Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tom cavendish

Site for a new stadium?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="ncfcstar"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="city4eva"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="city4eva"]I am happy with the stadium that we have and its location...thanks[/quote]

So are you against the plans to extend the capacity?


[/quote]

 

Do you always put words in peoples mooths

 

Where did I say I was against plans to expand.

I am against plans to move, not that there is any as far I am aware. Expansion will come when they rebuild the city stand.

I have been going to carrow rd since 1968 and am quite attached

 

 

[/quote]

 

If we want European football we''re going to have to move to a new stadium, because the Carrow Road pitch is too small...

More seriously there is only one argument for moving, and it''s this. It will at a conservative estimate cost £20m for the 8,000 extra seats the board wants, with massive disruption and loss of revenue over up to 18 months (the board''s assessment - not mine). For perhaps three or three and a half times that (partly financed by the sale of Carrow Road) you could have a purpose-built stadium (with a pitch big enough for European football) with no disruption or loss of revenue.

[/quote]

However attached I am the CR you make a good point Purple.  I suppose the question remains as to whether moving the stadium to another site, say Colney/County Hall/UEA benefits us more than remaining in the City Centre.  Are you suggesting that if we qualified for the UEFA Cup we would be refused entry?  I''m assuming this is due to the length of the pitch, not the width, as we could widen the pitch in front of the Jarrold.

The club will undoubtedly be looking at all options, but unfortunately for the purists a new stadium seems to make most sense financially, otherwise why would other clubs not have continued to renovate existing locations?
[/quote]

 

I don''t want us to move, and don''t think we will. But some posters are gaily talking about expansion as something easily achieved, and it isn''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we can redevelop the City Stand then I see absolutely no need to move. 35,000 would be plenty enough for where Norwich is as a club right now. I believe there would also be scope to extend the Jarrold is extra capacity was desperately needed after that. But were looking years and years into the future now. The cashflow implications of building a new stadium as well just as we are on the verge of becoming debt free after all these years also do not bear thinking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just checked out the size of the pitch question.

UEFA require a minimum pitch size of 105m long and 68m wide.

According to the official site our pitch is currently 105m long and 67m wide. So we are 1m too narrow at the moment, but that''s no problem since as others have mentioned there''s plenty of extra room down the Jarrold Stand side of the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="AndyCanary"]Yeah I do! The one near the market sq. I really should pay more attention to my Mother. She goes on about it enough![/quote]

That''s city hall, George 6th went to carrow road afterwards[/quote]That''s right :) My great Grandparents were Lord and Lady mayor of Norwich at the time :) One of their sons went on to be the saviour of our club [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Just checked out the size of the pitch question. UEFA require a minimum pitch size of 105m long and 68m wide. According to the official site our pitch is currently 105m long and 67m wide. So we are 1m too narrow at the moment, but that''s no problem since as others have mentioned there''s plenty of extra room down the Jarrold Stand side of the pitch.[/quote]

 

The club may be rounding up there. The yardage measurement I found was 114 yds, which converts to 104.2416 metres! But as said before, I don''t doubt we could just about find whatever extra length was required, and certainly the extra width.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="AndyCanary"][quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="AndyCanary"]Yeah I do! The one near the market sq. I really should pay more attention to my Mother. She goes on about it enough!
[/quote] That''s city hall, George 6th went to carrow road afterwards[/quote]

That''s right :) My great Grandparents were Lord and Lady mayor of Norwich at the time :) One of their sons went on to be the saviour of our club [;)]
[/quote]

 

One of their sons is Delia Smith...?  

 

[8-)]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Just checked out the size of the pitch question. UEFA require a minimum pitch size of 105m long and 68m wide. According to the official site our pitch is currently 105m long and 67m wide. So we are 1m too narrow at the moment, but that''s no problem since as others have mentioned there''s plenty of extra room down the Jarrold Stand side of the pitch.[/quote]

 

The club may be rounding up there. The yardage measurement I found was 114 yds, which converts to 104.2416 metres! But as said before, I don''t doubt we could just about find whatever extra length was required, and certainly the extra width.

[/quote]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned that a new stadium was going to be built at Colney about 20 years ago.

Price would have been much cheaper and the Carrow site sold for building land when it was under demand.

Been done and dusted by now.[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Victor Segura and the Yellow Cards"]

 One of their sons is Delia Smith...?  

 [/quote]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Their son is Paul Lambert!?!?!?![/quote]

Noooooo [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For now Carrow road is good enough in the future who knows but all i will say is that county hall will get patched up to make it ''safe'' but there will be future problems and one day it will need to be knocked down. In my eyes that site is the perfect place for us to be in 5 years or so. We will have a new owner by then too guaranteed who can pay for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BW"] In my eyes that site is the perfect place for us to be in 5 years or so. We will have a new owner by then too guaranteed who can pay for this.[/quote]

I hope this does not mean that if you are wrong we have got to wait another five years before you ban yourself for a month. [:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned that a new stadium was going to be built at Colney about 20 years ago.

Price would have been much cheaper and the Carrow site sold for building land when it was under demand.

Been done and dusted by now.[;)]

[/quote]

Your fishing rod is seeing a lot of action this morning Butler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t expect to see a move away from CR in my lifetime and I doubt any of the younger ones will see it either. There''s no need for it and no chance of getting planning permission anywhere that would be halfway acceptable.One thing you can guarantee is that there will never be a stadium at Colney.If the expansion to 35k ever comes about (and I put the chance of that in the next 5 yrs as no more than 50%) then it will be adequate for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

 

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carrow Road is the envy of many clubs and i would further suggest that numerous clubs who have moved to new stadiums in the last decade is because their old ones were unfit to be granted safety certificates because of age.Examples of outdated grounds include Southampton at The Dell,Millwall at the Old Den,Derby at the Baseball Ground,Coventry at Highfield Road,Bolton at Burnden Park to name but a handful.If any of our younger posters had visited those dumps they would appreciate the facilities and views from the stands at Carrow Road far more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]

Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.
[/quote]

They must have very understanding rate payers then! I am wondering how they reacted so well to subsidising a premier league football team with all those millions coming in..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.[/quote]

They must have very understanding rate payers then! I am wondering how they reacted so well to subsidising a premier league football team with all those millions coming in..

[/quote]The football club were in League Two at the time. The stadium cost (£44m) was funded by sales of council land surrounding it so there was no cost to council tax payers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]

Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.
[/quote]

They must have very understanding rate payers then! I am wondering how they reacted so well to subsidising a premier league football team with all those millions coming in..

[/quote]

The football club were in League Two at the time. The stadium cost (£44m) was funded by sales of council land surrounding it so there was no cost to council tax payers.
[/quote]

 

Presumably there was in a negative sense, in that the council could have used the proceeds from the land sale to finance non-football public projects or new housing or whatever, or simply to have reduced council tax bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]

Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.
[/quote]

They must have very understanding rate payers then! I am wondering how they reacted so well to subsidising a premier league football team with all those millions coming in..

[/quote]

The football club were in League Two at the time. The stadium cost (£44m) was funded by sales of council land surrounding it so there was no cost to council tax payers.
[/quote]

You make it sound so simplistic Tom, surely in these economic times council land that has been sold off is to ensure that counciil care homes can continue to run,dustbins are emptied,roads are repaired etc unless of course in South Wales things are somewhat rosier than the rest of the UK and the council taxpayers gave it the thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]

Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.
[/quote]

They must have very understanding rate payers then! I am wondering how they reacted so well to subsidising a premier league football team with all those millions coming in..

[/quote]

The football club were in League Two at the time. The stadium cost (£44m) was funded by sales of council land surrounding it so there was no cost to council tax payers.
[/quote]

They''re not in league two now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It seems posters on here always want the opposite to what we have. When we replaced the South Stand and had to commit finance to that and the surrounding costs the feeling on here was that we should have spent all that money on the football team. Now it seems a lot of posters want to take money away from the team to expand the stadium.

There''s only one pot of money and choices have to be made. Stadium expansion, by whatever route, will not pay for itself.

 [/quote]

The Swansea stadium is owned by their local council.They are now looking to increase the capacity to 32,000.

[/quote]

I don''t see the relevance Tom?

[/quote]Their council funded their stadium so it didn''t take money away from the team.[/quote]

They must have very understanding rate payers then! I am wondering how they reacted so well to subsidising a premier league football team with all those millions coming in..

[/quote]The football club were in League Two at the time. The stadium cost (£44m) was funded by sales of council land surrounding it so there was no cost to council tax payers.[/quote]

 

Presumably there was in a negative sense, in that the council could have used the proceeds from the land sale to finance non-football public projects or new housing or whatever, or simply to have reduced council tax bills.

[/quote]Plus they share with Ospreys, so there were many reasons why it happened in Swansea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swansea are just tenants.  They pay annual rent to the local council for occupying the stadium to assist in the maintenance of it and I guess also to keep some of those care homes running.  They cannot raise as much finance against their lease but as Norwich have found out ownership of a ground doesn''t satisfy lenders as there are not many alternative uses for football grounds, only the land is of value.  Both clubs could raise money against future income streams though and this is the key reason why both are seriously considering expansion. 

 

However I think the immediate need for this, which was being prompted byFinancial Fair Play Rules, has gone away given the new Sky deal.  I think expansion of the ground was the right way to go but only if the playing field with the Big 4/5 had been levelled.  The sky money has practically made this impossible for the next few years even with Financial Fair Play.  Unfortunate but that''s life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don''t need a new ground!

 

Carrow Road is ideal in that its close to the train station, walking distance from the City centre, not far from the A47 and can be expanded to as big as we will ever need!

 

One of my pet hates in life is those who think the grass is greener and that we need to change things that don''t need changing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kingsway"]

Don''t need a new ground!

 

Carrow Road is ideal in that its close to the train station, walking distance from the City centre, not far from the A47 and can be expanded to as big as we will ever need!

 

One of my pet hates in life is those who think the grass is greener and that we need to change things that don''t need changing!

[/quote]

 

Spot on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two points worthy of making in relation to the posts on this thread.

Firstly, it should be feasible to re-roof the Barclay and River Ends, with a element of clever engineering, in order to remove the existing pylons. Whether this is cost effective to improve the view of a handful of seats is highly questionable.

Secondly, it strikes me that this desire to be externally debt free is missing a fundamental point. We know that the debt will now be repaid next May and it occurs to me that the existing lenders had a requirement for this to happen before any further monies would be lent to the rebuilding of the City Stand / additional tier for the Jarrold Stand. Does anyone really expect either of these to be financed purely out of Premiership monies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="GMF"]Two points worthy of making in relation to the posts on this thread. Firstly, it should be feasible to re-roof the Barclay and River Ends, with a element of clever engineering, in order to remove the existing pylons. Whether this is cost effective to improve the view of a handful of seats is highly questionable. Secondly, it strikes me that this desire to be externally debt free is missing a fundamental point. We know that the debt will now be repaid next May and it occurs to me that the existing lenders had a requirement for this to happen before any further monies would be lent to the rebuilding of the City Stand / additional tier for the Jarrold Stand. Does anyone really expect either of these to be financed purely out of Premiership monies?[/quote]

 

Hi GMF

 

They must be even if it''s through serving a new debt. And that debt then takes preference over investing on the team. We had no choice with the Jarrold and surrounding area. This time there''s no pressing need.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There certainly is a pressing need to increase capacity at Carrow Road. We have had near sell outs/sell outs for the best part of 10 years now so its obvious we could get bigger crowds with an increased capacity which would give us more funds making us a bigger more attractive club which is something all Norwich fans want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...