Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[petrusha]

You're reasoning is flawed I'm afraid

You're basically saying don't rebuild the north stand because it may look empty sometimes

This is about the future not the present

Who gives a fuck if there's a few empty seats..some games it will have 60k fans..some games it won't

It's only an issue because other fans and the press tell you it is

The bigger the ground the better..regardless of current attendance

If what's widely believed to be City's plan is successful, we'll hire Guardiola this coming summer, then by the summer of 2017 he'll have built a side playing in a style and achieving sufficient success to pull in 60K punters or more to our home games. Surely the thing to do is anticipate that and ensure we're ready for it by expanding sooner rather than later.

I tend to agree with Wilf Wild 1937. If they delay, it's more likely to be because of infrastructure issues that have become clear with the increased capacity this season and they need to work out solutions before they can go ahead.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm not wishing to be negative, but I'm surprised how many people are convinced we are likely to to see the North Stand expanded imminently.

Before the current expansion, we were selling out the 47k capacity regularly. I'd say a good two seasons we sold out pretty much every home league game. The "20k empty seats" jibe at the time was absurd, as league games were overwhelmingly full.

Since the expansion, attendances have obviously increased, so the expansion was clearly merited. Our average league attendance is probably going to be around 53k, which is great and will be a club record.

There are noticeably more empty seats this season than in previous years though. Whether that is down to apathy because of the team playing below par and many games being boring, whether it's a reflection of the traffic chaos around Manchester this year putting people off, or perhaps the expansion has caught up with demand, and the stadium is currently an appropriate size for our match going fan base?

To increase to 60k plus capacity would not be a prudent move right now in my view. We are trying to maximise match day income. It's better to let demand catch up with supply first. That way the club can start creeping prices up once we start getting sell outs every week. I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Expanding now would mean there is an over supply of seats compared with demand. If tickets become too easy to get hold of, and people remain apathetic about attending, the club would be forced to start dropping ticket prices to try to fill seats and keep revenues as high as possible. That would be a disasterous position for the club to be in, and I'm sure one they are very keen to avoid.

Of course it would be great for the fans, but from a business perspective it would be a disaster for the club to start subsidising ticket prices.

We've got a great stadium, a great team and great owners. We've got a hard core fan base, which is expanding, but our core regular match going fan base numbers around 53k. That's the best we've had in history, but there doesn't appear to be the demand for an extra 9k tickets every two weeks just yet.

Let's not worry about Liverpool, Spurs and West Ham. Let them get on with their business and we'll get on with ours.

I'm sure there will eventually be a demand for us to have a 60k plus stadium, but that's got to happen organically. We shouldn't rush in to expanding the stadium, just for the sake of "keeping up with the Jones's".

I agree that it's unlikely we'll sell 60,000+ every match at current ticket price levels but if prices were frozen or reduced slightly, that would bring an increase in sales without impacting the match day revenue significantly. I don't agree that reducing prices counts as subsidizing them; if the club is in profit, which it is now, setting a price that maximises attendance makes commercial sense due to additional beer, food and merchandising sales. It would mean more tourists but that's something that's happening anyway and we have to learn to live with it. Match day revenue is never going to be as significant a part of our income as it is for say Arsenal because of the demographic that attends, and the fact that Arsenal have the biggest matchday revenue of any club in the world is hardly a cause for celebration for them as it points to them ripping off their fans. I'd rather we maximised commercial and broadcasting revenue and keep ticket prices affordable. As for transport, the Mancunian Way isn't going to be dug up forever and hopefully someone will realise that it might be a good idea to build a railway station next to the Athletics track to provide addition public transport capacity.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Exactly. Build it and they'll come. Especially if there are thousands of cheap season tickets in a newly expanded North Stand as there are in the 3rd tier of the South Stand.

As soon as it's built it stats giving a Return on Investment. I'm sure the club have seen enough with the jump in attendances this season to build it in the next two seasons with the assumption that demand will continue to rise as it is being built.

 

[Centurions]

If what's widely believed to be City's plan is successful, we'll hire Guardiola this coming summer, then by the summer of 2017 he'll have built a side playing in a style and achieving sufficient success to pull in 60K punters or more to our home games. Surely the thing to do is anticipate that and ensure we're ready for it by expanding sooner rather than later.

I tend to agree with Wilf Wild 1937. If they delay, it's more likely to be because of infrastructure issues that have become clear with the increased capacity this season and they need to work out solutions before they can go ahead.

You beat me to it, it's not like the North stand will suddenly increase in size overnight, it'll take time. Meanwhile the team will move on and generate new support (at least that's the theory).

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of the conversations that surely must be taking place between MCC & MCFC about the infrastructure cock ups and what exactly are they going to do about it.

 

[HelloCity]

Don't agree with the logic of not building the North Stand due to empty seats.

The same empty seats would be there even if we were getting 100,000. The vast majority of them are the new breed of season ticket holders who pick and choose their games depending on the opponent and weather etc.

Crowds are sometimes lower than 54k because only about 4 teams have filled the away end this season. To our credit we have filled that away end 3rd tier most times we have taken it up. That's a huge sign demand is there beyond the standard offering, at least in the league.

 

[cleavers]

Crowds are sometimes lower than 54k because only about 4 teams have filled the away end this season. To our credit we have filled that away end 3rd tier most times we have taken it up. That's a huge sign demand is there beyond the standard offering, at least in the league.

I think that is already at the forefront of their thinking, not only that but we've done it against some unfancied sides too, where you would think demand would be less, so if we can sell those 1500 easily against Bournemouth, we won't have an issue selling 6000 against the top clubs.

 

[fbloke]

You're wrong. Non-football income can be included if it derives from activities on or near the area around the ground. So if we built a hotel or leisure attraction on the collar site, the revenue from that would count. Until UEFA changed the rules again of course.

It can be derived from anywhere on the planet and as long as it uses the name/trademarks of MCFC or its subsidiaries the funds can be included in FFP calcs.

 

[Shaelumstash]

You're reasoning is flawed I'm afraid

You're basically saying don't rebuild the north stand because it may look empty sometimes

This is about the future not the present

Who gives a fuck if there's a few empty seats..some games it will have 60k fans..some games it won't

It's only an issue because other fans and the press tell you it is

The bigger the ground the better..regardless of current attendance

No, if you think my reasoning is flawed you've clearly not understood my point.

Where did I mention being bothered if the stand is empty sometimes? You're a good poster mate and I like you, but I'm afraid on this occasion you've read what you wanted to read as opposed to actually reading my post.

It makes no difference to me if there are empty seats at some games, I really don't give a toss what rags or anyone else says. I brought up the empty seats as an illustration of demand not currently matching supply.

I'm not sure if you've ever studied economics, but I have. If supply outstrips demand, it's generally not a very good idea to start increasing supply. If you do, it's very likely you will have to start dropping prices to deal with the lag. It's common sense.

@Prestwich_Blue illustrated my point with figures which makes it easier to understand.

A crowd of 60,000 paying £30 a ticket compared to 50,000 paying £40 a ticket would bring in £20k a match less or £500k over a season of 25 home games. But the extra revenue from catering and other sales would probably make most of that up.

How much would it cost to build the new stand? £50m? I know build costs wouldn't count for FFP, but in purely financial terms that £50m has to come from somewhere. So let's take PB's figures from above. Let's even say the food and beverage makes up for the shortfall, and after the expansion our matchday revenue is identical to what it is now, how does that make financial sense? A £50m outlay for a 0% increase in revenue? It's hardly the deal of the century.

In contrast, if we keep the current capacity, steadily build on our match day attendances, regularly sell out, it will mean demand has caught up with supply. Demand may even outstip supply eventually, as it did two seasons ago.

When demand outstrips supply, it makes it possible to increase prices. So again using PB's example, in 2 years time we could be charging £50 per ticket, which would increase revenues with absolutely zero outlay.

That would then be the time to expand. A full season of capacity sell outs, people desperate for tickets, if you expand then, we will be able to sell out 60k plus without having to drop prices.

I'm sure we will eventually have a 60k plus stadium. If we carry on being successful, the club continues to be run in the fantastic way it is now, it's inevitable that we'll eventually need a stadium that big.

My point is that the demand is not currently there. It doesn't look like it will be there in 12 months time, so why the rush to build it now? So we can say to Dippers and Spurs fans we've got a bigger stadium than them? £50m seems a big outlay for such a minor boast.

I keep hearing this line "build it and they will come" which is logic based on a film about a baseball stadium in a guys back garden for baseball playing ghosts. Personally, I'd rather stick with taditional economics.

 

[droylsdenblue]

The club rang me yesterday re my complaint about the leaking roof in the South Stand.
Apparently there is a design fault and the contractors are looking into it. I was also offered the chance to relocate.
I must say that the customer service of the club regarding this matter has been very impressive.

 

[Centurions]

What do you mean by 'count towards'? do you mean exempt?
My understanding was exemptions were only for football infrastructure, but not for the other construction projects.

I was meaning income not expenditure.

Is it? I thought non football related income wasn't allowed (in order to prevent an obvious circumvention of FFP by getting into a new realm of business that makes some amazing profits and ploughs them all back into the club arm of the business).
Could be wrong on that, but definitely had this in mind regarding FFP.

I see PB has answered your question elsewhere but you raise a good point that I've not considered. Who pays the capital costs of whatever ends up on the collar site? Is it City, the CFG or the Sheikh directly? And if not City then can we still include the income? If it is City I'm presuming that we can't write it off for FFP purposes as it's not part of the football infrastructure.

This is also part of the reason new stadiums all seem to have hotels built in to them I suppose.