skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Silly me. I forgot that's how these things work.
Because Swansea want to have a lower income by having a bigger stadium.
Sky Blue Tony and "Astute" - SBT's answer to John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman
Pure genius
And right on cue the personal insults start.
You can't argue any of the points we've made can you?
What a load of twaddle.You haven't made any sensible points - they are absurd.
Actually Schmeee made the most valid point. The club presently is at Ground Zero in terms of economic viability and in terms of being an attractive purchase proposition to a potential investor. This is because of its viability. It rents a ground from another sports club in the City. That means it has no control over its own destiny
Therefore the obsession with ground capacity is irrelevant. Bournmouth are owned by a rich owner who values a stadium ownership model. To suggest we need a stadium of 25,000 over 20,000 is farcical. We would rarely need the extra capacity and the extra revenue generated would therefore be minimal.
The real point is;
- Would you value stadium ownership or a rental model as we now have?
- What would look better to a potential investor
- Will the capacity actually be an inhibitor to anything at present
The evidence is clear. We need an asset base. Success needs to be built upwards. The size of a stadium becomes an issue only when there is success - many clubs have achieved Premier status with smaller stadiums than ours - clubs with less than 20,000 home seats have established themselves. If success is achieved then the issue of ground expansion can be looked at then but as things stand this is light years away. It is not a lack of ambition but prudent economic and brand strategy. The club needs identity and it needs its own stadium which can, with correct owners, be utilised as an asset.
Astute says we signed underachieving players at high wages. So were the wages too high or did they underachieve? Why say underachieve at all.
The Ricoh model and the high crowds at inception prove its folly. We achieved high crowds but at a price of reduced ticket admissions and lower revenues than many other teams. The wages we paid were no different to other clubs of similar and less attendances but the model did not work. It was that which drove the club into the abyss not the wages.
It is absurd to say that a smaller ground of 20,000 would financially restrict the club in any way at all. It is the pricing structure and demand that drives revenue. If the club had remained where it was it would not have missed the 10,000 seats. If it had a city centre stadium of 20,000 there is no argument it would be better long term that the arrangement it has now. Full stadiums generate atmosphere and interest - two thirds empty stadiums drive the opposite.
The priorities long term are identity, an asset base of its own and a strategy to utilise and maximise the asset. Not renting 23 days a week from a competitor for its target audience.
What a load of twaddle.
You have frequently had a go about how Bournemouth made it to the Prem using a rich owners money. Now you say it is because they have a small ground
You say that you don't need enough capacity to become successful. Then you say that success is light years away. SISU won't invest in our club. So we need to earn enough money for 60% of income maximum to be enough. Would we do it with an 11,500 capacity like Bournemouth as you are saying?
Who was it that sold HR and started the Ricoh off? Oh yes it was Richardson who you always defend. But he also got us 60m in debt. The start of SISU coming to our club. Yet you blame just about everyone else.
And who has said our best future would be renting off Wasps? More like it is the most realistic route whilst SISU are in charge. But you always defend SISU and Richardson.
And we are still waiting for you to answer why if Swansea earn more money by having a small stadium why are they after vastly getting a higher capacity?
So when are you going to contact Arsenal and tell them that they would earn much more money if they moved to a smaller stadium?
Swansea are after a new stadium expansion because they have established themselves first.
Which is exactly what I said
As many have said your username is the ultimate in irony.
Swansea are after a new stadium expansion because they have established themselves first.
Which is exactly what I said
As many have said your username is the ultimate in irony.
If that is exactly what you said would you like to show where you said it?Swansea are after a new stadium expansion because they have established themselves first.
Which is exactly what I said
As many have said your username is the ultimate in irony.
You haven't made any sensible points - they are absurd.
Actually Schmeee made the most valid point. The club presently is at Ground Zero in terms of economic viability and in terms of being an attractive purchase proposition to a potential investor. This is because of its viability. It rents a ground from another sports club in the City. That means it has no control over its own destiny
Therefore the obsession with ground capacity is irrelevant. Bournmouth are owned by a rich owner who values a stadium ownership model. To suggest we need a stadium of 25,000 over 20,000 is farcical. We would rarely need the extra capacity and the extra revenue generated would therefore be minimal.
The real point is;
- Would you value stadium ownership or a rental model as we now have?
- What would look better to a potential investor
- Will the capacity actually be an inhibitor to anything at present
The evidence is clear. We need an asset base. Success needs to be built upwards. The size of a stadium becomes an issue only when there is success - many clubs have achieved Premier status with smaller stadiums than ours - clubs with less than 20,000 home seats have established themselves. If success is achieved then the issue of ground expansion can be looked at then but as things stand this is light years away. It is not a lack of ambition but prudent economic and brand strategy. The club needs identity and it needs its own stadium which can, with correct owners, be utilised as an asset.
Astute says we signed underachieving players at high wages. So were the wages too high or did they underachieve? Why say underachieve at all.
The Ricoh model and the high crowds at inception prove its folly. We achieved high crowds but at a price of reduced ticket admissions and lower revenues than many other teams. The wages we paid were no different to other clubs of similar and less attendances but the model did not work. It was that which drove the club into the abyss not the wages.
It is absurd to say that a smaller ground of 20,000 would financially restrict the club in any way at all. It is the pricing structure and demand that drives revenue. If the club had remained where it was it would not have missed the 10,000 seats. If it had a city centre stadium of 20,000 there is no argument it would be better long term that the arrangement it has now. Full stadiums generate atmosphere and interest - two thirds empty stadiums drive the opposite.
The priorities long term are identity, an asset base of its own and a strategy to utilise and maximise the asset. Not renting 23 days a week from a competitor for its target audience.
Or more chance of Grendel going more than 4 hours without a argument with someone.There is more chance of Grendel buying a season ticket to watch Wasps than ccfc playing at Butts Park Arena.
I believe that this is fundamentally incorrect. We need an asset base to progress? This will cost big time and divert revenue from the playing side to finance our "Asset". Our owners have already said that any "asset" such as a ground will not be owned by the club but will be an equivalent of ACL... So no asset just liabilities. Just a different land Lord.
The clubs you refer to above derive the majority of their revenue from the premier league TV money and then ticket sales and sponsorship not ownership of an asset.
If you are not to contravene the financial rules then any rich owners would have to donate the cash to the club, loans have liabilities and costs which would then come into consideration.
Actually owning the ground is at this point irrelevant, its driving enough revenue to pay for a team (and any debts) ticket sales and sponsorship are the only way ,.. Other than a large donation.
I think the Asset based strategy at this point is a castle built on sand strategy
You haven't made any sensible points - they are absurd.
Actually Schmeee made the most valid point. The club presently is at Ground Zero in terms of economic viability and in terms of being an attractive purchase proposition to a potential investor. This is because of its viability. It rents a ground from another sports club in the City. That means it has no control over its own destiny
Therefore the obsession with ground capacity is irrelevant. Bournmouth are owned by a rich owner who values a stadium ownership model. To suggest we need a stadium of 25,000 over 20,000 is farcical. We would rarely need the extra capacity and the extra revenue generated would therefore be minimal.
The real point is;
- Would you value stadium ownership or a rental model as we now have?
- What would look better to a potential investor
- Will the capacity actually be an inhibitor to anything at present
The evidence is clear. We need an asset base. Success needs to be built upwards. The size of a stadium becomes an issue only when there is success - many clubs have achieved Premier status with smaller stadiums than ours - clubs with less than 20,000 home seats have established themselves. If success is achieved then the issue of ground expansion can be looked at then but as things stand this is light years away. It is not a lack of ambition but prudent economic and brand strategy. The club needs identity and it needs its own stadium which can, with correct owners, be utilised as an asset.
Astute says we signed underachieving players at high wages. So were the wages too high or did they underachieve? Why say underachieve at all.
The Ricoh model and the high crowds at inception prove its folly. We achieved high crowds but at a price of reduced ticket admissions and lower revenues than many other teams. The wages we paid were no different to other clubs of similar and less attendances but the model did not work. It was that which drove the club into the abyss not the wages.
It is absurd to say that a smaller ground of 20,000 would financially restrict the club in any way at all. It is the pricing structure and demand that drives revenue. If the club had remained where it was it would not have missed the 10,000 seats. If it had a city centre stadium of 20,000 there is no argument it would be better long term that the arrangement it has now. Full stadiums generate atmosphere and interest - two thirds empty stadiums drive the opposite.
The priorities long term are identity, an asset base of its own and a strategy to utilise and maximise the asset. Not renting 23 days a week from a competitor for its target audience.
If you are a fan you would rightly want Coventry to have a capacity of a 25k minimum. Never mind 20k. You will dream of the possibility that one day we would have owners who can afford to own the 'only' football team in one of the bigger cities in the country. You would understand what it would mean in terms of attendances if someone owned the club that the majority of the fans had a belief and a positive relationship with. Someone who brought success to club that has been starved of it for so long.
Success for a club like our today would only likely to be promotion from division three and a play off's challenge in division 2.
If a freak promotion like Burnley, Blackpool and Palace did happened. Then a 30k stadium would be acceptable. However 25k would be rocking.
On the flip side if you owned a club you no longer wanted to invest into. You want it to pay for itself. When it pays for itself it may make profits from the sales of academy talents.
You are happy to bob up and down between division 3-4. Maybe with odd odd freak pop up to division 2 for a season.
If this 'business' been in the black and possibility making a healthy profits after a sale or a sell on price is important to your main priority your overall business.
That's when a 10-13k stadium slap bang in the city centre. That is highly unlikely to be expanded would make sense.
If you are a fan you would rightly want Coventry to have a capacity of a 25k minimum. Never mind 20k. You will dream of the possibility that one day we would have owners who can afford to own the 'only' football team in one of the bigger cities in the country. You would understand what it would mean in terms of attendances if someone owned the club that the majority of the fans had a belief and a positive relationship with. Someone who brought success to club that has been starved of it for so long.
Success for a club like our today would only likely to be promotion from division three and a play off's challenge in division 2.
If a freak promotion like Burnley, Blackpool and Palace did happened. Then a 30k stadium would be acceptable. However 25k would be rocking.
On the flip side if you owned a club you no longer wanted to invest into. You want it to pay for itself. When it pays for itself it may make profits from the sales of academy talents.
You are happy to bob up and down between division 3-4. Maybe with odd odd freak pop up to division 2 for a season.
If this 'business' been in the black and possibility making a healthy profits after a sale or a sell on price is important to your main priority your overall business.
That's when a 10-13k stadium slap bang in the city centre. That is highly unlikely to be expanded would make sense.
My ideal stadium would be a two tier, with 25k below and a 10k top tier. If for instance the build costs lets say £30m for 25k and extra £15m to extend to 35k. Would it not be cheaper to build the 35k at say £35m. The top tier could be closed on match days whilst we're still in division 3. and opened up for Concerts, Cup games, and (Dare I say it) promotion out of this hell hole. Just a thought.
Asset base?Without any assett base we will not have any future. We will have no serious interest from anyone looking to purchase the club.
As for "not contravene rules" are you being serious?
I would swap who runs their clubs for SISU. Then our chances of success would multiply.How was Burnleys promotion a freak. How about Watford. Doubt if either of those or Swansea, QPR or reading would swap with us now let alone Bournmouth.
There is no direct correlation between clubs succeeding in the championship and ground capacity. Other factors are far more significant.
How was Burnleys promotion a freak. How about Watford. Doubt if either of those or Swansea, QPR or reading would swap with us now let alone Bournmouth.
There is no direct correlation between clubs succeeding in the championship and ground capacity. Other factors are far more significant.
How was Burnleys promotion a freak. How about Watford. Doubt if either of those or Swansea, QPR or reading would swap with us now let alone Bournmouth.
There is no direct correlation between clubs succeeding in the championship and ground capacity. Other factors are far more significant.
Where have you got these figures from? And can I borrow some of your drugs?
Edit: I'm only asking because I know you like people to be accurate with things like this.
I don't do drugs mate, and if you've got a little boy... Neither should you!...... If you take a look at what I've written, it says "Lets say" just figures plucked out of the air. I've just looked at the cost of Cardiff City Stadium total cost and it's £48m. for a 33k Stadium. Ok?
I can see both sides of the argument. But for me, 15k just reeks of a lack of ambition and would no doubt put a few people off.
How about a compromise of 22.5k?
Thing is, Brentford is in London. There are 13 teams in London.I think if it anyone else but Grendel had posted that then more people would agree.
If I was starting a storage business I wouldn't rent a huge warehouse on the basis that I might fill it half a dozen times in 10 years. Brentford's new stadium is going to be 20k. Does that show their lack of ambition or just sensible planning?
Great as the Ricoh was for the Leeds/Chelsea/Crewe games, HR was always better with 20k in it.
Move to a 15k Butts with an option to complete the corners if we got promoted and give our club back to the community (and yes I know there is pretty much f all chance of this happening under SISU, but a little hope is better than nothing).
Thing is, Brentford is in London. There are 13 teams in London.
My question to people would be, how many clubs are increasing their capacity or moving to new bigger stadiums?
And then secondly, how many clubs are downsizing? How many clubs have moved to smaller stadiums?
Totally.I can see both sides of the argument. But for me, 15k just reeks of a lack of ambition and would no doubt put a few people off.
How about a compromise of 22.5k?
If it were evened out.667230 people per team.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?