St James' Park

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

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!

 

 

 

The new stadium is happening and people against need to get on board with that. The arguments about moving stadium doesn't guarantee you winning things is frankly pathetic. The reason we will be moving is to increase revenue streams, which will be double that of staying at SJP as quoted the other night. We will also give the opportunity for more supporters to attend and that is also important. We also have then the cost of extending SJM is huge for the limited number of seats it would give us and also result in lost revenue during the period that the extension takes place. Absolute no brainer all round 

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Wenger didn't need to outspend. There were plenty of years post Mourinho, pre-Guardiola that Arsenal were in the running for the league and Champions League and couldn't spend because they were paying off their stadium. That's not controversial or anything, its a pretty well-known factor in how Wenger was hamstrung post-Highbury.

[DiddyLevine]

If anyone wants to live in the past and not move to a new stadium i'll gladly  have the season ticket they'll be giving up 

[OpenC]

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

[JEToon]

19 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Wenger didn't need to outspend. There were plenty of years post Mourinho, pre-Guardiola that Arsenal were in the running for the league and Champions League and couldn't spend because they were paying off their stadium. That's not controversial or anything, its a pretty well-known factor in how Wenger was hamstrung post-Highbury.

 

Is it not a slight contradiction to say a manager who didn't need to outspend others actually needed to spend more?

 

Other than 05/06 Arsenal were never really in the hunt for a league title again under Wenger even in seasons when he was able to buy players from teams like, checks notes, Real Madrid and Barcelona, they were still spending well as a club, other teams simply started to spend more, a lot more. 

 

A change of stadium improved their business model, what changed was what was going on around them, had they remained as they were they would have only been left further behind 

 

It is a false argument to say they didn't win leagues as though it validates them not changing stadium, it doesn't, others moved on in their financial muscle. 

 

 

 

Edited November 22 by JEToon

[TheBrownBottle]

28 minutes ago, Heron said:

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 (?).

 

 

 

Unfortunately the financial rules in place are a massive factor in this, and they’re liable to always exist in some form or another.   Even Man Utd look likely to leave OT at this point.

 

Personally, I was excited by it in 1997, and I would be again.  We do have owners who have the finances to do this properly - for this not to just be a bland concrete dome, but an all bells-and-whistles state-of-the-art world class arena, and one which potentially might be spitting distance from our current home.  I understand the attachment to SJP, but it’s one I never shared - I’ve always believed that NUFC had the depth of support to pull bigger crowds than pretty much anyone except Man Utd.  If we have the second biggest stadium in the PL, we’d fill it - I reckon that all in we could boost our ground revenue from £35n to c.£100m once the sponsorships and commercials are whacked in.  Then we’re closer to competing at the highest levels. 

[Kid Icarus]

36 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

Is it not a slight contradiction to say a manager who didn't need to outspend others actually needed to spend more?

 

Other than 05/06 Arsenal were never really in the hunt for a league title again under Wenger even in seasons when he was able to buy players from teams like, checks notes, Real Madrid and Barcelona, they were still spending well as a club, other teams simply started to spend more, a lot more. 

 

A change of stadium improved their business model, what changed was what was going on around them, had they remained as they were they would have only been left further behind 

 

It is a false argument to say they didn't win leagues as though it validates them not changing stadium, it doesn't, others moved on in their financial muscle. 

 

Not really, spending more in order to compete doesn't automatically mean outspending.

 

Will just have to agree to disagree on Arsenal's trophy chances and spending because I lost count of the amount of times they were in the title race only to fall short, not to mention the Champions League final. 

 

Arsenal's net spend when they were paying off the stadium (2006-13) was £3m per season. Again this isn't controversial or anything, it's a fairly well-known factor in why they couldn't spend and therefore fell short, it was a paltry sum at the time for a club like Arsenal, regardless of what other clubs were spending.

 

I agree that it improved their business model in the long-run. What it didn't do (and what was the original argument I was replying to) was improve their trophy haul. 

 

 

Edited November 22 by Kid Icarus

[Fak]

51 minutes ago, DiddyLevine said:

If anyone wants to live in the past and not move to a new stadium i'll gladly  have the season ticket they'll be giving up 

From the fella who lives in the Lush Lasses From the Past thread! 

[JEToon]

14 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Not really, spending more in order to compete doesn't automatically mean outspending.

 

Will just have to agree to disagree on Arsenal's trophy chances and spending because I lost count of the amount of times they were in the title race only to fall short, not to mention the Champions League final. 

 

Arsenal's net spend when they were paying off the stadium (2006-13) was £3m. Again this isn't controversial or anything, it's a fairly well-known factor in why they couldn't spend and therefore fell short, it was a paltry sum at the time for a club like Arsenal, regardless of what other clubs were spending.

 

I agree that it improved their business model in the long-run. What it didn't do (and what was the original argument I was replying to) was improve their trophy haul. 

 

If they were involved in as many title races as you seem to think, surely they were competing?  I am bit shocked you lost count though as it's honestly not that high a number how often they have been involved in a title race since the spending of the likes of City and Chelsea really started to sink in 

 

They made the Champions League Final when they were at Highbury in 2005/06 I can't stress how different football is now to then, it was 20 years ago, it is so removed from now, there was a far greater level of balance in the sport even then, that had a greater driver in where they were, have been and are is the total change in the sport 

 

A massive part of why their net spend is what it was is because they were being loaded with massive transfer fees for players by.....Man City. 

 

Arsenal have won trophies since they left their stadium which you seem to just be ignoring, had they stayed were they were they feasibly wouldn't have won those 

 

 

Edited November 22 by JEToon

[TheBrownBottle]

15 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Not really, spending more in order to compete doesn't automatically mean outspending.

 

Will just have to agree to disagree on Arsenal's trophy chances and spending because I lost count of the amount of times they were in the title race only to fall short, not to mention the Champions League final. 

 

Arsenal's net spend when they were paying off the stadium (2006-13) was £3m per season. Again this isn't controversial or anything, it's a fairly well-known factor in why they couldn't spend and therefore fell short, it was a paltry sum at the time for a club like Arsenal, regardless of what other clubs were spending.

 

I agree that it improved their business model in the long-run. What it didn't do (and what was the original argument I was replying to) was improve their trophy haul. 

 

 

 

Arsenal were paying off their stadium.  We wouldn’t be paying off ours. 

[Dr Venkman]

52 minutes 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

Genuine question, not trying to be clever. What do you think the owners motivations for a new stadium would be, if they did it?

[Dr Venkman]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

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.

What are the fallacies?

[Whitley mag]

54 minutes 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

To be fair a lot in this thread including myself highlighted how a new stadium would become the preferred option from the get go. PCP made all the noise about it being sacrilege leaving SJP, as many pointed out on here the sums never added up for staying at St James’, not to mention the inability to develop it in a satisfactory way to make it truly world class.

[DiddyLevine]

31 minutes ago, Fak said:

From the fella who lives in the Lush Lasses From the Past thread! 

😎 Where beauty resides you will find me 

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

If they were involved in as many title races as you seem to think, sure they were competing?  I am bit shocked you lost count though as it's honestly not that high a number how often they have been involved in a title race since the spending of the likes of City and Chelsea really started to sink in 

 

They made the Champions League Final when they were at Highbury in 2005/06 I can't stress how different football is now to then, it was 20 years ago, it is so removed from now, there was a far greater level of balance in the sport even then, that had a greater driver in where they were, have been and are is the total change in the sport 

 

Arsenal have won trophies since they left their stadium which you seem to just be ignoring, had they stayed were they were they feasibly wouldn't have won those 

 

Okay, fiiiiiine.

 

07/08: top with 9 games to go, finished 3rd

09/10: 2 points off the top with a game in hand in January, finished 4th

10/11: 3 points off the top with 11 games to go, a game in hand and only +3 GD to make Up, finished 4th.

13/14: Top in February, finished 4th.

15/16: Top in January, finished 2nd.

 

That's not even counting the pre Christmas form they often had.

 

I'm not ignoring it like, they've won 4 FA Cups in the 18 years since they moved. That's the point, it's not indicative of a trophy haul that would be worse or improved upon depending solely based on a stadium move. 

[Kid Icarus]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Arsenal were paying off their stadium.  We wouldn’t be paying off ours. 

I know, but you're dipping into a different discussion with the context removed here.

[Kid Icarus]

20 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

What are the fallacies?

The assertion that we need to move if we're ever going to move the PSR needle. That it's good for people who were previously priced out and are now locked out.

 

 

Edited November 22 by Kid Icarus

[JEToon]

26 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Okay, fiiiiiine.

 

07/08: top with 9 games to go, finished 3rd

09/10: 2 points off the top with a game in hand in January, finished 4th

10/11: 3 points off the top with 11 games to go, a game in hand and only +3 GD to make Up, finished 4th.

13/14: Top in February, finished 4th.

15/16: Top in January, finished 2nd.

 

That's not even counting the pre Christmas form they often had.

 

I'm not ignoring it like, they've won 4 FA Cups in the 18 years since they moved. That's the point, it's not indicative of a trophy haul that would be worse or improved upon depending solely based on a stadium move. 

 

In most of those seasons they are ending it 10 odd points of the team who win the league, seems our definition of a title race is pretty different, in 2013/14 they were getting beat 6-0, 6-3 and 5-1, teams who are genuine about winning leagues don't really do that , 2010/11, at no point is this really form of a team winning a league 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Arsenal_F.C._season

 

I would say it is, it quite easily could have been worse as their entire playing squad feasibly could have been a lot worse, they stay at Highbury and pay massive fees, great, and pay the ever increasing wage bill with what? That as much as anything will, to square this circle be the driver behind us and why we move, the cost of running a high end squad is going to outgrow the stadium and what can be offered at the stadium, those running the club aren't wanting to move for a laugh, it is going to be done from what they perceive as financial logic 

 

 

 

Edited November 22 by JEToon

[Decky]

4 hours 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.

 

 

 

Arsenal have won 4 FA Cups though. Spurs are Spurs so I wouldn't have banked on them winning anything anyway but they've only been in the new stadium five years. West Ham didn't do it for success, they had a chance to move into a newly built stadium for free and took it. Their stadium is shite for football and had they been paying for it themselves they'd still be in Upton Park right now. 

 

A new stadium for us is important if we're to close the PSR gap because it could potentially double our matchday revenue and offer up avenues for other commercial opportunities. For example any concerts in the northeast will always be at our place and never in Sunderland ever again. A new stadium also future proofs us for years to come and allows so many more fans to go to games. SJP looks so dated in so many areas and for the cost of completely modernising it we're probably better off just doing a new build. The East Stand for example would need rebuilt and I think we're all fed up with the limitations there because of the listed buildings behind it. 

 

For me the best option would be to demolish the current stadium and build something new on the exact same spot but it probably isn't feasible because where would we play while its happening? Would the footprint there even allow us to build something genuinely world-class while adding about 10-15 thousand new seats? The next best option for me is a totally new stadium a stone's throw from SJP which I hope we will do. 

[timeEd32]

14 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

The assertion that we need to move if we're ever going to move the PSR needle. That it's good for people who were previously priced out and are now locked out.

 

 

 

 

I think it is fair to say that literally the only way we could regularly compete at the top if all that's done is a modest SJP expansion is to have one of the absolute best academies in the country/world to the point that it would regularly produce both first XI players and player sales. Absent that you're hoping to overachieve via the manager and/or transfer market, which can work for a period of time but does not work forever.

[Kid Icarus]

9 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

In most of those seasons they are ending it 10 odd points of the team who win the league, seems our definition of a title race is pretty different, in 2013/14 they were getting beat 6-0, 6-3 and 5-1, teams who are genuine about winning leagues don't really do that , 2010/11, at no point is this really form of a team winning a league 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Arsenal_F.C._season

 

I would say it is, it quite easily could have been worse as their entire playing squad feasibly could have been a lot worse, they stay at Highbury and pay massive fees, great, and pay the ever increasing wage bill with what? That as much as anything will, to square this circle be the driver behind us and why we move, the cost of running a high end squad is going to outgrow the stadium and what can be offered at the stadium, those running the club aren't wanting to move for a laugh, it is going to be done from what they perceive as financial logic 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.  You're making the point I am just coming to a different conclusion. Teams who are in the running after the halfway point of the season have earned the right to say they're in a title race imo, but agree to disagree I think.

[OpenC]

42 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

Genuine question, not trying to be clever. What do you think the owners motivations for a new stadium would be, if they did it?

 

I have no idea, I haven't really kept up with the owners' motivations, or whether it's actually true that to satisfy PSR you have to have a swiss army knife of a stadium that's busy 24/7.  This is only my perspective  unpopular opinion but if this is the price of being competitive, to turn your club into some sort of all things to all people multiexperience and be more accessible to casual visitors and folk who just want to experience the crack of a football day without being that invested, then fine but I personally am just not that arsed about that sort of future

 

I would be happier if they built the official NUFC Second Home Wongadome somewhere between Morpeth and Seaton Burn and let the women and bairns play there and put on shit bands, go karting, USAball and adult size bouncy castles to keep the punters coming but it seems that you're only allowed to make money by bringing people into your primary playing venue for whatever reason

 

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I think it is fair to say that literally the only way we could regularly compete at the top if all that's done is a modest SJP expansion is to have one of the absolute best academies in the country/world to the point that it would regularly produce both first XI players and player sales. Absent that you're hoping to overachieve via the manager and/or transfer market, which can work for a period of time but does not work forever.

Or lobby against/wait out PSR...

[jack j]

5 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 .

It had the most meetings out of any course last year due to it being an all weather/floodlit

The buildings are run down and shit and it's no royal ascot but can't see them shutting it down when it's used so much

[timeEd32]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Or lobby against/wait out PSR...

 

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.