Larger capacity

[SeniorCanary 0]

Build the new stand...........they will come........

[andyc24_uk 59]

This season, as far as I am aware, we''re spending 20m of the TV money on clearing all our debt. This has still left us with a decent transfer budget. So, given that next season we will be receiving even more money from TV revenue, surely we could earmark 20m of that for the construction of a new stand - therefore not requiring a loan at all - and still have a slightly larger sum to spend on transfers?

In terms of lost revenue/seats from closing down the City Stand - Why does it need to be closed for an entire season? There are companies in China and the Middle East who can - and have - built entire skyscrapers in a matter of weeks. If we contracted the job to one of them and had them work 24/7, there''s no reason at all that a new stand couldn''t be completed fro scratch in the off-season. It would take a local construction firm months to build a new stand, as they simply don''t have the manpower and resources to do it - but there are companies out there in the wider world who could easily construct a stand between May and mid-August.

[Bill 1,788]

"as 2.4m would only need 8000 seats at 300 per seat or 10 tickets at 30 quid."

 

It doesn''t work that way, otherwise why is the rest of the ground not working to those figures ?

 

"Loan could be secured on the guaranteed future TV money"

 

Firstly there is no guarantee that TV money will continue at this level for the next ten years plus. But more importantly there is even less guarantee that we will qualify for TV money by staying in the Premier League

 

" help to generate extra revenue "

 

And there is the flaw. As it stands this ''revenue'' is either a relatively small loss, a medium loss or a rather large loss. That is why then club is ''dragging it''s heels'' over this. It knows the figures and they point to the middle possibility as most likely.

 

Other grounds have been developed as we did with the South Stand when they were deemed not fit for purpose.

 

Times have moved on. As a percentage gate money is a minimal income to the club in the Premier League. Prize money and TV money are paid out the same, irrespective of how big the ground is or what the attendances are.

 

We would all love a new stand that linked up with the Barclay and the River End, but the days of terracing, smoking and drinking while watching the game are gone.

 

They won''t be coming back.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I have my doubts about whether we would regularly fill an increased capacity stadium. There are certainly games for which we could sell out 50,000 seats. But equally if we had a 35,000 capacity there would be games with thousands of empty seats. But for me this isn''t the issue. The issue for me is one of finance. And the stark choices that have to be made. We could sell players to pay for the stand up front. Or we could reduce the managers football budget which would probably cause us to sell players later. I''m not doom mongering. Just looking back to past examples from when we sold Kevin Reeves to when we sold Dean Ashton.

 

 

 

[Jonzey 0]

Am I living in a fantasy land by suggesting if we stay up this season and plans are drawn up to expand the stadium next year, and given the vastly increased income the Premier League clubs will enjoy, plus the financial fair play rules being more vigorously enforced leading to a more level playing field, then maybe ticket prices will be reduced by all clubs thereby ensuring our nice new 35,000 seater stadium will be packed every week?

 

Or will agents and players just get paid yet more vastly inflated sums?

 

I suppose it is a ridiculous dream to suggest increased TV money might encourage clubs to reduce match day costs to supporters. But why not?!

[Bill 1,788]

"This season, as far as I am aware, we''re spending 20m of the TV money on clearing all our debt"

 

Incorrect. It was neither £20m nor are we paying it all off in one go.

 

"There are companies in China and the Middle East who can - and have - built entire skyscrapers in a matter of weeks"

 

of course there are

 

 

As to the wish of they will come that doesn''t address the problem that a full stadium may well not even cover the costs of it''s construction. What happens if they don''t all come. Sell a couple of players ?

 

 

[Rolf Harris 31]

you would easily be able to create a new stand in the close season, with the right contractors. But that depends on foundations of the current stand and ect.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="andyc24_uk"]This season, as far as I am aware, we''re spending 20m of the TV money on clearing all our debt. This has still left us with a decent transfer budget. So, given that next season we will be receiving even more money from TV revenue, surely we could earmark 20m of that for the construction of a new stand - therefore not requiring a loan at all - and still have a slightly larger sum to spend on transfers? In terms of lost revenue/seats from closing down the City Stand - Why does it need to be closed for an entire season? There are companies in China and the Middle East who can - and have - built entire skyscrapers in a matter of weeks. If we contracted the job to one of them and had them work 24/7, there''s no reason at all that a new stand couldn''t be completed fro scratch in the off-season. It would take a local construction firm months to build a new stand, as they simply don''t have the manpower and resources to do it - but there are companies out there in the wider world who could easily construct a stand between May and mid-August.[/quote]

 

I doubt it is quite that much. It depends how much interest there is still to pay, but in terms of capital, according to the last accounts, it was around £13m of hard debt that was outstanding. And not all of that has to be paid off this season. We have until October 31, 2013, to repay some of it.

[Bill 1,788]

"then maybe ticket prices will be reduced by all clubs thereby ensuring our nice new 35,000 seater stadium will be packed every week?"

 

Unfortunately it would not then be feasible.

 

To cover the cost of building the new stand prices will actually have to go up - with the hope that every game is a sellout.

 

We need to look forward, not cling to the past. As stated, Premier League status and consequent prize money are determined by what goes on the pitch - NOT how many are watching.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonzey 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

As to the wish of they will come that doesn''t address the problem that a full stadium may well not even cover the costs of it''s construction. What happens if they don''t all come. Sell a couple of players ?

[/quote]

 

Figures suggest the demand for tickets over the past five to ten years has increased mostly every year, and given the amount of City fans who I know would go if the right tickets were available on match days I can''t see this being a problem. I sincerely think we''d sell out a 30k plus stadium every week right now if the capacity was there. The only reason capacity isn''t reached every week is because of the away fans allocation, the stadium is always 95% full at least for league games. Plus Carrow Road was even sold out in League 1, we have no problem with the fanbase.

 

Given this, the money men I''m sure would do their sums correctly based on previous trends to make sure an expanded stadium is economically viable.

[andyc24_uk 59]

In which case I stand corrected... however I think the point still stands to some degree - Given that we''ll be receiving 60-70m or more for TV rights, surely some of that can be used to fund a new stand without adversely affecting the playing budget, thus requiring a much smaller loan than being talked about here?

City1st, I''m not entirely sure whether your ''of course there are'' comment was meant in agreement or sarcasm - If it was meant in disbelief, you might want to watch this... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/30-story-hotel-built-15-days_n_1194397.html

[Jonzey 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

"then maybe ticket prices will be reduced by all clubs thereby ensuring our nice new 35,000 seater stadium will be packed every week?"

 

Unfortunately it would not then be feasible.

 

To cover the cost of building the new stand prices will actually have to go up - with the hope that every game is a sellout.

 

We need to look forward, not cling to the past. As stated, Premier League status and consequent prize money are determined by what goes on the pitch - NOT how many are watching.

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

I''ve always been an extreme optimist City1st. Unfortunately I work in finance and understand how the balance sheet at Carrow Road works, but it doesn''t stop me dreaming that maybe the football clubs will work together one day to make things more affordable to the common working man. It is possible, but in a world dominated by extreme greed those who have it will always want more!

[T 190]

The rest of the ground does not work that way but you just have to look at the incremental revenue fronm the additional seats. This is the basis for finance decisions.

TV money is secured for the next four years including parachute payments so could be secured on this money.

Extra revenue means you not only get gate receipts but extra cash from catering and mercahdise

The reason the club is delaying is that it makes sense if you stay up but not if you get relegated so you have to be reasonably confident the club will stay up before investing. This maeans waiting until we have developed are squad first which was done last year and this year

[Bill 1,788]

"Figures suggest the demand for tickets over the past five to ten years has increased mostly every year"

 

that''s by keeping prices very low ie kids season tickets at £60, that''s why the overall gate money is very low - £7m, keeping that pricing model would mean that there is not the income to pay for the cost of the stadium, nevermind the view that actually prices might have to be reduced further to stimulate more demand

 

"The only reason capacity isn''t reached every week "

 

There have been PL games where we have not sold out home tickets. Take a look at cup games to see the demand, even with vastly reduced prices.

 

"the money men I''m sure would do their sums "

 

They have, that''s why there is this reluctance to take money away from the playing budget to subsidise this.

 

Unfortunately the club can earn MORE finishing two places higher in the table than they would by filling a new stand every game (even assuming there were NO repayments !). That''s not my wish, but it is how things are. We either deal with that or continue to hark back to the past - and as someone who had many memorable games in packed crowds I would dearly love for the game to be like that still, but we are where we are and need to face reality.

 

Those days are long gone.

 

 

[Monty13 2,229]

Coming to this argument late, and its one that has raged on here many times before and will continue to over and over I suspect, but there are three points that I would like to make if people care to answer.

However we build/finance new seats they will always eventually create new investment to the club. A stand is going to be there a lot longer than it takes to pay for it, building a new stand has to be taken with a long term (10+ years) future in mind for the club. Surely the Barclay has paid for itself many times over (It apparently cost 2.8 million to build)? And the Jarrold is getting to the point where the club is making a return on its outlay.

To say that the TV money makes Ticket revenue irrelevant is bizarre. Businesses will always look at every means possible to generate income, just because Ticket revenue is say around 10% of total income doesn''t mean that that 10% shouldn''t be increased. Otherwise the club would never increase the price of beer and pies or replica shirts as the revenue from them is insignificant in comparison. Whats more the size of TV revenue is no more guaranteed in the long term than level of attendance is (ITV digital anyone? not to mention what if we get relegated).

To say that increasing capacity is living in the past is a bit short sighted. Increasing capacity isn''t about the here and now of one transfer budget to the next. Its about growing the club, bringing new (glory apparently) supporters especially the younger audience who are the supporters of the future. If there is no space to get these kids in so they fall in love with the club like we all do then they wont support us, why not just support Man U/City as they have as much chance of getting a ticket and they win things.

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Jonzey"][quote user="City1st"]

As to the wish of they will come that doesn''t address the problem that a full stadium may well not even cover the costs of it''s construction. What happens if they don''t all come. Sell a couple of players ?

[/quote]

 

Figures suggest the demand for tickets over the past five to ten years has increased mostly every year, and given the amount of City fans who I know would go if the right tickets were available on match days I can''t see this being a problem. I sincerely think we''d sell out a 30k plus stadium every week right now if the capacity was there. The only reason capacity isn''t reached every week is because of the away fans allocation, the stadium is always 95% full at least for league games. Plus Carrow Road was even sold out in League 1, we have no problem with the fanbase.

 

Given this, the money men I''m sure would do their sums correctly based on previous trends to make sure an expanded stadium is economically viable.

[/quote]If you look at our attendances historically you will see that there are periods when football is fashionable and periods when it isn''t. The past 10 years has been remarkable for the consistency of big gates but that still doesn''t guarantee that things will remain that way.In the late 50''s early 60''s our average was in the low 20k+''s but slumped to just over 13k in 70/71. It jumped back to the low 20k''s again on promotion to Division 1 and remained there until the end of the decade. During the 80''s to the mid nineties when we were mostly Division 1 (and later Prem), we only broke 18k twice in 16 seasons. In fact in the 20 seasons from 1980 to 2000 the average gate was under 16k for 50% of that time.I don''t know what should be so different about the last 10 seasons (Norfolk has not doubled its population in that time) but somehow we have increased our average gate by about 70%. Other areas of the South East and East Anglia have seen increases in population but where are the bigger gates at Ipswich, Colchester, Peterboro etc that reflect this?The big jump in our average gate in recent years has not been fully analised or explained. Personally I am with Nutty Nigel on this one, there is absolutely no guarantee that we would maintain full houses forever and the idea that we would fully utilise a 35k capacity is just not born out by the facts.

[Bill 1,788]

You overlook the points that the other stands were replaced as they were no longer fit for purpose NOT that they could generate more income.

 

I did not say "TV money makes Ticket revenue irrelevant ", that is your take. My point was that use of available money. may generate a higher return on the pitch than off it. Likwise " increasing capacity is living in the past"  is not my view. It is that you can generate more money by increasing the capacity than you can by investing on the pitch. Quite different.

 

The major flaw in this is that there is the presumption that by simply building the stand we will fill it. To talk of young fans being put off, where were the young fans when we were getting crowds of 14/15.000. The simple answer is that we have structured the pricing so it is affordable.

 

That pricing structure WILL NOT pay for a new stand. That is as simple as that. At £2500 a seat construction costs how long will it take for a kids season ticket of £60 to pay off that sum ? It won''t come anywhere near paying off the interest.

 

But this debate will continue as long this is clung onto "just because Ticket revenue is say around 10% of total income doesn''t mean that that 10% shouldn''t be increased" It cannot be increased without increasing ticket prices. Because as it stands those prices WILL NOT pay for the stand. Any price increase will chock off demand. Without the stand being sold out it will lose even more money that presently projected.

 

A loss maker is a loss maker, how ever much you want to spin it.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

"The big jump in our average gate in recent years has not been fully analised or explained. "

 

It has, by the marketing team.

 

The club has worked very hard at seting to price to allow for maximum return from maximum ticket sales. It''s called ''cross price elasticity'' ie 20,000 tickets @ £30 = £600,000,  10,000 tickets @£60 =  £600,000. That''s why there are umpteen ticket prices around the ground relating to age, family group, seatig position etc

 

The trick is to jiggle those variables to allow for best return. The club has, but is acutely aware that to stimulate more demand (sell more tickets) it will have to lower the price. Unfortunately that cannot be done without lowering the price across the board - which may negate any increase in attendance.

 

The idea that there are another 8000 fans out there willing to pay top price is not shown anywhere. The prices needing to be charged will not pay for the stand.

 

And were relegation to happen there would be far less money to bail this project out.

 

We need to look forward, not back.

 

 

[ellis206 0]

By the end of this season, we would have paid off our debt of around 18 million or whatever it was, meaning, if we stay up, we will be 9 million a season or so better off because the debt has gone and that''s before the extra tv revenue. So the stand is affordable and needed, we need to branch out to as many people as possible, especially the young generation, at the moment its impossible for people to attend matches.

[Monty13 2,229]

"You overlook the points that the other stands were replaced as they were no longer fit for purpose NOT that they could generate more income."

I didn''t overlook it, its irrelevant to the point i was trying to make, whether they had to be built or not the stands have, and new stands will over their lifetime, pay for themselves many times over, but will of course cost revenue in the short term. Any business that expands takes on extra short term costs for long term gain.

"The major flaw in this is that there is the presumption that by simply building the stand we will fill it. To talk of young fans being put off, where were the young fans when we were getting crowds of 14/15.000. The simple answer is that we have structured the pricing so it is affordable."

It is a presumption to assume you will fill it i do not disagree, but at the minute the signs are we will definitely generate increased ticket sales especially for high profile matches, other than that a club needs to work hard to fill those seats with promotions and marketing. It is not a case of, as someone else put it, "build and they will come" maybe initially but not long term.

"where were the young fans when we were getting crowds of 14/15.000"

Well i was one in the early 90''s getting my ticket for a quid and now I''m a lifetime fan, I have a big group of friends from that time who i used to go with who are also big city fans. Its not a mystery why we have bigger crowds now, we sowed the seeds when attendance was low.

"At £2500 a seat construction costs how long will it take for a kids season ticket of £60 to pay off that sum ? It won''t come anywhere near paying off the interest."

Your being very shorttermist, not every seat will be taken by a kid! thats not what i meant. But you are right that kid wont pay off a seat over ten years but if like you he comes to norwich every week for the rest of his life (buys kits, programmes, food, asks for city tat for xmas!) the club have made a fortune back on their investment in that kid.

"It cannot be increased without increasing ticket prices. Because as it stands those prices WILL NOT pay for the stand. Any price increase will chock off demand."

Why would you increase ticket prices? if anything if the stand wasn''t filled you would lower them to encourage it to be so. Tickets will pay for the stand just not immediately, the club will exist for many years to come and so would a new stand, while the immediate impact is a loss in revenue the long term big picture is an increase once the cost is paid.

"It is that you can generate more money by increasing the capacity than you can by investing on the pitch. Quite different."

I presume you mean can''t but again i disagree, we finished 12th last year and presumably will invest somewhere between 15-20 million in the squad this year based on last years spending. How many places higher than 12th are you expecting us to finish? Because i am not. You cannot legislate for our finishing position based on purely squad spending, there are far too many other variables. Investing in the squad will hopefully keep us in the league, every penny extra on position is a bonus imo.

[Bill 1,788]

"So the stand is affordable"

 

only, as you say, by using money from elsewhere, not by paying for itself

 

which means the playing side will be subsidising the stand

 

more so if as you say the younger generation, who will require even more subsidising

 

a very dangerous path to tread

 

 

[Dubai Mark 0]

Monty13 I feel clearly has the best handle on this topic. For me, the key and crucial point is the final point is "growing the club", and as we are not one of the big global names of The Premier League it is unlikely we will grow it simply by our involvement in the league. Norwich City Football Club simply HAS to grow primarily through the expansion of it''s local support and that WILL NOT happen if those wanting to be part of the club cannot buy a ticket which is mostly the case currently and has been for a few seasons (I know being an ex pat just how challenging getting a ticket can be). The future, that is the long term future of our club will be shaped by what actions are taken now and in the coming next two or three seasons to encourage others to support the team and enable them to go and see the team play, as a result of this it just has to be the club''s No.1 priority to expand the stadium sooner rather than later. Any multi million investment like this will always have a very long term direct ROI, but long term it will pay for itself several times over, in addition of course the risk will always be their too, but the risk must of course be protected as much as possible but still be taken. It''s clear that Carrow Road needs to be expanded, probably by no more than 5-7,000 to enable the club to grow it''s LONG TERM supporter base...a "no brainer" really..

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Monty13"]

Why would you increase ticket prices? if anything if the stand wasn''t filled you would lower them to encourage it to be so. Tickets will pay for the stand just not immediately, the club will exist for many years to come and so would a new stand, while the immediate impact is a loss in revenue the long term big picture is an increase once the cost is paid. [/quote]

Brownonomics, where did that get us?

[Monty13 2,229]

Haha, so in all of that post the only thing you decided to pick up on is that some of our yearly budget (what is it likely to be if we stay up next year? Maybe as much as 90 million overall with the new TV deal?) might be needed to subsidise the project. I didn''t see too many moaning when we invested in the academy status at 2 million a year, where do people think that money is coming out of? The stand will pay for itself over its lifetime many times, again your twisting words, just not as quickly as you want it to.

The reason this debate always falters is because is it is actually an argument for the haves vs the have nots. Another irony considering how many self proclaimed socialists inhabit this board!

Those that have a season ticket see no reason that their enjoyment should be interrupted in anyway so that those that don''t can be there to see city as well. Whether that means being moved for a few months or any potential reduction in the playing budget.

At 20 million to build a new stand this could be done easily if properly financed and sponsored and with minimal detraction to the playing budget. And with revenue from TV increasing next year setting aside a small proportion of that extra revenue to help pay for a new stand would be looking to the future imo.

[Monty13 2,229]

"Brownonomics, where did that get us?"

I don''t think NCFC is trying to stimulate growth through borrowing are we Ricardo. If anything Football economics is so far reserved from the real world a valid comparison can''t be made.

As someone in the armed forces now paying for years of money being borrowed for projects we could never afford i can assure you I don''t buy into the stimulation of growth through borrowing!

However when we get given vast swathes of TV money each year throwing every single penny of that at new signings in the gamble that you stay up is not a smart long term approach for me. Hence why i agree with the academy and want to see the stadium expanded. The club should grow, the current financial premiership thinking may keep us up but only to stagnate as a club.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Monty, what would you use to finance increasing capacity?

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="andyc24_uk"]This season, as far as I am aware, we''re spending 20m of the TV money on clearing all our debt. This has still left us with a decent transfer budget. So, given that next season we will be receiving even more money from TV revenue, surely we could earmark 20m of that for the construction of a new stand - therefore not requiring a loan at all - and still have a slightly larger sum to spend on transfers? In terms of lost revenue/seats from closing down the City Stand - Why does it need to be closed for an entire season? There are companies in China and the Middle East who can - and have - built entire skyscrapers in a matter of weeks. If we contracted the job to one of them and had them work 24/7, there''s no reason at all that a new stand couldn''t be completed fro scratch in the off-season. It would take a local construction firm months to build a new stand, as they simply don''t have the manpower and resources to do it - but there are companies out there in the wider world who could easily construct a stand between May and mid-August.[/quote]

 

I doubt it is quite that much. It depends how much interest there is still to pay, but in terms of capital, according to the last accounts, it was around £13m of hard debt that was outstanding. And not all of that has to be paid off this season. We have until October 31, 2013, to repay some of it.

[/quote]

 

Just to be clear that figure of around £13m is for the end of the 2010-11 season. It doesn''t include any debt repaid last season, let alone any being repaid this season.

As an agnostic on ground expansion a major problem is that there apparently isn''t a halfway house solution here, adding 3,000 or 4,000 new seats. That or the club doesn''t want such a solution. If there is to be an expansion it seems set on going straight to 35,000. That is the figure that always gets mentioned by Bowkett/McNally, with the comment that they are sure the demand would be there pretty much every game in the Premier League.

[Monty13 2,229]

Nutty 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.

[Steady On... 0]

[quote user="Monty13"]Haha, so in all of that post the only thing you decided to pick up on is that some of our yearly budget (what is it likely to be if we stay up next year? Maybe as much as 90 million overall with the new TV deal?) might be needed to subsidise the project. I didn''t see too many moaning when we invested in the academy status at 2 million a year, where do people think that money is coming out of? The stand will pay for itself over its lifetime many times, again your twisting words, just not as quickly as you want it to.

The reason this debate always falters is because is it is actually an argument for the haves vs the have nots. Another irony considering how many self proclaimed socialists inhabit this board!

Those that have a season ticket see no reason that their enjoyment should be interrupted in anyway so that those that don''t can be there to see city as well. Whether that means being moved for a few months or any potential reduction in the playing budget.

At 20 million to build a new stand this could be done easily if properly financed and sponsored and with minimal detraction to the playing budget. And with revenue from TV increasing next year setting aside a small proportion of that extra revenue to help pay for a new stand would be looking to the future imo.[/quote]

 

Well, Well. Someones gone and hit the nail on the head.

[ncfcstar 287]

[quote user="City1st"]

From Alan Bowkett -

"But he pointed out that it cost about £2,500 per seat in a “new build”, so it would cost £20m to increase capacity by 8,000.

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 "

 

The problem we have is too many fans are living in the past, romancing about days of yore when grounds were filled with flat capped supporters whose gate money was virtually the clubs only source of income.

 

Last season the clubs income was around £75m, previous receipts suggest that gate money will be around £7m. Increasing capacity by 20% will only increase that amount by 20% ie £1.75m.

 

Cost of construction plus projected losses through lower capacity £21.4m.  At a relatively low interest rate of 9% (£1.92m) that return does not cover the interest payments, leaving us with a £20m plus debt.

 

Again this assumes every game will sellout. They aren''t at 27,000 - and that is with very reduced prices.

 

The simple fact is football has left many behind and it is a hard fact to grasp.

 

We need to look to the future, not ape our not too bright neighbours by constantly clinging on to the past.

 

 

[/quote]That''s looking at the stand as just that though, a stand for a football match once every two weeks with nothing else involved.What if the stand included brand new conference facilities, new catering sites, upgraded and expanded changing rooms and media area, new advertising space (alongside a big screen), office space like the space offered in the Jarrold.  The stand wouldn''t simply be there for football matches, and I would be very surprised if McNally was looking at it that way too.I''d also argue that our casual ticket prices are not reduced at all, in fact they are broadly similar to the rest of the PL.  If we created a new stand we would have to cap season tickets at a certain level, say 25k and ensure that c. 8k were available casually for each game.  If demand drops off you raise the cap limit (whilst offering similarly priced season tickets) and slightly bump the casual price.Our ''not too bright'' neighbours (who you really have an obsession with City1st) made a huge error but building not 1, but 2 new stands.  People seem to forget that.  They gambled that because they finished 5th they certainly wouldn''t get relegated, and then splurged on overrated foreigners and journeymen.  Something we definitely haven''t done this season.  With 0 debt and sustained PL football we can easily afford a new stand, but the crux of the matter is staying in the PL.As T said, they will do plenty of risk analysis and due diligence on any construction, and if they decide it''s not viable then that is the correct decision.  But it is important to remember that it''s not just a potential seat for 90 minutes, it gives the club plenty more opportunity to expand in other areas too.