Sunday's NOTW re Stadium expansion ...

[Soulboy]

I don't know anything about building, but I doubt you could add 30,000 seats to the existing stadium. You'd need a 4th tier

More likely we'll see a limited expansion, or a new ground.

We need a more reliable source as well before we can believe that this is happening.

I agree.

I'm always confused when I hear talk of "adding" 30,000 seats to the stadium.

Not only is it almost physically impossibe to do, but the cost and disruption would be far in excess of what it would cost to just build a new stadium.

That's why I believe (and have done for some time now) that we'll build a tailor-made stadium rather than try to adapt the current one.

We could add maybe 12,000 seats to the current facility, but after that it becomes nigh-on impossible.

 

[Petrovs left peg]

Gents, we are talking about a man who's family / emirate is sat on 10% of of the worlds oil reserves. Hardly a case for the "he's a businessman" line!

 

[City Raider]

Gents, we are talking about a man who's family / emirate is sat on 10% of of the worlds oil reserves. Hardly a case for the "he's a businessman" line!

the more successful/wealthy someone is, the more likely they are to follow this line. Unless it's a hobby but something more is going on here and this is undoubtedly an investment in us and their brand.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

So IF this is true, how many are going to be happy being locked out or made to change stands while the redevelopment is ongoing?

By increasing the capacity to 75,000 the additional revenue from the "matchday experience" will increase significantly as will advertising revenue (more people wearing replica kits = a bigger cost to whoever wants their name on the shirts etc), so while the price of tickets migt not actually fall, there would be "incentives" for certain games to encourage to "pick and choose" brigade to attend certain games (less from ticketing revenue for the likes of wigan at home but more pies programmes and beer sold in the ground and city square).
I dont know whether it is true or not, but i could see the thinking beind the increase if it is true.

Alot happier than being priced out like most of Chelsea's real fans have been by staying around 40k.....

 

[Skashion]

I don't know where you live, or how old you are, but your thinking is naive at best.

Our owner may be rich, but that's not City that are rich, there is a big difference, he may be putting in a lot of money to get us to the top, but and its a huge BUT, if City are to keep at the top (assuming we get there) then we have absolutely no choice but to increase prices, because we have to pay wages that we are in keeping with the income we are getting.

Our owner is not a charity, he's running a business, and like it or not, the business needs to increase its income by about 200% to support our outgoings. An increase in attendance is not gauranteed, even if/when we increase capacity, we also have to start winning everything too, and it alone even if we were full would probably still not cover the outgoings, so prices will at best stay the same, but more likely continue on upwards.

This years price rise was no accident, and was a lot more than the headline figure for many, yes a few also got cheaper tickets, and I'm sure these will continue to be available, but the biggest rises were made to smooth the way towards much more corporate tickets.

To increase our income by about 200% we'd need to increase our match day revenue by about 1200%. Shit.

 

[JWP1926]

if city expand the staduim ticket prices will either stay the same or decrease, the owners don't reallt care about the money, they have to much to worry, he just wants to recognised and create a legacy, he wants to create the best football club out-right that play in the best conditions including a full staduim. Why would city need to increase tickets prices?

I don't know where you live, or how old you are, but your thinking is naive at best.

Our owner may be rich, but that's not City that are rich, there is a big difference, he may be putting in a lot of money to get us to the top, but and its a huge BUT, if City are to keep at the top (assuming we get there) then we have absolutely no choice but to increase prices, because we have to pay wages that we are in keeping with the income we are getting.

Our owner is not a charity, he's running a business, and like it or not, the business needs to increase its income by about 200% to support our outgoings. An increase in attendance is not gauranteed, even if/when we increase capacity, we also have to start winning everything too, and it alone even if we were full would probably still not cover the outgoings, so prices will at best stay the same, but more likely continue on upwards.

This years price rise was no accident, and was a lot more than the headline figure for many, yes a few also got cheaper tickets, and I'm sure these will continue to be available, but the biggest rises were made to smooth the way towards much more corporate tickets.

Nobody buys a football club to make money, so financially the club would want to break even each year, and if you look at the prices united charge and the profits they now make each year (although not all of it is ticket sales revenue) we could easily charge tickets at a smaller price and break even if were to become successful.

ticket sales and other revenue need to be able to cover what we spend each year, which is pretty obvious, but unlike a business outside of football we don't need to make a profit. Because of the way the season works, the club will spend money first at the start of the season, investing in players, equipment and staduim and training facility improvements, then try and break even to cover the costs. This can be easily done if we kept the ticket prices the same or even abit lower with a staduim capacity of the £75,000 being said and other revenue coming in, naming rights to the staduim, shirt sales etc.

 

[Nascent Blues]

If we're successful over the next 5 years the gates will go up accordingly. If that success is continued & the pricing structure is right, like in Germany, then over 10 years we can gradually push our gates up from 40 odd to 70 odd, just like thee rags did. In the meantime some people are suggesting we should lock people out rather than have some empty seats in the top tiers? I recon either some people still don't have the belief that we're going to succeed & they're more concerned about what rags have to say about empty seats than they are about our own club. Stop being inferior to rags & start thinking bigger.

Barca average 78,000. The Camp Nou holds 98,787. That's an average of 20,000 empty seats every game, Do they wish it was smaller & worry about empty seats or do they just enjoy the atmoshpere when it's sometimes full?[/

I think this is a really interesting point because it adresses one of the main concerns that most fans have in relation to any future stadium expansion.

Most of the time when Barca are 20,000 short you can't really see the empty seats (on TV) because they are at the top of the stadium (this does make a difference when you're trying to promote an image). They've also got the qudos of being Barca and don't have an inferiority complex when it comes down to attendance at matches because they're winning titles and Champion Leagues trophies.

For me our future attendance is directly linked to a long and protracted period of success. There will always be a significant number of young kids across the northwest/country that will support the team that's winning everything at the time, hence the number of Dipper/Rag fans. I think if we start to really win stuff on a regular basis over the next ten years we'll probably need a bigger stadium.

Whether we'll fill 75,000 is open to debate but 20,000 short of 100,000 (as in Barca's case) is still 80% full. 60,000 - 65,000 in a 75,000 stadium equates to the same. I'd be happy with that. And if we have anywhere near the level of success that the rags/dippers have had then I can't see a problem with dropping 60,000 - 65,000 arses on seats on a regular basis and maybe filling it on those special Europaen nights and Derby days, especially if the tickets are reasonably priced.

 

[Dhenry]

Just a note, the fact that we didn't sell out to Liverpool isn't indicative of anything - the whole idea of supply and demand is hitting the sweet spot, where you sell enough to have your capacity nearly maxxed out.

If you charge too much - empty seats
Too little - sold out.

From a financial perspective, not selling out 100 seats or so is just about getting it spot on.

Now, expanding that into a 75k stadium, we would probably see a 20% decrease in prices or so, just because 30x74000 > 40x50000. That is just simply how you maximise your revenues - so to state that lower ticket prices would be brought in because our owners don't care about the money (or the counterargument, that prices would be kept high because they do), is false to begin with.

Now I've only done 30 credits worth of economics while I was at uni, I have no doubt city plan to expand capacity, as the ambitious plans surely see a rise in the number of fans in the next couple of years (a trend we are already seeing, let's be honest).. but I would think the 75k is not fixed capacity - more likely, the redevelopment of the stadium would see permanent capacity increased to around 60k & another optional 15k modular addition for the semi final bid (like the olympic stadium now).

 

[Marvin]

There were 47k plus against Liverpool. I couldn't see the Liverpool 1st tier from my seat but I was told later by another blue that Liverpool didn't sell all their tickets?

 

[Deleted member 14625]

By Neil Ashton
Follow me on Twitter
MANCHESTER CITY have risked infuriating rivals United by pinching the World Cup semi-final from Old Trafford in 2018.

City chief executive Garry Cook outlined his amazing proposal while he schmoozed FIFA delegates during their 2018 visit.

Despite denials from City officials last year, the club are planning to increase stadium capacity to 75,000.

They have already commissioned the world's leading architect Rafael Vinoly - who is behind the regeneration project at Battersea Power Station in London - to design their new super-stadium.

City are committed to the regeneration project at Eastlands and have already started work on nearly 70 acres of land around the site - and they plan to make an official announcement about their World Cup plans in November.

Cook made his move during a dinner with FIFA delegates at Manchester Town Hall.

He outlined his plans for the stadium redevelopment project and is convinced City can see off the threat of United's rival bid.

England's 2018 World Cup team are aware of City's stadium proposals and have responded positively to the idea.

If England win right to host the World Cup, FIFA will nominate the semi-final venues in 2013 - giving City plenty of time to bring their stadium up to scratch.

The City chief has also curried favour with England's 2018 bid team by promising his full support for the project.

England's 2018 team have been impressed with City's vision and will let them fight it out with United for the semi-final.

United are convinced FIFA will nominate their 76,000 capacity cathedral as one of the semi-final stadiums if England host the World Cup.

United hosted the Champions League final in 2003, but it is under threat as the city's iconic stadium from neighbours City.

The city council have already agreed to push the metro link out to Eastlands, but this is just the start of a regeneration project that could take five years to complete.

There's no actual evidence there, no quotes... All the writer has done is look at fblokes posts on the Vegas thread and gone with a story.