ElanJo
Well-Known Member
Vienna_70 said:
You're supposed to believe positive pieces and disbelieve negative pieces! Get with it! :P
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sunday's NOTW re Stadium expansion ...
- Thread starter bellwhaft
- Start date
You're supposed to believe positive pieces and disbelieve negative pieces! Get with it! :P
Can I just add.
This is a great topic/discussion from a fans point of view.
However. City will have already looked at every possible scenario.( increased attendances, increased income, future tickets prices, etc, etc)
They're probably at the stage where they've decided what to do, and are readY to go, after Sheikhy Man gave it the nod.
This is a great topic/discussion from a fans point of view.
However. City will have already looked at every possible scenario.( increased attendances, increased income, future tickets prices, etc, etc)
They're probably at the stage where they've decided what to do, and are readY to go, after Sheikhy Man gave it the nod.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I've been saying for a while (and keep getting shot down) that we are seriously looking at the feasibility of a new stadium on the old Clayton Aniline site. The fact is we can only increase the size of CoMS to 60,00 tops but the disruption involved in that would mean significant closures for 2 seasons.
The reason for this is tied up with the future economic model of the club. We don't have enough corporate facilities and are looking to have around 10-12,000. These are what bring in the big money and the rags pull in nearly £3.5m every Premiership home game because of their corporate offering. Less than 10,000 people bring in 2/3rds (over £2m) of that.
The reason for this is tied up with the future economic model of the club. We don't have enough corporate facilities and are looking to have around 10-12,000. These are what bring in the big money and the rags pull in nearly £3.5m every Premiership home game because of their corporate offering. Less than 10,000 people bring in 2/3rds (over £2m) of that.
If City are to have sustained success we need a significantly bigger stadium as until broadcasting rights are owned by clubs this is the only significant way a club can offset players wages. You'd assume the owners would accept "start-up" costs, but at some point the "project" has to become sustainable, and a huge stadium is the only way I can see that happening.Prestwich_Blue said:I've been saying for a while (and keep getting shot down) that we are seriously looking at the feasibility of a new stadium on the old Clayton Aniline site. The fact is we can only increase the size of CoMS to 60,00 tops but the disruption involved in that would mean significant closures for 2 seasons.
The reason for this is tied up with the future economic model of the club. We don't have enough corporate facilities and are looking to have around 10-12,000. These are what bring in the big money and the rags pull in nearly £3.5m every Premiership home game because of their corporate offering. Less than 10,000 people bring in 2/3rds (over £2m) of that.
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
Not read all the posts but it strikes me that people are ruling out the rag's stadium too soon. By 2018 they will be lucky to be attracting 30000 in whatever they'll then be calling the next league down. So a reduced capacity would suit them. That's if they've not already moved to Gigg Lane.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The rags and Glazers have to pay off their debts by 2017. By 2018 the swamp will be well on the way to being a retail or business park.dpkmanc said:Not read all the posts but it strikes me that people are ruling out the rag's stadium too soon. By 2018 they will be lucky to be attracting 30000 in whatever they'll then be calling the next league down. So a reduced capacity would suit them. That's if they've not already moved to Gigg Lane.
cleavers
Moderator
Skashion said:Firstly, I wasn't being totally serious. I really should have added a big fucking ;). Secondly, the shit in my post was not directed at your post, it was directed at my sarcastic proposition of ticket prices being increased 1200% across the board (all fans). Thirdly, of course we need to increase revenue.
Fair enough, you can see how your reply read though.
We agree then basically, apart form general ticket prices, which I still think will increase albeit not massively.
There's also one huge assumption in the NoTW article.......
We (England) actually win the bid, because while we as a club may increase capacity, I can see that influencing how we go about expanding capacity, I'm not sure when that decision is finalised, but I doubt City will announce any major plans ahead of that.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Only in the rags case does a club's gate and match day revenue exceed a 1/3 of their turnover, including Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham, so that's not really true.Marvin said:If City are to have sustained success we need a significantly bigger stadium as until broadcasting rights are owned by clubs this is the only significant way a club can offset players wages. You'd assume the owners would accept "start-up" costs, but at some point the "project" has to become sustainable, and a huge stadium is the only way I can see that happening.
-- Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:46 pm --
Yes, it was my fault. I should have made it clearer and I should know better because it's hardly the first time. Probably about the tenth time now...cleavers said:Fair enough, you can see how your reply read though.
jrb said:Sorry about shouting.
IF ANYONE KNOWS ANYBODY WHO WORKS FOR BUCKINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, HAVE A WORD. ;-)
I'll ask the question in the morning