Stadium expansion?

[Stig 0]

I can''t, I face my humiliation head on.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

I don''t think I mentioned a ticket subsidy.

 

But as you mention it I would like to see structured prices that recognise young people and families. This was one of the things that blighted the Tottenham game; no pricing structure.

 

it wouldn''t make sense to discount tickets in the EPL due to TV money then expect to charge more for The Championship, so I don''t know where you got that  from, but I am in favour of schemes to encourage more young people to be able to attend our games. This is what previous generations have done, you stood in The Barclay and The River End.

 

But, being one of those rarities in society, a saver, I suppose I see things differently. But I would add that there is a balance to be struck.

[/quote]

 

Currently at todays prices any new stand would not pay for itself, so if built would require that the shortfall be made up elsewhere. That money (subsidy) would come from TV money.

 

If we were relegated that TV money goes, so we either divert more money or put up prices. Unlike players, wages, bonuses etc the debt repayments on the loan cannot be cut.

 

Where would that money come from ?

 

Another factor that is conveniently overlooked is that to stimulate demand the club will have to cut prices (Wigan). That cannot simply be done for new seats so it would have to be across the board, unless you envisage the club telling fans that they will have to continue paying the same prices to get into the old seats and once they are sold the new seats will be available at a cheaper price. Which would cause a further amount of money to be diverted into subsidising the new stand.

 

A very dangerous cycle.

 

 

[Steady On... 0]

You''ve got no reasoned facts, no facts have been officially released about any expansion so all you''ve got is your opinion

And your opinion is you rather like sitting in the city stand on matchdays.

I''m very greatful for our board who are highly ambitious, unlike many fans who would evidently love to take their do to the game and stand alongside the pitch, so trying to say I hate the board is total BS.

[Bill 1,788]

More lies from the troll

 

Alna Bowkett stated that it would cost £31m to replace the City Stand, or was he lying. Either you are lying or Alan Bowkett is. Guess who 99.999% out of 10,000 would believe ?

 

As to sitting in the City stand I wouldn''t know, perhaps it is the same as sitting in the Main Stand or even the Wensum Stand.

 

As to income it is very easy to check the figures, Presuming you aren''t saying that the club''s auditors are also lying. Simply divide the total gate reciepts by a sellout attendance and you will have a figure of what each 1000 fans (on average) pay over a season. Then multiply that figure by the amount of new seats

 

Exceedingly simple, rather like you Mr Troll, some might say.

 

 

ps it comes to around £410,000 per thousand fans per year if you don''t have enough fingers count that far

 

 

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Steady On..."]You''ve got no reasoned facts, no facts have been officially released about any expansion so all you''ve got is your opinion

And your opinion is you rather like sitting in the city stand on matchdays.

I''m very greatful for our board who are highly ambitious, unlike many fans who would evidently love to take their do to the game and stand alongside the pitch, so trying to say I hate the board is total BS.[/quote]

Ambition doesn''t come in to it.  Common sense and finances do come in to it and like any argument, there are two sides.  But, imo, there is a middle way.   1. Would it be nice to have a larger capacity?    - Yes, of course. 2.  In the current economic situation would it be sensible to expand? -  No. 3. Should we review the situation in two years time?    Yes.

Conclusion

- While it would great to expand the stadium, the current economic

climate is such that it would be foolish to go ahead with it at the

present time.  If in two or three years time the climate improves and we

are still in the premiership then we should look at it again.    

[Steady On... 0]

I''m pretty sure you''ve got enough fingers

Your way of averaging ticket prices is so innacurate it''s hilarious, are you a weatherman by trade?

Call stands by what they are called this century and we won''t have mix ups. It''s 2012 doc brown.

Alan Bowkett may have said? What a glowing report. Would a figure like that be likely to be in a report of the agm? Is this figure in any report, any release from the club or any report done by local media? I think not, and therefore it''s an off the cuff response you''re taken as gospel truth. That makes you a mug as well as under-ambitious lol

[Bill 1,788]

It is the drop in demand that has put this on hold LDC.

 

Whether that is solely down to the economy or the PL bubbling deflating is a moot point but irrespective of the economy 20 years is a very long time for then club to carry another very heavy debt, and trust on TV money still being there.

 

The rapid advances in technology are such that there is no guarantee that folk will still be paying to watch football by monthly subscriptions to a TV link in 20 years time. Unfortunately the debt will not be subject to any such change.

 

When we have another 3000 fans who want to buy season tickets at around 40% higher than what they currently are, and commit to say 20 years then any new stand will be self financing. However I don''t see them beating a door to Carrow Road at the moment. The reality is that numbers wanting tickets at the current prices are actually dropping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Steady On..."]I''m pretty sure you''ve got enough fingers Your way of averaging ticket prices is so innacurate it''s hilarious, are you a weatherman by trade? Call stands by what they are called this century and we won''t have mix ups. It''s 2012 doc brown. Alan Bowkett may have said? What a glowing report. Would a figure like that be likely to be in a report of the agm? Is this figure in any report, any release from the club or any report done by local media? I think not, and therefore it''s an off the cuff response you''re taken as gospel truth. That makes you a mug as well as under-ambitious lol[/quote]

 

As said elsewhere. When in a hole stop digging.

 

I would suggest that a statement made by the club chairman at the club''s AGM would be accepted as an accurate figure. The rest of the board have accepted it as such, as have shareholders. It is only you, and you alone, desperately scrabbling around to find somewhere to smear the club with who refuse to accept that he knew what he was taking about.

 

As to the figures regard ticket income, that total income for ''11/12 has been released by the club - or is that not ''gospel truth'' either, the sellout attendances figures have also been released by the club or are they not ''gospel truth'' as well. Finally, you can ask a grown up to use a calculator. They also tend to be very reliable. The figure is around £410,000 per thousand. Not enough to meet the interest payments on the loan.

 

 

ps for someone who claims (elsewhere) to have been a season ticket holder since the 1980''s I would be curious to know where you ever heard the South Stand being refered to as the Main Stand, perhaps like wiz you simply ''forgot''

 

 

[Steady On... 0]

Since when did I say I was a st holder since the 80''s?

The figures are innacurate because of the wildly differing price ranges in ticket pricing.

[Monty13 2,229]

Just in case anyone is interested in the maths, 31 million paid back over 20 years even if you looked at a high interest rate, say 10%, would be just over 3.5 million a year. A more realistic rate given the current low interest rates but the perceived risk to the banks is around 7% and this would be just under 2.9 million a year for 20 years.

This is however assuming that the 31 million is the amount the board require to borrow, not what they have assessed the total cost at including the interest payable. If they are saying with interest the build will cost 31 million then your actual repayments per year are far lower, again depending on interest rate they are assuming will be (or have) negotiated. This is also assuming the build is totally financed and no other revenue generation is used.

So your worst case cost is around 3 million a year if the loan period is 20 years as I believe from others Bowkett apparently stated.

How much of that will be covered by ticket revenue generated? who knows, presumably the figures have been done by the board though. Interestingly though if it was half covered (1.5 million), which once the stand is complete a 1-1.5million increase a year in ticket income seems a conservative estimate, then your actual worst case scenario is a 1.5 million a year cost. This would be the same cost as the Academy and no one seems to be in massive uproar about that expenditure away from the first team.

I would personally like to see expansion but I can totally understand why the boards direction regarding it has changed. It is a lot of debt, even over a long period such as 20 years and is not a decision forced on us by a requirement to replace the stand.

The economic argument doesn''t stand up LDC, if you have or can borrow the money, a poor national economy is the cheapest time to build. As the economy recovers that building cost will increase, not to mention the fact that Chinese economy continues to push up the price of raw materials year by year.

Its really a long term decision and the problem being a clubs board, as with any Government, doesn''t wish to make decisions that have have long term risk but no short term gain, even if in the long run its the right decision. Will Delia still be owner when the debt is paid, will Bowkett still be chairman? However they will still be in those positions if we get relegated a year after starting the project, and whether the build is the cause or not you can guarantee that many will see it that way.

As I say I would like to see a new stand for many reasons but I totally understand why the board have cooled the interest in it, and I don''t blame them. But I don''t understand why people believe it will be an easier decision in 2 or 3 seasons of premiership footballs time, if anything it will be a greater risk (once again that''s not an advocation for getting the builders in next week!).

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Steady On..."]Since when did I say I was a st holder since the 80''s?

The figures are innacurate because of the wildly differing price ranges in ticket pricing.[/quote]FFS the man has just done the averaging for you. Do you seriously think 4k extra seats are going to be priced so differently to make much of change to that figure?Of course Bowkett''s figures were not exact to the nearest penny but I would trust that a man of his standing would be able to come pretty close with his off the cuff valuations. The board have seriously looked at all the ramifications and it was quite plain at the AGM that the financial implications had dulled their enthusiasm somewhat. Yes, it''s disappointing but we are where we are and no amount of name calling is going to alter that.

[Steady On... 0]

Ah okay. Finally we''re getting somewhere! You''ve admitted it was an off the cuff figure. Great news.

Was it explained fully at the chosen few pep rally that it wasn''t viable, or did you fill in those blanks as well?

[Mungo Bumpkin 0]

It was explained at the annual general meeting of shareholders, thise with a financial stake in the club. A "chosen few"? Hardly, the two share issues in recent times were open to all, an opportunity to helo the club out in its time of dire need. I assume an uber fan like yourself Steady On kept your hand in your pocket?

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Steady On..."]Ah okay. Finally we''re getting somewhere! You''ve admitted it was an off the cuff figure. Great news.

Was it explained fully at the chosen few pep rally that it wasn''t viable, or did you fill in those blanks as well?[/quote]This is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.I f****in'' give up.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Having been patronised after my last post all I want to say is; a new main stand is about more than extra seats but I''m not repeating myself further.

You don''t build a new football stand on the basis of it being self- financing any more than you build it ahead of yourself or as a vanity project.

Finally, ever heard of inflation. When we begin to recover expect a lot of it because of the QE. The costs will rocket. Big projects are often finished in a recession because they are started in a boom.

There is a need to replace this stand, the time is not yet, but if we stay in the EPL it shouldn''t be distant either, otherwise we condemn ourselves to mediocre survival campaigns only and stay a small EPL Club.

[Monty13 2,229]

I thought I would post on here rather than pull the financial thread into yet another stadium debate but some of the calculations on here for what ticket income could be generated by an increased capacity are wildly inaccurate as the method for extrapolating the figures are totally flawed.

Using 410,000 as the figure per thousand as an average of current sales and then multiplying it by the number of thousand new seats gives you a figure well below the maximum potential income if tickets were the same price and games sold out. This is because it extrapolates that the new seats will be held by the same percentage of current season tickets in the current capacity, highly unlikely and season ticket prices per game are massively below that of casuals. Also unless someone can show me otherwise, any talk of expansion by the board has always been about creating an EXTRA 8000 seats to bring us to 35,000, not replacing 4000 with 8000. Therefore even using the wrong figure of 410,000 the potential maximum new income would be 3.3 million.

Personally i don''t think the figure however it''s calculated will be that high as I agree for non (real) cat a games ticket prices will have to drop to stimulate demand. And is there another regular 8000 fans? I don''t know, but neither does anyone else unless they have done some pretty hefty market research and the club haven''t shown it to anyone if it is done.

Anyway the difference, and there will be a difference (especially when the stands being built!) will have to come from somewhere, but as I tried to show by doing the loan maths above, because the board is talking about a lengthy loan, and it''s unclear of what the actual yearly payments will be, it might be relatively small or even nothing in a good year but close to the yearly payment in a bad year. Over the life of the loan it is certain to fluctuate. Certainly in the premiership it would be very low, but if we suffered relegation it could be as much as the yearly cost of the loan (whatever that might be but no more than the figures I quoted before).

It''s a complete catch 22 situation, in the premiership it''s almost a no brained but if we relegated (when we might need the income most) it will likely be a drain on the playing staff. Hence why again I understand the boards new found reluctance when there is no enforced requirement. Once again I do worry when the better time will be though, because in my mind while a long repayment schedule of 20 years makes it cheaper per year, it also means there will never be a better or worse time to do it as no one can predict the fortunes of the club or football in general over such a period.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I see WBA are planning to increase their capacity from 26.5k to 30k.

Their chairman says it makes no economic sense but consideration has to be given to the status of the club and he ability for younger supporters to gain access to games.

All these threads about a new stand paying for itself are bunk. You don''t build stands as financial investments - except in the long run. You build them for other reasons, and not just for extra seats in the case of the Main Stand.

You take on a loan and you service it over a long period. With current low construction costs and higher inflation down the line thanks to QE it isn''t the pipe dream some like to pretend it is.

But not yet, I accept.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I don''t really think many have argued that we should never expand Rudolph. I certainly haven''t. Perhaps if we have been in the prem as long as WBA. When are the thinking of doing it?

 

 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]I see WBA are planning to increase their capacity from 26.5k to 30k. Their chairman says it makes no economic sense but consideration has to be given to the status of the club and he ability for younger supporters to gain access to games. All these threads about a new stand paying for itself are bunk. You don''t build stands as financial investments - except in the long run. You build them for other reasons, and not just for extra seats in the case of the Main Stand. You take on a loan and you service it over a long period. With current low construction costs and higher inflation down the line thanks to QE it isn''t the pipe dream some like to pretend it is. But not yet, I accept.[/quote]

 

 

Well there''s a surprise

 

whatever next ?

 

 

 

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Just Google it Nutty.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Just Google it Nutty.[/quote]

 

OK. I will later.

 

Thanks[*-)]

 

 

 

 

[Thumbelina 0]

[quote user="BWs Cat"]"Pinkun standard procedure"

Don''t know about that. But I know standard procedure for you oddities is to keep creating accounts, in order to wreak as much havoc on the forum as possible.

You really should leave now, go create a new account and have a "blank slate" to start up your trolling operations once more. Everybody will believe you to be genuine, except for the intelligent among us.

Don''t let the door hit you on the way out. Enjoy league 1.

p.s

Sent you a PM city1st[/quote]Yes it is isn''t it. How are we Nutty buddy?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

A possble softening of the attitude of the police towards standing areas:

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/dec/11/police-consider-terraces-standing

 

---

 

One standing area (Lower Barclay?) at Carrow Road plus something semi-permanent in front of the hotel might provide accommodation for a thousand or more extra fans reasonably cheaply, although nothing like the 7,000 or 8,000 the club had been envisaging.