North Stand Expansion | Configuration plans revealed by club (p 1285)

[jrb]

In 2007 the cost of putting a retractable roof on Citi field stadium was in the region of $125mill. In 2023 the cost had gone up to $800mill. A six fold increase.

Mets owner Steve Cohen is one who's looked into building a retractable roof for Citi Field, no surprise since he'll consider anything to improve Mets fan experience.

And word is Cohen was told it would cost $800 million to add a retractable roof, which seems to have given him pause to the point where he is currently considering it a missed opportunity.

Mets owner Steve Cohen has looked into what it would cost to add retractable roof at Citi Field, per report

The Mets owner found out that adding a retractable roof in Queens would be around $800 million, apparently

www.cbssports.com

A retractable roof provides ballparks with the best of both worlds, but it seems like in this case that ship has already sailed. Heyman reports the Wilpon ownership group could have put a retractable roof on Citi Field during construction for much cheaper (possibly around $125 million) in 2007.

Back in 1998, before Citi Field's current design was finalized, the Mets plans were to have a ballpark with a retractable roof. The picture below is a later version of the dome plan. This one is more modern with more glass and steel.(shown in the link)

Unrealized Concepts - Volume 1 - Mets Dome

Back in 1998, before Citi Field's current design was finalized, the Mets plans were to have a ballpark with a retractable roof. The picture...

stadiumpage.blogspot.com

 

[jrb]

Besides the cost of a new roof.

City have a 250 year lease on the stadium. Think the annual Council House ;-) rent is in the region of £4mill a year? I stand corrected on that. If City see out the lease they will probably pay close to or over £1bill for leasing the stadium over 250 years, depending on increasing rental agreements with MCC. Sadly, we won’t see the stadium lease out. :-( But we’ve seen a treble! :-)

City can buy the stadium if they want to buy it. Up to now City are happy to pay the annual lease. There has been no indication City want to buy the stadium. Maybe City see the annual £4mill lease as a good will gesture to MCC and the people of MCR, as the lease money goes back to the people of MCR. It’s good PR for the club and something City can be proud of.

It would be interesting to know if the club has an agreement to buy the stadium at the original price offered to City, minus the work City have done to the stadium, or if it‘s a comparable future rolling stadium price, which wouldn’t be great, as the cost of building a new stadium has rocketed over the last 10 years. On the off chance, does anyone know?

 

[nmc]

We’ve got Manchester Central or GMEX as us FOC’s still remember it. Event City has now gone, so you could argue another large exhibition venue in Manchester could be busy and viable. Birmingham has the NEC which pretty much hoovers up all the big national exhibitions. London has Earls Court. I sincerely hope whatever is planned for the Collar site is more interesting and exciting than an exhibition centre.

I thought Boris Johnson when mayor of London actively oversaw (using his powers to block a listing by English Heritage) the sale and demolition of Earls Court by his developer friends ! Hence it was demolished in 2015.

 

[InvisibleFan]

Besides the cost of a new roof.

City have a 250 year lease on the stadium. Think the annual Council House ;-) rent is in the region of £4mill a year? I stand corrected on that. If City see out the lease they will probably pay close to or over £1bill for leasing the stadium over 250 years, depending on increasing rental agreements with MCC. Sadly, we won’t see the stadium lease out. :-( But we’ve seen a treble! :-)

City can buy the stadium if they want to buy it. Up to now City are happy to pay the annual lease. There has been no indication City want to buy the stadium. Maybe City see the annual £4mill lease as a good will gesture to MCC and the people of MCR, as the lease money goes back to the people of MCR. It’s good PR for the club and something City can be proud of.

It would be interesting to know if the club has an agreement to buy the stadium at the original price offered to City, minus the work City have done to the stadium, or if it‘s a comparable future rolling stadium price, which wouldn’t be great, as the cost of building a new stadium has rocketed over the last 10 years. On the off chance, does anyone know?

The stadium is not for sale. Makes no Financial sense to the council. It was built using grant funding from national lottery and sports Council. If the stadium is sold that funding needs repaying at todays equivalent value, so council wouldn't get much money and would lose £4m a year income from our rent. Similar if we exit the stadium and build a new one the grant would need repaying if the stadium is demolished.

 

[Mcfc1.9.8.0]

Besides the cost of a new roof.

City have a 250 year lease on the stadium. Think the annual Council House ;-) rent is in the region of £4mill a year? I stand corrected on that. If City see out the lease they will probably pay close to or over £1bill for leasing the stadium over 250 years, depending on increasing rental agreements with MCC. Sadly, we won’t see the stadium lease out. :-( But we’ve seen a treble! :-)

City can buy the stadium if they want to buy it. Up to now City are happy to pay the annual lease. There has been no indication City want to buy the stadium. Maybe City see the annual £4mill lease as a good will gesture to MCC and the people of MCR, as the lease money goes back to the people of MCR. It’s good PR for the club and something City can be proud of.

It would be interesting to know if the club has an agreement to buy the stadium at the original price offered to City, minus the work City have done to the stadium, or if it‘s a comparable future rolling stadium price, which wouldn’t be great, as the cost of building a new stadium has rocketed over the last 10 years. On the off chance, does anyone know?

Is the lease just the stadium or does it include all the land around it. Not that it makes any difference just curious

 

[nmc]

I wouldn’t say it was a few obsessives. ;-) More than a few obsessive City fans wanted a single tier stand, just like Spurs fans have got, and what Everton fans are getting. Spurs and Everton could have built a double or triple tier home end, but they decided to go with a single tier home end behind the goals, because that’s what Spurs and Everton fans wanted, and told the club that through the consultation process. I accept the single tier home ends are built from scratch along with the stadiums.

As part of the NS expansion plans City would have and probably ‘did look at a single tier’ option, but discounted it due to fan displacement, lost match day revenue whilst the stand was under construction, construction costs, and less match day revenue returns after the single tier was built. You can’t put 700 G+ seats on the first 7 rows of a single tier stand, etc. ;-)

In that last paragraph you are adding 2 + 2 and getting 7. I’m certain the hospitality / GA stuff at the front of the stand - which has not been explained was not a factor in the decision making, but it may have presented an option to sell these seats at a slightly higher price but I’m not sure we will be seeing people in tweeds unpacking F&M hampers quaffing Don Perignon as you seem to envisage.

 

[Corky]

We’ve got Manchester Central or GMEX as us FOC’s still remember it. Event City has now gone, so you could argue another large exhibition venue in Manchester could be busy and viable. Birmingham has the NEC which pretty much hoovers up all the big national exhibitions. London has Earls Court. I sincerely hope whatever is planned for the Collar site is more interesting and exciting than an exhibition centre.

There is a big purpose built one in Harrogate. The people who go to exhibitions don't mind staying there.

The NEC is massive, no point trying to compete in that market.

 

[jrb]

The stadium is not for sale. Makes no Financial sense to the council. It was built using grant funding from national lottery and sports Council. If the stadium is sold that funding needs repaying at todays equivalent value, so council wouldn't get much money and would lose £4m a year income from our rent. Similar if we exit the stadium and build a new one the grant would need repaying if the stadium is demolished.

City had an option to buy the stadium. Whether City still have or not I'm not sure. It's possible to find out under the Freedom of Information act if you apply to MCC.

 

[jrb]

There is a big purpose built one in Harrogate. The people who go to exhibitions don't mind staying there.

The NEC is massive, no point trying to compete in that market.

Totally agree. It's a limited market. As you say, dominated by the NEC nationally. It's not worth losing the revenue potential and job creation of the Collar site for an exhibition centre.

 

[Corky]

City had an option to buy the stadium. Whether City still have or not I'm not sure. It's possible to find out under the Freedom of Information act if you apply to MCC.

IF they have any sense they say Section 43 exemption.