Keegans Export

Back to hypotheticals again unfortunately! I have no idea how many seats are in the Barracks or any of the other Hospitality sections for example, but I'm fairly sure they're all sold out for every game between now and the end of the season? So clearly demand is outstripping supply there. The Barracks is about £150-200, so let's say an extra 1,000 hospitality seats at £150 each = £2.8m from 19 league games. If you can add 5,000 "normal" seats, at the low end of £40/seat that's £3.8m (19 league games again). Again, I have no idea how much Corporate Boxes are so I can't even estimate income there but presumably they'd look to add more of those. The big one is Stadium sponsorship. There's an article here about it, but it explains why re-naming an existing stadium is less valuable to a potential sponsor than a new previously un-named development. Let's say £5m/year. So that's £11.6m, plus any additional Cup and/or European games, plus whatever extra you could get from more Boxes, plus any potential income from all the stuff @OpenC hates... ...like Go Karts

I think there's potentially another few thousand who'd fit that description who would come now, if there was the capacity. There also seems to be (judging by the thread on here) quite a few who can currently get to games who aren't able to get an atmosphere going because of where they end up sitting. The key is getting them all in the same place and encouraging them to do just that. Obviously we could do that now but there doesn't seem to be the appetite for a battle with large numbers of ST holders. The sweet spot for capacity is probably somewhere in the 60-65k mark for me, for the reason you gave. All fair points. I suppose it's a risk either way - do we stay and risk limiting our ability to compete financially with the teams we want to overtake? Do we leave and potentially risk losing something that is intangible but nevertheless a key part of what supporting Newcastle United means to us? I see the latter as less of a risk because football (including NUFC/SJP) has already changed and it's not going back to how it was. We can still generate a bear pit atmosphere (eg PSG) but the days of doing that regularly seem long gone, even in our spiritual home. So what are we really risking?

Of course, until there's an actual plan we're all just talking hypotheticals here. The fact that Spurs have done it shows that it can be done. Whether there is the desire to do that from our board I have no idea, but I certainly hope so. When we talk about staying versus going, we all have to make certain assumptions. My assumption is that in staying we might add an extra 7k or so, maybe more, which obviously is a good thing because it allows more of us to get tickets. I also assume that the increase in commercial revenue from a redevelopment of SJP would be minimal and have little impact on our ability to compete financially with Spurs etc. I make the assumption that if we were to move, it would be a city centre location, that it would generate a substantial increase in revenue, helping us to catch up with the "big six". I assume (or hope) that when they put a design together, there is also consideration for how we can generate & maintain an atmosphere through acoustics, well-designed and positioned safe standing or whatever. Like I said in my discussion with @OpenC I also assume that the addition of all the fancy income-generating stuff doesn't impact my personal experience because I just want to go to the game, be part of a loud, passionate crowd and hopefully see some class players play for Newcastle. Of course, if any of those assumptions are wrong on either side then I'd have to change my opinion, but that's what I'm basing it on.

It's inconceivable to me too, but obviously some people do, which is why SJP along with every other football stadium in the country has multiple kitchens, kiosks and bars. Obviously we are in the minority of having a stadium very close to the city centre, but it's not a unique situation. It's the same as your post about having a shopping centre, hotel or whatever as part of a new stadium. Clearly that isn't something you would intend to make use of, and nor would I, but if you're looking at how a football club could increase their revenue, that's one way of doing it. Having those things attached to the stadium would have absolutely no impact on how I enjoy my matchday experience - I would like larger safe standing areas, better acoustics etc, but there's no reason a new development couldn't have all that in addition to features designed to increase commercial revenue. In fact, the main thing that affects my experience is how well we play and more income = more money to spend = (hopefully) better performances on the pitch.

It's £40m over two years

As much as I don't like the guy, he does potentially have a point

I don't disagree that FFP/PSR is shite and creates a two-tier system but they knew what the rules were and they broke them. They should and will be punished accordingly. I also don't think a legal challenge is anywhere near as straightforward as some on here believe although I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

He's not died, he could be back before the end of September and only miss half a dozen games. Hardly justification for selling our best player. All it does for me is shift the budget we (presumably) had for a CM to a CB. If Joelinton signs a new contract, Tonali will be back, Willock hopefully back to full fitness. Obviously if we did end up selling Bruno then we'd have to invest in CM but we'd then have the money to do so.

Pffft, fairweather fans...

McClaren would be my call. Also agree regarding Bruce although I think he would have relegated us that last season if the takeover hadn't happened.

Somebody fire up the Connor Gallagher thread...

Who cares if anyone is buying NFTs anymore? I remember quite a few posts about Manchester United's "Official Tractor Partner", presumably we're all in the market for a new John Deere then?

But I'm not sure why any of that would necessarily affect your experience? Imagine our own version of the Yellow Wall behind each goal? Or stands that don't suck any atmosphere out into the sky? If you're stood with 10k others, making a racket, trying to out-sing the 10k stood at the opposite end, who cares if there's a few mugs sat in another stand paying £1k to sit in a squishy seat and eat truffle-infused caviar at half time? Does it matter that the bloke next to you spent £15 for a deluxe hot dog on the concourse before the game rather than a few pints in Rosie's with you?

I'll put this in a spoiler because it's wordy but there are some interesting bits in the white paper about clubs spending. I've highlighted some bits I think are relevant. To me what this is saying is essentially; We don't have a problem with owners spending money as long as; 1. They can afford it 2. They don't laden the club with crippling debt to do so 3. The spending isn't so extreme that it risks destabilising the league through inflationary pressure

I think that's part of it. If we could (just plucking a multiple out of my backside) double our income from hospitality clients for example. That doesn't necessarily come at the expense of "atmosphere" if a new stadium was also built with that in mind (eg safe standing areas, acoustics). I think stadium naming rights would be fundamentally different for a new stadium for a variety of reasons. I'd also speculate that the rights would be worth more (considering FMV) than sticking a companies name on a ground everyone is just going to call St James's Park regardless. As far as what else can be done, well I'm (clearly) no expert but you can attach all sorts to it - Spurs have their Go Kart thing, you could add a hotel, restaurants, a gargantuan club shop. More creative minds than I could undoubtedly come up with countless suggestions.

I'd rather stay where we are without any expansion than move outside the city centre.

Essentially yeah! I assume it would probably attract a larger sum than if we were to sponsor and existing stadium but I'm just speculating. I'd say the main reason there was so much resistance to the previous attempt at sponsoring SJP was who was doing it and knowing that the proceeds would ultimately line his pockets rather than the clubs'!

Stadium sponsorship?

No I think 65k is probably about right but I think they will look at the split between standard and corporate though. They've tried that already with part of the Leazes and the changes up in the Gallowgate corner.

Depends what we/the club want out of the stadium really. If it's just an extra 10k on top of the Gallowgate and a lick of paint etc around the concourses then I agree, we don't need to move. If they really want to maximise the income from the stadium, that's where we would be limiting ourselves by staying put.

Voted to move, on the basis that all we can do at the current site is add an extra 10-12k seats to the Gallowgate/East Stand. That extra capacity is going to bring in maybe £10m? Based on 12k STs at £750 each. Plus we'll potentially have to temporarily reduce capacity while the work takes place. If we can build a state-of-the-art stadium, in the city centre, built with atmosphere in mind, that would be my choice. We can tag on a load of extra corporate stuff, rather than just converting existing areas (eg the "Wings") and bring on a Stadium sponsor. It could open up the opportunity to host other events such as concerts, other sports etc as well as more regular international fixtures.

Obviously there's no guarantee exactly what a regulator would/wouldn't do, but the Government white paper specifically calls out the current regulations for favouring certain clubs over others & that they "entrench the dominance of the richest clubs"

They (successfully) argued that they shouldn't have to provide a business plan to the EFL (showing how they would avoid a breach of FFP/PSR) because they weren't in the EFL last season but they haven't avoided FFP penalties all together.

I'm leaning more and more towards the feeling that we think an independent regulator's attitude will be "If you've got the money you can spend it, just don't take the piss"

Quoting myself here to add that they actually call out the PL/EFL on what they refer to as "soft wage caps" caused by linking spending to turnover;