Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
DannyNCFC7

£45

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Monty13"]"I never stated anywhere that Carrow Road was " shining example of a top class sporting arena in all respects.""

No you didn''t, but you heavily inferred anyone who didn''t have unconditional love for the stadium in its current form was somehow not a true supporter.

You''ve also, as usual, decided to focus on the trivial and ignore the fact that as a new stand will likely be in use for many years after it is paid for the statement by you that "all figures point to the cost of any redevelopment NOT being covered by the tickets" is completely false.

I would also ask to be directed to any source you have that ALL (or in fact any official example?) figures point to the redevelopment not being covered by ticket sales, as this is yet again another bare faced lie as of course over the long term the extra tickets will pay for the redevelopment many times over.[/quote]So I did not say what you claimed, but I heavily inferred it ! ! !it gets worseYou don''t have the source of my information (as you ask for it) yet you call it false ! ! !might I then ask what then would be the point of my producing anything if you have already made up your mind that whatever it is, it is either false or a bare faced lieLikewise you ask for the source, yet before it is produced you call it a bare faced lie ! ! !

ps would not it be better to actually make that judgement after the ''source'' has been produced ?or would that be a little too rational for you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Monty13"]"I never stated anywhere that Carrow Road was " shining example of a top class sporting arena in all respects.""

No you didn''t, but you heavily inferred anyone who didn''t have unconditional love for the stadium in its current form was somehow not a true supporter.

You''ve also, as usual, decided to focus on the trivial and ignore the fact that as a new stand will likely be in use for many years after it is paid for the statement by you that "all figures point to the cost of any redevelopment NOT being covered by the tickets" is completely false.

I would also ask to be directed to any source you have that ALL (or in fact any official example?) figures point to the redevelopment not being covered by ticket sales, as this is yet again another bare faced lie as of course over the long term the extra tickets will pay for the redevelopment many times over.[/quote]

 

Of course they will, Monty, and that is without taking into account the extra catering and club shop revenue more fans will bring in. The trouble is that a generation has grown up that regards the long-term as the next ten minutes. But over the real long-term - say 40 years - an increase in capacity at Carrow Road to 34,000 or 35,000 would more than pay for itself. If that wasn''t the case no football club would ever spend money on more seats.In the absence of any official figures, or any other figures from any poster, I did post a bit of fag-packet analysis the last time this came up. I can''t find the calculations at the moment but even very much erring on the side of caution they showed, simply on ticket sales alone, that over 40 years or so the club would easily get its money back.That was not at all assuming permanent membership of the PL - that was roughly on the basis of two-fifths of our time in the top flight and two-fifths in the second tier, with the odd excursion to the third. And far from assuming we would fill a 35,000-seat stadium, it was on the basis that  - in the good years - attendances would only average around 31,000.And the assumptions about how the annual income per seat at Carrow Road (currently an average of around £420) would rise were also very cautious. I suspect inflation would push them far higher than I allowed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However you ever thought about politics city1st you''d be cracking!

"however I suspect this should tell the rest of us all we need to know - our ageing, small and frankly embarrassing in places stadium."

No you did not directly say it thats why I said inferred, would you like me to explain the process to you? It none the less is quite clearly what you meant.

Oh you mean in the way you never make sweeping judgements without evidence? :)

And also the fact that the redevelopment will pay for itself over its lifetime is a fact, purple has explained it nicely above. So yes to state otherwise is a lie, but please argue your case, unlike you I am able to be won over by a rational and evidence based argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think 40 years is a bit of a conservative estimate Purple! (taking into account inflation alone!) but thanks. And I have always argued like you have put that the financial benefit cannot be looked at in terms of ticket sales alone as it is far too simplistic.

I agree most supporters nowadays can''t see past next season! I find it quite surprising that the cost of the academy each year is a drain on the first team and may or may not show any additional benefit to the first team than the previous youth set up yet that seems universally welcomed, whereas stadium expansion is such a divisive issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I would struggle against you in the political stakes.Apparently in your wacky world of make believe my quoting what you said is infering something else ! Would it have been better to just have replied to what I ACTUALLY said instead ? Bit old fashioned I know."sweeping judgements without evidence? :)

And also the fact that the redevelopment will pay for itself over its lifetime is a fact,"
no comment is needed (nor any evidence of thiis ''fact'' either so it would seem).

Still, in best political mode you have now shifted the goalposts (no pun) to the stand paying for itself over it''s lifetime. No suggestion of how long a football stand''s lifetime is or any figures whatsoevre. Purple has suggested 40 years, which setting aside the longevity of the building itself is an awful long time in football and our club as far as development and changes go.And finally as dear old H Wilson said  ''a week is along time in politics'' ..............  where as a minute is a long time when having to plough through your confused guff. So when you have some firm evidence that a redevelopment can be paid through ticket sales alone then please post them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The trouble is that a generation has grown up that regards the long-term as the next ten minutes."

 

Such short-termism can blind those running an organisation to anything but the short term.

 

Especially if a CEO is rewarded, at least in part, on the basis of short-term results.

 

A bit like bankers with their short-term packaging up of mortgage securities for a quick buck or politicians with their short-term ramping of the housing market for a quick vote, it is easy to have an executive administrator whose short-term interests are not aligned with the long-term interests of the organisation.

 

Why bother ever thinking about a bigger stadium if it is likely to jeopardise the short-term results?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the best example in the public sphere Let''s be ''aving you! is definitely politicians. As a political party you have no incentive to make decisions that affect anything beyond the next election. It''s a very wasteful and inefficient form of Government!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously City1st are you Ed Balls in disguise. You can spin an argument beautifully without ever answering a question!

Your statement: "all figures point to the cost of any redevelopment NOT being covered by the tickets"

I was unaware I had moved the goalposts as you set none.

And you were the one to make this statement with no evidence yet you ask me for evidence of mine when purple already did so.

Come on where is ALL or some of this evidence of figures showing redevelopment not being covered by tickets?

Thats very hurtful, I read your posts although they are very confusing and most definitely guff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redevelop the Main Stand 8000 seater stand - £20m, club figures4000 extra seats at £400 per seat = £1.6massume an interest rate of 8% on the loan and tat only covers the interest, not the loan

however those figures have everything at the top, whereas  - with an extra 200 casual seats the club would not find a market for casual seats at £45, more so given that many of the casual ticket buyers are probably on the season ticket waiting list - games do not sellout, so on that basis you are talking about a possible 4000 empty seatsthose two variables alone would mean that the club would have to be paying not only the capital payment but the some of interest as well

take it a step further and factor in relegation and the club would not be able to command £45 per casual ticket or anywhere near that amount, and were we to remain outside of the PL for a few seasons we would not be able to ask PL season ticket prices either ................ though the debt and interest would remain

sadly we have been here too many times before over this stuff, yet here you are being wound up to make a fool of yourselfyou should know better by now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few points:

How do you know 8% is the interest rate on offer? Even though banks are reluctant to loan to Football clubs that is pretty steep.

But say that is the amount, I believe the last quote of the cost was 30 million but many believed that was the quoted total cost (ie. including interest) although I don''t believe the club clarified.Therefore if you say we loan 20mil at 8% but the total cost is 30 mil that gives us a period of payment of approximately 12 years and a yearly cost of the loan of 2.5mil. Ideally a longer term would be more convenient but presumably this is the term on offer if the figures the club have quoted are correct.

This is assuming the stand is purely financed by loans, there would at least be some form of sponsorship package, while not a huge amount for stand sponsorship, I doubt it would be insignificant especially as TV cameras will always be pointing at that new stand.

Your admittedly probably exaggerated figure of £400 giving 1.6 million would however be more than double the interest payments (you''re wrong on that) but admittedly wouldn''t cover the entire cost importantly DURING THOSE 12 YEARS. It would leave around 900,000 shortfall.

However what is not taken into account is how much extra catering and commercial would produce directly from those ticket buyers or extra tickets sold for cup and friendly matches. Plus the aforementioned sponsorship. It also fails to take into account inflation.

However you have been overly generous with your figures so I will as well. Say the shortfall each year of the loan is 1 million pounds. After the 12 years there will still be effectively 12 million for the stand to continue to pay off to break even which should be achieved by your purely ticket sales of those 4000 seats in around 8 years (Not taking all those other factors in the previous paragraph into account)

That means the Stand would be paid off in 20 years and I suggest if some proper number crunching was done, including all the relevant factors, that timeline is likely to be shorter not longer. So of course the Stand will pay for itself.

Will it pay for itself during the life of the loan? possibly? probably not, I never suggested it would. However the shortfall (from ticket sales alone) is likely to be around 1 million per season. As I have previously stated we all seem quite happy to gloss over the fact that the academy now costs us 1.5 million a year while producing nothing so far for the first team, however we would not be prepared for the club to spend 1 million a year subsidising a stadium increase which would always see them making profit in the long term?

This is what baffles me, yes a redevelopment may not pay for itself initially but in the long run it will, and it will be providing greater commercial profits and/by encouraging the supporter base growth we need to compete at the next level.

For the club to grow this needs to happen. 3 things broadly differentiate the wealth of PL clubs, Owners wealth (Hopefully becoming increasingly insignificant through FFP and rewarding clubs like ours), TV money (Including finishing position) and then commercial/ticket revenue.

I don''t want to see a rich owner and I don''t think nowadays the majority of supporters do either. Money from league placement is a gamble, money invested in players doesn''t guarantee a higher finish. The only control the club has over growing its revenue is to increase ticket/commercial based revenue. There will always be short term risk involved with a project like this as it requires a significant financial outlay (I am glad we are spending big on players this window not on a stand as personally I don''t think the time is right) but if marketed correctly it is our only way to long term prospects for revenue growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a season ticket holder with 2 kids I feel it''s only fair to defend the club a bit on ticket prices. I feel my season ticket is decent value at just under 30 quid a game, but I have always been really impressed by the clubs continued determination to keep junior season ticket prices reasonable. Less than 100 quid each for a season of premier league football is very very fair in my view, especially with a waiting list of people ready willing and keen to pay four times more for those very same seats every year.

It also of course works, as those 2 junior tickets will undoubtedly in the fullness of time become 2 adult seasons ticket holders - probably with me still paying for the damn things knowing my kids!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ReadingCanary"]Because we have to stay competitive with all the other teams I''m afraid.[/quote]

I never agree with this. Ticket money is the drop in the water with a £5bn TV deal.

Look at Dortmund - their wage bill is half that of Arsenal''s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great thing about going to the opera is that can make your calculations on the back of the programme. So, what follows is a rough guide.The club used to give the cost of an extra 7,000 or 8,000 seats as £20m, when it was being bullish about the idea. Last September it went all pessimistic and suddenly it was £20m to £30m. As Monty suggests, probably the interest was being added in, as a way of justifying the pessimism.On that reasonable assumption (and not taking into account sponsorship deals and naming rights and possibly even some help from directors that would reduce the total, not to mention the extra income from catering and commercial) this is how  - really very crudely - it works from when the seats are installed in 2015 over the next 45 years, which brings us neatly to 2060.The club adds 8,000 seats at a final cost of £30m. Mainly in the posh bits of the ground, and so for season tickets.The current annual income per seat in the City Stand is comfortably above £500 but let''s round that down to £500 per annum. Now over the next 45 years inflation will increase that figure. Say to £1,100 per annum. Take the mid point of £800. Over those 45 years those seats will bring in £800 a year and 8,000 seats at £800 equals £6.4m.So just five seasons with all 8,000 seats being sold as season tickets would raise more than the £30m needed. But football has its ups and downs. Let us say, which is overly pessimistic, that in those 45 years we have no seasons in the fourth tier, five in the third, 20 in the second and 20 in the top tier.And assume we never have seasons in which we sell all the extra 8,000. We would still only need ten seasons out of the 45 in which we sold half the extra seats - ie 4,000, pushing attendances to the 31,000-mark - to raise the £30m (and of course this particular calculation works if we increase capacity by less than 8,000). Twenty seasons with only 2,000 extra seats being sold would do it. And various combinations thereof.It wil be possible to dispute some of the specific figures above (would all the new seats be for season tickets?) and wonder how inflation will go. But not, I think, the general idea. Unless something catastrophic happened to the club the extra capacity would end up paying for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Monty13"]A few points:

How do you know 8% is the interest rate on offer? Even though banks are reluctant to loan to Football clubs that is pretty steep.

But say that is the amount, I believe the last quote of the cost was 30 million but many believed that was the quoted total cost (ie. including interest) although I don''t believe the club clarified.Therefore if you say we loan 20mil at 8% but the total cost is 30 mil that gives us a period of payment of approximately 12 years and a yearly cost of the loan of 2.5mil. Ideally a longer term would be more convenient but presumably this is the term on offer if the figures the club have quoted are correct.

This is assuming the stand is purely financed by loans, there would at least be some form of sponsorship package, while not a huge amount for stand sponsorship, I doubt it would be insignificant especially as TV cameras will always be pointing at that new stand.

Your admittedly probably exaggerated figure of £400 giving 1.6 million would however be more than double the interest payments (you''re wrong on that) but admittedly wouldn''t cover the entire cost importantly DURING THOSE 12 YEARS. It would leave around 900,000 shortfall.

However what is not taken into account is how much extra catering and commercial would produce directly from those ticket buyers or extra tickets sold for cup and friendly matches. Plus the aforementioned sponsorship. It also fails to take into account inflation.

However you have been overly generous with your figures so I will as well. Say the shortfall each year of the loan is 1 million pounds. After the 12 years there will still be effectively 12 million for the stand to continue to pay off to break even which should be achieved by your purely ticket sales of those 4000 seats in around 8 years (Not taking all those other factors in the previous paragraph into account)

That means the Stand would be paid off in 20 years and I suggest if some proper number crunching was done, including all the relevant factors, that timeline is likely to be shorter not longer. So of course the Stand will pay for itself.

Will it pay for itself during the life of the loan? possibly? probably not, I never suggested it would. However the shortfall (from ticket sales alone) is likely to be around 1 million per season. As I have previously stated we all seem quite happy to gloss over the fact that the academy now costs us 1.5 million a year while producing nothing so far for the first team, however we would not be prepared for the club to spend 1 million a year subsidising a stadium increase which would always see them making profit in the long term?

This is what baffles me, yes a redevelopment may not pay for itself initially but in the long run it will, and it will be providing greater commercial profits and/by encouraging the supporter base growth we need to compete at the next level.

For the club to grow this needs to happen. 3 things broadly differentiate the wealth of PL clubs, Owners wealth (Hopefully becoming increasingly insignificant through FFP and rewarding clubs like ours), TV money (Including finishing position) and then commercial/ticket revenue.

I don''t want to see a rich owner and I don''t think nowadays the majority of supporters do either. Money from league placement is a gamble, money invested in players doesn''t guarantee a higher finish. The only control the club has over growing its revenue is to increase ticket/commercial based revenue. There will always be short term risk involved with a project like this as it requires a significant financial outlay (I am glad we are spending big on players this window not on a stand as personally I don''t think the time is right) but if marketed correctly it is our only way to long term prospects for revenue growth.[/quote]

jeez, you are a cretin of the highest order"Your admittedly probably exaggerated figure of £400 "Why ''admittedly probably exaggerated ''? They are the clubs own figures ie the annual ticket income divided by the games over the attendances. Why not actually do some research instead of constantly spewing out this ill founded sh ite ?As to the thread we got here with you bleating " the statement by you that "all figures point to the cost of any

redevelopment NOT being covered by the tickets" is completely false."
and after one post from me we have
" It would leave around 900,000 shortfall" ""However the shortfall (from ticket sales alone) is likely to be around 1 million per season"and a far far cry from this"as this is yet again another bare faced lie as of course over the long

term the extra tickets will pay for the redevelopment many times over.

"
So maybe an apology from you would not be out of place. The information was not false nor was it a bare faced lie. The only lies I can see have been coming from you. One being your assertion - " of course'' over the long

term the extra tickets will pay for the redevelopment many times over.

"
They won''t, not even once. As you admit.The rest of your inane rambling is not wort replying to. However I would suggest the next time you feel inclined to discuss something on here you bother to checks your facts first before throwing out baseless accusations.Those figures are readily available and would be considered the most basic of building blocks were you to be constructing an argument around the cost of redevelopment ie how much revenue can be raised through tickets.

Share this post


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

The great thing about going to the opera is that can make your calculations on the back of the programme. So, what follows is a rough guide.The club used to give the cost of an extra 7,000 or 8,000 seats as £20m, when it was being bullish about the idea. Last September it went all pessimistic and suddenly it was £20m to £30m. As Monty suggests, probably the interest was being added in, as a way of justifying the pessimism.On that reasonable assumption (and not taking into account sponsorship deals and naming rights and possibly even some help from directors that would reduce the total, not to mention the extra income from catering and commercial) this is how  - really very crudely - it works from when the seats are installed in 2015 over the next 45 years, which brings us neatly to 2060.The club adds 8,000 seats at a final cost of £30m. Mainly in the posh bits of the ground, and so for season tickets.The current annual income per seat in the City Stand is comfortably above £500 but let''s round that down to £500 per annum. Now over the next 45 years inflation will increase that figure. Say to £1,100 per annum. Take the mid point of £800. Over those 45 years those seats will bring in £800 a year and 8,000 seats at £800 equals £6.4m.So just five seasons with all 8,000 seats being sold as season tickets would raise more than the £30m needed. But football has its ups and downs. Let us say, which is overly pessimistic, that in those 45 years we have no seasons in the fourth tier, five in the third, 20 in the second and 20 in the top tier.And assume we never have seasons in which we sell all the extra 8,000. We would still only need ten seasons out of the 45 in which we sold half the extra seats - ie 4,000, pushing attendances to the 31,000-mark - to raise the £30m (and of course this particular calculation works if we increase capacity by less than 8,000). Twenty seasons with only 2,000 extra seats being sold would do it. And various combinations thereof.It wil be possible to dispute some of the specific figures above (would all the new seats be for season tickets?) and wonder how inflation will go. But not, I think, the general idea. Unless something catastrophic happened to the club the extra capacity would end up paying for itself.

[/quote]
I think a new stand could potentially offer so much more than just some new seats. 
It would enable us to improve the club shop for example. There might also be the potential to include bar, we could call it Holt''s Bar and decorate it with memorabilia from the clubs history. It could also allow us to extend our hospitality areas and offer more corporate boxes, in the ''main stand'' at that.  Also some potential for improved function rooms for hire for events, even weddings. 
It would also increase the stadium capacity for concerts, we could host some Robbie Williams concerts or something. Usually stadium concerts have the stage at the end of the ground (say for example, against the Riverend). Most of the two side stands and the Barclay would then be utilised for seating, and the pitch for standing. 
We could become the primary East Anglian location for stadium concerts (when these big pop stars do stadium tours). A bigger stand also means more space for sponsorship boards, on the stand which faces the TV cameras, especially if it is double tier with a row of sponsorship boards in between the tiers (like the Riverend and Barclay).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone would like the capacity of the stadium increased but unusually for purple he seems to be missing the biggest single reason for not doing it that attendances may actually go down with a greater capacity !

First point, I know for a fact that some people on the season ticket waiting list got tickets for the coming season meaning that we have a general wastage on season ticket holders for any number of reasons (Financial, Death, Moving, Having to work Saturdays etc etc)

We also know that we might have to reduce capacity for a significant part of a season to complete any new stand which would be very difficult to manage with such a high percentage of season tickets as well as costly.

So take it that you know you can turn up at Carrow Rd on a Saturday and get hold of a ticket? How many people who currently have season tickets who cant get to every game would still buy one ? I know its cost effective but I have had season tickets for the last 7 years despite only being able to go to 50% of the games (before that I was in Norfolk all the time)

I would think the only way it would make sense would be to do some sort of system like West Ham did by selling Guaranteed season tickets for a minimum of 5 years  and when there would be 4000 people prepared to sign up then do the work.

Its  shame we cannot add a small upper tier to the Jarrold without interfering with the short term match day capacity as this would be preferable even if more expensive.

I would say overall you probably could not Guarantee more than 2000 average full paying adults in any new stand  we could potentially also increase our ability to bring in the next generation of fans but that wouldn''t pay the bills. So I would suggest it would be likely to take the best part of 30 years to cover the cost even if we remain in the premier league over that time. Add to this the lost revenue from 4000 for a season while the work was completed £2M ? and the fact that in all likelihood increased capacity will actually reduce revenue per ticket ie if we had an extra 5000 tickets for casual supporters the price would be say £35 not £45 maybe another 500K lost per year ?

All in all I can see no logic for investing this money unless there was some kind of indemnity from future potential season ticket holders covering a significant part of the cost. 5000 people 5 years at £500 = £12.5M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Houston Canary"]I get your point UC but to say a game ticket gets 2 hours of entertainment is minimalizing the game day experience. For many, the game can be almost incidental especially if the team doesn''t play well that day.

I know many hit the pub on the way in, but is there tailgatiing? It''s huge at US sporting events. People grill and party in parking lots for hours before going into the stadium.[/quote]Yeah, that''s a fair point HC. It''s probably because when I used to go, I was so p*ssed off after the game that I''ve tried to block them out! [:D]As for the grilling and partying, not so big over here. Not sure Morrisons would appreciate people rocking up with sound systems and BBQ''s in their car park! Would be fun though... Well, until your car gets locked in later! [:D]

Share this post


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

I think everyone would like the capacity of the stadium increased but unusually for purple he seems to be missing the biggest single reason for not doing it that attendances may actually go down with a greater capacity !

First point, I know for a fact that some people on the season ticket waiting list got tickets for the coming season meaning that we have a general wastage on season ticket holders for any number of reasons (Financial, Death, Moving, Having to work Saturdays etc etc)

We also know that we might have to reduce capacity for a significant part of a season to complete any new stand which would be very difficult to manage with such a high percentage of season tickets as well as costly.

So take it that you know you can turn up at Carrow Rd on a Saturday and get hold of a ticket? How many people who currently have season tickets who cant get to every game would still buy one ? I know its cost effective but I have had season tickets for the last 7 years despite only being able to go to 50% of the games (before that I was in Norfolk all the time)

I would think the only way it would make sense would be to do some sort of system like West Ham did by selling Guaranteed season tickets for a minimum of 5 years  and when there would be 4000 people prepared to sign up then do the work.

Its  shame we cannot add a small upper tier to the Jarrold without interfering with the short term match day capacity as this would be preferable even if more expensive.

I would say overall you probably could not Guarantee more than 2000 average full paying adults in any new stand  we could potentially also increase our ability to bring in the next generation of fans but that wouldn''t pay the bills. So I would suggest it would be likely to take the best part of 30 years to cover the cost even if we remain in the premier league over that time. Add to this the lost revenue from 4000 for a season while the work was completed £2M ? and the fact that in all likelihood increased capacity will actually reduce revenue per ticket ie if we had an extra 5000 tickets for casual supporters the price would be say £35 not £45 maybe another 500K lost per year ?

All in all I can see no logic for investing this money unless there was some kind of indemnity from future potential season ticket holders covering a significant part of the cost. 5000 people 5 years at £500 = £12.5M

[/quote]

Absolutely spot onThe only hope is that some on here will be willing to give up their season ticket for a season or more to accommodate the 400 displaced Main Stand folkperhaps Morty would care to get the ball rolling, shouldn''t think he would want us all to think that he is all talk and nothing else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny, I sympathise with you. Paying almost half your weekly wage is a joke for one football match. The prices are way too high.

 

But the arguments for this being the case are valid, and have been repeated above several time, especially those mentioning market forces, competitiveness and ''like it or lump it''.

 

I''d like to add my slightly more alternative view, that being; Wage and salary caps across football, not only in the EPL, but across England and the rest of the world.

 

I know it is almost impossible especially when you consider how much money is on offer in the more shady countries like Russia and tax havens like Monaco. But the only way to give football back to the fans is by limiting the money payable to players, agents, managers and owners etc.

 

A totally independent non-profit organisation needs to control world football. One which can''t be bought and fall victim to corruption. Their priority should be the fans, and to stop the exponential rise in wages across the top levels of the game.

 

This should theoretically stop clubs taking extra TV money, like this year, and simply spending more in inflated transfer fees, player wages, agent commission and bonuses.

 

This extra TV money should go back to the match day fans by lowering match day tickets. It''s a huge task given the absolute greed of most owners and shareholders, they want to take as much money as possible of course out of our pockets, such is capitalism. So I''m guessing it is the fans who would need to rise up in some form of revolution against ticket prices and form this organisation to eventually control football.

 

There''s a million difficulties in attempting this, such is the strength of the money men who rule football. But the one advantage of an attempt is that football once was a game for the fans and could be afforded by everybody. Footballs roots are the working class, therefore it can be taken back by the working class at ground level.

TV can still plough billions in and keep the big cheeses in gold alloys for their Bentleys. All we need is to achieve is a reduction in match day costs back down to affordable levels for everybody. Surely with the countless billions flooding in from TV globally this is acheivable without too much loss from bottom line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a brighter note, tickets for Brighton away are 12 quid.  [:D]Regarding the stadium, perhaps it''s time to consider a purpose built 50-60-70,000 capacity venue. I was originally against this idea as I love Carrow Road but can see many reasons why a move could be advantageous in the next 10-20 years as live football-loving population increases far beyond the ability of the coping capacity that currently exists or will exist even after an upgrade to 35,000.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haha, City1st do you read your own posts?

"Why ''admittedly probably exaggerated ''?" I was agreeing with your previous post where you listed the reason this figure may be exaggerated, you know the rest of your entire post after the "however those figures have everything at the top, whereas...."

I would stop pointlessly arguing with you if your responses were not so hilarious!

Yet again I have never said the stand would definitely pay for itself over the cost of the proposed loan, I have always said it will pay for itself over the life of the stand many times over, a fact that should be obvious even to you. (I''ve done reserved figures and so has Purple) So no I won''t apologise as you are wrong, continue to be wrong and yet continue to bluster and spin your argument while ignoring what is actually being said.

"all figures point to the cost of any redevelopment NOT being covered by the tickets" Your original words, no timeframe just that ticket sales will not cover the cost of redevelopment which unless NCFC winds up or sells the stadium before it is achieved is simply not true.

I don''t know if anyone else is reading this thread apart from us and Purple but I''m sure the average supporter can recognise a constructive argument even if you can''t through your own dizzyingly hilarious spin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The only hope is that some on here will be willing to give up their season ticket for a season or more to accommodate the 400 displaced Main Stand folk"

haha true colours City1st?!! Go on it''s the real reason you don''t want development isn''t it?!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×