St James' Park

[JEToon]

I appreciate it might be for some, but a genuine strong emotional attachment to a stadium just isn't for me. 

[mattypnufc]

Its not just the plebs like you and me capacity though, its the corporate offerings and its the additional things the stadium can be used for too.

 

Last season I got a tour of the Etihad (as my uncle knows their commercial director).  Anyway, they have a 360 degree corporate experience around the ground - literally the entire ground.  Ranging from basic, to ala carte and private boxes.  

Whether you agree with it or not (I don't) the amount of revenue that can bring in is exceptional.  SJP being expanded/modernised without a complete rebuild, this is impossible to offer. 

 

As its been discussed on here, we rarely get concerts at SJP and lose out to the mackems as access around the stadium is literally impossible and specialist expensive kit is needed to do it. 

 

And lastly, whether we like it or not, NFL and AEW events like Wembley/Spurs etc get bring in a fuck tonne of cash too.   

 

None of those are possible without a complete rebuild of SJP.  Unless they are wanting to build Gateshead Stadium into a 35k stadium, or build a temporary ground, they will not be rebuilding SJP.  They will not be forcing people to travel to Stade Del Plop, Bellend Road, Hamden Park, Ibrox or such for our home games.  

 

We've all talked about this at length. 

 

Whether we like or it not, SJP in its current guise does not give us the capacity to grow revenue, grow the support or (bleh) help PSR.  

 

I'm of the opinion that, nostalgic and historic reasoning aside, you take those glasses off, a new stadium is 100% the way to go - IF, big IF, it is in the City Centre area.  We simply can't lose that, it would devastate the city in more ways than one.   

Stay still you get left behind and all that jazz. 

 

[HaydnNUFC]

2 minutes ago, The Butcher said:

Would be different if they were good.

 

Same as when players are "likeable" when teams win and not so much when they're not.

 

 

 

 

Which totally and utterly negates the argument that a new stadium would help us win things or become a global player.

[Shearergol]

2 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

Which totally and utterly negates the argument that a new stadium would help us win things or become a global player.

 

Why? There is no one "fix" to winning things, there's loads of moving parts. Spurs are shit at most of them.

[Harry 209]

when people talk about building a new stadium on Leazes Park, where EXACTLY do they mean? Are they talking about directly behind SJP where the tennis courts, lake and all that stuff is?

[Dr Venkman]

6 hours ago, OpenC said:

 

I want us to be global players, I just don't want to see us abandon SJP solely to comply with fucking ridiculous deliberately anticompetitive financial regulations that might be legally dismantled before the last bit of smoked glass goes into the new stadium, before the go kart track has even been slid out on its new castors. I just don't buy the New Stadium Will Fix Everything scenario.

 

TBF, it's not just this. More people being able to get in is a positive IMO.

 

 

Edited Friday at 18:39 by Dr Venkman

[Boo Boy]

No-one who has move to a new stadium has improved as a club. man city is the exception but that was due to the takeover not the stadium

 

Arsenal have not won the title since highbury

West Ham hate their athletics track

Spurs have a souless bowl

 

Yes the income increases but you lose your identity to corporate and tourists. 

Chelsea managed to win it all by staying.

 

We should stay and expand and that would give us us enough seats/corporate we would need.

 

 

[HaydnNUFC]

6 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

Why? There is no one "fix" to winning things, there's loads of moving parts. Spurs are shit at most of them.

 

Because I just find it a moronic argument, really. Us having a new stadium which will likely (not certainly but given what they've done with SJP is an indicator) be full of corporate nonsense will have zero impact on the on-the-pitch success. 

 

Us, like Spurs, are also shit at winning things. They have the shiny new ground that loads fawn over with zero tangible success to show for it. In fact, they're probably in a worse position now than they were before it. But "a new stadium will take us to another level". Aye, reet. Plus quite a few of their fans starting to dislike it is telling.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:06 by HaydnNUFC

[TK-421]

As far as St James' Park goes, this was the sweet spot for me...



All covered, corners filled in, opposing stands almost matched. I know its obviously had less capacity than now, but I remember when that was finished, I thought it looked a great stadium.

Now, its limited to how much we can expand, and as others have said, this could be our now or never chance to have a modern, new stadium with higher capacity and less restriction on future development or growth (should we need it), whereas on the current site we can expand but with limited opportunity and then, thats it.

My only hope is, if we do build/move to a new stadium, is that it stays relatively close and in the city centre, but I guess that limits it to Leazes Park, and whether thats feasible or not. But even if it has to move further away, I still wouldn't be against it, as I think we need it to progress, long term.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:05 by TK-421

[Rich]

Moving outside of the city centre is still a total no-go for me like, and I do think the brass appreciate that based on the latest comments.

[mattypnufc]

4 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

TBF, it's not just this. More people being able top get in is a positive IMO.

Currently entire generations are locked out on a weekly basis, whether we like it or not.  

 

And there's simply nothing which can be done about it. Other than waiting for people to die, unable to afford etc, and those tickets not get passed onto someone else. 

[Dr Venkman]

14 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

Which totally and utterly negates the argument that a new stadium would help us win things or become a global player.

 

This is a bizarre statement. The sensible argument is a new stadium, well planned, could give the club the opportunity to win things/become a global player. Engage with that one rather than something that's easier to take down which virtually no-one is arguing.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:10 by Dr Venkman

[HaydnNUFC]

1 minute ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

This is a bizarre statement. The sensible argument is a new stadium, well planned, could give the club the opportunity to win things/become a global player. Engage with with that one rather than something that's easier to take down which virtually no-one is arguing.

 

How could it? So far, its done absolutely nothing for Spurs. Other than taking concessions for seniors away.

 

And maybe not on here, but you see that argument elsewhere online.

[Dr Venkman]

1 minute ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

How could it? So far, its done absolutely nothing for Spurs. Other than taking concessions for seniors away.

 

And maybe not on here, but you see that argument elsewhere online.

Aren’t you negating what/where Spurs would be if they hadn’t built a new stadium? What about Arsenal? Why do all these other clubs, with ambitions to put themselves in a position to give them the best chance of being successful, build new bigger stadiums?

 

I appreciate it’s an emotive subject but I honestly think those who would rather stay for sentimental reasons would just own it. There’s nowt wrong with it.

[Dr Venkman]

It’s also really, really weird that we’ve reached the point in the debate where it’s being doubted whether the club making more money would give it a better chance of success. It’s not about sure things, it’s about improving your chances. It’s not debatable whether more income equals better chances of success.

[TBG]

Once again, the past 50 pages or so, show just how much of an easy decision it is for the club. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:26 by TBG

[Stifler]

11 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

How could it? So far, its done absolutely nothing for Spurs. Other than taking concessions for seniors away.

 

And maybe not on here, but you see that argument elsewhere online.

That’s down to Spurs, and Levy not being able to see it from the common man’s perspective.

Also the fact that they are doing shit is more down to him sacking every manager since getting to the Champions League final, and hiring managers who are known to have a limited shelf life.

[Tsunami]

We’ve just got to stay inside the city. The pubs are rammed, food joints get great business and the fans are used to this being the norm. It’s pretty unique and is great for the city. 
 

Take that away and especially during midweek games and poor onfield performances folk will be less bothered about going. It might start sold out and do so for a few years but it will lose its appeal.

 

If we’re going to do it let’s build a statement stadium as close to SJP as we can and get as much use out of it as we can. Surely the City Council can see the huge benefits over an extended number of years. Get it right and everyone can be happy.

[HaydnNUFC]

21 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

Aren’t you negating what/where Spurs would be if they hadn’t built a new stadium? What about Arsenal? Why do all these other clubs, with ambitions to put themselves in a position to give them the best chance of being successful, build new bigger stadiums?

 

I appreciate it’s an emotive subject but I honestly think those who would rather stay for sentimental reasons would just own it. There’s nowt wrong with it.

 

Arsenal, who won 3 league titles in the 9 years before moving, haven't won it since in the 18 years since moving. Who were told they were moving stadia to 'compete with Bayern Munich', yet have progressed past the CL QFs once since moving and still are yet to win a major European honour that still exists.

 

And I would imagine that these clubs move stadia due to a want to increase capacity due to ticket demand* or their previous stadia were outdated either from the publication of the Taylor Report or for just moving into the modern age (turnstiles, concourses left over from the 70s, 80s etc)

 

*the only reason I recognise a want for a new stadium and I personally want an expansion to SJP if a city centre ground isn't feasible.

 

16 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

It’s also really, really weird that we’ve reached the point in the debate where it’s being doubted whether the club making more money would give it a better chance of success. It’s not about sure things, it’s about improving your chances. It’s not debatable whether more income equals better chances of success.

 

There's no evidence that a new ground would make a discernible difference in income that we could effectively utilise. Matchday revenue often makes fewer than 15% of a PL club's revenue.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:37 by HaydnNUFC

[NG32]

25 minutes ago, Boo Boy said:

No-one who has move to a new stadium has improved as a club. man city is the exception but that was due to the takeover not the stadium

 

Arsenal have not won the title since highbury

West Ham hate their athletics track

Spurs have a souless bowl

 

Yes the income increases but you lose your identity to corporate and tourists. 

Chelsea managed to win it all by staying.

 

We should stay and expand and that would give us us enough seats/corporate we would need.

 

 

Weve not won anything since 1969, so whats the differnece?  We may as well make a play for trying to become an established "top 6" side rather than resting our current status. 

[Kanj]

Nobody else has won anything because Pep came thru and has cleaned up apart from Conte and Klopp spoiling the party. So don't really see that being a valid argument here. 

[mattypnufc]

I love SJP.  I love the match day.  I love town on a match day.  

 

So much fucking abject misery in my 40 years of being here, interspersed with great moments with the culmination of fuck all really at SJP - but I still love it.  Had a good time even when we were shit, until I didn't.  

 

I'd be happy to rebuild from the ground up, but thats never going to be an option nor baring some miraculous feat of engineering would it see us right for the next 30+ years.  Nor are we going to relocate elsewhere whilst it is teared down and then rebuilt so I'd say this isn't an option.  Clagging something extra on it isn't a value for money option either given the investment needed and the limited returns.    

 

Frankly, a new stadium in the city centre is the only logical and best value for money choice.  Despite obviously planning hurdles, it could happen...I don't actively see an issue with it if I take my sentiments away from the argument. 

[Shearergol]

We don't demand a team that wins, we demand a team that stays at SJP.

[Dr Venkman]

25 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

Arsenal, who won 3 league titles in the 9 years before moving, haven't won it since in the 18 years since moving. Who were told they were moving stadia to 'compete with Bayern Munich', yet have progressed past the CL QFs once since moving and still are yet to win a major European honour that still exists.

 

Yeah. However, there is a counterfactual where they stayed at Highbury and they weren't in the running for any PL titles or CL qualification, for various reasons. Leaving aside the extra income once they'd paid off the build costs, would they have been able to attract as high quality players/coaches? Other clubs have built a new stadium and not won anything isn't a convincing argument against us doing it to improve our chances of success, IMO.

 

25 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

And I would imagine that these clubs move stadia due to a want to increase capacity due to ticket demand* or their previous stadia were outdated either from the publication of the Taylor Report or for just moving into the modern age (turnstiles, concourses left over from the 70s, 80s etc)

 

*the only reason I recognise a want for a new stadium and I personally want an expansion to SJP if a city centre ground isn't feasible.

 

 

There's no evidence that a new ground would make a discernible difference in income that we could effectively utilise. Matchday revenue often makes fewer than 15% of a PL club's revenue.

 

 

I think the ticket demand is a larger part of it than improving income, TBH. However, if there's no evidence that a new ground would make a discernible difference, why is senior management at the club telling us that it would help?

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:53 by Dr Venkman

[Wallsendmag]

51 minutes ago, Boo Boy said:

No-one who has move to a new stadium has improved as a club. man city is the exception but that was due to the takeover not the stadium

 

Arsenal have not won the title since highbury

West Ham hate their athletics track

Spurs have a souless bowl

 

Yes the income increases but you lose your identity to corporate and tourists. 

Chelsea managed to win it all by staying.

 

We should stay and expand and that would give us us enough seats/corporate we would need.

 

 

 

Brentford have. So have Brighton. Leicester won the league after moving to a new stadium. Boro won their only trophy after moving to the Riverside. West Ham won a European trophy after moving. In fact even the mackems enjoyed their longest ever consecutive spell in the top flight after moving!

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:53 by Wallsendmag