The Infrastructure Projects

[Shawoddyred]

I find this making money obsession a bit confusing and probably a red herring. Yes it helps, but to be honest, an extra £10M a season or perhaps a bit more would not make as much difference as just buying the right players in the first place (which is impossible to be perfect) but just playing well on the pitch and being well run - plus a supportive home crowd!! There is plenty we could do at the current stadium without renovations to make more money if that's what it's all about.

Yes, all the big teams have bigger stadium and facilities.....but is that causation or effect of the success?? These teams have also built up their playing staff in periods where there was no PSR, so have completely stolen a march on us and a lot of others. They have been successful during a period of ridiculous growth in the English game, which has allowed them global support and all the sponsorship opportunities and tv deals that brings - which is real game changing money. They are also based in larger cities, London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc. That in itself puts them in a much better position to monetise as well as make the most of larger grounds.

I'm not anti large stadium, great facilities etc, I think it would be great to improve things on this front significantly. But it is not going to improve how we play. Yes, it might mean we can afford 1 extra £40M player every 3 or 4 seasons, but we will never be a Man United, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Spuds, Chelsea etc who can buy 'success' through multiple high cost players every summer.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Dress it up however you want but there is ample evidence out there to prove that you can be successful with a 30,000 seater stadium and that having a brand new 50,000 seater stadium guarantees you nothing.

Depends on your definition of success, Leicester is the only team that has won the PL with a stadium capacity of around 30k since Blackburn. No other team has even finished top 4.

Sure, you can do it in other countries that don't have to compete against the top 6 PL teams but unless we move abroad we are not in that position!

And you think we are going to change that with a new stadum?

Plus football is not just about the PL it is about European Competition too or doesn't that count?

[wassy04]

Dress it up however you want but there is ample evidence out there to prove that you can be successful with a 30,000 seater stadium and that having a brand new 50,000 seater stadium guarantees you nothing.

Depends on your definition of success, Leicester is the only team that has won the PL with a stadium capacity of around 30k since Blackburn. No other team has even finished top 4.

Sure, you can do it in other countries that don't have to compete against the top 6 PL teams but unless we move abroad we are not in that position!

And you think we are going to change that with a new stadum?

Plus football is not just about the PL it is about European Competition too or doesn't that count?

We would have a greater chance than we do now.

What English club has been successful in Europe with a low capacity stadium?

[wassy04]

I find this making money obsession a bit confusing and probably a red herring. Yes it helps, but to be honest, an extra £10M a season or perhaps a bit more would not make as much difference as just buying the right players in the first place (which is impossible to be perfect) but just playing well on the pitch and being well run - plus a supportive home crowd!! There is plenty we could do at the current stadium without renovations to make more money if that's what it's all about.

Yes, all the big teams have bigger stadium and facilities.....but is that causation or effect of the success?? These teams have also built up their playing staff in periods where there was no PSR, so have completely stolen a march on us and a lot of others. They have been successful during a period of ridiculous growth in the English game, which has allowed them global support and all the sponsorship opportunities and tv deals that brings - which is real game changing money. They are also based in larger cities, London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc. That in itself puts them in a much better position to monetise as well as make the most of larger grounds.

I'm not anti large stadium, great facilities etc, I think it would be great to improve things on this front significantly. But it is not going to improve how we play. Yes, it might mean we can afford 1 extra £40M player every 3 or 4 seasons, but we will never be a Man United, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Spuds, Chelsea etc who can buy 'success' through multiple high cost players every summer.

Why not? We have an owner willing to buy success if he was allowed to but is restricted right now.

This 10m figure that keeps getting banded about is frustrating too, Spurs made more than double after their move and that was on matchday revenue alone. They had a 20% increase in commercial revenue due to all the gigs and NFL. Obviously we are unlikely to see the benefits they have had due to location but it would be more than 10m.

[ozzyten10]

They are also based in larger cities, London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc. That in itself puts them in a much better position to monetise as well as make the most of larger grounds.

London have more facilities and much competition.
Birmingham have x2 arenas but Birmingham are being very ambitious with their brown site development- much akin to what I’m suggesting.

The Toton site brings that kind of population -3 - 5 million within an hours drive… I can see the logic behind it and is blue sky thinking but these ideas are much bigger than the 2000s built out of town Lego stadiums. These are campus and multipurpose complexes.

The take that concert was a logistical nightmare that ate into the profit. A purpose built multi-use venue it becomes and in and out and much easier process.

[Shawoddyred]

I find this making money obsession a bit confusing and probably a red herring. Yes it helps, but to be honest, an extra £10M a season or perhaps a bit more would not make as much difference as just buying the right players in the first place (which is impossible to be perfect) but just playing well on the pitch and being well run - plus a supportive home crowd!! There is plenty we could do at the current stadium without renovations to make more money if that's what it's all about.

Yes, all the big teams have bigger stadium and facilities.....but is that causation or effect of the success?? These teams have also built up their playing staff in periods where there was no PSR, so have completely stolen a march on us and a lot of others. They have been successful during a period of ridiculous growth in the English game, which has allowed them global support and all the sponsorship opportunities and tv deals that brings - which is real game changing money. They are also based in larger cities, London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc. That in itself puts them in a much better position to monetise as well as make the most of larger grounds.

I'm not anti large stadium, great facilities etc, I think it would be great to improve things on this front significantly. But it is not going to improve how we play. Yes, it might mean we can afford 1 extra £40M player every 3 or 4 seasons, but we will never be a Man United, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Spuds, Chelsea etc who can buy 'success' through multiple high cost players every summer.

Why not? We have an owner willing to buy success if he was allowed to but is restricted right now.

This 10m figure that keeps getting banded about is frustrating too, Spurs made more than double after their move and that was on matchday revenue alone. They had a 20% increase in commercial revenue due to all the gigs and NFL. Obviously we are unlikely to see the benefits they have had due to location but it would be more than 10m.

Because he is restricted.....and that will probably remain the case. I would argue that the ship has sailed on becoming a global uber-brand. 

Again, Spuds location is everything. I love Nottingham, but London it ain't.

[wassy04]

I find this making money obsession a bit confusing and probably a red herring. Yes it helps, but to be honest, an extra £10M a season or perhaps a bit more would not make as much difference as just buying the right players in the first place (which is impossible to be perfect) but just playing well on the pitch and being well run - plus a supportive home crowd!! There is plenty we could do at the current stadium without renovations to make more money if that's what it's all about.

Yes, all the big teams have bigger stadium and facilities.....but is that causation or effect of the success?? These teams have also built up their playing staff in periods where there was no PSR, so have completely stolen a march on us and a lot of others. They have been successful during a period of ridiculous growth in the English game, which has allowed them global support and all the sponsorship opportunities and tv deals that brings - which is real game changing money. They are also based in larger cities, London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc. That in itself puts them in a much better position to monetise as well as make the most of larger grounds.

I'm not anti large stadium, great facilities etc, I think it would be great to improve things on this front significantly. But it is not going to improve how we play. Yes, it might mean we can afford 1 extra £40M player every 3 or 4 seasons, but we will never be a Man United, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Spuds, Chelsea etc who can buy 'success' through multiple high cost players every summer.

Why not? We have an owner willing to buy success if he was allowed to but is restricted right now.

This 10m figure that keeps getting banded about is frustrating too, Spurs made more than double after their move and that was on matchday revenue alone. They had a 20% increase in commercial revenue due to all the gigs and NFL. Obviously we are unlikely to see the benefits they have had due to location but it would be more than 10m.

Because he is restricted.....and that will probably remain the case. I would argue that the ship has sailed on becoming a global uber-brand. 

Again, Spuds location is everything. I love Nottingham, but London it ain't.

As Ozzy says above there's plenty of opportunity out there due to lack of competition. 

I would suggest that restriction would be lowered if we had increased revenue. It's not a silver bullet but doing nothing is surely worse.

[Reds73]

Olympiakos stuffed Villa.

Leverkusen stuffed West Ham.

Atalanta stuffed Liverpool.

And that is only this season.

But you can't compete with a small stadium right?

Just turning this on it’s head then Sniff
EM has a very smart business mind, why do you think he might want to move to a bigger ground ?

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Dress it up however you want but there is ample evidence out there to prove that you can be successful with a 30,000 seater stadium and that having a brand new 50,000 seater stadium guarantees you nothing.

Depends on your definition of success, Leicester is the only team that has won the PL with a stadium capacity of around 30k since Blackburn. No other team has even finished top 4.

Sure, you can do it in other countries that don't have to compete against the top 6 PL teams but unless we move abroad we are not in that position!

And you think we are going to change that with a new stadum?

Plus football is not just about the PL it is about European Competition too or doesn't that count?

We would have a greater chance than we do now.

What English club has been successful in Europe with a low capacity stadium?

Nottingham Forest, Chelsea, I think Wolves got to a semi final about four years ago, think Brighton made it to the quarter finals this season.

How many English clubs with a 50,000 plus capacity have been successful in Europe? Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool?

I don't see much difference.

[wassy04]

Dress it up however you want but there is ample evidence out there to prove that you can be successful with a 30,000 seater stadium and that having a brand new 50,000 seater stadium guarantees you nothing.

Depends on your definition of success, Leicester is the only team that has won the PL with a stadium capacity of around 30k since Blackburn. No other team has even finished top 4.

Sure, you can do it in other countries that don't have to compete against the top 6 PL teams but unless we move abroad we are not in that position!

And you think we are going to change that with a new stadum?

Plus football is not just about the PL it is about European Competition too or doesn't that count?

We would have a greater chance than we do now.

What English club has been successful in Europe with a low capacity stadium?

Nottingham Forest, Chelsea, I think Wolves got to a semi final about four years ago, think Brighton made it to the quarter finals this season.

How many English clubs with a 50,000 plus capacity have been successful in Europe? Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool?

I don't see much difference.

Chelsea is 40k and also an exception as they had Abramovich before the rules changed.

Brighton have been an exceptionally well run club for the last 5 years+, I will watch with interest whether they are able to rebuild though or whether this is their peak. 

Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham seemed to have been missed off your list for some reason? 

So is Brighton or Wolves our ceiling? Occasional top 10 seasons, Wolves were in relegation trouble as recently as last year and Brighton massively declined last season. Shows even clubs with recent success don't last without the infrastructure to back it up.

[Shawoddyred]

Depends on your definition of success, Leicester is the only team that has won the PL with a stadium capacity of around 30k since Blackburn. No other team has even finished top 4.

Sure, you can do it in other countries that don't have to compete against the top 6 PL teams but unless we move abroad we are not in that position!

And you think we are going to change that with a new stadum?

Plus football is not just about the PL it is about European Competition too or doesn't that count?

We would have a greater chance than we do now.

What English club has been successful in Europe with a low capacity stadium?

Nottingham Forest, Chelsea, I think Wolves got to a semi final about four years ago, think Brighton made it to the quarter finals this season.

How many English clubs with a 50,000 plus capacity have been successful in Europe? Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool?

I don't see much difference.

Chelsea is 40k and also an exception as they had Abramovich before the rules changed.

Brighton have been an exceptionally well run club for the last 5 years+, I will watch with interest whether they are able to rebuild though or whether this is their peak. 

Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham seemed to have been missed off your list for some reason? 

So is Brighton or Wolves our ceiling? Occasional top 10 seasons, Wolves were in relegation trouble as recently as last year and Brighton massively declined last season. Shows even clubs with recent success don't last without the infrastructure to back it up.

Understand what you are saying. But I am not so sure that it is actually linked to infrastructure to be honest. More about brand in my opinion. And we could do a lot better on that aspect, although I would argue that the River Trent would be an aspect of that branding as well as our history, which also links us to where we are.

[wassy04]

And you think we are going to change that with a new stadum?

Plus football is not just about the PL it is about European Competition too or doesn't that count?

We would have a greater chance than we do now.

What English club has been successful in Europe with a low capacity stadium?

Nottingham Forest, Chelsea, I think Wolves got to a semi final about four years ago, think Brighton made it to the quarter finals this season.

How many English clubs with a 50,000 plus capacity have been successful in Europe? Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool?

I don't see much difference.

Chelsea is 40k and also an exception as they had Abramovich before the rules changed.

Brighton have been an exceptionally well run club for the last 5 years+, I will watch with interest whether they are able to rebuild though or whether this is their peak. 

Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham seemed to have been missed off your list for some reason? 

So is Brighton or Wolves our ceiling? Occasional top 10 seasons, Wolves were in relegation trouble as recently as last year and Brighton massively declined last season. Shows even clubs with recent success don't last without the infrastructure to back it up.

Understand what you are saying. But I am not so sure that it is actually linked to infrastructure to be honest. More about brand in my opinion. And we could do a lot better on that aspect, although I would argue that the River Trent would be an aspect of that branding as well as our history, which also links us to where we are.

Modern football is all about revenue though sadly, which yes partly determined by brand. Hopefully this could be something to increase our brand.

It just seems like renovated the CG is not going to happen due to how difficult and expensive it would be to do.