St James' Park

[gjohnson]

8 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Do you think making up ground on Man United or Spurs' matchday revenue, let alone Chelsea, Man City or Liverpool's is going to be the silver bullet? And in the process of trying to get there, you lose SJP. It's just such a baseless argument that moving stadium is needed for PSR imo. 

 

 

 

 

Obviously it's no silver bullet, but perception is vital for raising commercial revenue. A modern fit for purpose stadium is far more attractive to bigger sponsors than a relic which hasn't had a serious upgrade for 25 years. 

 

Without sounding like a broken record...would City's commercial revenue be as high if they clung on to Maine Road? 

 

We live in the past, we stay in the past

[bobbydazzla]

Come in here seeing there’s been a flurry of posting activity and expecting to see the architects blueprints for the new Sven Adult Books Magpie Megadome but end up reading a load of shite about Arsenal’s league campaigns in the early to mid naughties

 

Some of youse need to get out more. 

A lot more. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 20:02 by bobbydazzla

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Sure, but that feels about as unlikely as hoping to overachieve year over year.

 

Imagine being the owner of a football club and coming out with a statement like "We're not going to invest in the club's infrastructure beyond minor enhancements. While it will cost us revenue on an annual basis and jeopardize our ability to compete for an unknown period of time, we think it is best to wait for 13 of the other clubs and UEFA to decide to vote against all financial rules."

 

We're almost certainly not going back to the wild west spending days. The rules will change over time, but there will be rules and they will almost definitely be linked to revenue so that they are legitimately or under the guise of sustainability.

 

There's a huge amount of room to manoeuvre between doing nothing at all and moving stadium and I don't think anyone is suggesting doing nothing at all tbf. For me it's expand SJP or at the absolute extreme, begrudgingly move to Leazes Park if no expansion is possible. 

 

Personally think we're approaching the latter-stages of a PSR that stops us competing, but we'll see.

[Keegans Export]

2 hours ago, OpenC said:

You won't need one man, you'll get in for a fiver every week because it'll be built completely altruistically to make sure everybody who wants a ticket can get one  no chance whatsoever that they'll calculate it perfectly to keep access restricted and demand and prices high

 

I just feel like everybody has been seduced by a slow burning smoke and mirrors fairytale of What Might Be. I completely respect people's opinions and I'm not saying anyone is wrong but I honestly can't believe so many are prepared to just consign SJP to history after a few months of dripfed It's The Only Way To Compete In The Modern Era

I think suggesting that those of us who are leaning towards a move have just been "seduced by smoke and mirrors" is a little bit patronising? 

 

None of us know what might be in terms of what a new stadium would offer, but I do know what currently is and I see a dated stadium with stands that either won't generate an atmosphere (East) or have any noise created leak out into the stratosphere (Leazes/Milburn). I see a hodgepodge of stands that bare no resemblance to the ground that stood any more than 30 years ago so I don't get all misty eyed about playing on the same turf for the past 140+ years. Not one of those stands hasn't either been redeveloped or rebuilt in the past 35 years. 

 

I also see thousands locked out every week and more seats = more chance to get in. That doesn't mean "100k seats for a fiver each!" by the way...

 

Anyway, as you say we all have our opinions and until we see a concrete plan of what they're actually looking to do, we're all just talking about what is or isn't possible. But I would say at least give those who hold a different opinion to you a bit more respect than suggesting we've been poor, ignorant souls lured in by snake oil salesmen.

[timeEd32]

18 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

There's a huge amount of room to manoeuvre between doing nothing at all and moving stadium and I don't think anyone is suggesting doing nothing at all tbf. For me it's expand SJP or at the absolute extreme, begrudgingly move to Leazes Park if no expansion is possible. 

 

Personally think we're approaching the latter-stages of a PSR that stops us competing, but we'll see.

 

I totally understand people who are opposed to moving. I feel an attachment to the place from 3k miles away. As a foreigner I also agree with you saying our opinion should mean less/nothing. My personal hope was that they could either pull off some ridiculous feat of engineering to expand SJP in a huge way or rebuild on site, but that is seeming less and less likely.

 

But part of the argument against moving cannot be that it won't even be that big of a deal financially or tallying the trophies of clubs who have built new stadiums. 

[OpenC]

31 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I think suggesting that those of us who are leaning towards a move have just been "seduced by smoke and mirrors" is a little bit patronising? 

 

None of us know what might be in terms of what a new stadium would offer, but I do know what currently is and I see a dated stadium with stands that either won't generate an atmosphere (East) or have any noise created leak out into the stratosphere (Leazes/Milburn). I see a hodgepodge of stands that bare no resemblance to the ground that stood any more than 30 years ago so I don't get all misty eyed about playing on the same turf for the past 140+ years. Not one of those stands hasn't either been redeveloped or rebuilt in the past 35 years. 

 

I also see thousands locked out every week and more seats = more chance to get in. That doesn't mean "100k seats for a fiver each!" by the way...

 

Anyway, as you say we all have our opinions and until we see a concrete plan of what they're actually looking to do, we're all just talking about what is or isn't possible. But I would say at least give those who hold a different opinion to you a bit more respect than suggesting we've been poor, ignorant souls lured in by snake oil salesmen.

 

Like I say, I might be completely wide of the mark and like I say I completely respect that everybody has their own opinion on what is an emotive and difficult decision for the club. That's honestly how I feel though, I can't help it genuinely shaking my head in wonder at folk ready to call the bulldozers in and justifying it because we're not pissing in the open air at the Gallowgate any more so SJP is no longer SJP.

 

My opinion is worth the same as everybody else's and ultimately counts for fuck all at the end of the day, so no need to take it personally. If you know that you haven't been seduced by smoke and mirrors at all then it's all good.

 

 

Edited Friday at 21:04 by OpenC

[gjohnson]

Nothing to do with smoke and mirrors at all.

 

Plain and simple fact that for what it would cost to upgrade St James to 65/70k would be far more than a new stadium purely because of its location...the things that would have to be done in order to do it (listed buildings/metro etc) would be tied up for years while various whingers object and protest. That's before the practical difficulties of actually doing it...

 

No doubt some environmentalists would protest if it ended up invading a park by a centimetre, but that would still be more efficient than trying to rearrange a significant part of a major city.

[TheBrownBottle]

23 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Nothing to do with smoke and mirrors at all.

 

Plain and simple fact that for what it would cost to upgrade St James to 65/70k would be far more than a new stadium purely because of its location...the things that would have to be done in order to do it (listed buildings/metro etc) would be tied up for years while various whingers object and protest. That's before the practical difficulties of actually doing it...

 

No doubt some environmentalists would protest if it ended up invading a park by a centimetre, but that would still be more efficient than trying to rearrange a significant part of a major city.

Leazes Terrace would be going nowhere whatever the views of anyone would be - and as you’ve said, the Metro line is a massive constructability issue for any extension to the Gallowgate which would offer no more than c.8k extra cheap seats.  The Metro station would need to be closed or moved, the existing tunnel grouted, and new tunnels bored to allow the trains to turn around.  And that cost absolutely shouldn’t (and wouldn’t) be met by the taxpayer - and the cost could well mount up to something approaching the cost of a brand spanking new super stadium.

 

It is - and has always been - a no-go.  

[Shearergol]

There is no “wait out PSR”. Even if there was, and we spent billions on new players, that attracts fans who simply cannot get tickets to watch the team play. 
 

PSR rules are here for good. You’re kidding yourselves if you think any different.

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

There is no “wait out PSR”. Even if there was, and we spent billions on new players, that attracts fans who simply cannot get tickets to watch the team play. 
 

PSR rules are here for good. You’re kidding yourselves if you think any different.

Yep.  They’re going to exist in some form or another - UEFA also has similar rules in place.  It is literally a handful of clubs which have been impacted by it, compared to the thousands of professional European clubs who are happy to sign up to the rules.  

[madras]

For me it all depends on what they come up with, Castle Leazes OK, similar the Newcastle College area. Further out than that, Benton, Gosforth, would be problematic. Using the current footprint means playing somewhere (?) else for 2 or 3yrs. 

 

I'm awaiting their more concrete ideas.

[Heron]

11 hours ago, Sibierski said:

 

Surprised how low Arsenal are there. Feels like they were the first to make big strides, and over time, the others have overtaking them. 2028 when they can change up kit and stadium sponsor, so assume a big leap will be incoming then, and Chelsea will be seeking one too (still have no sponsor  ). 

 

So that gap only going to get even bigger to us whilst we stand still. Should be a regular top 8 side, that may have the occasional run to top 4/5 if the cards are good for us that season, but going to lose players to keep that position and never ever have any hope of making a serious play.

 

Spurs are tragic for where their club is though.

Doing this already, even when the cards aren't good

[Heron]

9 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 .

Neigh chance...

[TheGuv]

5 hours ago, OpenC said:

You won't need one man, you'll get in for a fiver every week because it'll be built completely altruistically to make sure everybody who wants a ticket can get one  no chance whatsoever that they'll calculate it perfectly to keep access restricted and demand and prices high

 

I just feel like everybody has been seduced by a slow burning smoke and mirrors fairytale of What Might Be. I completely respect people's opinions and I'm not saying anyone is wrong but I honestly can't believe so many are prepared to just consign SJP to history after a few months of dripfed It's The Only Way To Compete In The Modern Era

This ^
 

For those “locked out” (like me) I doubt an increase in capacity will wildly increase my chances of attending. I’ve been successful in one ballot all season. Even if we added 15-20,000 extra seats - I’m sure there’d be more memberships and international memberships snapped up with the (slight) increased chance of going to a game. That’s before we even start on genuine tourists and those who fancy a day out at the football for Tik tok.
 

They won’t release many more (if any) season tickets at the new stadium. Everyone keeps banging on about how we have to make money and compete.

 

Which is exactly what the club will do and HAVE to do to pay back the £1bn-2bn+ for a new stadium. And it’s very simple for them. 
 

There will be very few, if any, new season tickets released.
 

There will be an increase in foreign day trippers from the Far East and Middle East paying £500+ a ticket for a match day experience. (In truth we already have them, as tickets miraculously appear immediately on a ballot day on tour websites at £300+ a pop).
 

Even more memberships will be sold at a higher price. (The value for money is already daylight robbery).

 

There will be a terrific and unrivalled corporate hospitality spanning the whole stadium. With boxes ranging from £100k-£1m+ a season.

 

The new stadium will no doubt be wonderful and the acoustics unmatched. 
 

The excitement of the new ground will be great for the first 2-3 years or so. Until it isn’t, and the above issues slowly creep in. Like Arsenal, like Spurs with no guarantee of success on the field. 
 

In some respects, it’s not the change in stadium per se that worries me. It’s the inevitability of the above points that I know the stadium change will bring. And then for me, Newcastle United will become a very different entity to the one I knew. Times change I suppose…

 

There’s something about the current custodians of the Club that I am not convinced by, and if that makes me a bed wetter then so be it. Plenty of you know I had a close friend who worked directly for Staveley and Reuben. There was always certain elements of that never sat right with me in how the club operated - and I think it’s no surprise that Staveley and Mehrdad are now longer here. Don’t get me started on Silverstone. 

Anyway. 

 

We will most likely end up moving but until we know the facts I won’t be able to even consider getting behind it. (Not that it makes any difference to them or the majority in this thread). 
 

 

 

Edited Friday at 23:13 by TheGuv

[Heron]

8 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.

And it's been built on the success of decades of football. As much as I hate the twats.

[Heron]

7 hours 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Well debated.

[duo]

Success brings in 'real' commercial revenue not the size of your stadium.  Yes St James is dated but nothing a few hundred million refresh couldn't sort.

[Heron]

7 hours 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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Arsenal are one of the top successful clubs in this country throughout history. They play in London. That is enough for players to want to play for Arsenal and tbh I doubt players consider a nice swanky stadium in their motives for playing for a side. They will consider the atmosphere and their training facilities and the place in which they'll live. That and obviously their chances of success. Which will always be there at clubs like Arsenal unless they serious fuck up. Dare I say it, I actually don't mind Arsenal - It's Arteta I cannot stand.

 

I also think those at the club have a vested interest for building a new stadium. It's their legacy. Why wouldn't Saudis want to build their own absolutely phenomenal stadium? I mean they're spending a fuckload on this, they'll want to do as they please...ultimately. All we're seeing now is an extended PR play to soften the blow. They have known what they were gonna do for ages... I suspect.

[Kanj]

6 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

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.

how could there be any better acoustics? Recall the Owen booing video. Recall PSG at home. 

[HaydnNUFC]

13 minutes ago, Heron said:

Well debated.

 

Saw all your quotes Heza and was shitting myself.

[Heron]

6 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

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.

And yet that last line is partly why folk aren't so certain to simply jump ship. Revenue means we might be able to spend more but it's not proven to be the definitive answer to all our problems.

 

Comparing Spurs revenue to Newcastle at all over the last 2 decades is somewhat skewing the debate too given Ashley absolutely drove our revenue into the ground.

 

Otherwise, despite me not really agreeing this is also well debated though so fair play.

[Heron]

6 hours ago, JEToon said:

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 

Not sure where this 1 in 5 chance thing comes from tbh. Are you referring to 1 in 5 members versus ST holders? Cause speaking from my match going friendship group it's more like 9 in 10 get to the game.

[Kanj]

I’m all fine for a new ground but needs to be basically immediately adjacent to the current one or the club owners will have hurt the city and the fans badly. 
 

having said all that, I have serious doubts over how big the commercial income really gets given the dearth in cost of living between south and north and the ability to feasibly charge more for tickets across the board and the # commercial and corp business clients between the two regions. 
 

always seems to me as a long time outsider and talking to fans abroad or as close as the south of England that the draw always seems to be SJP + The fans. Maybe it’s as simple as new stadium + same fans but I can’t help but think the pride in the home fuels the atmosphere. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 23:46 by Kanji

[Rod]

3 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

I think suggesting that those of us who are leaning towards a move have just been "seduced by smoke and mirrors" is a little bit patronising? 

 

None of us know what might be in terms of what a new stadium would offer, but I do know what currently is and I see a dated stadium with stands that either won't generate an atmosphere (East) or have any noise created leak out into the stratosphere (Leazes/Milburn). I see a hodgepodge of stands that bare no resemblance to the ground that stood any more than 30 years ago so I don't get all misty eyed about playing on the same turf for the past 140+ years. Not one of those stands hasn't either been redeveloped or rebuilt in the past 35 years. 

 

I also see thousands locked out every week and more seats = more chance to get in. That doesn't mean "100k seats for a fiver each!" by the way...

 

Anyway, as you say we all have our opinions and until we see a concrete plan of what they're actually looking to do, we're all just talking about what is or isn't possible. But I would say at least give those who hold a different opinion to you a bit more respect than suggesting we've been poor, ignorant souls lured in by snake oil salesmen.

You couldn't be anymore wrong.  St  James' Park is a fantastic stadium and when it's jumping it really is jumping.  Your sarcastic comments regarding the East Stand says it all really.  You probably haven't even been in the East Stand. I love my club and love my stadium.

[timeEd32]

19 minutes ago, Heron said:

And yet that last line is partly why folk aren't so certain to simply jump ship. Revenue means we might be able to spend more but it's not proven to be the definitive answer to all our problems.

 

Comparing Spurs revenue to Newcastle at all over the last 2 decades is somewhat skewing the debate too given Ashley absolutely drove our revenue into the ground.

 

Otherwise, despite me not really agreeing this is also well debated though so fair play.

I know it sounds like nothing going from being top of the 14 to bottom of the big 7. On paper it’s just standing still. 
 

But the revenue gap is simply enormous at the moment and the fact it doesn’t totally feel like that on the pitch is largely down to Eddie.