St James' Park

[HaydnNUFC]

7 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

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.

 

 

Bit of an if and a maybe that, mind. I don't think players sign for clubs based on the stadium they play at. It's not proving that we won't but it's not going to make the difference that some think, imo. Again, that's all just opinion and that's absolutely fine.

 

7 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

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?

 

 

I don't know. They may be right in the end but they have not gotten everything right since coming in. Ticketing and the summer window being two such examples.

 

 

Edited Friday at 16:00 by HaydnNUFC

[TomYam]

28 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.

 

 

 

 

In the years when Arsenal won 3 league titles they were competing with only ManU and Liverpool - no other clubs were able to compete financially.

Since 2003, first Chelsea, then ManC and a boosted Spurs have overtaken Arsenal financially. As we all know, the strongest finances form the most competitive teams. Arsenal haven't kept step with the likes of ManC, ManU and Chelsea hence their lack of championship success.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What do Spurs fans not like? I think their stadium is the best I've ever been to.

 

I mean, sure it converts to host NFL etc, but it's still an amazing place to watch football. Not that I know it week-by-week obvs. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 16:11 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Yorkie]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I think their stadium is the best I've ever been to.

 

By what metrics?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

 

By what metrics?

 

Design looks cool, impressive when inside, seats are packed in with quite steep stands, golden bird on the roof. 

 

I would copy and paste that into Newcastle in a heartbeat. 

 

Edit: except it's only 62k so not big enough for us. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 16:19 by AyeDubbleYoo

[whiteline]

2 hours ago, DiddyLevine said:

Not into horse racing but my brother is . He reckons its not one of the main courses . 

Could always rebuild the course elsewhere .

Put the racecourse back onto the town moor, hell we could even have the Grandstand back in Grandstand road. 
 

 

[JEToon]

I can't believe people think staying at Highbury would have helped Arsenal, staggering to read that, they would be closer to being a Crystal Palace level club by now if they stayed there 

[Rafalove]

If I had to copy and paste a stadium it would be the san siro. I understand it lacks modern facilities but I’d do my best to copy it. Possibly with fans being a bit closer to the pitch.

[Sima]

Used Wembley as a guide as that is one of the biggest.

 

 

I still dream of this though, with the right side behind the goal having an open view of the bridges.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:45 by Sima

[timeEd32]

Sorry, but it's ridiculous to suggest that building a new stadium wouldn't be worth it for the revenue gains or saying Arsenal or Spurs haven't won a trophy so what's the point. Chelsea won things with a smaller stadium by outspending everyone before there were rules and by building one of the best academies in the world. They are incredibly reliant on European income and player sales, the two most volatile sources of revenue.

 

Where would Arsenal and Spurs be if they had stayed at Highbury and WHL? There's a lot of factors to consider, but the odds of them being in a group of four with us and West Ham while City, Liverpool, Man United, and Chelsea held a complete monopoly on the top four would be significantly raised.

 

A new stadium unlocks commercial revenue opportunities as much as it enhances matchday revenue, so you need to look at both.

 

In 2016/17, the last year of WHL, Spurs matchday revenue was £45m (roughly the same as us now) and their commercial revenue was £76m. TV and UEFA money made up 61% of their revenue. 

 

In 2022/23, Spurs matchday revenue was £118m and commercial was £228m. That's a revenue increase in those two categories that nearly matches our total revenue from the same season. TV and UEFA was down to only 37% of their revenue.  

 

Spurs used to be in a revenue tier with the three big Italian clubs, Dortmund, and Atletico. They have jumped to a level that aligns them with Liverpool (who have made massive gains themselves), Bayern Munich, and ahead of Arsenal. Their revenue is now closer to Real Madrid, Man City, PSG, and Barcelona than it is to Juventus, Dortmund, etc. This doesn't given them any guarantee of trophies, but it means if the other parts align there is no ceiling to what they could achieve. It also means they can only fall so far and can recover from mistakes.

 

We wouldn't see the same level of gains as them, but there's no denying that a new stadium would push us into another class of clubs. At minimum we'd go from the top of the other 14 to the bottom of the big 7.

[Wolfcastle]

1 hour 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.

 

 

Furthermore how many atmospheres have improved at new stadiums?  Cant think of any in England and only Juventus and Bayern

 

Just believe the debate and decisions shouldn't be based on the idea that a new stadium would mean we'd win things and that the atmosphere would improve. It'll barely make any difference competitively and the latter wont happen

[ponsaelius]

3 hours ago, Turnbull2000 said:

Have reason to believe Castle Leazes will be remaining as grazing land. Would be very surprised if this as an option now.

 

Maybe there's some truth to Gosforth.

 

I made this point a few pages back but that's a completely unworkable location in terms of transport. The roads around there are already at capacity due to the sheer volume of car centric housing built. Trying to get 70k people there on a matchday, at the same time, with no metro/rail, is totally unfeasible. 

 

Would be a good training ground location.

 

 

Edited Friday at 16:56 by ponsaelius

[JEToon]

I think there actually is a decent case that a change of stadium would help us specifically when it comes to atmosphere. and I can only speak for us on this. 

 

As things stand a lot of groups of mates go to the pub before games, and it is fair chance 1 in 5 can then go in the game, if there is a 2 of the 5 a decent chance they are in different parts of the stadium. If more can be done to get groups like that in together I can see why it would help the atmosphere 

[TRon]

2 hours ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

Sponsorships and better players trading. Not fleecing fans. Plus, only Man Utd have that capacity bracket you've mentioned in the league.

 

That's not making up the shortfall though, that's just trying to do other things better....which all the competition will be trying to do as well.

 

Man U being the only other club having the capacity is fair enough. But would be interesting to see how the other clubs fighting for honours address that. As has been pointed out since, it's not just the capacity on game days, it's all the other commercial revenue the modern arenas offer as well.

[Whitley mag]

Better acoustics, half the ground not detached in level 7, full end of safe standing and potentially more people actually able to sit together.

 

All a recipe for a better atmosphere.

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Dr Venkman said:

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.

 

I think we do tbf, the points being made are counter-arguments. If your argument is 'we need to leave SJP for reasons x, y, and z' then making the point that those reasons are fallacies and therefore not worth losing SJP for are points worth making.

 

Some arguments - like wanting a stadium capacity over 65k - are fair enough, no counter-arguments there aside from just disagreeing with each other about whether that's worth losing SJP for.

[Stifler]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

That's not making up the shortfall though, that's just trying to do other things better....which all the competition will be trying to do as well.

 

Man U being the only other club having the capacity is fair enough. But would be interesting to see how the other clubs fighting for honours address that. As has been pointed out since, it's not just the capacity on game days, it's all the other commercial revenue the modern arenas offer as well.

Arsenal are wanting to expand to 80k.

[Kid Icarus]

52 minutes ago, JEToon said:

I can't believe people think staying at Highbury would have helped Arsenal, staggering to read that, they would be closer to being a Crystal Palace level club by now if they stayed there 

No, the argument was that moving hasn't helped Arsenal in terms of trophy haul, not that staying would have helped them more than moving has.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

37 minutes ago, Sima said:

Used Wembley as a guide as that is one of the biggest.

 

 

I still dream of this though, with the right side behind the goal having an open view of the bridges

 

 

If someone said to me "you have a choice, win the fa cup next year or we have a stadium build there of that scale".  I'd take the stadium.  That would set us up for generations.

 

[Heron]

10 hours ago, RS said:

Going to be grim as fuck in a half filled flat pack stadium in an industrial estate in camperdown. At least the plastics will

have a new stadium though. 

I mean not entirely accurate but appreciated the humour (and point of this post)

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:26 by Heron

[JEToon]

7 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

No, the argument was that moving hasn't helped Arsenal in terms of trophy haul, not that staying would have helped them more than moving has.

 

Arsenal have won trophies since they moved stadium, the change of stadium did help them in that process 

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:29 by JEToon

[Heron]

9 hours ago, Wallsendmag said:

Camperdown would be perfect. I work 5 mins walk away from Camperdown Industrial estate so could finish work at 12 on a Saturday, walk over to Burradon for a few pints then to the match.

As a resident in Killingworth it'd be double cush for me like.

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, JEToon said:

 

Arsenal have won trophies since they moved stadium, the chance of stadium did help them in that process 

Their major trophy haul has decreased since moving from Highbury and paying off the stadium under Wenger was blamed for their inability to spend money on players, so not sure about that one.

[JEToon]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

Their major trophy haul has decreased since moving from Highbury and paying off the stadium under Wenger was blamed for their inability to spend money on players, so not sure about that one.

 

The entire landscape of football has massively changed since they left Highbury. 

 

The notion they were going to outspend the likes of Chelsea and Man City while staying at Highbury is hilarious, the change of stadium has aided them in staying in the arms race. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:32 by JEToon

[Heron]

9 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I really don’t think that they can.  Expanding the Gallowgate is likely borderline impossible from a constructability perspective; and the East Stand’s footprint would not be changed with a rebuild.  If we stay at SJP we can look to enjoy midtable forever.  

One of the big issues for other events such as music gigs was because the Milburn and Leazes roof (underneath the stand) was too low and therefore machinery and vehicles had to stop at the NW corner and a lot more manual labour was incurred as a result, further resulting in additional costs. This is why the Stadium of Shite is used by those who don't know the area.

 

That could be raised - I suspect. Other sporting events surely can occur there assuming that they'd a) be when we aren't playing there and b) they didn't require larger pitch space (assuming something like NFL is what we'd be aiming at here and therefore - to my knowledge - we couldn't achieve this).

 

Frankly though - I don't particularly care

 

If it's any exercise in bringing people from all over the world to our wonderful city then I understand. If it's to extend our financial capability as a football club, I understand. Other than that - I really don't care. It's our footballing home. If Newcastle (and I know the obvious response here) is successful or has a good side without the need for those things then honestly I'd rather stay home (SJP).

 

The fact we'd have to spend billions on a new stadium and boost our revenue and pay for said expansion before we develop our squad to compete (potentially) is all a bit strange to me tbh. It shows how horrendously shit the current rulings are. All this nonsense about protecting clubs heritage and community and yet clubs like Newcastle have to move stadium to keep up with Jones (?).

 

 

Edited Friday at 17:39 by Heron