relocation, relocation , relocation (FCR)

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Today''s EDP article about ground expansion, based on quotes from Bowkett and McNally, is much less informative than it could have been, but still throws up some points of interest.1) The board is still keen on the idea of a 35,000-seat stadium in general, with talk of achieving it "in the mid-term" rather than the long-term. And it being the City Stand that would be rebuilt. No menton of The Jarrold.2) The cost is now being put at £30m rather than the £20m and then the £20m to £30m mentioned a while back, with annual repayments over 20 years of £2.5m.3) Bowkett says that would be covered by extra ticket sales of £3m a year, although slightly confusingly he then talks about that being based on average attendances of 35,000 a season equal to 94 per cent. If the capacity is 35,000 then his average is actually permanent full attendances.

4) The projections are based on a 20 year period and continued Premier League status. As Bowkett says there is no guarantee of that (for what it is worth my very rough fag packet calculations assumed an average attendance well below capacity for several seasons and a much time period before going into profit). But what is clear is that Bowkett is sure that over time the extra capacity would bring in extra revenue. He effectively blows out of the water the idea, occasionally floated here, that filling more seats would force a reduction in prices and so not rake in more money.5) The problem of the temporary relocation of fans from the City Stand is seen as just that - a problem but not an insuperable obstacle.

[cornish sam 944]

Purps, I think that what he meant to say (that has been badly conveyed) was that was based on 94% occupation of the 35,000 capacity. My own fag packet calculations based on full occupancy said that we would need to only charge about £18.50 per ticket for the additional seats to make the £3m per year Bowkett quotes (so based on 94% occupancy that would be about £25.50) which would allow for a modest reduction of ticket prices around the ground...

[I Love Fernando Derveld 0]

I always thought when the new South Stand was built, there was the

capability, and planning permission to add another tier onto that -

although this would give the ground a ''lopsided'' look, surely thats the

easiest and cheapest option?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="cornish sam"]Purps, I think that what he meant to say (that has been badly conveyed) was that was based on 94% occupation of the 35,000 capacity. My own fag packet calculations based on full occupancy said that we would need to only charge about £18.50 per ticket for the additional seats to make the £3m per year Bowkett quotes (so based on 94% occupancy that would be about £25.50) which would allow for a modest reduction of ticket prices around the ground...[/quote]

 

Reading it again (too little coffee before) I think you''re right. That would work out at average attendances of 33,000. More realistic, although I am still highly dubious as to how many extra fans there really are out there. Myself (based on pessimistic/realistic assumptions and absurdly rough calculations) I doubt that over the 20 years all the money for repayments would come from extra ticket sales. I think we would have to dip into the general budget. But in the long run, over decades beyond the 20 years, the project would break even and from then on be in profit.My sense from Bowkett is that the mood music on the issue, which used to be very positive and then went  pretty negative, has lightened up just a bit. One point he doesn''t raise is actually getting the finance. At the last AGM he said they had hawked the idea round the City and got nowhere. But that potential stumbling block isn''t mentioned. An oversight, or perhaps finance would be available.