Larger capacity

[Bill 1,788]

Blimey, they are all out today. Log in names long forgotten and only now dragged out blinking into the sunset.

 

One a rather strange chap claims the TV money can pay for it, then denies he said that and further adds, when challenhed. that he doesn''y know how it will be funded.

 

I am accused of big ''anti expansionist'' despite my post on the first page stating "I don''t think there''s any City fan who would not want a new stand that fitted in with the rest of the ground" or later " We would all love a new stand that linked up with the Barclay and the River End"

 

But what does accuracy matter when the is a hue and cry on here mot seen since the transfer deadline night or our defeat at Fulham ?

 

There were unsold home seats at Carrow Road this season. If you don''t trust the ticket office then i''m sure your own eyes would have seen them.

 

I am accused of not providing the figures to back my statements, Yet one would imagine that any City fan who regularly read the Pinkun or EDP24 (sports) would be well aware of the club''s statements on this matter. If you can remember a log in from 2008 you should be able to remember this sort of stuff -

 

http://www.inthehandsofthefans.co.uk/Article.aspx?aid=127

 

in which the cost of the seats £2500, the cost of the new stand (8000) is given as £20m,and even the timescale of 18-24 months. Of course both McNally and Bowkett could be lying.  However if you choose to accept they are not lying then I would suggest you ask yourself what he means by "The trade-off is between capacity and price" for there lies the major hurdle.

 

I would therefore suggest the difference is not between some sort of antis and pros, but between the clubs own figures and a bunch of trolls.

 

[Bws Cat 0]

The poster who argued that city1st was a liar who pulled numbers and data out of his arse has been exposed and rumbled. Again, it''s a shame city1st has to do these posts when people should just recognise it on the spot (some do in fairness).

Yet more attacks on posters, and to some extent the club.

[Bill 1,788]

The difference BW is I have to stand by these figures,

 

The ragbag of trolls and malecontents don''t nor of any coment they make, hence their hiding behind little used log in names.

 

Undoubtely they will be back, though most certainly not in any of Nutty Nigel''s quiz''s or any past games recollection threads

 

I wonder why ?

 

 

 

 

[Bws Cat 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

The difference BW is I have to stand by these figures,

 

The ragbag of trolls and malecontents don''t nor of any coment they make, hence their hiding behind little used log in names.

 

Undoubtely they will be back, though most certainly not in any of Nutty Nigel''s quiz''s or any past games recollection threads

 

I wonder why ?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

"Undoubtely they will be back, though most certainly not in any of Nutty Nigel''s quiz''s or any past games recollection threads"

Ooh eer..I never do his quizzes or recollection threads!

Of course they will be back. They always come back after they come up with their "plans". Make a new username, start a controversial "topic" and then attack the club and certain posters.

It is a cycle which cannot be broken I believe but it is always good to cull them by exposing them as what they truly are. They may reproduce like rabbits in the summer but we can try eh?

[Bill 1,788]

To extrapolate a bit further on Bowketts words "The trade-off is between capacity and price."

 

Despite the howls of idiocy seen on here, attendance is very much price determined. Take away the childs discount, the under 21 discount and all the others and the club would lose a fair chunk of it''s attendance. Likewise for every £100 added to a normal priced season ticket there will be drop offs.The trick as said before is to balance all the variables to generate the maximum return.

 

What Bowkett is aware is that to attract the number needed to fill any large new stand would require quite hefty discounts. The club could not rely upon casual sales which will fluctuate wildly between games such as Man Utd and Reading.  As he states "It’s getting a bit expensive". There is not the demand there at the price needed, and any price drop for seats in the new stand would require a comparitive drop across the ground otherwise fans would simply migrate there leaving expensive seats elsewhere - back to square one, so to speak.

 

If a new stand will need to be heavily subsidised from the off, any future down turn would see an even heavier drain on the resources, just when the club is in the least bit able to meet those costs.

 

We are successfully moving forward, moving backwards would be not only a very dangerous step but a totally illogical one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Monty13 2,241]

What I actually said City1st was that extra TV money could HELP pay for the stand, look back through the earlier posts.

When Nutty asked how I thought it could be paid for i said " a mixture of loans, sponsorship and club income and spread the costs as much as possible to avoid impact on the playing budget. Its the only viable way I would have thought."

How can you expect a more detailed answer than that? of course i have no idea how good a finance package NCFC could get and over what term, and who would be prepared to sponsor the stand at what price. No one does, apart from maybe those at Carrow Road who may have been looking at the viability.

By that same token you have absolutely no idea if capacity was to increase what our average attendance would be, neither do I, but for the Board of NCFC to even mention the possibility of an upgrade in capacity they must be pretty sure they can get bums on seats in sufficient numbers. And while season ticket numbers and waiting list numbers would be useful in working out perceived demand they only tell you who wants a season ticket not casuals. While were at it, cup games are irrelevant when looking at casuals. Whether your prepared or not to drive half way across the country and back on a Tuesday night (if you can get off work) to watch Norwich second 11 play Scunthorpe in the cup is not an indication for whether extra seats are needed or not for the PL.

Oh and City1st in that article you refer us to the following quotes are also used from OUR board:

“If there is no major investor we have to make the club self-sustainable and in the Premier League we would have to have35,000,”said McNally.

"City would lose £1.4m in gate income from lost capacity while building work was in progress and it would take nine years to pay back the building cost, he said, adding that they would consider expanding the stadium only after two consecutive years in the Premier League.“ Only then would it be a viable proposition,”

If their talking 9 years to repay back any loan at a 20 million cost plus interest your talking around 2.5 million a year to pay back the stand, thats 500k more a year than we are spending on the Academy.

And I respect your views, but I don''t agree with them, that doesn''t make me a lunatic or a troll.

And i''m sorry Nutty, but I don''t think anyone (even the biggest supporter of expansion) would agree that if Howson became an England regular and we sold him for 20mil that they would be happy with all that money paying for a new stand. If we had someone of that ability and sold them they would need replacing, it would be far more damaging not to than to lose 2 or 3 million a year from the potential player budget imo.

[Monty13 2,241]

City1st your taking Bowketts words and twisting them to your own view. his full quote in the article you have linked us all to read says this:

Bowkett said City were confident there would be an extra 8,000 fans keen to see Premier League football.

“We’ve done a lot of looking at the greater Norwich conurbation and the commuting population,” he said. “About 500,000 people are in commuting distance of Norwich, compared to what, a 150,000 population. There isn’t another club for 50 miles.

There isn’t really another large scale sporting attraction like a rugby club or rugby league club, so we’ve got a captive market. We just have to make it accessible. The trade-off is between capacity and price.

“I’ve had some private conversations this evening with people saying ‘It’s getting a bit expensive, Alan’. And I know it is. There is only so far we can put the price up. And in the current environment when people are paying higher taxes, high inflation, flat salaries, one has to be realistic. “

He is saying they are confident the extra fans are there and they have to make the club accessible, but he is conceding that ticket price will probably drop with an increase in capacity to achieve the numbers.

The bit about it being expensive is what fans are telling him! and in return he concedes there is only so far they can put the price up.

You have took two small bits of entire quotes and tried to use them to justify your own argument.

[Bill 1,788]

Put it simply

 

To increase the attendances, there has to be a price reduction

 

At present the price reduction to ensure 35,000 capacity would have to be so sever that it would wipe out almost all the ''extra'' income. That assumes a capacity crowd EVERY game. Nine years is a long while in football. Nine years ago we were still in the second tier, having not even gone up to the PL for that one season. Check the attendances then. And then ask yourself if the steady increase was due to wnders on the pitch or very astute ticket price setting off the pitch. We are at almost maximum sales for the prices being charged.

 

It is a backward move to think the club can continue subsidising fans, irrespective of where you think the money should come from.

 

You can post up every moral, social or worthy cause argument you wish but until you can demonstrate how that hurdle can be over come then you are still in dreamland.

 

 

[Monty13 2,241]

"To increase the attendances, there has to be a price reduction" I''m not disputing this Bowkett has pretty much said it point blank in that article.

"At present the price reduction to ensure 35,000 capacity would have to be so sever that it would wipe out almost all the ''extra'' income." I am disputing this, where do you possibly have conclusive proof of this?? That makes absolutely no sense by retail terms. If you sell a lot more of something but do not increase your profit margin you are a crap businessmen. Bowkett and McNally do not strike me as such and certainly wouldn''t build a new stand to lose money.

"We are at almost maximum sales for the prices being charged." spot on, so the only way to make more money is to increase capacity. you can''t charge more, people wont pay it and you can only create more money by dropping prices and selling more, and you have to have the extra capacity to do so.

9 years is not a long time in football, your pointing us to quizes about 1970''s players (I wasn''t born sorry) so your all living proof of the fact that 9 years has flown by and the club is still here, it will still be here in 9 years time and could be here in 9 years time debt free with a stadium to match is support and ambition.

The club only subsidises pensioners and children and still makes money from them, we buy shirts and other tat from the shop, match programmes, food and drink on the day and all of those paying for sky sports are pushing that TV deal up. But in terms of gates the only club that subsidises its fans is one that makes an overall loss on its ticket sales, last time I checked we don''t do that.

[Monty13 2,241]

*won''t do that sorry.

[nutty nigel 7,563]

[quote user="Monty13"] And i''m sorry Nutty, but I don''t think anyone (even the biggest supporter of expansion) would agree that if Howson became an England regular and we sold him for 20mil that they would be happy with all that money paying for a new stand. If we had someone of that ability and sold them they would need replacing, it would be far more damaging not to than to lose 2 or 3 million a year from the potential player budget imo.[/quote]

Monty, I can only tell you what I have seen happen.

 

In 1980 we opened the new riverend stand and sold Kevin Reeves. I think the stand cost 1.7m and Reeves was sold for 1m. In 1981 we were relegated and the following season we suffered huge financial problems but just managed to get promoted on the back of a late run from March onwards toget us 3rd place by a single point. There were no play offs back then.

 

In 1992 the Barclay stand was rebuilt followed by two corner infill stands and in 1994 the training complex at Colney. What followed was a catastrophe on the pitch with relegation and the sale of all our players who had any great value. Some of them under the supervision of the banks. It took us 10 years to recover and get back to the top division.

 

Then in 2004 amidst all the celebrations of getting back to the promised land we opened the new Jarrold stand. What followed was relegation, more debt and the sale of valuable players. This time we ended up in league one before we recovered to regain top flight status in 2011.

 

Now the point I would like to make is that all those rebuilds were pretty much forced upon us. This time we would choose to do it. What makes you think the result would be any different?

 

Probably the least painful of all those was the riverend and the sale of Kevin Reeves. Which brings me to the conclusion that if we could get 20m for Howson or whoever it could be the least painful way this time. But is it seriously worth the risk? Only the club can decide that and as I think Purple said recently it is likely to be the biggest decision this board ever make.

 

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

[quote user="Monty13"]City1st your taking Bowketts words and twisting them to your own view. his full quote in the article you have linked us all to read says this: Bowkett said City were confident there would be an extra 8,000 fans keen to see Premier League football. “We’ve done a lot of looking at the greater Norwich conurbation and the commuting population,” he said. “About 500,000 people are in commuting distance of Norwich, compared to what, a 150,000 population. There isn’t another club for 50 miles. There isn’t really another large scale sporting attraction like a rugby club or rugby league club, so we’ve got a captive market. We just have to make it accessible. The trade-off is between capacity and price. “I’ve had some private conversations this evening with people saying ‘It’s getting a bit expensive, Alan’. And I know it is. There is only so far we can put the price up. And in the current environment when people are paying higher taxes, high inflation, flat salaries, one has to be realistic. “ He is saying they are confident the extra fans are there and they have to make the club accessible, but he is conceding that ticket price will probably drop with an increase in capacity to achieve the numbers. The bit about it being expensive is what fans are telling him! and in return he concedes there is only so far they can put the price up. You have took two small bits of entire quotes and tried to use them to justify your own argument.[/quote]

 

Monty, a few points:

1. Those upbeat comments from Bowkett were at the AGM in January 2011. It is possible there has been a change of attitude since then. But if so nothing has been said publicly. And certainly at that time, as quotes there show, he and McNally were bullish about stadium expansion; confident there would be 8,000 extra fans. Not only that but McNally effectively outlined a business plan based on filling a 35,000-seat stadium:

“We have to stand on our own two feet. In order to do that in the Premier League we would need a capacity of around 35,000.” That has to mean using virtually all of capacity most if not all of the time. You don''t formulate a football business plan based on vastly increasing capacity and then not using it.

2. As to whether Bowkett does accept that prices will have to come down to increase attendances, I''m not at all sure he does. What he talks about is not raising prices much more. A different thing:

“I’ve had some private conversations this evening with people saying ‘It’s getting a bit expensive, Alan’. And I know it is. There is only so far we can put the price up."

[Bill 1,788]

You don''t seem to quite grasp this do you ?

 

"if you sell a lot more of something but do not increase your profit margin you are a crap businessmen. Bowkett and McNally do not strike me as such and certainly wouldn''t build a new stand to lose money. 

You have answered your own question

 

"We are at almost maximum sales for the prices being charged." spot on, so the only way to make more money is to increase capacity. you can''t charge more, people wont pay it and you can only create more money by dropping prices and selling more, and you have to have the extra capacity to do so.

I suggest you look up the law of dimishing returns. Also read what was posted above. You cannot simply drop the price in the new stand to stimulate more sales, without having to drop the price across the ground. The situation is bluntly that at say £40 a ticket we sell 20k (tickets), at £30 we sell 25k at £20 we sell 30k. However unlike other areas prices have to remain the same across the board.  To attract another 3000 ticket sales any drop would have to be done elsewhere, pretty much negating any revenue generation.

 

"But in terms of gates the only club that subsidises its fans is one that makes an overall loss on its ticket sales, last time I checked we don''t do that"

 

Absolute nonsense ! Almost all of the childs concession tickets could be sold on a casual basis at a far higher price then they are currently selling - because PL has increased the demand for certain games. The club is unable to refuse to renew tickets on the basis of age. The club has kept prices far lower than other comparative clubs in order to not so much fill the ground, but more importantly give a more certain income stream, rather than the previous fluctuations of casual ticket sales.

 

The key question is how much lower will prices have to fall to continue with that certainty of income ie full capacity via season ticket sales. The suggestion is that it will have to be much lower than it is now, which will have a downward drag affect on the rest of prices. In that light it is unlikely that the new stand will pay for itself in the medium term. I don''t think any genuine supporter would welcome the club NOT factoring in the impact of regulation, in both attendances and income. We can sell players, we cannot sell a debt.

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Much of this assumes a build cost of 2,500 per seat. And I wonder if this figure is in reality much more than a guesstimate. [^o)]

 

Assuming there are various ways of building an 8,000 seater stand there will be a set of different seat costs; maybe ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 quid each. [:O]

 

Now work through a figure of 1,800 say and then factor in the possibility of phasing the project..........the covering of the old south stand was phased............and suddenly other cost scenarios open up......[:D]

 

But then SmithsBowkettMcNally are thinking on these things............on our behalf and without the benefit of consultaions with an nCIsA or any stillborn progeny. [:(]

 

[;)]

 

One love.

 

OTBC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[the bristol nest 0]

Unless City 1st is on the board, he is only expressing an opinion which may or may not have merit. However entrenched the views on this subject appear, they have no relevance to the outcome.

Time to calm down.

[chicken 0]

@Nutty - I think that a comparison to the ''80''s or even early ''90''s could be a bit retro-based in terms of situation.

There wasn''t a lot of money around back then, less so than now even. I see we are meant to be in a double dip recession but my memory of the recession in the ''80''s was mothers selling their kids bikes to get money for food shopping etc.

One of the differences is that the club is now profit making - where as in the past it has been borderline, it is now making a clear profit (unless I have miss-understood the anual reports recently).

Also with the amount of dosh in the prem I can see that we wouldn''t need to sell a player to afford a stand expansion.

Supposedly next season being in the prem will be worth £50million-ish. Obviously the club will like to invest some of that cash into further long term profit making projects but what would a new stand cost?

If you consider our debts prior to promotion and having paid them off over two seasons that money will then be available next season with the debts having been paid off.

I also get what City1st is saying but if a 30-35k seater stadium was not viable then I am pretty sure that the board wouldn''t do it. Also look at nearly every single other team in the prem - a large chunk of them have 30k seater stadiums plus. Again if it wasn''t viable they wouldn''t have made that step up either.

Swansea are reportedly going to spend £15million to expand their stadium by 12,000 seats to 32k. I would suggest that represents more of a risk for them than it does for us - and yet they have also deemed it to be viable.

There is an element of risk, but then there is with everything. Arguably a £7million signing is just as big a risk as a £7million stadium expansion. The fans will likely turn up, but if the signing fails to adapt to the team/football level or becomes long term injured the money is wasted.

[nutty nigel 7,563]

Lessons from the past are still lessons from the past Chicken. The times were different in the eighties, different in the nineties, and different again in the noughties. But the result was the same in that a new stand brought on a relegation and financial hardship. Why should it be different now? I''m not saying it won''t be, just asking the question. The way I see it in all cases taking money away from the team to pay for [:-*]tangible fixed assets[:-*] has had the same result. And I can''t see it being different just because we have a bigger income because whether the income is pretty much just gate receipts as in the eighties, or 50m SKY money as now, it all has to be used in an attempt to keep up with the wealthier clubs.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Monty13"] And i''m sorry Nutty, but I don''t think anyone (even the biggest supporter of expansion) would agree that if Howson became an England regular and we sold him for 20mil that they would be happy with all that money paying for a new stand. If we had someone of that ability and sold them they would need replacing, it would be far more damaging not to than to lose 2 or 3 million a year from the potential player budget imo.[/quote]

Monty, I can only tell you what I have seen happen.

 

In 1980 we opened the new riverend stand and sold Kevin Reeves. I think the stand cost 1.7m and Reeves was sold for 1m. In 1981 we were relegated and the following season we suffered huge financial problems but just managed to get promoted on the back of a late run from March onwards toget us 3rd place by a single point. There were no play offs back then.

 

In 1992 the Barclay stand was rebuilt followed by two corner infill stands and in 1994 the training complex at Colney. What followed was a catastrophe on the pitch with relegation and the sale of all our players who had any great value. Some of them under the supervision of the banks. It took us 10 years to recover and get back to the top division.

 

Then in 2004 amidst all the celebrations of getting back to the promised land we opened the new Jarrold stand. What followed was relegation, more debt and the sale of valuable players. This time we ended up in league one before we recovered to regain top flight status in 2011.

 

Now the point I would like to make is that all those rebuilds were pretty much forced upon us. This time we would choose to do it. What makes you think the result would be any different?

 

Probably the least painful of all those was the riverend and the sale of Kevin Reeves. Which brings me to the conclusion that if we could get 20m for Howson or whoever it could be the least painful way this time. But is it seriously worth the risk? Only the club can decide that and as I think Purple said recently it is likely to be the biggest decision this board ever make.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Oh, I say loads of things, nutty![;)] But actually I put it more strongly. I think the question of to expand or not to  expand is the most complex decisison that has ever faced the club. Not just this board. I cannot think of anything in the past remotely as difficult, given all the variables and unknowns involved. Only the question of post-Smith and Jones ownership might be a contender, when that comes along.

[Monty13 2,241]

City1st I totally understand the laws of diminishing returns, however you are choosing to completely disregard one of the factors which is demand.

There is currently demand for extra tickets and no way to facilitate it, your scenario where the club makes no money would only apply if there was no demand for 1 extra ticket at current pricing. If there were 8000 extra seats all those on the season ticket waiting list could have a season ticket and those who wanted casuals and were unable to get them could have casual ticket tickets.

Yes there is a suggestion that at current pricing for some games there may not be the demand to fill the stadium. This would mean that for those games pricing of casuals would have to drop to fill the stadium. But at the minute category A+ A and B price for adult tickets (which nearly all PL games are) are 43-58 pounds for members.

Doing some very quick estimates, even if the tickets for casuals dropped from these prices significantly, lets say they averaged over the year 35 pounds (compared to 31 a game for a ST holder which remained the same) and that ncfc sold on average only 4000 (half of the extra tickets) that would mean that the club made an extra (35x4000x19 games) 2.66 million in casual sales a year purely on PL games.

I have been uber conservative with figures here both assuming we come nowhere near filling the stadium and that we drop casuals by nearly half and yet we would still make enough money to cover the loan amount per year that Mcnally was suggesting when he said it would take 9 years to pay off. Of course we would drop revenue while being built and wouldn''t have that new revenue till it was, that is the hard part. But in the LONG TERM the Stand isn''t a subsidy for supporters its a money spinner. The board are businessmen they no this, thats why they are considering it but it is not a short term win, its about the clubs future.

"The club has kept prices far lower than other comparative clubs in order to not so much fill the ground" really, well our cheapest season tickets are the 6th most expensive in the league and that covers by far the vast amount of ticketed seats in the ground. And its cheaper to go to casual game at Stoke, AV, Sunderland, Everton, West Brom and Wigan and almost exactly the same prices as casuals at old trafford. How exactly are we far lower? check the figures.

[Steady On... 0]

He doesn''t care about demand. As long as him and the rest of the old boys are alright then what''s the problem? We expand or lose out basically, it''s an investment in the future of the club and it''s happening.

[Monty13 2,241]

Purple I completely agree, the comments are old but the club have not doused the flames of stadium expansion, the fact that they would only consider it after 2 consecutive years in the premiership means unless we do that there is little point in them publicly continuing to talk about expansion until after that is secured.

My take on it was from the comment "The trade-off is between capacity and price" I think that''s a public admission that price might fall to ensure they fill any new capacity, but I also agree the other comment is relative to where we are now and that they can''t put prices up much more. But both are pointing towards expansion as the only way to increase ticket revenue.

[Felixfan 53]

You also need to factor in the average spend per extra spectator.

[Bill 1,788]

Monty

 

you are completely missing the point

 

firstly demand - that is generated by PL football - even there it is not fixed, as home tickets last season were not sold out, the demand is also artificial by there being a very large number of subsidised season tickets, a hangover from League 1 when we were not expecting to be in the PL, price those tickets accordingly and club figures have shown that the drop off rate would be very high, possibly enough to meet demand

it should also be borne in mind that demand is price sensitive ie £10 casual ticket for Man Utd at home and the demand would be in excess of 10,000, £200 a casual ticket and the demand would be in the hundreds, so

 

try and grasp this - to generate enough season ticket sales to gaurantee a certainty of income the price would have to drop considerably (season ticket waiting list is not as high as some imagine), those price drops would have to be across the board, add in the fluctuation of casual ticket sales and you are looking at a neutral income level

 

fine if we remain in the PL and can afford to subsidise the project, but a massive burden if we lose the extra £30m

 

there are NOT 8000 people out there (or anywhere near remotely that figure) willing to pay the same or a higher price for tickets - bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but until you can make them cough up more your fantasy will remain that, a fantasy

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,298]

RECESSION!? WHAT RECESSION!?.......Out in the city last night people spending dosh hand over fist......Mind you, I wonder how many of these spendy folk are actually gamefully employed....?

 

 

[Bws Cat 0]

Mello have you been living under a rock for the past....

120 years?

[SeniorCanary 0]

I''ve just read through this thread...how can some of you make statements claiming fact.....ncfc won''t blindly decide to increase capacity with a new stand without carefull consideration..demand...cost...future returns

Have faith...i think as the teams performances have improved the ''Moaners'' have turned their attention to the running of the club....

Climb back under your rocks.......MOANERS

[Mello Yello 2,298]

BW''s Cat (who''s also City 1st) said.....

 

Mello have you been living under a rock for the past.... 120 years?

 

Bugga me.....a talking cat!

[nutty nigel 7,563]

 

Great post CarrowCanary..

 

What would you like to see discussed on here[:^)]

 

[Bws Cat 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

BW''s Cat (who''s also City 1st) said.....

 

Mello have you been living under a rock for the past.... 120 years?

 

Bugga me.....a talking cat!

[/quote]

Im city1st?

When did this happen?

[Bill 1,788]

perhaps he thinks I''m you

 

not to worry

 

there are many on here who are confused

 

some even believe we think they are City fans