FUTURE FINANCE

[Monty13 2,239]

I''m pro expansion Shefcanary, but just to be clear, just because there is not going to be a better time to do something is not singularly a reason to do it! Its just another factor in the equation.

[shefcanary 2,437]

Absolutely Monty13, we''re on the same page.  It''s just that looking back bad dream in 10 years - the what might have been.  As I say, I am sure something affordable is being work on.

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

[quote user="Chelmsford Canary"]One thing I''ve thought reading through these posts, is everyone is saying we don''t need stadium expansion, as we have the sky money. It''s likely to say (sorry to be down beat) that we will be relegated at some point. Maybe we should not take it for granted. When McNally came in he had a plan for getting promoted...surely we should have a plan for getting relegated - just in case. Obviously I would love us to progress and be a Fulham, who have had a taste of Europe, ensure mid table - possible cup run![/quote]

 

I''m not sure anyone is really saying that. What has been said is that ticket income is a far lower percentage of the overall ''take'' than before. It is not sky money either, they contribute only around a third - not a pedantic point, just a recognition how lower a percentage their money is also becoming. It is the overseas market that is the main player as far as  money is concerned.

 

As to relegation the cub has repeatedly addressed this question, with the point being that whilst we could subsidise the expansion(ie less money taken than the cost of building the stand) it could well cripple us were we out of the PL for a number of seasons.

 

Unfortunately we seem to have a number of fans who think that we don''t have to pay to buils a new stand and any money from extra seats is pure profit, As above, with ALL tickets sold, at CURRENT prices an 8000 new stand would generate around £1.64m.  Can we be certain that we could sell those extra 4000 seats for every game, and at PL prices if we were in the Championship ?

 

 

[/quote]

I''ll agree with you being pedantic - Sky money / overseas money / the benefits (luxury of Premier League money) that you don''t obtain when being in Championship.

[Bill 1,788]

"an increased capacity are wildly inaccurate as the method for extrapolating the figures are totally flawed"

 

They are the club''s model. As to being wildly innaccuarte you are just being silly to cover an even sillier argument further down. Starting as things are now then trying to factor in known variables is fairly standard practice. We know that we recieve around £410,00 per thousand, that is not flawed. What is flawed is your absurd justfications for trying to square the circle. I used one example, the one currently being talked of at the club. If the 35,000 expansion is considered then we have a figure of £31m to repay, How much of that £3.3m will be taken up with interest payments ?

 

"highly unlikely and season ticket prices per game are massively below that of casuals"

 

As of now (something you had previously dismissed). Future casual prices will not hold up anywhere near current prices, given the massive spare capacity. What is overlooked by people like yourself is that you believe ticket prices can be adjusted in isolation. They cannot. Examples like Wigan show there is certainly not the demand there no more. The club is restricted by how low it can drop prices over a number of games before it has a downward effect on season ticket prices. So it cannot simply slash prices to fill empty seats.  Any time the paupers (down the A140) introduce these price cuts season ticket holders howl out that they begin to negate their financial gain from buying a season ticket.

 

 

"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."

 

The club does. The concept is known as ''cross price price elasticity'' which determines the return on sales based on price movement. Any major company will be number crunching on an almost minute by minute basis. Of course there are another 8000 fans out there, The question is at what price ?  The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet, As to your suggestion that "with ticket and confectionary sales" then I have to question what your other figures are based on. How much in the way of sweets do you think are sold at Carrow Road ?

 

At some point the club will have to upgrade the facilities in the Main Stand and accept that it will be a hefty charge on the club for a long, long while. Whether that is a good idea or the most pressing requirement is a moot point. But at least let us discuss this from a point of reality, not endless misunderstanding.

 

 

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Great stuff as ever Purple but I have a slightly different take on the TV income / ticket income debate. For me the two are very closely related in as much as if we no longer got the TV income the demand for tickets would drop to below our present capacity. I believe it''s the exposure of football on TV that and the associated income that has attracted some of the best players in the world to play here. If we lost that the "gravy train" would move on somewhere else with the top players and maybe even the top clubs. I think with the TV exposure moving demand for tickets would drop.

[/quote]

I couldn''t disagree more. If TV moved elsewhere, demand for tickets would rise because supporters will have lost the option of internet or pub streams and so could only get their ''fix'' by actually going to the game. For instance, I didn''t go to the Southampton game due to the fact that I knew it was on the internet, but if it was not on there I may well have gone.

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

"an increased capacity are wildly inaccurate as the method for extrapolating the figures are totally flawed"

 

They are the club''s model. As to being wildly innaccuarte you are just being silly to cover an even sillier argument further down. Starting as things are now then trying to factor in known variables is fairly standard practice. We know that we recieve around £410,00 per thousand, that is not flawed. What is flawed is your absurd justfications for trying to square the circle. I used one example, the one currently being talked of at the club. If the 35,000 expansion is considered then we have a figure of £31m to repay, How much of that £3.3m will be taken up with interest payments ?

 

"highly unlikely and season ticket prices per game are massively below that of casuals"

 

As of now (something you had previously dismissed). Future casual prices will not hold up anywhere near current prices, given the massive spare capacity. What is overlooked by people like yourself is that you believe ticket prices can be adjusted in isolation. They cannot. Examples like Wigan show there is certainly not the demand there no more. The club is restricted by how low it can drop prices over a number of games before it has a downward effect on season ticket prices. So it cannot simply slash prices to fill empty seats.  Any time the paupers (down the A140) introduce these price cuts season ticket holders howl out that they begin to negate their financial gain from buying a season ticket.

 

 

"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."

 

The club does. The concept is known as ''cross price price elasticity'' which determines the return on sales based on price movement. Any major company will be number crunching on an almost minute by minute basis. Of course there are another 8000 fans out there, The question is at what price ?  The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet, As to your suggestion that "with ticket and confectionary sales" then I have to question what your other figures are based on. How much in the way of sweets do you think are sold at Carrow Road ?

 

At some point the club will have to upgrade the facilities in the Main Stand and accept that it will be a hefty charge on the club for a long, long while. Whether that is a good idea or the most pressing requirement is a moot point. But at least let us discuss this from a point of reality, not endless misunderstanding.

 

 

[/quote]

Comparing us to Wigan is outrageous and absurd!

[Monty13 2,239]

City1st, firstly I''m sorry, it is entirely flawed and I would imagine it is not the way the club are estimating their potential income unless you can prove otherwise. The current capacity is 27,000 and we have 22,000 season ticket holders, that is 81.5% of current ticket sales. Unless you are suggesting that 81.5% of new seats will be given to season ticket holders that method of working out new income is massively flawed as casual ticket average income per ticket per game will always be more than a season tickets average per game over a season.

I did the interest calculations on the stadium expansion thread, go have a look and question me then, but it very much depends on what the club are saying. If they are saying it will cost 31 million plus interest then the figure in repayments over 20 years is no more than 3 million a year and that is probably overestimating as unless you can tell me I have no idea what rate they can borrow at. If they are saying that they have already factored in the interest payments in that 31 million then the yearly figure will be considerably lower.

As I stated on the other thread in a good attendance premiership year we could even turn a profit as we are paying back over such a long period, the problem being over 20 years no one knows what the club or footballs fortunes will be so you can''t base the decision to do this on premiership football, I totally agree with you.

Look back through any post I have ever said with with regard to stadium expansion and I never suggested ticket prices will remain the same, I have always suggested in low demand games they must drop to generate interest, don''t put words in my mouth to support your opinion of my argument. Nor do I believe that casual tickets can be dropped without any reduction in season ticket prices. But as the difference between the two at the minute is so vast the season ticket price drop would be minimal and casual price drop would depend on the demand for a particular game ie. little to no drop Man Utd, big drop Wigan, even if you decrease prices massively for unpopular games overall season tickets would still be a far cheaper option. Its peoples obsession with the fact that because we have been in or around capacity the last few years that all games need to sell outs for these seats to be worthwhile, they don''t and that''s where your cross price elasticity applies. The club will always try and get as much as possible for the current number of seats, I don''t deny that either and it will result in some games underselling.

"The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet" whose understanding, i have not read or heard this anywhere but from you?

Look I would love to see the club replace the main stand, its ageing facilities and expand the ground. But I do understand why its a difficult decision with many risks, it is not clear cut otherwise there would be no debate. But with such a long time period for the debt being talked about the impact on year by year is therefore minimalised. I''m not actually disagreeing with you apart from your potential income calculation. We will always probably have to subsidise the stand (although once its up and running in a premiership season this may not be the case) and almost certainly if relegated.

My point is if the money to do this is being borrowed over 20 years somehow people seem to think the decision is easier after a couple of premiership seasons and it simply isn''t. Also as its being borrowed over such a long time period the yearly shortfall might not be as crippling even in the bad times as some suggest.

[Monty13 2,239]

Paul its too late for that, as long as the game is being shown somewhere in the world it will be streamed.

Streaming is now fairly publicly known and accepted, its the TV companies that hate it! The only way to stop it is to not sell the rights to those games and while the clubs will benefit from ticket sales in that instance, as you suggested because no one can otherwise view the game, the TV pot would decrease as those game rights weren''t sold. So clubs would overall be worse off.

The Tv rights owner needs to find a business model to work with streaming otherwise there is no way forward that doesn''t lose them, and clubs, money.

[shefcanary 2,437]

Just to be absolutely clear on this, the club have mentioned a figure of £45m as being the total cost (capital plus interest) of repaying the loan, I believe but stand to be corrected, this being repaid over a 20 year period.  In hard cash terms that''s an average of £2.25m per annum although usually you could expect this to be higher to start with and reduce over the repayment period.

 

IF, and that is a big if, the club can find someone willing to lend without future covenant''s kicking in and screwing things up, AND IF we can remain in the Premier league, that annual total repayment of capital and interest is indeed marginal and profits should be achievable to cover it (Sam Gordon is forecasting an after tax profit of £2.8m in 2012-13 which underlines this).  Indeed add the impact of the new stand''s corporation tax capital allowances usable against future taxable profits and the annual cash commitment would be even less (the timing of the granting of these allowances is also not evenly spread, usually more up front). 

 

However get relegated and generating profits to cover this annual cash constraint gets much more difficult - there is virtually no chance of achieving any profit, let alone a profit of £2.25m, on turnover of £23m (what it was in our last season in the championship and even with expanded capacity I cannot see income ever bettering that if we were in the championship). 

 

So the trick is to isolate any commitment toward building the new stand from hitting our trading profit & loss account.  We''ll not get any government grants so funding would have to be "granted" in some other form from a generous "supporter".  Are naming rights off the agenda??

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Monty13"]City1st, firstly I''m sorry, it is entirely flawed and I would imagine it is not the way the club are estimating their potential income unless you can prove otherwise. The current capacity is 27,000 and we have 22,000 season ticket holders, that is 81.5% of current ticket sales. Unless you are suggesting that 81.5% of new seats will be given to season ticket holders that method of working out new income is massively flawed as casual ticket average income per ticket per game will always be more than a season tickets average per game over a season.

I did the interest calculations on the stadium expansion thread, go have a look and question me then, but it very much depends on what the club are saying. If they are saying it will cost 31 million plus interest then the figure in repayments over 20 years is no more than 3 million a year and that is probably overestimating as unless you can tell me I have no idea what rate they can borrow at. If they are saying that they have already factored in the interest payments in that 31 million then the yearly figure will be considerably lower.

As I stated on the other thread in a good attendance premiership year we could even turn a profit as we are paying back over such a long period, the problem being over 20 years no one knows what the club or footballs fortunes will be so you can''t base the decision to do this on premiership football, I totally agree with you.

Look back through any post I have ever said with with regard to stadium expansion and I never suggested ticket prices will remain the same, I have always suggested in low demand games they must drop to generate interest, don''t put words in my mouth to support your opinion of my argument. Nor do I believe that casual tickets can be dropped without any reduction in season ticket prices. But as the difference between the two at the minute is so vast the season ticket price drop would be minimal and casual price drop would depend on the demand for a particular game ie. little to no drop Man Utd, big drop Wigan, even if you decrease prices massively for unpopular games overall season tickets would still be a far cheaper option. Its peoples obsession with the fact that because we have been in or around capacity the last few years that all games need to sell outs for these seats to be worthwhile, they don''t and that''s where your cross price elasticity applies. The club will always try and get as much as possible for the current number of seats, I don''t deny that either and it will result in some games underselling.

"The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet" whose understanding, i have not read or heard this anywhere but from you?

Look I would love to see the club replace the main stand, its ageing facilities and expand the ground. But I do understand why its a difficult decision with many risks, it is not clear cut otherwise there would be no debate. But with such a long time period for the debt being talked about the impact on year by year is therefore minimalised. I''m not actually disagreeing with you apart from your potential income calculation. We will always probably have to subsidise the stand (although once its up and running in a premiership season this may not be the case) and almost certainly if relegated.

My point is if the money to do this is being borrowed over 20 years somehow people seem to think the decision is easier after a couple of premiership seasons and it simply isn''t. Also as its being borrowed over such a long time period the yearly shortfall might not be as crippling even in the bad times as some suggest.[/quote]

Monty, the only thing you can be sure about is that the future will be far more expensive than you expected it to be. You only have to look back at the £15 million loan  for the Jarrold stand to see how that became a millstone round our necks and that could easily happen with any future loan. Years of penny pinching and people moaning about money spent on infrastructure and not the team. A relegation that put the survival of the club in jeopardy. The pleading for a debt holiday when it became obvious that the interest could not be paid. Thankfully that was renegotiated successfully and Lambert''s miracle put the club back on an even keel in double quick time. Yes, it all turned out alright in the end  but we were extremely lucky and if I were a director I would never want to sail that close to the wind again.All things being equal, expansion is a no brainer but when you come down to it things are very far from being equal.

[Bill 1,788]

"Comparing us to Wigan is outrageous and absurd!"

 

No, your stating that I made such a claim comparing us to Wigan "is outrageous and absurd!"

 

I didn''t

 

 

[Monty13 2,239]

Ricardo, I totally agree it is far from being a no brainer as some suggest, but, with the potential of such a long period to repay back (I was quite surprised the term being suggested at the AGM was 20 years as I thought such a length would be unlikely to be offered), it also means it could potentially not be as crippling a yearly effect as previous debts were, if in the worse case scenario, the seats are generating nothing towards the loan.

My overwhelming concern is that people seem to think, oh give it a couple of years of premiership football it will be an easier decision, it wont, and as the years go on the costs as you suggest will only go up. I don''t think that therefore means we should get the builders in next week and start, but the waters are very muddy. Unless someone will give us the money, or a large portion of it, there will never be a good time to do this.

[nutty nigel 7,557]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Great stuff as ever Purple but I have a slightly different take on the TV income / ticket income debate. For me the two are very closely related in as much as if we no longer got the TV income the demand for tickets would drop to below our present capacity. I believe it''s the exposure of football on TV that and the associated income that has attracted some of the best players in the world to play here. If we lost that the "gravy train" would move on somewhere else with the top players and maybe even the top clubs. I think with the TV exposure moving demand for tickets would drop.

[/quote]

I couldn''t disagree more. If TV moved elsewhere, demand for tickets would rise because supporters will have lost the option of internet or pub streams and so could only get their ''fix'' by actually going to the game. For instance, I didn''t go to the Southampton game due to the fact that I knew it was on the internet, but if it was not on there I may well have gone.

[/quote]

 

You''re a one aren''t you Moyo. I''m sure you probably believe that but if it was a business decision you would get your fingers burnt bigtime. People do what they do. Not what they say they''ll do. People told me they''d use pubs and clubs if they banned smoking. They were quite convincing in their arguments too. All we had to do was ban smoking and the tills would be red hot with people who had been put off by other people''s second hand smoke. But guess what happened when smoking was banned? Yep, those people carried on doing what they did before and didn''t venture out into the pubs and clubs who went to the wall quicker than ever as the smokers started to stay away too.

 

So how many internet watchers are people who would actually go if there was space? Not many I''ll wager. If the streams are reduced to a trickle or dry up completely those people will go back to watching it on the wireless or whatever else they used to do when they were at home. As for you? Well I find it incredibly difficult to believe you would have gone to Southampton if you couldn''t watch a stream. Seriously buddy. I mean you could be different because I do find you a bit of an oddball but I can''t understand anyone who enjoys the passion of going to a football stadium being content sat at home with an internet stream.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

""The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet" whose understanding, i have not read or heard this anywhere but from you? "

 

That is what has come out of the club (marketing/ticket office), they are hardly likely to broadcast sensitive commercial information.

 

What has caused such a ''sudden'' brake on things is the very fast downturn in take up of tickets. The uncertainty is whether this is a one off realignment or a steady slide and a lower level will be found - whilst current prices are as they are. Clearly what is not uncertain is that there isn''t the demand for enough tickets at current prices to make building any new stand viable on a cost basis alone.

 

Outside of the top six or seven games there is not enough demand for casual tickets to maintain the price. If the club is having to discount twelve games to the level of the Wigan price then why buy a season ticket. You could simply take six games at £50 and twelve at £19 and you have a figure comperable with a season ticket. You are simply trading off the certainty of getting a ticket for the big games with the obligation of paying for lesser games - something a season ticket holder might opt for.

 

So how to do guarantee the margins between the two tickets. Cut season tickets ? Not cut casual tickets so far - they are already down to £19, £10 and £6 ? Are you seriously trying to tell me that anyone what have imagined that tickets for the second season in the PL would be that low ?

 

The club has talked of a 91% attendance to make any rebuilding financialy sound, my understanding is that is based on current prices, not £19, £10 or £6.  However much you imagine otherwise, talk of selling sweets to make up the figures as someone else suggested charge corporate clients more because there are more seats in the ground, the money will have to come from the playing account. A few million whilst we stay in the PL might not hurt, but as Ricardo said stick that on a Cahmpionship budget once the parachute payments have gone and we would be in a far worse position than in 2009. Bearing in mind we would also have the higher costs of a Status 1 acadamy to fund.

 

Yes, if someone could simply ''magic'' in a new Main Stand during the close season I doubt not one single fan would object. If it could be done through payment by ticket sales I can''t see the board having any reservations either - until then the rest of us in the other three stands well have to continue looking at that quaint ''liitle ole norwich'' stand.

 

 

[Monty13 2,239]

Why on earth would we reduce 12 games to the Wigan price? The Wigan price is a perfect storm moment, an unfashionable club, with poor away support, at home on the busiest shopping day of the year, oh just before xmas in a poor economy. The club have had to reduce ticket prices below even grade c in response.

Why didn''t it happen last year? well we didn''t have a home game in the week run up to xmas, we had 2 away games. Is there less demand, well how much have tickets gone up on last year? At the moment we have a grade system for games which is laughable, if we had more seats those grades would be used appropriately. Be reasonable, even with increased capacity the vast majority of casual tickets sold would never come close to being 19 pounds.

The 91% figure makes things even less clear to their thinking then, I am assuming we are talking an average attendance over the season of that figure at current rates? That''s an average attendance of 31,850. Assuming cat A+ games would get much closer to sell outs than that, they also cost much more per ticket making it hard to pin down why that 91% figure is relevant? Surely the more important thing is to average high to sell out attendance in Cat A/A+ games? Its got to be quantified somehow i suppose, but a required average attendance when there are so many variables per game is a confusing.

The catering and other match day revenue is not insignificant, maybe Purple can explain how the Catering and Commercial income, which in the latest figures as near as damn it equals ticket income, is broken down?

I''m not debating if we get relegated the money will have to come from elsewhere, in the premiership i''m not so sure, as if we couldn''t as a minimum break even in any year when the stand was complete, under any circumstances, I would be incredibly surprised. Out of interest if we get relegated can we withdraw our Academy status?

[Bill 1,788]

Wigan is not "is a perfect storm moment" more a reflection of how demand is dropping off. There were 700 less for the Stoke game. I don''t remember any drop off in league 1 and the Championship. This is a massive cut in prices. We have yet to play most of those twelve clubs and it will be seen if any cuts are implemented there. Any cuts would blow a massive hole in this ''one off'' theory.

 

Much of the catering is at the high end, stuff that often goes on outside of football, likewise the commercial side of things. There is only so much that can be sold and it should be borne in mind that another ''rival'' venue could decrease. business.

 

The club knows full well that ticket income will not alone pay for the new stand, nor will any seeling of sweets or charging corporate customers more because we have more seats. The club has to invest in infrastructure. I remember the fierce debates on here where their were hoels of rage about the restuarants and the pitch being upgraded. Failure to constantly upgrade is probably one of the reasons for the paupers to be in the financial mess they are now.

 

Butspending money on infrastructure should be done with a clear understanding of cost and the implications of that cost. Sadly many on this forum are still under some head in the sand delusion that we can build a new stand and it won''t cost anything. It will.

 

 

[Monty13 2,239]

Well if you''re right, then Wigan isn''t an isolated event based on a series of connected issues and its the first of many games to be offered at the rate of 19 pounds, I''m sure a lot of people will be very happy about that.

The demand has of course dropped off, its related to the ticket price increase from last year and the year before, its in search of that maximum price per ticket in your ''cross price price elasticity'' reasoning. It shows that the price, especially for less attractive games, is reaching its acceptable ceiling based on demand. It doesn''t necessarily indicate the overall demand has dropped, just that the marketing team have reached their pricing ceiling. It backs up your own argument.The problem is that unlike when cross price price elasticity is usually used in business, we have a maximum product limit of how many we can sell as we don''t have any more seats even if the demand is there for the product at that price.

As I say I would be interested to see how much of the 11 million catering is related to matchday''s. As it is relevant, even if its obviously not as big as the ticket money.

Once again I agree and don''t believe the stand can be paid for from income generated by it in the event of relegation, that''s the risk, and its a big one if the period in question is 20 years. But if the club could never hope to cover the payments in the premiership I am bemused why a smart set of Directors used to believe that expansion was essential less than 2 years ago.

It also doesn''t answer my concern that if this is the plan, when is a better time to implement it? we will always face the same risks at probably increased costs. The answer being then we never upgrade the stand, or we are less ambitious in its size and expense.

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

[quote user="Monty13"]


 The catering and other match day revenue is not insignificant, maybe Purple can explain how the Catering and Commercial income, which in the latest figures as near as damn it equals ticket income, is broken down?

[/quote]

 

Catering was £4.3m. Very slightly down on the previous year, but then we had 19 home league matches (and three in cups) as against 23 and two before. Commercial was £6.7m, up from £4m. And there was a concert, with revenue from that of £1.2m, and Other of £1.7, up £1m. Gate recipts/ticket sales were £11.3m, compared with £8.1m in the Championship season. An interesting rise given, again, that there were three fewer games overall.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Anybody know what the profit/loss on the catering operation was?

 

It''s quite easy to make a loss in the catering business these days.............

 

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,557]

I''m sure one of the FPA''s can help you with that Babes...

 

I know Mr Carrow used to have a view[8-|]

 

 

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

Unfortunately we seem to have a number of fans who think that we don''t have to pay to build a new stand and any money from extra seats is pure profit, As above, with ALL tickets sold, at CURRENT prices an 8000 new stand would generate around £1.64m.  Can we be certain that we could sell those extra 4000 seats for every game, and at PL prices if we were in the Championship ?

[/quote]

 

Now I wonder if that is because they are either naive or do not understand financial matters of this depth...

 

Personally I with zippersleftfoot and ricardo about the potential stadium size.

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]


On balance, the likely explanation is not that the club doesn''t now feel the financial need for extra seats (although it may be hopeful of hanging on to some TV money) but that it has revised its costings and decided it is just too damned expensive. But I also strongly suspect that the directors have more come round to the view (sorry for the immodesty but it is relevant) I have been boringly expressing here ever since the club two years ago outlined a business plan based on filling a 35,000-seat stadium pretty much all the time - that it was a load of tosh, and looked more and more like a load of tosh as the economic news grew (and will continue to grow, particularly next Wednesday) increasingly bad. There is still a strong argument for increased capacity at some point because, as the directors worked out for themselves, in the long run it offers the prospect of unique extra income for decades ahead. Everybody gets the TV money, and we get less than most. But thousands of extra seats (even if the board''s view of how many potential extra fans there are is over-optimistic) equals money, and not just from tickets; catering and commercial too. This is why Craven Cottage is being expanded; why QPR want to move. Of course expansion is expensive, and would put us into debt. But on that basis we would never expand.

[/quote]

 

And lo, it came to pass yesterday! Mainly, anyway. There is - possibly if you believe the projections - some not so bad news. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects unemployment, currently at around 8 per cent, to peak at 8.3 per cent next year and fall to 6.9 per cent by the end of 2017. That predicated, of course, on the economy performing as expected, which is nowhere near a given, even without outside events as specific - and extreme - as Israel attacking Iran. And there is a strong argument that many of those currently employed are either in temporary or part-time jobs. Full-time employment is hard to find.

What is certain is that the austerity programme of cuts has fallen behind schedule, and will now last at least until 2018. And if the idea was that this would hit only the feckless jobless, who would be too poor to attend matches at Carrow Road no matter what the prices, then the estimate from the Resolution Foundation is worrying - that 60 per cent of houeholds hit by real-terms cuts to benefits and tax credits are in work. Plus the economics editor of the Daily Telegraph made the point that those people who have some money are not spending it, on football tickets or whatever, but saving it to pay down debt. Admirably thrifty, but hardly what Bowkett and McNally and the the other directors would want to hear.

It was only in September that McNally said this of the analysis commissioned from the UEA:

“Empirically, their findings support the move to expand Carrow Road by at least 7,000 additional seats. This independent research project is really important as it deals with facts, such as population growth, and real numbers, such as socio-economic data, and not instinct or intuition." But in the next breath signalled for the first time the less optimistic view about the imminence of expansion that he and Bowkett have since repeated:

"Once we have become an established Premier League side then we may consider it viable to invest in the development of Carrow Road." No more "will consider" if we stay up this season.

If the economy is one reason why the directors are less bullish about early expansion then there may be signs in the second half of the season. Even if one discounts the Spurs cup attendance as a one-off, the attendances for Stoke (800 below capacity) and Sunderland (500 below) could look like the start of a trend for the less glamorous matches, and most games in the PL are of the less glamorous kind. In footballing terms the grading system last season was a sham (10 As, eight Bs and one C). So far this season (including Chelsea and Man City) five A*s (all justified), three As (West Ham possibly fair enough but Stoke and QPR not), one B (Sunderland) and Wigan as a Christmas offer which we will regard as a C. The gradings for the matches early next year (Newcastle, Spurs, Fulham and Everton) might be significant.

The way the grading system has been used until now has been to make football expensive for casuals (and especially pre-adults) at Carrow Road. But this also applies to season tickets. It is a myth that season ticket prices have been kept low. I won''t go into the detail again, but a Guardian survey at the start of this season showed that we are right in the middle in PL terms, and as far as clubs of similar size go at the top. Delia was being a bit cavalier when she slapped down a questioner at the AGM with the line about fans having to pay PL prices to watch PL football. There is a wide range of PL prices, and ours are not cheap. As far back as the AGM in January 2011 Bowket said:

"I''ve had some conversations with people saying ''it [attending matches at Carrow Road] is getting a bit expensive Alan'' and I know it is." But that knowledge never seemed to filter through into action. Perhaps...

[Lets be aving you! 0]

To be fair, Stoke is less glamorous than most, and Sunderland was on TV so there was an alternative way of watching it (beyond the usual pub-based dodgy Sky package).

 

Three o''clock non-sellouts on a Saturday against the likes of Reading, Fulham & Soton when untelevised would be a useful indicator of demand.

 

I chose a ticket online for my daughter for the Wigan game last week, and noticed that barely any tickets were left (so I now have the joy of sitting in the family area of the Watling stand!) The few seats left were virtually all on their own, or else impaired/obstructed view. Guess there will always therefore be the odd few dozen tickets not selling for this reason, which makes the Sunderland attendance a near-sellout.

 

But I seriously doubt we would sell a few thousand more for the bog-standard matches without seriously tweaking the price, which would undermine the affordability of the stadium expansion argument in the first place.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

It was only in September that McNally said this of the analysis commissioned from the UEA:

“Empirically, their findings support the move to expand Carrow Road by at least 7,000 additional seats. This independent research project is really important as it deals with facts, such as population growth, and real numbers, such as socio-economic data, and not instinct or intuition." But in the next breath signalled for the first time the less optimistic view about the imminence of expansion that he and Bowkett have since repeated:

"Once we have become an established Premier League side then we may consider it viable to invest in the development of Carrow Road." No more "will consider" if we stay up this season.

[/quote]

 

The other interesting point about that September Q&A with McNally (in which his answer about stadium expansion was obviously prepared, because at least one question on the subject had been sent in beforehand) was that he was still giving a figure  of (only) £20m to take capacity to 34,000-35,000:

"Circa 7,000 additional seats could cost approximately £20m."

Only two months later at the AGM Bowkett is saying the same project (ie an extra 7,000 seats) would cost £30m. The explanation probably is that Bowkett has added on interest payments, but then why wasn''t that done before? Perhaps because earlier on the directors were optimistic about the project, and were happy to - comparitively - play down the cost. Now they are less bullish one way of explaining that is to play up the cost.