The Infrastructure Projects

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Spurs increase matchday revenue alone from 40m to 106m when they moved into their new stadium so if its done right it can clearly greatly increase revenue.

As for the political thing, one person's covering for Tory f**k up is another's bargain. This land has become available, the govt is keen to sell quickly, to me that sounds like EM trying to take advantage of a good opportunity to get a bargain.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it, I thinking moving is probably the best option but only if the right location and done right. I guess we're unlikely to know whether they were right until after it's done!

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

[ToryTom]

I am not sure why we are comparing other clubs.

I am sticking to my guns that mone of them had a connection to their stadiums like we do.

Also ask visiting fans in the PL what there favourite away day is and you will be amazed how many say Forest and you hear the words 'proper stadium, proper city and proper fans' mentioned. I guarantee that won't be the case if we move.

And all for what? A few bucks more.

I would rather compete in the bottom six of the PL at the CG then compete between 7th and 12th in a new stadium because that will probably be the reality.

Agreed.

People are being sold snake oil. This is more about politics than football. 

Palace have finished between 10th and 13th since 2013 with a 14th and 15th as their lowest. Lots of other examples such as Wolves, Fulham, Bournemouth and Brentford.

This is dodgy and unnecessary.

100% agree the extra 10,000 seats in season tickets would give us an extra 5 Million a year in revenue which is peanuts and I don’t buy into the extra commercial revenue crap a new Peter Taylor stand would achieve the same goal !! 
Just sell the naming rights call it the Fedex City Ground for all i Care it will still be the city ground. 
This would be an absolute disaster for the City and the Club .

It’s not just the extra ticket sales on match days. It’s the total matchday revenue from hospitality. Most money on match day at the moment gets spent at other business outlets in the City. Forest will want to monopolise that income. It is also about income being generated more than just times a year. A key to Toton would be multi use facities similar where they have a retractable artificial playing surface. It would also allow the club to raise a large tranche of money by selling the training ground. #Move To Improve

[Salvatore Matrecano]

It’s not just the extra ticket sales on match days. It’s the total matchday revenue from hospitality. Most money on match day at the moment gets spent at other business outlets in the City. Forest will want to monopolise that income. It is also about income being generated more than just times a year. A key to Toton would be multi use facities similar where they have a retractable artificial playing surface. It would also allow the club to raise a large tranche of money by selling the training ground. #Move To Improve

Are you actually Tom Cartledge?

[ToryTom]

It’s not just the extra ticket sales on match days. It’s the total matchday revenue from hospitality. Most money on match day at the moment gets spent at other business outlets in the City. Forest will want to monopolise that income. It is also about income being generated more than just times a year. A key to Toton would be multi use facities similar where they have a retractable artificial playing surface. It would also allow the club to raise a large tranche of money by selling the training ground. #Move To Improve

Are you actually Tom Cartledge?

No I am not. I don’t think Tom Cartledge would be daft enough to use Tory Tom has a username.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

It’s not just the extra ticket sales on match days. It’s the total matchday revenue from hospitality. Most money on match day at the moment gets spent at other business outlets in the City. Forest will want to monopolise that income. It is also about income being generated more than just times a year. A key to Toton would be multi use facities similar where they have a retractable artificial playing surface. It would also allow the club to raise a large tranche of money by selling the training ground. #Move To Improve

Are you actually Tom Cartledge?

No I am not. I don’t think Tom Cartledge would be daft enough to use Tory Tom has a username.

Fair enough.

Being more serious, you may be surprised but I have for a long time been saying a new stadium is the way forward, preferably on or close to the current site. However Im on the fence because there is more to football and life in general than cold hard economics. Im actually leaning more towards staying at the CG now simply due to the way TC has blatantly lied to us about rent increase being a reason we need to move on top of his attitude to season ticket prices. He has hardly covered himself in glory in the short time he has been here.

So my question to you. New stadium in the right location, maybe. But Toton? Seriously?

[wassy04]

Spurs increase matchday revenue alone from 40m to 106m when they moved into their new stadium so if its done right it can clearly greatly increase revenue.

As for the political thing, one person's covering for Tory f**k up is another's bargain. This land has become available, the govt is keen to sell quickly, to me that sounds like EM trying to take advantage of a good opportunity to get a bargain.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it, I thinking moving is probably the best option but only if the right location and done right. I guess we're unlikely to know whether they were right until after it's done!

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

I wasn't suggesting we'd necessarily increase our matchday revenue but the same amount but merely that it showed what was possible.

The London factor doesn't impact it as they'd have also been charging London prices pre stadium move rather than post move so not sure of the relevance. I'm obviously not suggesting we'll suddenly make 100m matchday revenue. 

Why are Spurs, a fairly average team until very recently, so easily able to fill 62k compared to 36k? I'd actually argue their ability to fill it easily shows that your fears of not filling the stadium are likely not as big a deal.

If you were Marinakis, what would you do out of interest? Buy the Freehold and rebuild the City Ground to get an extra 8k people in at a particularly poor value for money? Or look to move somewhere you could buy at a more reasonable price? 

As I understood it the original proposal relied heavily on selling flats or something, perhaps that part is no longer possible. I don't think it's realistic or particularly fair to expect the owner to stump up crazy amounts to marginally improve a stadium personally. What do you think?

[Trailer Park Tom]

Spurs increase matchday revenue alone from 40m to 106m when they moved into their new stadium so if its done right it can clearly greatly increase revenue.

As for the political thing, one person's covering for Tory f**k up is another's bargain. This land has become available, the govt is keen to sell quickly, to me that sounds like EM trying to take advantage of a good opportunity to get a bargain.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it, I thinking moving is probably the best option but only if the right location and done right. I guess we're unlikely to know whether they were right until after it's done!

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

I wasn't suggesting we'd necessarily increase our matchday revenue but the same amount but merely that it showed what was possible.

The London factor doesn't impact it as they'd have also been charging London prices pre stadium move rather than post move so not sure of the relevance. I'm obviously not suggesting we'll suddenly make 100m matchday revenue. 

Why are Spurs, a fairly average team until very recently, so easily able to fill 62k compared to 36k? I'd actually argue their ability to fill it easily shows that your fears of not filling the stadium are likely not as big a deal.

If you were Marinakis, what would you do out of interest? Buy the Freehold and rebuild the City Ground to get an extra 8k people in at a particularly poor value for money? Or look to move somewhere you could buy at a more reasonable price? 

As I understood it the original proposal relied heavily on selling flats or something, perhaps that part is no longer possible. I don't think it's realistic or particularly fair to expect the owner to stump up crazy amounts to marginally improve a stadium personally. What do you think?

If I were Marinakis I'd be banging loads of whores on a yacht.

It's not about what's best for Marinakis. It's what is best for our club and city.

Dodgy politics.

[wassy04]

Spurs increase matchday revenue alone from 40m to 106m when they moved into their new stadium so if its done right it can clearly greatly increase revenue.

As for the political thing, one person's covering for Tory f**k up is another's bargain. This land has become available, the govt is keen to sell quickly, to me that sounds like EM trying to take advantage of a good opportunity to get a bargain.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it, I thinking moving is probably the best option but only if the right location and done right. I guess we're unlikely to know whether they were right until after it's done!

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

I wasn't suggesting we'd necessarily increase our matchday revenue but the same amount but merely that it showed what was possible.

The London factor doesn't impact it as they'd have also been charging London prices pre stadium move rather than post move so not sure of the relevance. I'm obviously not suggesting we'll suddenly make 100m matchday revenue. 

Why are Spurs, a fairly average team until very recently, so easily able to fill 62k compared to 36k? I'd actually argue their ability to fill it easily shows that your fears of not filling the stadium are likely not as big a deal.

If you were Marinakis, what would you do out of interest? Buy the Freehold and rebuild the City Ground to get an extra 8k people in at a particularly poor value for money? Or look to move somewhere you could buy at a more reasonable price? 

As I understood it the original proposal relied heavily on selling flats or something, perhaps that part is no longer possible. I don't think it's realistic or particularly fair to expect the owner to stump up crazy amounts to marginally improve a stadium personally. What do you think?

If I were Marinakis I'd be banging loads of whores on a yacht.

It's not about what's best for Marinakis. It's what is best for our club and city.

Dodgy politics.

That's fine, maybe you'd prefer he took his money away and nothing got done then? 

Why should he make a massive loss on improving the stadium and get nothing in return? 

Also, it's got nothing to do with politics.

[Trailer Park Tom]

Spurs increase matchday revenue alone from 40m to 106m when they moved into their new stadium so if its done right it can clearly greatly increase revenue.

As for the political thing, one person's covering for Tory f**k up is another's bargain. This land has become available, the govt is keen to sell quickly, to me that sounds like EM trying to take advantage of a good opportunity to get a bargain.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it, I thinking moving is probably the best option but only if the right location and done right. I guess we're unlikely to know whether they were right until after it's done!

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

I wasn't suggesting we'd necessarily increase our matchday revenue but the same amount but merely that it showed what was possible.

The London factor doesn't impact it as they'd have also been charging London prices pre stadium move rather than post move so not sure of the relevance. I'm obviously not suggesting we'll suddenly make 100m matchday revenue. 

Why are Spurs, a fairly average team until very recently, so easily able to fill 62k compared to 36k? I'd actually argue their ability to fill it easily shows that your fears of not filling the stadium are likely not as big a deal.

If you were Marinakis, what would you do out of interest? Buy the Freehold and rebuild the City Ground to get an extra 8k people in at a particularly poor value for money? Or look to move somewhere you could buy at a more reasonable price? 

As I understood it the original proposal relied heavily on selling flats or something, perhaps that part is no longer possible. I don't think it's realistic or particularly fair to expect the owner to stump up crazy amounts to marginally improve a stadium personally. What do you think?

If I were Marinakis I'd be banging loads of whores on a yacht.

It's not about what's best for Marinakis. It's what is best for our club and city.

Dodgy politics.

That's fine, maybe you'd prefer he took his money away and nothing got done then? 

Why should he make a massive loss on improving the stadium and get nothing in return? 

Also, it's got nothing to do with politics.

That's fine. Its our club not his club.

The most political season in our history and it's not political.

[wassy04]

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

I wasn't suggesting we'd necessarily increase our matchday revenue but the same amount but merely that it showed what was possible.

The London factor doesn't impact it as they'd have also been charging London prices pre stadium move rather than post move so not sure of the relevance. I'm obviously not suggesting we'll suddenly make 100m matchday revenue. 

Why are Spurs, a fairly average team until very recently, so easily able to fill 62k compared to 36k? I'd actually argue their ability to fill it easily shows that your fears of not filling the stadium are likely not as big a deal.

If you were Marinakis, what would you do out of interest? Buy the Freehold and rebuild the City Ground to get an extra 8k people in at a particularly poor value for money? Or look to move somewhere you could buy at a more reasonable price? 

As I understood it the original proposal relied heavily on selling flats or something, perhaps that part is no longer possible. I don't think it's realistic or particularly fair to expect the owner to stump up crazy amounts to marginally improve a stadium personally. What do you think?

If I were Marinakis I'd be banging loads of whores on a yacht.

It's not about what's best for Marinakis. It's what is best for our club and city.

Dodgy politics.

That's fine, maybe you'd prefer he took his money away and nothing got done then? 

Why should he make a massive loss on improving the stadium and get nothing in return? 

Also, it's got nothing to do with politics.

That's fine. Its our club not his club.

The most political season in our history and it's not political.

Yeah it is our club and a majority of fans appear to prefer to move to a new stadium based on our poll.

How is it political?

[Uwantlee]

Everyone makes valid points and there are pros and cons to both arguments. We would all rather stay at the city ground wouldn't we but it's the what ifs... We will see in time.

Sorry sniff didn't mean to focus on other clubs was just making the point that for some clubs it has meant success... I know a lot of Leicester fans who as much as they loved filbert street and will always remember it wouldn't swap it for the success they have now had.

The one thing we all have in common here is the desire to see nffc successful again. In my mind if that's away from the CG then so be it. I do understand that not everyone has the same opinion though

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Spurs increase matchday revenue alone from 40m to 106m when they moved into their new stadium so if its done right it can clearly greatly increase revenue.

As for the political thing, one person's covering for Tory f**k up is another's bargain. This land has become available, the govt is keen to sell quickly, to me that sounds like EM trying to take advantage of a good opportunity to get a bargain.

I'm not saying I necessarily support it, I thinking moving is probably the best option but only if the right location and done right. I guess we're unlikely to know whether they were right until after it's done!

Your comparison with Tottenham is totally unfair. They are a London club charging London prices although they have managed to alienate a good proportion of their traditional fanbase in the process.

Tottenhams cheapest ST is now £850 compared to ours at £465. Indeed their cheapest is the same price as our most expensive. As moeny grabbing as our price increases are we could never go to that level.

In addition the capacity increase at Tottenham is way more going from 36k to 62k. They will easily fill theirs and realistically will never be relegated. We may or may not fill 50k if thats the aim and certainly won’t fill it if we ever have to play Barnsley on a Tuesday night again.

Your point is will we increase matchday income which I believe is currently around £14m. Yes we will, we would do so by revamping the current ground too. We will increase will further with a new ground probably to the tune of about £5m a year more than we would by revamping the CG. Add another £5m for events and the fact they will have a captive audience in their plastic bars drinking their own overpriced tasteless beer.

But its ridiculous to claim our matchday turnover could increase by 250% with a new stadium, its plain wrong.

I wasn't suggesting we'd necessarily increase our matchday revenue but the same amount but merely that it showed what was possible.

The London factor doesn't impact it as they'd have also been charging London prices pre stadium move rather than post move so not sure of the relevance. I'm obviously not suggesting we'll suddenly make 100m matchday revenue. 

Why are Spurs, a fairly average team until very recently, so easily able to fill 62k compared to 36k? I'd actually argue their ability to fill it easily shows that your fears of not filling the stadium are likely not as big a deal.

If you were Marinakis, what would you do out of interest? Buy the Freehold and rebuild the City Ground to get an extra 8k people in at a particularly poor value for money? Or look to move somewhere you could buy at a more reasonable price? 

As I understood it the original proposal relied heavily on selling flats or something, perhaps that part is no longer possible. I don't think it's realistic or particularly fair to expect the owner to stump up crazy amounts to marginally improve a stadium personally. What do you think?

Agree the economics on the build are better with a new stadium. Can also understand if there is frustration on planning or if the flats on site isnt happening, to be honest not sure that was ever a great idea. So if thats the case say so. Don’t blame it on the city council and lie about the rent increase.

If I was EM, not sure but I don’t think he is the emotional attachment type. Quite the opposite I suspect he would quite like the Evangelos Marinakis Stadium.

Finally and its irrelevant but Tottenham have always had a bigger support than us and the old WHlL was far too small for them. One thing to note is their prices have gone up exponentially since the new stadium, ask their fans if they think its worth it.