St James' Park

[Guest]

 

[Pablo]

If it’s a simple 8,000 increase in capacity, that’s going to be swallowed up by new corporate and hospitality offerings so the membership base and new fans are going to benefit much. Whilst the club can only spend what it generates I would be worried if I was a season ticket holder too, the costs of which may well skyrocket in the coming years.

Irrespective of which camp I was in, I genuinely think a capacity below 75,000 will have an adverse impact on all current matchgoing fans as demand will outstrip supply and the only leveller will be price increases. Legacy fans won’t hold much sway if they can’t pay.

I’m not yet convinced this expansion is the true outcome of the feasibility study, and will only believe it when reported through numerous reputable media outlets, and the club themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if a story was leaked to gather more feedback on fan opinion.

fwiw, I favour a small move to Leazes Park or Castle Leazes, and a World Class stadium as a true marker of intent. With a massive capacity this may provide some cheaper seats, though probably in the gods.

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Matchday revenue is only a small proportion of Premier League clubs' revenue, less than 15% on average. Our stadium isn't going to make the difference between us competeing at the top level or not.

 

We've already discussed this multiple times. In short, that's not true.

[huss9]

5 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

We've already discussed this multiple times. In short, that's not true.

8000 extra tickets is at least an extra £400k per game

[Nucasol]

7 minutes ago, huss9 said:

8000 extra tickets is at least an extra £400k per game

Long payback period - say 25 games a season that’s £10m each year in revenue. Given some of the numbers being floated about to revamp the Gallowgate it’ll be a significant amount of years to claw it back.

[TheBrownBottle]

11 minutes ago, huss9 said:

8000 extra tickets is at least an extra £400k per game

£50 average for the back of the Gallowgate?

 

Doubtful

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

£50 average for the back of the Gallowgate?

 

Doubtful

It will be if we end up creating Kop style stand like Dortmund, or Spurs, that will be minimum.

Minimum ticket price now is £44 for an adult, then you add on average of food/drink people pay. It’s very much in the ballpark.

[TBG]

Says a lot about the clubs future if they feel a temporary store of that size is where we're heading.

[Karjala]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

£50 average for the back of the Gallowgate?

 

Doubtful

All things included, I'd imagine each additional seat will bring in a minimum of £50 each.

 

I wonder what's the average spend of a match day punter, on top of their seat cost.

[duo]

7 hours ago, Away Toon said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/videos/c0v02xj9e73o

 

If we ever want to compete at the top level something similar is what our owners should be aiming to do. Show us the ambition.

100%

[huss9]

32 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

£50 average for the back of the Gallowgate?

 

Doubtful

we're talking about the ticket, food , drink and possibly spending in the club store.

and yes i think ticket prices will go up - may be not £50.

[NSG]

35 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Long payback period - say 25 games a season that’s £10m each year in revenue. Given some of the numbers being floated about to revamp the Gallowgate it’ll be a significant amount of years to claw it back.

Payback period is a bit irrelevant from a PSF point of view. The capital cost is exempt from PSF whereas the revenue income will immediately show as profit.

 

 

Edited May 8 by NSG

[huss9]

Just now, NSG said:

Payback period is a bit irrelevant from a PSF point of view. The capital cost is exempt from PSF whereas the revenue income will immediately show as profit.

 

 

 

the saudi's wont be interested in payback - its just to allow them more revenue to spend on the team and more corporate for their guests.

puts the value of the club up too.

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, NSG said:

Payback period is a bit irrelevant from a PSF point of view. The capital cost is exempt from PSF whereas the revenue income will immediately show as profit.

 

 

 

I’m thinking trade off between outlay, payback and increased valuation of the club vs. Equivalent for doing a new/rebuild.  

[Toon1892]

54 minutes ago, huss9 said:

the saudi's wont be interested in payback - its just to allow them more revenue to spend on the team and more corporate for their guests.

puts the value of the club up too.

They will be for footballing financial reasons- the cost of a new stadium is only exempt from ffp/psr if it’s feasibly built. They have to demonstrate a payback period that a third party would also be willing to do that project. Therefore in order for us to comply with ffp/ psr the payback will be high on their list of considerations.

[huss9]

2 hours ago, Toon1892 said:

They will be for footballing financial reasons- the cost of a new stadium is only exempt from ffp/psr if it’s feasibly built. They have to demonstrate a payback period that a third party would also be willing to do that project. Therefore in order for us to comply with ffp/ psr the payback will be high on their list of considerations.

how do you know its not going to be feasibly built?

and which stadiums have been feasibly built?

[madras]

5 hours ago, Nucasol said:

Long payback period - say 25 games a season that’s £10m each year in revenue. Given some of the numbers being floated about to revamp the Gallowgate it’ll be a significant amount of years to claw it back.

That's 10mill from those 25games. There's another 340 days a year to make money from whatever is built there.

[nufcjb]

Almost 10 days into May. Feasibility report results were due at the end of April. What happened? Did the club tested the waters seeing the reaction to the reported plans and results? Having a rethink?

 

Personally, as someone said earlier, a Kop styled Gallowgate would be be a good outcome if they plan to expand that part of the stadium. Make it spectacular and large and unique.

[Arknor]

On 04/05/2024 at 09:48, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m still scratching my head as to how you meet the foundation requirements over the top of a Metro station. 

fill it in with concrete first.
Doesn't even need to be a metro station there.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Arknor said:

fill it in with concrete first.
Doesn't even need to be a metro station there.

How would you turn the trains back around?

[madras]

4 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

How would you turn the trains back around?

There's a siding between Monument and Manors where they can switch lines.

[Thumbheed]

17 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Matchday revenue is only a small proportion of Premier League clubs' revenue, less than 15% on average. Our stadium isn't going to make the difference between us competeing at the top level or not.

 

I get the sense they're looking to have it fitter for bigger events and will pull in revenue that way as well and tbf +15% of say 400m revenue is a decent chunk of money. 

[Toon1892]

11 hours ago, huss9 said:

how do you know its not going to be feasibly built?

and which stadiums have been feasibly built?

In order for it to be feasibly built they’d need to assess payback/ ROI.
 

Which stadium hasn’t been built using ROI analysis (payback)? All new pl stadium builds would have had to be assessed and therefore they were found to be feasibly built.

 

It’s not just as easy as saying the Saudi’s won’t care about payback. Given the rules the Saudi’s will very much care about payback.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Toon1892 said:

In order for it to be feasibly built they’d need to assess payback/ ROI.
 

Which stadium hasn’t been built using ROI analysis (payback)? All new pl stadium builds would have had to be assessed and therefore they were found to be feasibly built.

 

It’s not just as easy as saying the Saudi’s won’t care about payback. Given the rules the Saudi’s will very much care about payback.

It’s more about how much a new stadium will increase the value of the actual club, a lot of people focus on annual P&L but investors in football clubs at this moment are more interested in valuation and how it can be increased. 

[Toon1892]

13 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It’s more about how much a new stadium will increase the value of the actual club, a lot of people focus on annual P&L but investors in football clubs at this moment are more interested in valuation and how it can be increased. 

Not really. The value of the club will only increase if the debt on the balance sheet has a realistic ROI. If a balance sheet has huge debt in relation to a stadium that does not generate enough profit to pay back that debt the the value of the club will not increase.

 

If the PL determine the new stadium build is not ‘feasible’ that cost/ depreciation on the build would not be an exempt cost for FFP/ PSR spending.