A bit worrying

cmonurz · by **cmonurz** » 15 Nov 2007 13:01

I think the situation has changed, perhaps in RFC's advantage for it can make a better appraisal of where the club stands. Had plans been in place earlier, they might have been signed off after our successful first season, and now we would be watching the new seats go in with relegation a prospect.

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 15 Nov 2007 13:03

cmonurz The decision is fairly simple for me, and as such should be delayed, for now. Are we a stable Premiership club? We will not use 1/3 of a 38,000 ground in the Championship - it would be a complete and utter waste of money and time, and a complete embarassment.

Will we ever be a stable Premiership Club? And if we do become one what happens if we have one bad season and return to the Championship.

The odds are more likely that we will get relegated again one day - will that be this season, next season, 5 years time, 10 years time, 25 years time?

Whilst I appreciate it's a factor, to my mind at least it can't be the crux of the arguement.

cmonurz · by **cmonurz** » 15 Nov 2007 13:06

If and when we become a 'stable Premiership club' (i.e. 4 or 5 seasons in the league) I would argue that we would then have the infrastructure (including the financial power and reputation) to make a much better fist of coming straight back up, should we go down.

I appreciate that we will get relegated at some point in the future, but I am not convinced at the moment that should that happen, this club has a stable enough base to simply bounce straight back, and on that basis, a ground expansion seems careless.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 15 Nov 2007 13:06

cmonurz The decision is fairly simple for me, and as such should be delayed, for now. Are we a stable Premiership club? We will not use 1/3 of a 38,000 ground in the Championship - it would be a complete and utter waste of money and time, and a complete embarassment.

Is any one bar half a dozen clubs a stable Premiership club ?

Why use 38k as the figure ?

cmonurz · by **cmonurz** » 15 Nov 2007 13:07

See my point above re stability.

I thought 38k was the proposed new capacity?

Royal Lady · by **Royal Lady** » 15 Nov 2007 13:08

I'd have more confidence in us going straight back up from the championship if I thought we'd spent well and got a good nucleus of a team. The current team will fragment within the next two years due to advanced age - if we can replace players properly, we should stand more of a chance of bouncing straight back up.

Riseley · by **Riseley** » 15 Nov 2007 13:09

Good to see Woodcote and Schards have not let their differences lead to personal insults. I think having the largest ground in the Championship could lead to us being a bigger club than Southampton.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 15 Nov 2007 13:09

No
2 phases.
Go to 30k by extending the East.
Then go to 38k by doing the N &S

I think 38k is a light year away whereas the sums indicate 30k is probably an ideal size for us.

Vision · by **Vision** » 15 Nov 2007 13:10

cmonurz See my point above re stability.

I thought 38k was the proposed new capacity?

I believe the initial increase will be to 30k but as has been alluded to the stadium can go to 38k and with more than half an eye to potential buyers its the 38k figure they often quote.

cmonurz · by **cmonurz** » 15 Nov 2007 13:13

I see - how many games would we get those extra 5k supporters? That's about Â£175,000 in ticket revenues, for 4 or 5 games per season? Less than a million quid, say a million including merchandise. Is that cost-effective? Probably too simplistic a calculation.

All about opinions I guess, I just not convinced we will fill it.

Riseley · by **Riseley** » 15 Nov 2007 13:26

Perhaps we should ask the question just how many people will renew ST's if we get relegated. This will gauge empty seat numbers and piss off a moderator.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 15 Nov 2007 13:27

You'd get extra fans at every game - we'd increase the away allocation for a start.
It's a business decision and as such the people who know the costs / risks will make it.
It's clear to me the ground is too small and we are going to be constrained by it. Relegation is the only factor that makes proceeding with the expansion even a question in my eyes and that will probably always be so.

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 15 Nov 2007 14:22

cmonurz I see - how many games would we get those extra 5k supporters? That's about Â£175,000 in ticket revenues, for 4 or 5 games per season? Less than a million quid, say a million including merchandise. Is that cost-effective? Probably too simplistic a calculation.

All about opinions I guess, I just not convinced we will fill it.

Selling out 30k isn't really the question. The question is how many games would we see our attendances be over the current capacity.

I'd say a vast majority would with the bigger games hitting capacity.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 15 Nov 2007 14:27

Or even how often would they reach the new break even point....

zac naloen · by **zac naloen** » 15 Nov 2007 14:48

Behindu Or even how often would they reach the new break even point....

Everyone questioned how we'd fill the Madjeski stadium, the answer quite clearly is by being successful.

Therefore if the club is succesful we will fill the ground more often.

This is all part of the clubs development, if they are not afraid to buy good players for the price they are worth as well as invest infrastructure then there is no reason why the average attendance won't continue to go up.

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 15 Nov 2007 14:54

The simple thing is that whilst they are at or nearly at capacity, they don't have the flexibility to do anything significant to attract new supporters. It's those new supporters that they need to attract for long-term growth - and absolutely no way to do that now.

So it's a long-term, strategic thing - even if you accept it may not be sold 100% all of the time, it's not all about payback over the next 2-3 seasons only - it's part of JM's long-term "brick by brick" stuff.

As to when the time is right - well, if we wait until we're 100% absolutely sure it will succeed, we'll never be in a position to do it.

Deadlock · by **Deadlock** » 15 Nov 2007 15:02

Behindu No
2 phases.
Go to 30k by extending the East.
Then go to 38k by doing the N &S

I think 38k is a light year away whereas the sums indicate 30k is probably an ideal size for us.

No.

According to the RBC Committee Report:-

First stage is adding 6,600 seats to the East Stand, taking capacity to about 30,800 (see page 239). The second stage will expand the N & S, taking the total to 36,900 (see page 235).

Your friendly neighbourhood pedant.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 15 Nov 2007 15:09

Deadlock No.

According to the RBC Committee Report:-

First stage is adding 6,600 seats to the East Stand, taking capacity to about 30,800 (see page 239). The second stage will expand the N & S, taking the total to 36,900 (see page 235).

Your friendly neighbourhood pedant.

I'm not sure even those numbers are firm and fixed !
But I accept the correction based on sourced info ....

SpaceCruiser · by **SpaceCruiser** » 15 Nov 2007 15:13

Why is this irritating thread still running? Why hasn't a moderator locked it yet?

Some people on here are too stupid to see that this plan to expand the stadium is for the long term future, rather than just for next year.

Actually, thinking about it, the expansion won't be for next season, it will be the following season (i.e. the expansion will be completed by then). If we're relegated this season and by some good fortune we're really doing well back in the championship with a good chance of being back in the Premiership the following season - that's when we might be kicking ourselves for shelving the plans to build the expansion. Best to go ahead, whatever happens to this season. Think long term, not short term.

Royal Lady · by **Royal Lady** » 15 Nov 2007 15:30

Who said on here that it wasn't for the long term future then Spacey and only for this year?

A bit worrying

Who is online