stadium expansion

[Bill 1,788]

err, noattendances are very much determined by price so to attract those numbers would require a huge amount of discounting, which would necessarily have to be right across the boardso the take would most likely not actually be any higherresulting in us subsidising a new stand ...................... to get less money ! ! !

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="City1st"]err, noattendances are very much determined by price so to attract those numbers would require a huge amount of discounting, which would necessarily have to be right across the boardso the take would most likely not actually be any higherresulting in us subsidising a new stand ...................... to get less money ! ! !

[/quote]Not so. Over time, by which I mean several decades, with some seasons in the top flight and some below, an increase in capacity would more than pay for itself. Principally by way of ticket sales but also by revenue from catering and commercial. If that wasn''t the case then clubs simply wouldn''t increase capacity. It could never be justified. Yet a look at the Premier League shows several clubs have either expanded over the last few years (such as Arsenal and ) or have plans to do so (such as Swansea, QPR, Everton and Liverpool).

[Bill 1,788]

several decades ! ! !dear menow why not check what the average take is for a seatcheck what the cost per seat rebuilding is then explainalso check how much of this revenue from catering is from the executive end which you cannpt simply expandas to the others there are circumstances that do not apply to us

[Surfer 1,547]

Interesting debate

" as to the others there are circumstances that do not apply to us"

Such as .. ?

[Bill 1,788]

Swansea - partnership with councilQPR - very low capacityLiverpool/Everton - historic high attendances and time in top flight

now lets have some of those figures that tell us how much each seat will generate and how much will it cost to build

[lake district canary 4,531]

Cheapest development is to sort out the corner where the hotel is and fit a few hundred seats in there.  Just needs a few heads banged together to make it happen.   300 extra seats = c£10,000 income per home game if we are full to capacity.  23 home games this season would give us £230,000 income at that level. £460,000 over two seasons.    Even a temporary stand there would  make the club money over a period of time.   Put a perspex barrier in to stop away yobs from throwing things and the job''s a good''un.  

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="City1st"]Swansea - partnership with councilQPR - very low capacityLiverpool/Everton - historic high attendances and time in top flight

now lets have some of those figures that tell us how much each seat will generate and how much will it cost to build

[/quote]

What time frame are we talking here? You''ve ruled out Purple''s as his long term benefit was too long.

[Felixfan 53]

Probably now missed our best chance for a decade. Got to take a gamble sometime as most top teams are continually expanding and with some exceptions success is linked to fan base and capacity.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Cheapest development is to sort out the corner where the hotel is and fit a few hundred seats in there.  Just needs a few heads banged together to make it happen.   300 extra seats = c£10,000 income per home game if we are full to capacity.  23 home games this season would give us £230,000 income at that level. £460,000 over two seasons.    Even a temporary stand there would  make the club money over a period of time.   Put a perspex barrier in to stop away yobs from throwing things and the job''s a good''un.  

[/quote]whereas when this was being mooted there was talk of 8000 fans desperate to get into Carrow Road, all willing to pay around £50 a seat !the best estimate from the club is around a £2m subsidy per season, decreasing as ticket prices climb with inflation, however that is based on maximum capacity (Rotherham at home ?)the reason for bringing this thread back was not to allow the ''flat earther''s'' another chance to deny basic mathematics, but to highlight how much can change in a couple of seasons, never mind PCc''s suggested decades and decadesthe much vaunted Bristol Rover''s ''no one pays it''s all funded by growing peppercorns'' looks to be dead in the water, with a club that may well be out of the league for some whileso be grateful that the board is not so stupid as many on here are desperate to demonstrate they are

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Felixfan"]Probably now missed our best chance for a decade. Got to take a gamble sometime as most top teams are continually expanding and with some exceptions success is linked to fan base and capacity.[/quote]

The directors made the correct decision, thankfully.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="City1st"]several decades ! ! !dear menow why not check what the average take is for a seatcheck what the cost per seat rebuilding is then explainalso check how much of this revenue from catering is from the executive end which you cannpt simply expandas to the others there are circumstances that do not apply to us

[/quote]Yes, of course several decades. And as to the very rough - and very realistic/pessimistic - calculations, they are fairly simple. Take a total £30m - the top end of the club''s own estimate of £20m-£30m - for around 6,000 extra seats. Assume that over the 50 seasons from the date of completion we  have average gates of only 30,000. Some seasons in the top flight, some in the second tier, some even in the third.So we sell only 3,000 more seats than currently. Taking, for simplicity''s sake all those extra 3,000 as season ticket sales, that is 150,000 extra season tickets. Factoring in a possible initial short-term need to hold prices steady or even reduce them, but also factoring in inflation over those 50 years then an average price of £500 for those extra season tickets is almost certainly on the low side. But even that produces an income of £75m. On those figures the break-even point would come after 20 years and it would be profit from then on. And that is without adding on income from catering and commercial.I am not advocating ground expansion, certainly not at the moment, but unless the club fell off a footballing cliff there is no doubt that in the long run it would more than pay for itself. I repeat, if that was not the case clubs simply wouldn''t want to do it. But they do. And I am sure we still do.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Felixfan"]Probably now missed our best chance for a decade. Got to take a gamble sometime as most top teams are continually expanding and with some exceptions success is linked to fan base and capacity.[/quote]I think you mean clubs, as I doubt any team is involved in ground redevelopment. Even then you talk of top clubs, not us. And they are NOT continually expanding either.You confuse cause and effects.Fulham and Wigan have ben far more successful than our impoverished neighbours in the past decade or so. But even I would accept that the paupers have a bigger fan base.Now why not explain where the money is to come from and how you can guarantee that the same money will be there for a decade or so ahead.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="City1st"]several decades ! ! !dear menow why not check what the average take is for a seatcheck what the cost per seat rebuilding is then explainalso check how much of this revenue from catering is from the executive end which you cannpt simply expandas to the others there are circumstances that do not apply to us

[/quote]Yes, of course several decades. And as to the very rough - and very realistic/pessimistic - calculations, they are fairly simple. Take a total £30m - the top end of the club''s own estimate of £20m-£30m - for around 6,000 extra seats. Assume that over the 50 seasons from the date of completion we  have average gates of only 30,000. Some seasons in the top flight, some in the second tier, some even in the third.So we sell only 3,000 more seats than currently. Taking, for simplicity''s sake all those extra 3,000 as season ticket sales, that is 150,000 extra season tickets. Factoring in a possible initial short-term need to hold prices steady or even reduce them, but also factoring in inflation over those 50 years then an average price of £500 for those extra season tickets is almost certainly on the low side. But even that produces an income of £75m. On those figures the break-even point would come after 20 years and it would be profit from then on. And that is without adding on income from catering and commercial.I am not advocating ground expansion, certainly not at the moment, but unless the club fell off a footballing cliff there is no doubt that in the long run it would more than pay for itself. I repeat, if that was not the case clubs simply wouldn''t want to do it. But they do. And I am sure we still do.[/quote]That is abject nonsense, as you well know PC.There would NOT be 6000 extra seats. The club''s figures as you have stated are around £20m - £30m for the replacement of the Main Stand. That would generate 4000 extra seats, NOT 6000.The current figures give around just under £400 per seat per season, which equates to £1.6m.That would not even pay the interest on the loan never mind any repayment of the capital. That is also based 100% capacity and current high casual tickets. Your £500 season ticket is way, way off the mark.You talk of 50 years. Can you really see things staying as they are over the next 50 years ? There is not a break even point either, merely a time span in which the loan would have to be repaid. Meaning we could well be seeing higher and higher subsidies to service that debt.The sad fact is we never get any serious debate based on known figures but instead absurd speculative guff based on a wish to win an argument. And before the usual witless cretins start their idiotic squeaks let state what I have stated before.I would welcome and increased capacity. If there was a way that the Main Stand could be replaced in a matter of months and doubled in size with no long term subsidy in millions I would welcome it. Likewise if the hotel could be replaced in whatever timescale needed again you would find no happier fan, but it does no one any good for some on here to over excite the terminally dim with misinformation and so infer that the club does not care about it''s fans.So maybe this time next year some of the brain dead who told us about those supposed 8000 fans being denied entry to Carrow Road might care to come back and tell me that I was wrong and not only was EVERY game in season ''14/15 sold out but at PL prices - as would be required over the next 20 years irrespective of what division we are in.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="City1st"]several decades ! ! !dear menow why not check what the average take is for a seatcheck what the cost per seat rebuilding is then explainalso check how much of this revenue from catering is from the executive end which you cannpt simply expandas to the others there are circumstances that do not apply to us

[/quote]Yes, of course several decades. And as to the very rough - and very realistic/pessimistic - calculations, they are fairly simple. Take a total £30m - the top end of the club''s own estimate of £20m-£30m - for around 6,000 extra seats. Assume that over the 50 seasons from the date of completion we  have average gates of only 30,000. Some seasons in the top flight, some in the second tier, some even in the third.So we sell only 3,000 more seats than currently. Taking, for simplicity''s sake all those extra 3,000 as season ticket sales, that is 150,000 extra season tickets. Factoring in a possible initial short-term need to hold prices steady or even reduce them, but also factoring in inflation over those 50 years then an average price of £500 for those extra season tickets is almost certainly on the low side. But even that produces an income of £75m. On those figures the break-even point would come after 20 years and it would be profit from then on. And that is without adding on income from catering and commercial.I am not advocating ground expansion, certainly not at the moment, but unless the club fell off a footballing cliff there is no doubt that in the long run it would more than pay for itself. I repeat, if that was not the case clubs simply wouldn''t want to do it. But they do. And I am sure we still do.[/quote]

To be honest you can argue the odds over the long term view such as yours PC or City1st''s point that is based on the short term view. Of course the longer you leave it the more more it''ll cost. Certainly whatever the figure the club came up with a season or two ago it''s bound to be a little more now.  

However one of the biggest headaches the board would have to work out which imo goes a long way whether we expand or not. Is what do we do during the build with the existing ST holders in the City Stand?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="City1st"]

There would NOT be 6000 extra seats. The club''s figures as you have stated are around £20m - £30m for the replacement of the Main Stand. That would generate 4000 extra seats, NOT 6000.The current figures give around just under £400 per seat per season, which equates to £1.6m.That would not even pay the interest on the loan never mind any repayment of the capital. That is also based 100% capacity and current high casual tickets. Your £500 season ticket is way, way off the mark.[/quote]Last October Bowkett gave that figure of £30m for increasing capacity to 35,000, so an extra 8,000 seats rather than your figure of 4,000. I, being sceptical, reduced the increase to 6,000 but kept the price the same.The accounts for the 2012-13 season give an average annual income per seat (for all kinds of seats) of £430, so projecting an average  over 50 years of £500 is almost certainly a serious under-estimate.The unknown factor is whether all the capital would have to be borrowed, with resultant interest payments (say over 20 years), or whether some would be gifted by, for example, a new owner. The more the former then that is a drain on finances and the break-even point gets put back. And the club, having got out of debt, doesn''t particularly want to get back in.But the basic point remains. Unless we collapsed as a club, over time ground expansion would pay for itself. And is the only obvious way (I am discounting the possibility of regular Champions League football) in which we can seriously increase income. And as David McNally said back in October:“You’re more likely to be a

consistent Premier League club with average gates of 35,000 then you are

with crowds of 26,800 so it’s something that we would wish to do in the

mid-term but we have the dilemmas of the practical solution of the

accounting supporters, which seems really difficult, and of course the

cash.”

[GrantsMoustache 0]

I''d say that the "unknown factor" is whether the £30m figure includes estimated borrowing costs, or whether that is the amount that we would need to borrow.

This is a thread which would have been best left in 2012 though, stadium expansion now seems more unlikely than it has for four or five years, we''d have to get back into the prem sharpish to have any hope of this happening.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]I''d say that the "unknown factor" is whether the £30m figure includes estimated borrowing costs, or whether that is the amount that we would need to borrow.

This is a thread which would have been best left in 2012 though, stadium expansion now seems more unlikely than it has for four or five years, we''d have to get back into the prem sharpish to have any hope of this happening.[/quote]I have assumed the £30m is the capital cost of the project, and we would pay interest on however much of that (quite possibly all) we would have to borrow.

[GrantsMoustache 0]

The club should have published the report really, can''t see what harm it would have done.

It was £30m to increase the capacity to 35000, was that for the City stand + the two infills? If we made a large city stand the snakepit and the other corner would then be able to be enlarged, or was some of that 8000 increase in other parts of the ground?

I''m surprised really that we didn''t ever consider rebuilding the N&P because before those flats appeared there was probably the ability to build a much deeper stand. That would probably have been cheaper than rebuilding the city stand if the problem is the road access.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]The club should have published the report really, can''t see what harm it would have done.

It was £30m to increase the capacity to 35000, was that for the City stand + the two infills? If we made a large city stand the snakepit and the other corner would then be able to be enlarged, or was some of that 8000 increase in other parts of the ground?

I''m surprised really that we didn''t ever consider rebuilding the N&P because before those flats appeared there was probably the ability to build a much deeper stand. That would probably have been cheaper than rebuilding the city stand if the problem is the road access.[/quote]

IIRC  The idea that was floating around was not exactly rebuilding the City Stand.  I believe it was more of a case of acquiring Carrow Road and building another tier sort of around and on top of what''s already there.

I seem to remember Purple posting some pictures of something similar that was to be done at Fulham.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Imo we lost some atmosphere when the South Stand was replaced, with the sound at that side of the ground less intense than previously, especially lower down the terrace, where it feels more open.   To me that could be helped by the most obvious of ground improvement/expansion - filling in the corner by the hotel.   The sound would then be more intense all round the ground - it is an acoustic abhorrence as well as a visual one.  

Acoustics is often not considered important and is an art in itself -  and sound reverberating around a ground is ruined if there are gaps in the terracing.   I know this is an old hobby horse of mine, but it is the one single thing that spoils our ground, on several levels.  To me it should be the number one priority to sort out before  any other building work is considered.   Once logistics and all parties are on board and can agree to a scheme it is a relatively simple construction and one that would give us at least a few hundred extra seats.

I know.....cost, cost, player budget, player budget, but if there is ever going to be work/expansion, dealing with that corner should be the first action and it doesn''t involve moving anyone around while its done, either.

 

[William Darby 0]

The Romans had it down to a fine art.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

Demand will not be as high following relegation. Safe standing will almost certainly make it through in a few years max so the extra investment in more seats will be a waste when some existing stands could be converted to standing much more cheaply. So do nothing for now in my opinion.

[kingsway 94]

If we''re seriously challenging at the top, home areas will likely sell out the same as they did last season!

It will drop of if we aren''t!

I agree its likely safe standing could happen at some point in the not to far distant future but it would be on a one standing space = the same as one seat so the capacity wouldn''t increase!

The obvious part of the ground most ideal for increasing the capacity on a large scale would be putting a 2nd tier on the Jarold stand.

This could be done with little disruption and likely no reduced capacity for League games!

[Bill 1,788]

The club have quoted a figure of around £2000-£3000 per seat in construction costs ie £16m - £24m to add 4000 extra seats via a new Main StandNo figure has been given for the removal of the old stand.The idea at this stage of adding another tier on the South Stand is viable given not only in inbalance it would give to the ground but for the need for new facilitoies in the Main Stand.The idea of constructing temporary seating in front of the hotel is a complete non starter. Where would the fans enter ? Through the Barclay and shuffle along the front, likewise their use of toilets and refreshments etc ?  Would tickets sell in rain and snow ? What safety/insurance/ problems would this raise ... and for what ?

The original thread was put back on here to demonstrate how events can change in matter of two years, where we are now being told that we should indebt ourselves for decades ahead in the possibility that we might starting making money in FIFTY years time. !

In that light some might wish to look at Tom Cavendish''s ideas and claims and look at how absurd they look now - in just two years.

 

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="City1st"]In that light some might wish to look at Tom Cavendish''s ideas and claims and look at how absurd they look now - in just two years.[/quote]I said the spending priority would be to spend money on players to try to stay in the Premier League rather than stadium expansion. The club later said that too. I was right. The priority will now be to spend money on players to get the club back to the Premier League. The spending priory on players isn''t likely to change because of the vast income from being in the Premier League. The best hope for a much bigger Carrow Rd stadium is that someone will invest a lot of money into the club.Consider too that the value of the Carrow Rd stadium is thought to be around £40m and the car park behind the Jarrold Stand has already been sold for housing (so income will be lost from the car park). The cost of increasing the stadium capacity to just 35k is thought to be over £30m plus interest.For £70m (or less) it would probably be better value to build a completely new bigger stadium where the club can create new revenue streams.Put it like this:OPTION A) To increase Carrow Rd Stadium to 35k = the club has to borrow £30m+OPTION B) Build an even bigger iconic stadium somewhere else in Norwich (e.g. on council owned land, or UEA owned land, or

showground land) so massively reducing the cost of a new stadium = the club doesn''t have to borrow as much, perhaps nothing. Plus the club would have new revenue streams.OPTION C) Wait for someone to invest a lot of money into the club. Under the fair play rules they might not be able to simply spend the money on the team. However, they could get around it by spending the money on a stadium which then provides new revenue streams (which the club then spends on players). OPTION D) The club expands the Carrow Rd Stadium and gets someone (UEA perhaps) to lease part of it (e.g. for teaching space) so helping to cover the expansion costs.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="City1st"]The club have quoted a figure of around £2000-£3000 per seat in construction costs ie £16m - £24m to add 4000 extra seats via a new Main StandNo figure has been given for the removal of the old stand.

 

[/quote]As I posted earlier, the latest figures from the club (in October) gave a capital cost figure of £30m for 8,000 extra seats, bringing the capacity to 35,000, and that sum would include any necessary demolition. It is clear from the comments made then by Bowkett and McNally that theye were talking about an extra 8,000 seats and not just 4,000 more.Chairman Alan Bowkett said rebuilding the City Stand for a capacity of

35,000 would cost around £30m, which would be mortgaged over 20 years

and cost around £2.5m per year in payments, which should be covered by

around £3m from new ticket sales each season. You are forecasting for 20 years and you would have to

achieve an average occupancy of 35,000 over the 20 years of about 94pc."Chief executive David McNally added: “You’re more likely to be a

consistent Premier League club with average gates of 35,000 then you are

with crowds of 26,800 so it’s something that we would wish to do in the

mid-term but we have the dilemmas of the practical solution of the

accounting supporters, which seems really difficult, and of course the

cash.”

[TimDim 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]I''m not on a wind up, I''m right!It is an identical situation at the UEA. They need about 1205 new permanent parking spaces and to replace their temporary car park.At the Bristol UWE stadium, the new stadium car park (with 1270 spaces) is to replace the need for the uni owned temporary car park.Using the Bristol example, the university didn''t want to spend educational funds building a new permanent car park. They are very keen that a stadium is built on their land so that they can lease the stadium car park and 19,000 sqft of teaching space inside the stadium.Financially, it makes great sense for the football club and the uni.The FC is getting the land for free on a very long lease on a peppercorn rent from the uni. The FC will make millions from leasing the teaching space and car park to the uni, and the build cost of the new stadium is being covered by the sale of their old stadium.They are getting a new stadium, and millions in regular income, and clearing their debts, and it is costing them nothing.If NCFC did the same thing, but instead of spending that extra £20m on 8,000 extra seats at CR but put it towards a news stadium... NCFC would have a much better stadium and lucrative new income streams that could last the next 100 years.[/quote]Any news on this new stadium Tom ?Three and a quarter years have now passed and not a brick has been laid, or a peppercorn grown.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-33503419

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Scout_hut"][quote user="tom cavendish"]I''m not on a wind up, I''m right!It is an identical situation at the UEA. They need about 1205 new permanent parking spaces and to replace their temporary car park.At the Bristol UWE stadium, the new stadium car park (with 1270 spaces) is to replace the need for the uni owned temporary car park.Using the Bristol example, the university didn''t want to spend educational funds building a new permanent car park. They are very keen that a stadium is built on their land so that they can lease the stadium car park and 19,000 sqft of teaching space inside the stadium.Financially, it makes great sense for the football club and the uni.The FC is getting the land for free on a very long lease on a peppercorn rent from the uni. The FC will make millions from leasing the teaching space and car park to the uni, and the build cost of the new stadium is being covered by the sale of their old stadium.They are getting a new stadium, and millions in regular income, and clearing their debts, and it is costing them nothing.If NCFC did the same thing, but instead of spending that extra £20m on 8,000 extra seats at CR but put it towards a news stadium... NCFC would have a much better stadium and lucrative new income streams that could last the next 100 years.[/quote]Any news on this new stadium Tom ?Three and a quarter years have now passed and not a brick has been laid, or a peppercorn grown.[/quote]They actually achieved planning permission to build a new stadium on Uni owned land (and have a deal to only pay a peppercorn-rent so they don''t need to purchase land). The Uni have today made a statement saying they still want the stadium to be built on their land. The problem that club has is in funding the actual build costs.I was also right that Carrow Road wasn''t going to be redeveloped in the short-term as the spending priority would be to stay in the Premier League. Once the club was relegated, I was also right that the spending priority would be to get back into the Premier League.Consider too that gate receipts in the Premier League are becoming a decreasing percentage of revenue (due to the massive increase in TV revenue and clubs developing other business interests). There is less of an incentive to spend a lot of money just to increase capacity by a little.Another thing to consider is that being in the Premier League with the extensive TV coverage also allows a huge number of people the opportunity to regularly watch Norwich matches (so helping to develop the fan-base leading to an increase in merchandise sales etc).However, I do think Norwich needs a better stadium (and a large exhibition centre etc.) but the club should find ways of achieving that without having a detrimental impact upon the playing budget.

[TimDim 0]

So they don''t need to buy the land ? If that is so why is the university chancellor talking about the club having to buy the land. Who is wrong, you or him ?  Also could you post up a link to that statement from the university today.http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/University-West-England-won-t-rescue-Bristol/story-22015352-detail/story.html

[TIL 1010 4,722]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33508089

 

 

Oh dear me Mr.Cavendish.