Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[west didsblue]

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.

Bournemouth took all of their allocation but the point applies to quite a few other matches.

 

[cleavers]

Bournemouth took all of their allocation but the point applies to quite a few other matches.

My apologies to Bournemouth.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Although the club pretty much sold a SC to anyone who was prepared to pay the standing prices last year (I believe giving us 42K SC holders), wasn't there a considerable amount of the waiting list that didn't take up the offer because they ran out of £299 SC's and they were prepared to wait until the North Stand was expanded in the hope of getting the same offer again.
I've already demonstrated in a previous post our current take up of seats for PL games is 98.8%. I've extrapolated some figures for expected full houses and those expected to fall short and we maintain that figure to the end of the season.
So the question has to be asked is 98.8% take-up (given some of the shortfall of 1.2% -550 seats, will be because away support from some clubs is poor) sufficient to warrant further expansion considering we may already have a list (reduced from last year obviously) of people willing to buy tickets at £299.
Anyone want to guess?
I'm going with a YES.

 

[Marvin]

Although the club pretty much sold a SC to anyone who was prepared to pay the standing prices last year (I believe giving us 42K SC holders), wasn't there a considerable amount of the waiting list that didn't take up the offer because they ran out of £299 SC's and they were prepared to wait until the North Stand was expanded in the hope of getting the same offer again.
I've already demonstrated in a previous post our current take up of seats for PL games is 98.8%. I've extrapolated some figures for expected full houses and those expected to fall short and we maintain that figure to the end of the season.
So the question has to be asked is 98.8% take-up (given some of the shortfall of 1.2% -550 seats, will be because away support from some clubs is poor) sufficient to warrant further expansion considering we may already have a list (reduced from last year obviously) of people willing to buy tickets at £299.
Anyone want to guess?
I'm going with a YES.

Crowds justify it. 99% occupancy, and you have to build while you are doing well otherwise you miss the boat. Imagine if we had a City end opposite Everton on Weds night. It's needed. Hope the club go for it

 

[Rammy Blue]

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.



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.

The king of talking bollocks has spoken.

 

[Shaelumstash]

The king of talking bollocks has spoken.

Maybe read this mate if you think Supply and Demand is "Bollocks", I've not really got the time to explain it to you.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The king of talking bollocks has spoken.

Can we avoid this sort of post please? It really doesn't help the discussion.

I understand what Shaelumstash is saying but he's made the mistake of assuming that demand is constant, whereas it can be increased. That's why you see promotions in supermarkets - they increase demand for the product and the supplier needs to ensure the supply is there to meet it. And things like consistent success, great football ,cheap prices can all increase demand. Like happened with me many years ago, kids will get their dads to take them to games when they haven't been to a match before.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Can we avoid this sort of post please? It really doesn't help the discussion.

I understand what Shaelumstash is saying but he's made the mistake of assuming that demand is constant, whereas it can be increased. That's why you see promotions in supermarkets - they increase demand for the product and the supplier needs to ensure the supply is there to meet it. And things like consistent success, great football ,cheap prices can all increase demand. Like happened with me many years ago, kids will get their dads to take them to games when they haven't been to a match before.

Thanks mate, but you're mistaken in suggesting I think demand is constant.

I made the point several times that City could reduce prices to increase demand, but that this wouldn't be a sensible strategy. I even used your example of 60k plus fans paying £30 wouldn't necessarily be better in revenue terms than keeping the existing capacity and charging £40.

I also pointed out on numerous occasions that our fan base is growing organically, and that there will eventually be enough demand for 60k capacity for every home game.

My point, and one I'm sticking to, is that currently supply outstrips demand. To increase supply at this stage would not make prudent economic sense unless ticket prices were to drop (which I don't think is sensible for the reasons outlined above) or there was some other huge stimulus which would motivate an extra 9k people to come to every home game. Other than signing Messi I can't see what would make that happen overnight.

As I have said previously, my view is that we will eventually expand the stadium to 60k plus. It is also my view that now is not the correct time to expand. My view is based on Supply and Demand, and I do appreciate demand is elastic.

I've been accused of "Talking bollocks" but maybe @Rammy Blue doesn't understand the fundamentals of Western Economics, which is based on Supply and Demand.

Ignorance is bliss I guess, but people saying "Build it and they will come" because it's a snappy line from a Kevin Costner film about baseball-playing ghosts, really aren't in a position to call Western economic theory "bollocks".

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

In the next financial year our turnover will be close to £450m and our net profit will probably be around £70m. I doubt the club will be too bothered about not making a couple of million more revenue. 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. Even if it didn't, we'd have lost just over 0.1% of our revenue.

We thought this years ago and still prices have gone up

I think @Shaelumstash is talking a lot of sense and out his point across well so doesn't warrant any abuse. Seem pretty realistic points to me

 

[DiscoSteve]

the problem is that it takes two years to increase supply - do you want to turn people away for two years by starting the increase in supply two years too late? speculate to accumulate...