Stadium Expansion

[warpig]

A mate who works at city has told me the owners have put 400 million aside to expand the stadium to 75,000.

Can't see myself why we would make it that big, but hopefully its true.

This is going to happen and it could be as soon as the end of this season.
I've also spoke to someone who has seen the plans for the new training complex that's going to be built on the land bought near the ground.
They said the plans are out of this world!!

I mentioned this to some in PM about a month ago that will back me up that it's not bollox

might have been marco that danamy.

 

[goat boy]

I think football is different with regards to 'selling out'. In a supermarket if you sell out of onions the word spreads that the place in question never had any stock left, and thus people go and shop elsewhere. In football a 'sell out' is a sign of success, and any excess, in this case - empty seats, are frowned upon by the footballing community. Sell outs over a long period of time creates demand; the domino effect of people wanting tickets in fear of missing out.

If a stadium is full of empty seats then people are more relaxed about buying, and if they're too relaxed they may not even bother buying at all. If a stadium is full week in week out then people become concerned about missing out and thus become more pro active with their ticket hunt. If you look at United, they were getting 44,000 when they started winning the league. They expanded it after selling out every match for around three seasons, with Government money of course, to 55,000 when they rebuilt the North Stand. When that sold out every match they put another tier on the East Stand (61,000), followed by another tier on the Stretford End (68,000). When that sold out every match they filled in the corners and got up to 76,000. That's a 15 year development plan sustained by continued sell outs and success on the field.

At City a good side and a bit of hope sees us selling out 47,500 and that's without winning anything and a poor top division side sees us getting about 42,000, which is pretty good no matter what anyone says. We need to fill up COMS for three years and build up an excess base of supporters who have not been for years and are finally being lured back in, along with glory hunters and tourists as well, like it or not! Then we can think about putting 6,000 on the South Stand, and when we sell out 53,500 every games for 2-3 years we can put 6,000 on the North Stand as well. So in reality we're not shy off a decade before we're value for a 60,000 seater stadium - going off the successful United model.

Empty seats scare people off, our Cup games are an example of this. There are thousands who don't come because they don't want to sit in a half empty stadium - another domino effect.

I agree with paragraphs 1, 2, and 4. I don't agree with 3. I believe our stated objective for growth (in a business sense) is to do something absolutely unprecedented. As an example of this, the club has pursued and purchased what you could reasonably argue to be 3 or 4 transfer windows worth of players in the space of one- at overtly high capital outlay. Include January's additions and you've got maybe 5 or 6 worth in the space of two. As Platini and his friends at our competitiors note with dismay, 'The Project' finds money no object. The speed at which City are attempting to grow is what really frightens them.

Growing attendances is part of the package, and I expect that the reason we have a role for Danny Wilson at the club is that they're looking to systematically eradicate reasons for people to not present themselves to attendance on a matchday. Recall, if you will, that in (more or less...) living memory, 80,000+ people have turned out for a City match at home. Perhaps the game has moved on, certainly in the PL era, but perhaps if a club can break an industry model at the detriment of income can be a good thing (I show another example here of a new City website full of highlights and other video content, vs MCFCTV.com subscriptions). The industry model they may break which is pertinent to the context of this thread, is the concept of CL echelon football match attendance as an expensive thing to do. £40 a ticket or more? Christ alive, did I miss a meeting? If you're prepared to take the loss of income, why not take the game back to the less well to do? Give them a ticket to get on the Met while you're at it.

I honestly believe that maintaining attendances at something close to capacity, and a decent atmosphere for the TV cameras/ microphones fits neatly in with the football club at the centre of the glamourous vision that the Sheikh and his family have for the project. Greater attendance figures brings greater kudos. I see it as quite feasible that they're thinking about and planning towards 60k or more attendances, and not just wealthy tourists from Singapore either- keep ticket prices low and you'll keep the 'old' fanbase in the ground, and delighted that they're paying less for a better product. Let rival fans look enviously on our success, but also look enviously on how we're treated exceptionally well by our club (to example again, a BMer features in quotes amongst a news story on the OS today- they're listening to us like no one has ever listened to us before). That'd be a dream come true, and only the really embittered will not concede that the latter is a case of investmest drastically improving football.

Anyway. A genuinely world class football club requires genuinely world class attendances, and to my my mind that means being amongst the highest figures in England, and some of the highest in Europe. Why not, ultimately, aim to break Maine Road's old record of 84,500?

City as a club appear to be a loss leader for a) good PR for the Sheikh's nation and b) all the fun, highly profitable stuff they can do with SportCity if they choose to buy it off MCC/ SportEngland, and with the Clayton Aniline site (which I reckon to be nearly twice the plot that COMS stands on). Those are the boundaries to which I believe we are working- and since a) is 'goodwill', an intangible asset, it's nearly limitless in the context of the global community.

Come on City. Shukran Sheikh (sp?) :)

 

[blueunlimited]

One of the key reasos why the want to increase the capacity is for the World Cup.

I heard (from a supporters club meeting in Bredbury) that we need 60,000+ to be a ground used in the World Cup bid.

 

[BlueT]

Stadiums used in a World Cup have to be 40,000+, if England get the World Cup both City and the rags will be used.

 

[Dyed Petya]

Stadiums used in a World Cup have to be 40,000+, if England get the World Cup both City and the rags will be used.

True, but for the QF stage onwards, a minimum of 60,000 is needed, so if we don't expand then we probably only will get a couple of group games.

People are, I think, missing the point when they discuss the expansion in terms of whether we sell out, because I don't see that as being the main aspect of our owners' thinking. As was discussed in a couple of other threads over the summer, they are likely to be heavily involved in the development of the Sport City site and other land around the stadium. If we have what is unquestionably the best stadium outside London, then there will be spin offs for any development around the stadium from the hosting of events that we wouldn't be in the running for with the current capacity.

Examples would be a World Cup QF and semi final in 2018, Rugby World Cup in 2015, major rugby league games, domestic Cup games and even the odd England game in the 2020s when Wembley's exclusivity period for those ends, and so on. At the moment, all of those would go to Old Trafford, but if we could offer a similar capacity with better facilities then that would no longer be so. I think that's what the owners will be looking at.

 

[Gary James]

Our average this year could very well be our all time highest average attendance, so that is obviously a positive sign.

The issue with City has always been sustaining high atttendances season after season. We've been the best supported club in the past and generation after generation (apart from occasional blips) we've always been one of the top 5 or 6 best supported side, often 3 or 4.

Unlike Arsenal and United we've never been the worst supported side in our division!

With the stadium... When Maine Road held 50,000+ we never managed to average 50,000 but almost every season without fail we attracted over 50,000 for several games (not just derby matches which for many seasons we're not as much of a draw as other games).

So if we had a stadium capable of holding 60k or more (and in 2001 I remember a lot of discussion about the proposed 50k COMs being too small) then the aim would be to fill it game after game, but in any case even if we don't manage to get 60k week in week out, surely we'd average over 50k. So long as the stadium is designed in the right way to limit 'empty seats' and the atmosphere is good, then having a crowd of 55k in a 60k stadium would be great.

Personally, I think we would fill a 60k stadium if we had one this second, but it's making sure we develop the attraction of filling the stadium week in week out season after season. I think we can do that and I have faith in our owners desire to make City the best.

The argument about World Cup bids and so on is right. 60k plus would mean that our stadium is capable of staging European Cup finals as well as significant games in the latter stages of major tournaments. Less than 60k and we won't get the chance (apart from the early rounds).

It's worth noting that people will assume that OT's larger capacity will mean they always get the bigger games but... during the 70s & 80s Villa Park often got the semi-finals etc. because it was felt their ground, though smaller than Maine Rd or OT, actually was in a better condition. This was true even when geographically Manchester would have been a better location for semis. Obviously, Maine Rd did stage some semi-finals, but the point is that the ground's size wasn't always the deciding factor, sometimes it was quality (or perceived quality) of the stadium.

 

[CITY FOR LIFE]

This has been a great post and has had some really interesting points from lots of fans. What about the restaurants at each end, would we look at re-postioning them outside the ground as these bring in a fair amount of income for the club. What about on the right hand side of Mercer Way.

 

[johnmc]

So if England won the world cup then only the swamp and wembley are equiped to stage quarter finals as we stand at the minute?

 

[ssg2]

So if England won the world cup then only the swamp and wembley are equiped to stage quarter finals as we stand at the minute?

Emirates and millenium stadium will also hold games

 

[Dubai Blue]

True, but for the QF stage onwards, a minimum of 60,000 is needed, so if we don't expand then we probably only will get a couple of group games.

That might be true for semi-finals, but it isn't the case for quarter-finals. In 2002, the QF attendances ranged from 37,000 to 47,000 and in 2006 they ranged from 48,000 to 72,000