must be a success on the FOOTBALL pitch before anything else, by building the hotel now and where it is stops thousands of fans seeing the team in the future and Carrow Rd will never be complete.

We have it now and its not going to be knocked down, its just my opinion building it there and building now was wrong. Lets ask Mr Doncaster on 27th July how much dividend income is expected from the hotel in the business plan for the first year?

Then we can all see the true value of the hotel, for good or bad.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[lobster catcher 0]

Just because the season tickets are up for grabs dosn''t mean its going to be an empty ground you tube.There are plenty of members who might like to see a game,or just casual supporters

[sheded 0]

[quote user="barclayendboy"]I hate the thing and like a lot have said it has no place near a football ground ,it would not have been so bad had the design been better but it is just a  big square ugly box absolutly hate it.
[/quote]

 I agree, its one ugly building !  and thats my only beef ..... I believe the deal was a good one  , a win win !   and we DO get a share of the profits ? 

[Grando 283]

I think we missed a trick by not building a 70s style multi-storey carpark there instead. If the board had''ve been on the ball they could have bought St Andrew cheap before it got pulled down and rebuilt it there instead. Car parks are clearly what we should now be diversifying into.

[Pyro Pete 1,921]

[quote user="Grando"]I think we missed a trick by not building a 70s style multi-storey carpark there instead. If the board had''ve been on the ball they could have bought St Andrew cheap before it got pulled down and rebuilt it there instead. Car parks are clearly what we should now be diversifying into.[/quote]The car park is still to come.  No, it really is. 

[Cheerio 0]

hope so - good earners. If we had NCP as a sponsor we''d be waving do$h at the rest of the league

[mbncfc 1]

Hotel makes perfect sense.

It''s not pretty, but was by far and away the most sensible and financially viable option.

I''m afraid people should really accept this if they plan on being realistic... [;)]

[Cheerio 0]

Tell you what - accoustic will improve - maybe the River End will hear the Barclay now.....

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

Hotel makes perfect sense.

It''s not pretty, but was by far and away the most sensible and financially viable option.

I''m afraid people should really accept this if they plan on being realistic... [;)]

[/quote]Not true, surely a Tesco''s supermarket would have been more financially viable and more pleasing to the eye, of course a supermarket has nothing to do with football unlike an eyesore of a hotel which obviously does!

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="John Boubepo"][quote user="mbncfc"]

Hotel makes perfect sense.

It''s not pretty, but was by far and away the most sensible and financially viable option.

I''m afraid people should really accept this if they plan on being realistic... [;)]

[/quote]

Not true, surely a Tesco''s supermarket would have been more financially viable and more pleasing to the eye, of course a supermarket has nothing to do with football unlike an eyesore of a hotel which obviously does!
[/quote]

I''ve got to disagree. Tesco would be far less generous in the deal to buy the land and own a stake in the supermarket.

Plus they would have ended up dumping all their wasted sandwiches and pastries round the back. Hucks would successfully take on four defenders, but get taken out by a couple of rogue chicken and stuffing baps.