The Infrastructure Projects

[wassy04]

If we can find a way to increase the CG to an amount that is deemed worthwhile that'd be great.

I think the issue that seems to be ignored is the cost. EM is essentially paying for this, if we're saying the cost of the CG rebuild is going to be X, then he's going to be footing the bill. Now from that perspective, would it be a good move for him to spend 500m on a stadium rebuild that doesn't really offer value for money, probably not (and this would apply to any owner of Forest). It seems to me that rebuilding the City Ground isn't particularly financially viable. I think someone spending that kind of money would expect a return either financially or with potential for greater sporting success, do we think an extra 5-10k seats gives you enough of a benefit to justify the massive cost?

It seems like the conclusion is not, so then you're really left with the question of do we allow EM to spend 500m to build a new stadium (presumably some of the cost will be offset by whatever happens to the City Ground site?) or do we just stay as is, do smaller cheaper improvements and accept this is the level the club is.

Basically I think it's fairly clear the CG rebuild is not financially viable, hence there are really only two options.

Does anyone think a different owner would be willing to come in and pay to rebuild the CG?

Interesting question.

I suspect the club will get the lions share of sweet f**k all if we move from the City Ground, as the land that it sits on belongs to the City Council and nobody is going to want to buy a disused football stadium that is limited within its surroundings. Surely, the club would be wise to take the City Councils offer to buy the freehold, then if the club do decide to relocate, they can sell the land for as much as they want as developers will pay good money for that location

Yeah you'd think it would make sense to buy the Freehold regardless.

[Jean_claude_killy]

So what do we do about the fans who can't get tickets. For 29000 people it's very easy to sit on the side of the city ground. For all those who can't get seats.... Those people need something to change. 5000 extra seats hits about a third of the waiting list.

City ground or no city ground something needs to change and the sooner the better

I think we are now looking at the possibility of finding a way to increase the CG by a further 15,000.

If that indeed is the case then I am all for stopping where we are thank you very much.

Where does the idea come from that if we move into a new 50,000 seater stadium then we are all of a sudden going to turn into a top six club?

Nothing is guaranteed in life but you can make decisions which improve the probability of outcomes. The changing picture as a result of P&S is going to even more equalize league position with income. The owner is ambitious for the club and I share that. Do we want to be a yo yo club at best or do we want to be a force in English football. Do we want to be like a Preston North End or more like a Spurs or Villa. Do we want to say we were once contenders or still be. We did win the European Cup twice in living memory.

This is what i keep getting at.

How does a new stadium guarantee that we will be a force in English football? We are a million miles behind Manchester City, Manchester Unitrd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Newcastle and Tottenham etc. There is no magic wand with a new stadium. We could just as easily fall out of the PL than suddenly become a force. 

It will be on the pitch that will make us a top side again not a new stadium. You don't get any points for building a new ground, points are earned out on the pitch.

But we will continue to be a million miles behind those Clubs without the non match day income, and I do not think EM will stand for that.

The issue of falling out of the PL is a complete red herring.

Once built the stadium becomes self financing; it would not matter which Division we are in because the non match day income would dwarf that raised on match days.

The CBS hosted a Rugby Club which went under and a Football Club which entered admin and then plummeted through the leagues, and still continued to coin it.

A new Stadium guarantees nothing on the pitch, but it would give the Club considerably more resource and a far better chance of succeeding

[Salvatore Matrecano]

So what do we do about the fans who can't get tickets. For 29000 people it's very easy to sit on the side of the city ground. For all those who can't get seats.... Those people need something to change. 5000 extra seats hits about a third of the waiting list.

City ground or no city ground something needs to change and the sooner the better

I think we are now looking at the possibility of finding a way to increase the CG by a further 15,000.

If that indeed is the case then I am all for stopping where we are thank you very much.

Where does the idea come from that if we move into a new 50,000 seater stadium then we are all of a sudden going to turn into a top six club?

Nothing is guaranteed in life but you can make decisions which improve the probability of outcomes. The changing picture as a result of P&S is going to even more equalize league position with income. The owner is ambitious for the club and I share that. Do we want to be a yo yo club at best or do we want to be a force in English football. Do we want to be like a Preston North End or more like a Spurs or Villa. Do we want to say we were once contenders or still be. We did win the European Cup twice in living memory.

This is what i keep getting at.

How does a new stadium guarantee that we will be a force in English football? We are a million miles behind Manchester City, Manchester Unitrd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Newcastle and Tottenham etc. There is no magic wand with a new stadium. We could just as easily fall out of the PL than suddenly become a force. 

It will be on the pitch that will make us a top side again not a new stadium. You don't get any points for building a new ground, points are earned out on the pitch.

But we will continue to be a million miles behind those Clubs without the non match day income, and I do not think EM will stand for that.

The issue of falling out of the PL is a complete red herring.

Once built the stadium becomes self financing; it would not matter which Division we are in because the non match day income would dwarf that raised on match days.

The CBS hosted a Rugby Club which went under and a Football Club which entered admin and then plummeted through the leagues, and still continued to coin it.

A new Stadium guarantees nothing on the pitch, but it would give the Club considerably more resource and a far better chance of succeeding

Yet more hyperbole which unfortunately is becoming entrenched on both sides of the argument and will probably get worse.

No we wont be a million miles behind that’s ridiculous. Doing nothing is not an option. Therefore a new stadium complex may well generate £10m a year more than a redevelopment of the CG, maybe a bit more still but not by a huge amount. But that remains a very small percentage of our overall revenue. As other have said get basic stuff better, recruitment, sponsorship etc and we can do more with less. 

A new stadium does make a lot of sense if its the right move. If its the wrong move then for a relatively small gain it simply isnt worth it. A new build could also backfire spectacularly, debt for decades, endless delays, having to sell the ground etc. my biggest fear is being back in the Championship in a home we no longer own 7 miles from the city, 20k in a 50k stadium while Peterborough fans sing “your ground s too big for you” at us.

Besides when did everyone here start behaving so hard headed and rationally? NFFC has never been run like that before either in the recent or distant past. Your football team comes from the heart and dont forget that.

[ToryTom]

I have listened to Matt Davies interview on the Forest focus podcast with city councillor Steve Battlemuch.  I found some of his comments delusional. He describes the clubs relationship with the city council as a two way street mutually and equallly beneficial. On the one hand he cites the buisinesses in the city who benefit from the customers Forest attract on match days, and increased tourism from the publicity a premier league team creates and in return the club get a small shop in the city centre and a reception if we win anything or get promoted. That doesn’t sound too equal to me. On match days i spend at least £30 on parking, a few drinks before the match and something to eat. Sometimes it is more. If that is about average supporters must be spending at least £20 m a season around the ground and in the city. The football club is a massive asset to the city in its current location and the council should be doing more to support them than providing a poxy shop and a reception every blue moon. Financial problems or not they ought to give the club the land is on because them leaving will cost them considerably more.

[Tricky]

I have listened to Matt Davies interview on the Forest focus podcast with city councillor Steve Battlemuch.  I found some of his comments delusional. He describes the clubs relationship with the city council as a two way street mutually and equallly beneficial. On the one hand he cites the buisinesses in the city who benefit from the customers Forest attract on match days, and increased tourism from the publicity a premier league team creates and in return the club get a small shop in the city centre and a reception if we win anything or get promoted. That doesn’t sound too equal to me. On match days i spend at least £30 on parking, a few drinks before the match and something to eat. Sometimes it is more. If that is about average supporters must be spending at least £20 m a season around the ground and in the city. The football club is a massive asset to the city in its current location and the council should be doing more to support them than providing a poxy shop and a reception every blue moon. Financial problems or not they ought to give the club the land is on because them leaving will cost them considerably more.

The Council cannot just give its assets away to anyone. That land presently is publicly owned. It would be illegal for the Council to simply give a £10M freehold to a business of any description, irrespective of if its Nottingham Forest, Boots or anybody else.

Imagine being one of the council tax payers, currently struggling with finances who have just been hit with a massive council tax increase to then see the City Council just give away £10M to a multi million pound business!

[ToryTom]

I have listened to Matt Davies interview on the Forest focus podcast with city councillor Steve Battlemuch.  I found some of his comments delusional. He describes the clubs relationship with the city council as a two way street mutually and equallly beneficial. On the one hand he cites the buisinesses in the city who benefit from the customers Forest attract on match days, and increased tourism from the publicity a premier league team creates and in return the club get a small shop in the city centre and a reception if we win anything or get promoted. That doesn’t sound too equal to me. On match days i spend at least £30 on parking, a few drinks before the match and something to eat. Sometimes it is more. If that is about average supporters must be spending at least £20 m a season around the ground and in the city. The football club is a massive asset to the city in its current location and the council should be doing more to support them than providing a poxy shop and a reception every blue moon. Financial problems or not they ought to give the club the land is on because them leaving will cost them considerably more.

The Council cannot just give its assets away to anyone. That land presently is publicly owned. It would be illegal for the Council to simply give a £10M freehold to a business of any description, irrespective of if its Nottingham Forest, Boots or anybody else.

Imagine being one of the council tax payers, currently struggling with finances who have just been hit with a massive council tax increase to then see the City Council just give away £10M to a multi million pound business!

Other councils provide cheap land for buisiness they want to invest in their area. Our City council massively benefits from Forest being located so close to the City. What does the football club get in return. Not very much. The football club leaving this site would hurt the City council and businesses in the area. They should breaking their necks to keep Forest located where they are. Losing the football club would cost the city a lot more than giving the land to them. It would make long term financial sense to the City council if it meant Forest staying where they are. Of course they will not do it. Councillors are going around saying the relationship is equally mutually beneficial. It is not.

[Jean_claude_killy]

I think we are now looking at the possibility of finding a way to increase the CG by a further 15,000.

If that indeed is the case then I am all for stopping where we are thank you very much.

Where does the idea come from that if we move into a new 50,000 seater stadium then we are all of a sudden going to turn into a top six club?

Nothing is guaranteed in life but you can make decisions which improve the probability of outcomes. The changing picture as a result of P&S is going to even more equalize league position with income. The owner is ambitious for the club and I share that. Do we want to be a yo yo club at best or do we want to be a force in English football. Do we want to be like a Preston North End or more like a Spurs or Villa. Do we want to say we were once contenders or still be. We did win the European Cup twice in living memory.

This is what i keep getting at.

How does a new stadium guarantee that we will be a force in English football? We are a million miles behind Manchester City, Manchester Unitrd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Newcastle and Tottenham etc. There is no magic wand with a new stadium. We could just as easily fall out of the PL than suddenly become a force. 

It will be on the pitch that will make us a top side again not a new stadium. You don't get any points for building a new ground, points are earned out on the pitch.

But we will continue to be a million miles behind those Clubs without the non match day income, and I do not think EM will stand for that.

The issue of falling out of the PL is a complete red herring.

Once built the stadium becomes self financing; it would not matter which Division we are in because the non match day income would dwarf that raised on match days.

The CBS hosted a Rugby Club which went under and a Football Club which entered admin and then plummeted through the leagues, and still continued to coin it.

A new Stadium guarantees nothing on the pitch, but it would give the Club considerably more resource and a far better chance of succeeding

Yet more hyperbole which unfortunately is becoming entrenched on both sides of the argument and will probably get worse.

No we wont be a million miles behind that’s ridiculous. Doing nothing is not an option. Therefore a new stadium complex may well generate £10m a year more than a redevelopment of the CG, maybe a bit more still but not by a huge amount. But that remains a very small percentage of our overall revenue. As other have said get basic stuff better, recruitment, sponsorship etc and we can do more with less. 

A new stadium does make a lot of sense if its the right move. If its the wrong move then for a relatively small gain it simply isnt worth it. A new build could also backfire spectacularly, debt for decades, endless delays, having to sell the ground etc. my biggest fear is being back in the Championship in a home we no longer own 7 miles from the city, 20k in a 50k stadium while Peterborough fans sing “your ground s too big for you” at us.

Besides when did everyone here start behaving so hard headed and rationally? NFFC has never been run like that before either in the recent or distant past. Your football team comes from the heart and dont forget that.

Its not hyperbole; they are the economic facts of life

Fully redeveloping the City Ground would cost a lot more than a new stadium would, and, depending on what the complex included, would raise significantly more than an additional 10m.

As I stated earlier, the payment for a new Ground would be independent of and not related to the fortunes of the Football Club.

The Ground would be self financing and no burden on the Football side of things whatsoever.

And whatever we do, it should not be governed by what opposing supporters sing; basing business decisions on songs sounds like Fawaz style business sense.

[Paplane]

If we can find a way to increase the CG to an amount that is deemed worthwhile that'd be great.

I think the issue that seems to be ignored is the cost. EM is essentially paying for this, if we're saying the cost of the CG rebuild is going to be X, then he's going to be footing the bill. Now from that perspective, would it be a good move for him to spend 500m on a stadium rebuild that doesn't really offer value for money, probably not (and this would apply to any owner of Forest). It seems to me that rebuilding the City Ground isn't particularly financially viable. I think someone spending that kind of money would expect a return either financially or with potential for greater sporting success, do we think an extra 5-10k seats gives you enough of a benefit to justify the massive cost?

It seems like the conclusion is not, so then you're really left with the question of do we allow EM to spend 500m to build a new stadium (presumably some of the cost will be offset by whatever happens to the City Ground site?) or do we just stay as is, do smaller cheaper improvements and accept this is the level the club is.

Basically I think it's fairly clear the CG rebuild is not financially viable, hence there are really only two options.

Does anyone think a different owner would be willing to come in and pay to rebuild the CG?

Interesting question.

I suspect the club will get the lions share of sweet f**k all if we move from the City Ground, as the land that it sits on belongs to the City Council and nobody is going to want to buy a disused football stadium that is limited within its surroundings. Surely, the club would be wise to take the City Councils offer to buy the freehold, then if the club do decide to relocate, they can sell the land for as much as they want as developers will pay good money for that location

The land will be valued and sold on the basis of the propsed use being as a football stadium. Any sale agreement would be subject to an overage clause. That means if the club bought it and then got planning for residential, or any other valuable differing use, and  then sold the land at big profit, the council would be due a proportion of that profit.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

The Ground would be self financing and no burden on the Football side of things whatsoever.

And whatever we do, it should not be governed by what opposing supporters sing; basing business decisions on songs sounds like Fawaz style business sense.

We will agree to disagree on some things. I don’t believe if you build it they will come. Not every new development is successful. I do not think there is demand for either a hotel, casino or arena complex 7 miles from the city in Toton.

Besides if I wanted to support a business I would buy shares in Benoy.
If my hobby was business I would play the stock market.
I am a fan of Nottingham Forest Football Club which has its heart in the city of Nottingham.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

I think we are losing the plot.

We are a community football club we are not a circus.

I couldn't give a f**k about hotels and casinos etc.

I care about what happens on the pitch at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon.

That is what Nottingham Forest means and is all about.

[ToryTom]

I think we are losing the plot.

We are a community football club we are not a circus.

I couldn't give a f**k about hotels and casinos etc.

I care about what happens on the pitch at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon.

That is what Nottingham Forest means and is all about.

Currently we are a premier league team which I assume we all want to remain the case. It generates a huge amount of money with a world wide profile. A large number of our competitors have expanded and diversified to further maximise income which is becoming increasingly more important as spending will be linked to income. We have a Greek owner. Most of our competitors have foreign ownership. Being in the premier league is far more than being a community club. If that is as far as our ambitions go then fans need to come to terms with being football also rans knocking around the lower divisions like other community clubs.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

I think we are losing the plot.

We are a community football club we are not a circus.

I couldn't give a f**k about hotels and casinos etc.

I care about what happens on the pitch at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon.

That is what Nottingham Forest means and is all about.

Thats what I was trying to write Sniffer, you were more to the point!