Will we ever see the top level...

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Install safe standing areas = lower prices significantly = attract more from the 16-24 age bracket = higher attendances.

 

The youth of today simply cannot afford to go to every game at current prices.

[Goatboy]

Install safe standing areas = lower prices significantly = attract more from the 16-24 age bracket = higher attendances.

 

The youth of today simply cannot afford to go to every game at current prices.

 

This.

Coupled with a concerted effort to improve the appeal/value of corporate packages we could increase our average attendance considerably.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Please explain.

 

He's here MLG, fire away with the mental stuff. Chelsea stats from 1984 etc.

[Saint Fan CaM]

There cannot be a better time for a modest 8k expansion. With the blue few close to relegation from L2 there are probably several thousand 'floating' supporters from the Fareham/Gosport areas for example that would love to come watch a decent game of football in a modern stadium. 8k is nothing when we can take 50k plus to Wembley.

[Mowgli]

The West Ham move will be interesting to watch. My head says 30k is about right for us but my heart says an expansion is a good investment. I can't help feeling that WHU will attract new fans simply because it is easier to get a ticket and once they go (assuming the first game is against saints of course!) they will be excited by the atmosphere and keep going back.

 

We took 40k to Wembley so I see no reason why we could not attract 35k on a regular basis providing we are competing at the top half of the table

[lifeintheslowlane]

Install safe standing areas = lower prices significantly = attract more from the 16-24 age bracket = higher attendances.

 

The youth of today simply cannot afford to go to every game at current prices.

 

I'd agree on this...predominantly getting the pricing right for younger fans. If you price it right they will come...look to the east and you'll see you don't have to play decent football to put bums on seats or feet on terraces. A low priced season ticket for the under 20s will go some way to filling an expanded stadium whilst encouraging the next generation of Saints supporters to watch them live.

[ericb]

Install safe standing areas = lower prices significantly = attract more from the 16-24 age bracket = higher attendances.

 

The youth of today simply cannot afford to go to every game at current prices.

 

Is the right answer but unfortunately won't happen in the near future due to the debate about safe standing.

 

We have a hardcore of 26k as proven by our time outside the top flight. Beyond that depending on cost or team were playing we have a "floating" support of another 10k max.

 

The problem is that the extra 10k don't just for nicely ontop of the hardcore, and as prices rise (a sad inevitability of the premier league) we will lose something close to what we add in terms of new/converted to regular fans.

 

The only "plus" to this is that it's consistent across near enough every club in the premier league which makes me think the cost of football isn't maintainable across another generation.

[Sour Mash]

What has our attendance at a Wembley game got to do with major expansion work of our current ground?

[Turkish]

What has our attendance at a Wembley game got to do with major expansion work of our current ground?

 

Luton and MIllwall both took over 40,000 to Wembley in recent seasons, maybe they need a 40,000 capacity as well?

[The Kraken]

Only SWF posters could try to make an argument for a bigger stadium while our average attendance has dropped by 800 fans per game and currently sits at less than 300000, our lowest ever figure in the Premier League at St Mary's.

[Mowgli]

Luton and MIllwall both took over 40,000 to Wembley in recent seasons, maybe they need a 40,000 capacity as well?

 

Agreed. But only if they are consistently performing well in the top half of the Premier League and starting to target European qualification.

[Goatboy]

I don't think our Wembley attendance has a lot to do with the need to expand our ground. One off games are not a fair indication of our 'natural' level of support IMHO.

Slowly, slowly catchy monkey for me. Lets see how successful the new Chairman can be at filling the ground we have before we up the bar. Get more youngsters in through better pricing, offer more attractive discounts for ST renewals and ST's in general. Sort the corporate packages out and see where we are. If that's successful then add another 6-8000 seats and go balls out to fill them That's how the chairman can earn his money.

[Turkish]

Only SWF posters could try to make an argument for a bigger stadium while our average attendance has dropped by 800 fans per game and currently sits at less than 300000, our lowest ever figure in the Premier League at St Mary's.

 

I particularly like MLGS second post on his infamous "what will happen soon" thread, where he states that we got 30,000 the year we got relegated along with a proclomation about how many more we'd get if we had a team that was good to watch. Well he's had his answer this season. We're actually getting less.

[Chewy]

Personally I think the current capacity is about right. Part of getting people hooked is the atmosphere, and seeing half our games with a half empty stadium and poor atmosphere isn't going to hook anyone. If we had regular european football, then at that stage it may be worth it, but it's only our second year back in the premier league, we've finished in the top ten a handful of times in our history, and despite my optimism for the future being as bright as anything we've seen, I think only the happiest of clappers would suggest we are on the verge of regular european football.

 

Talking of atmosphere, the one change I'd like to see is the positioning of the away fans. A team needs a home stand, a vociferous end that sings, chants and screams, and we lack it. The people who do this are in the Northam, but we only have half this stand. I would like the away fans put all into the itchen to give us all of the Northam. That would do far more for a match day experience than adding a couple of thousand seats IMHO.

[Goatboy]

Personally I think the current capacity is about right. Part of getting people hooked is the atmosphere, and seeing half our games with a half empty stadium and poor atmosphere isn't going to hook anyone. If we had regular european football, then at that stage it may be worth it, but it's only our second year back in the premier league, we've finished in the top ten a handful of times in our history, and despite my optimism for the future being as bright as anything we've seen, I think only the happiest of clappers would suggest we are on the verge of regular european football.

 

Talking of atmosphere, the one change I'd like to see is the positioning of the away fans. A team needs a home stand, a vociferous end that sings, chants and screams, and we lack it. The people who do this are in the Northam, but we only have half this stand. I would like the away fans put all into the itchen to give us all of the Northam. That would do far more for a match day experience than adding a couple of thousand seats IMHO.

 

Agree. It's almost worth building an upper tier to stick them in.

[Goalie66]

I hope not. It took an hour and fifteen minutes to get to the Cowherds on Saturday. Imagine what the traffic would be like with 40,000 gate!!

[AussieDog]

If we extended the ground, I'd be tempted to give the whole of one end to the away fans. If they fail to fill it, then that's a negative to the away team. If they do, then it's extra revenue for us. sell it in blocks from the centre outward, so if there is extra demand for home supporters we can encroach on the sides.

Ideally make the majority of the other end safe standing for the "hard core" supporters. Move the family portion to a couple of the corners. Drastically reduce prices for families and for teens.

[Scummer]

Install safe standing areas = lower prices significantly = attract more from the 16-24 age bracket = higher attendances.

 

The youth of today simply cannot afford to go to every game at current prices.

 

I don't understand the assumption that safe standing areas would have lower prices. Capacity remains the same under the safe standing model, but clubs have to make an investment in order to install it. I could actually see them charging more for the privilege.

[Saint86]

Install safe standing areas = lower prices significantly = attract more from the 16-24 age bracket = higher attendances.

 

The youth of today simply cannot afford to go to every game at current prices.

 

To be clear, you want the club to pay to install safe standing in an area of the ground (taking up same area per seat as normal) then charge less for them?

 

Therefore reducing the clubs take for each home game....

 

They would go in Northam, which sells out regardless as well.

 

Why don't they just drop ticket prices if they are fussed?

 

The only way that would keep fans happy, is that the club expands to say 40k and cuts ticket prices, paying for it out of the enhanced tv deals for a few seasons.

 

At the end of that process you'd have grown the fanbase and sell more on merchandising year on year.

 

All this safe standing bollarks is just that. It will never be installed in all but a small section of the ground, and the clubs will rightly charge the same amount for them since fans are quite happy to pay full price to stand in those areas as they are... They certainly won't charge less for the same capacity....

 

It will undboutly lead to an increase in detrimental "terrace" behavior, such as not standing where your allocated seat is, drinking in the stands and the use of flares etc... a lot of which is on the rise without the encouragement of standing areas.

 

If fans want them in limited areas then that is fair enough... but I wouldn't expect to see cheaper ticket prices for it... There is no financial reasoning behind that. Clubs pays to replace existing seating, then charges less for same capacity. Not blood likely fellas

[Saint86]

Is the right answer but unfortunately won't happen in the near future due to the debate about safe standing.

 

We have a hardcore of 26k as proven by our time outside the top flight. Beyond that depending on cost or team were playing we have a "floating" support of another 10k max.

 

The problem is that the extra 10k don't just for nicely ontop of the hardcore, and as prices rise (a sad inevitability of the premier league) we will lose something close to what we add in terms of new/converted to regular fans.

 

The only "plus" to this is that it's consistent across near enough every club in the premier league which makes me think the cost of football isn't maintainable across another generation.

 

Not to shoot you down, but as allready said, charging less for the same capacity after the financial penalty of having to install them in the first place won't encourage clubs.

 

Our ticket database is a lot larger than 36k as well.

 

What we all want is larger stadiums and cheap tickets.. Clubs missed a golden opportunity to adopt the german model following the increased tv deals which could have been used to finance this.

 

May never happen now, but regardless, safe standing is not the answer.

[melmacian_saint]

I hope not. It took an hour and fifteen minutes to get to the Cowherds on Saturday. Imagine what the traffic would be like with 40,000 gate!!

 

That's to do with the fact that the main way into central Southampton is a two-lane road.

 

Speaking of, imagine the Northam bridge with an extra 3000 cars around the place?! Instead of a slow convoy it would be static for hours.

Edited 18 March, 2014 by melmacian_saint

[moonraker]

It is a dificult call, as an occasional attender nowadyas and having two teenagers there are two things that would get me to more games: Better Family packages and availbilty at on the day/day before on 3 occasions this season I have only been sure we could go on the Friday, bit was uanble to get 3 tickets together or evne near each other so passsed, would extra capacity solve this?

[The Kraken]

To be clear, you want the club to pay to install safe standing in an area of the ground (taking up same area per seat as normal) then charge less for them?

 

Therefore reducing the clubs take for each home game....

 

They would go in Northam, which sells out regardless as well.

 

Why don't they just drop ticket prices if they are fussed?

 

The only way that would keep fans happy, is that the club expands to say 40k and cuts ticket prices, paying for it out of the enhanced tv deals for a few seasons.

 

At the end of that process you'd have grown the fanbase and sell more on merchandising year on year.

 

All this safe standing bollarks is just that. It will never be installed in all but a small section of the ground, and the clubs will rightly charge the same amount for them since fans are quite happy to pay full price to stand in those areas as they are... They certainly won't charge less for the same capacity....

 

It will undboutly lead to an increase in detrimental "terrace" behavior, such as not standing where your allocated seat is, drinking in the stands and the use of flares etc... a lot of which is on the rise without the encouragement of standing areas.

 

If fans want them in limited areas then that is fair enough... but I wouldn't expect to see cheaper ticket prices for it... There is no financial reasoning behind that. Clubs pays to replace existing seating, then charges less for same capacity. Not blood likely fellas

Some safe standing (rail seating) actually provides two standing spaces per one seated space. That's probably where Ff is coming from.

 

That said, in the remote possibility that the Goverment reverses their policy to actually allow rail seating / safe standing, I'd have thought the only configuration they'd allow would be the one standing space per seated space model.

[Charlie Wayman]

Perfect for us for what? Forever, regardless of an improvement in league position? If that logic was followed through we wouldn't need a stadium bigger than 22k based on League One attendances or 26k based on Championship attendances, unless you believe we really have reached an unbreakable glass ceiling at 8th int he Premier League.

 

In any case 32k is too small when Man Utd, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool, Spurs, Chelsea come to play even with us as a mid table team. As we sell out those games and people that want a seat can't get one. Other home games will also sell out regardless of opposition on Boxing Day and the last game of the season.

 

If we really do have ambitions of competing at the top then it is too small. Not saying we should increase all sides in one go, but the club has commissioned designs to develop the surrounding land and put another tier onto the Kinglsand Stand. A capacity of 38k to 40k wouldn't be unreasonable along with hotel, apartments, restaurants, shops etc to provide new revenue streams.

 

We wouldn't sellout a 40k stadium for games against some of the smaller sides, but we likely would for the big sides and that would boost the average attendance. Clearly not completely pie in the sky from me, as Cortese commissioned AFL to come up with some designs and Krueger said on his first day..."training ground is priority one" & looking at expanding/improving St Mary's second behind that".

 

What you are overlooking is that match day income has become almost insignificant as a measure of financial & performance sustainability of the top clubs. Most of their income is now coming from advertising, sponsorships and the like mostly from exposure to foreign sources in the middle and far east, even ManC.

 

The PL is an international business and thinking local or national are no longer tenable. Bigger stadia are likely to be useful only as vanity projects for ego-centric owners and I just don't see either Mm Liebherr or the new CEO in that category. A new stadium would have no obvious purpose now that the Don has disappeared. We certainly do not need the seats to attract and accommodate hangers on wanting to associate with our success. Look no further than Barnsley and Oakwell to see where such folly leads.

[oldsarum]

The West Ham move will be interesting to watch. My head says 30k is about right for us but my heart says an expansion is a good investment. I can't help feeling that WHU will attract new fans simply because it is easier to get a ticket and once they go (assuming the first game is against saints of course!) they will be excited by the atmosphere and keep going back.

 

We took 40k to Wembley so I see no reason why we could not attract 35k on a regular basis providing we are competing at the top half of the table

 

For the Johnstone Paint in 2009 we took more than 50K (44 K offical allocation but more than 6K in club Wembley and some even in Carlisle end)

[Prince Jazzbo]

I'd be careful about using JPT final as a benchmark. There was 000s that went up to Wembley who only went for the day out, because they were almost guaranteed a ticket for a Wembley final. I personally know quite a few people that went who either supported other teams, and would not go and watch saints, or they had never been to a saints game before or since that game.

[Tamesaint]

Please explain.

 

I understand your question. I wondered the same.

 

I guess he means:

 

Cost to expand Kingsland for 8,000 extra seats = £12 million (as quoted on Page 1).

 

Extra crowd = 6 sellouts a season = 48,000 paying say £30 a ticket = £1.44 million.

 

£12 million / £1.44 million = 8.33 years on a simple payback method.

 

On the downside I am not too sure about the £12 million. I thought the costs would be higher than that - I am not an expert in construction costs .

 

Also £30 net a ticket may be too optimistic - remmebr VAT and concession pricing.

 

However I guess that we would see several games when we would not fill the extra 8,000 seats - but we may see them half full. The liokes of Everton or Villa

 

So I reckoned that 5-6 years was a bit optimistic but I could see an arguement that there would be a payback in 8 or so years.

[The Kraken]

Where has a figure of £12m been fabricated from?

 

when St. Mary's was built it was at a cost of £1000 per seat, but it was estimated that extending would cost £3000 per extra seat. Using those figures it would be £24m.

 

Or to use a different example. Wolves knocked down their old Stan Cullis stand and rebuilt a new, 8000 seated stand in it's place. Cost £18m.

 

£12m for 8000 extra seats simply doesn't get the job done.

[TopGun]

Obviously when Pompey go under there's a good additional future catchment there!!

[Turkish]

I understand your question. I wondered the same.

 

I guess he means:

 

Cost to expand Kingsland for 8,000 extra seats = £12 million (as quoted on Page 1).

 

Extra crowd = 6 sellouts a season = 48,000 paying say £30 a ticket = £1.44 million.

 

£12 million / £1.44 million = 8.33 years on a simple payback method.

 

On the downside I am not too sure about the £12 million. I thought the costs would be higher than that - I am not an expert in construction costs .

 

Also £30 net a ticket may be too optimistic - remmebr VAT and concession pricing.

 

However I guess that we would see several games when we would not fill the extra 8,000 seats - but we may see them half full. The liokes of Everton or Villa

 

So I reckoned that 5-6 years was a bit optimistic but I could see an arguement that there would be a payback in 8 or so years.

 

When Lowe was here he said in 2003 that the cost to expand worked out at £3,000 per seat, that was 11 years ago so undoubtedly more now.

 

Even so, for sake of argument using £3,000 per seat it'd cost £24m to expand. to see an ROI on this we'd need to sell the 8,000 seats at £35 per ticket every game for almost 5 seasons. As we are only getting 30,000 on average at the moment we'd likely only sell out the 8,000 seats for around 5 games a season, so in actual fact we are looking at at far, far longer to see a return on inventsment than his "5 or 6 sell outs over 5 seasons". That's also assuming the Liebherrs fund it out of their own pocket with an interest free loan. Considering people were also coming up with this wierd and wonderful dynamic pricing, German model, more away fans and kids for a quid ideas to fill the stadium to sell the additional seats we're actually looking at decades rather than years before we recoup the £24m, remind me again why it makes "business sense" to build more seats we dont need?

[Tamesaint]

When Lowe was here he said in 2003 that the cost to expand worked out at £3,000 per seat, that was 11 years ago so undoubtedly more now.

 

Even so, for sake of argument using £3,000 per seat it'd cost £24m to expand. to see an ROI on this we'd need to sell the 8,000 seats at £35 per ticket every game for almost 5 seasons. As we are only getting 30,000 on average at the moment we'd likely only sell out the 8,000 seats for around 5 games a season, so in actual fact we are looking at at far, far longer to see a return on inventsment than his "5 or 6 sell outs over 5 seasons". That's also assuming the Liebherrs fund it out of their own pocket with an interest free loan. Considering people were also coming up with this wierd and wonderful dynamic pricing, German model, more away fans and kids for a quid ideas to fill the stadium to sell the additional seats we're actually looking at decades rather than years before we recoup the £24m, remind me again why it makes "business sense" to build more seats we dont need?

 

 

Post 45 on this thread reckoned that it would cost £12 million for an extra 8,000 seats. You reckon somewhere north of £24million. Get the firm answer to this question and then a more informed decision can be made about the financial viability of this idea.

[Turkish]

Post 45 on this thread reckoned that it would cost £12 million for an extra 8,000 seats. You reckon somewhere north of £24million. Get the firm answer to this question and then a more informed decision can be made about the financial viability of this idea.

 

The figure Lowe quoted in 2003 was £3k a seat. This equates to £24m. Thats a firm answer, not specualtion.

Edited 18 March, 2014 by Turkish

[The Kraken]

Post 45 on this thread reckoned that it would cost £12 million for an extra 8,000 seats. You reckon somewhere north of £24million. Get the firm answer to this question and then a more informed decision can be made about the financial viability of this idea.

The most firm answer is the £3000 per seat figure that was previously provided. There is nothing to suggest that was not a valid figure, so any deviation from that amount at that time is speculation.

[Tamesaint]

The figure Lowe quoted in 2003 was £3k a seat. This equates to £24m. Thats a firm answer, not specualtion.

 

Fair enough .... although I would like to know how Delmary got to a figure of £12million.

 

Not that I doubt the words of Rupert Lowe but our esteemed former leader was known to be a bit of a fly boy wasn't he.

[Bearsy]

The most firm answer is the £3000 per seat figure that was previously provided.

 

Mugs. I got my sofa + armchair (total 4 seats) for bout half that sum. It is all leather too and also the armchair is one of them electric reclining jobs.

[RedWillie]

I'd be careful about using JPT final as a benchmark. There was 000s that went up to Wembley who only went for the day out, because they were almost guaranteed a ticket for a Wembley final. I personally know quite a few people that went who either supported other teams, and would not go and watch saints, or they had never been to a saints game before or since that game.

 

This. My mate took his wife. Her first and last game to date !

[The Kraken]

Mugs. I got my sofa + armchair (total 4 seats) for bout half that sum. It is all leather too and also the armchair is one of them electric reclining jobs.

We're not going with your car boot sale prices, Bear.

[Bearsy]

it is ridiculous tho, i see plastic chairs on sell at homebase or wherever for like £20. People hear that Liebherr has got a few quid + all of sudden they want 3 large! ****ing joke

[Ken Tone]

£1,500 per seat? Is that just a guess?

 

Well St Mary's cost around £1000 per seat when built. Allowing for inflation and the higher cost of alteration compared to new-build, an estimate of £1500-£2000 per seat to expand one stand doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Goatboy]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQhzKjG63IaDNZBSs8X5tiBEGiT2ZsRYDdCd-DbPpjph4_gvEPLg

[stu0x]

remind me again why it makes "business sense" to build more seats we dont need?

 

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with you, there is another element that you haven't considered - financial fair play regulations. By increasing turnover, you essentially increase the maximum wage bill. The fact that you're already in the hole for the cost of increasing that turnover is largely irrelevant, because FFP only really concerns itself with the 'here and now' - and in fact it's doubly efficient, because the cost of those alterations aren't taken factored into the FFP formula.

 

It's like tax relief against expenses. Sometimes it makes sense to spend more, because even if the benefit you receive isn't worth the additional cost directly, it is worth it when the write off is included.

[Dr Who?]

Only SWF posters could try to make an argument for a bigger stadium while our average attendance has dropped by 800 fans per game and currently sits at less than 300000, our lowest ever figure in the Premier League at St Mary's.

 

300,000, we have arrived.

[ericb]

Not to shoot you down, but as allready said, charging less for the same capacity after the financial penalty of having to install them in the first place won't encourage clubs.

 

Our ticket database is a lot larger than 36k as well.

 

What we all want is larger stadiums and cheap tickets.. Clubs missed a golden opportunity to adopt the german model following the increased tv deals which could have been used to finance this.

 

May never happen now, but regardless, safe standing is not the answer.

 

To be honest i don't expect cheaper ticket prices or safe standing to happen anytime soon. But i do think we're about to hit a wall re:prices since they're beyond stupid now. When that happens and crowds start to contract significantly - using the theory that once people are lost to the pub to watch games they're unlikely to come back - then people will have to think differently.

 

At that point i won't be surprised in the slightest to see clubs look into safe standing as a way of attracting those fans back at affordable prices. Desperation will mean it will be considered (and rightly or wrongly that's the only way i can see it doing so).

 

As for the ticket database, i'm sure it is bigger than 36k, but i personally know quite a few united/chelsea/liverpool/arsenal etc "fans" on our database who got put there because they wanted to get tickets for one game alone.

 

I'd say 10k, give or take a couple of thousand, is an honest and fair guess (and that's really all we have to go on) of those that "could" be converted more regularly if we maintain success.

[Delmary]

Well St Mary's cost around £1000 per seat when built. Allowing for inflation and the higher cost of alteration compared to new-build, an estimate of £1500-£2000 per seat to expand one stand doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

The Swansea Chairman Huw Jenkins stated that increasing the capacity of the Liberty by around 10,000 seats would set the club back in the region of £15m. I accept that in our case it might be slightly more expensive. Note that the Liberty stadium design is similar to St.Mary's, although not as big.

 

The future risk of not expanding is that we will be left behind by our competitors. As I stated earlier I believe that there is scope to expand to 40k. This would allow the club to increase match day income (match day tickets, programmes , drinks and food etc) for a limited number of games.

 

With interest rates at an all time low it's a good investment opportunity. I'm sure we could easily sellout the six cat A games each season. It's all about the maths and growing the business.

[Turkish]

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with you, there is another element that you haven't considered - financial fair play regulations. By increasing turnover, you essentially increase the maximum wage bill. The fact that you're already in the hole for the cost of increasing that turnover is largely irrelevant, because FFP only really concerns itself with the 'here and now' - and in fact it's doubly efficient, because the cost of those alterations aren't taken factored into the FFP formula.

 

It's like tax relief against expenses. Sometimes it makes sense to spend more, because even if the benefit you receive isn't worth the additional cost directly, it is worth it when the write off is included.

 

Again, that doesn't really wash, let's be blunt, we won't sell 40,000 every week, so let's say we sold on average another 4,000 tickets game, at an average of £35 that's only an additional revenue of £2.6m per season, a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things and there are far better ways of increase turnover than splashing out £24m on seats we don't need.

Edited 18 March, 2014 by Turkish

[NickG]

I've know idea about the economics of stadium expansion, or any our potential maximum crowd etc but few thoughts

1) most likely games to start attracting new fans, or new regular fans going to matches are against likes of Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea etc - these sell out. I've heard several parents struggling to take children to these. Surely if extra few thousand went to these it would trickle down to some getting hooked and going to other games?

 

2) Would bigger ground give the opportunity for other uses?

 

3) our average crowd is 30k. But range is only 28k-31.5k. We don't have many empty seats, nor much bigger crowds for big games. Variation of 3.5k.

Sunderland's crowds vary by 12k, Everton by 6k, Villa by 12.5k. Maybe there is acceptance that a bigger ground won't be full every week and our crowds maybe still around 30k at times but a lot higher for a few games.

 

4) Villa's crowds this season may not always be much higher than ours (lowest 30k) but have also managed 42.5k

 

Personally not bothered but wouldn't be surprised if we expand knowing will often have empty seats

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[NickG]

Again, that doesn't really wash, let's be blunt, we won't sell 40,000 every week, so let's say we sold on average another 4,000 tickets game, at an average of £35 that's only an additional revenue of £2.6m per season, a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things and there are far better ways of increase turnover than splashing out £24m on seats we don't need.

 

I agree we won't increase crowd for games such as West Ham by much, if at all in short term. But I wonder what our Max crowd could be, for example against top side, when we doing well, 3pm kick off, good weather etc ? 42,000? Don't know.

 

(Wrong "know/no" in other post sorry)

[stu0x]

Again, that doesn't really wash, let's be blunt, we won't sell 40,000 every week, so let's say we sold on average another 4,000 tickets game, at an average of £35 that's only an additional revenue of £2.6m per season, a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things and there are far better ways of increase turnover than splashing out £24m on seats we don't need.

For example...?

[Turkish]

For example...?

 

Better sponsorship and corporate sales for a start.

[The Kraken]

Again, that doesn't really wash, let's be blunt, we won't sell 40,000 every week, so let's say we sold on average another 4,000 tickets game, at an average of £35 that's only an additional revenue of £2.6m per season, a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things and there are far better ways of increase turnover than splashing out £24m on seats we don't need.

Also bear in mind that, unless Ms Liebherr just gifts SFC the money, there are interest payments on a multi-million pound loan.

 

I've no idea if its true but I saw it by more than one source that our £15M loan from Vibrac attracted a £1m interest payment. When you add in the extra costs associated with an increased capacity it really starts to eat into that £2.6M you mention.

 

Without increasing capacity and getting close to selling it out every game it's very hard to make a financial case for it. We'd all like a bigger stadium, of course we would, but there seems to still be a desire to get one before we actually need it.

 

Man City are spending £50M to take their stadium from 48,000 to 62,000. To give a different perspective of how much it can cost to increase a stadium in size.