Mags embarrassing themselves yet again

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
samwise_new said:
being a sad old bassa i decided to take a look around the city and apart from the obvious nuns/town moors and leazes there really is nowhere near the city and those places were all suggested and binned when fred tried his luck...now i realise we are talking saudi billions here and money usually talks but will they be willing to throw that much into it all, by all accounts they would also be responsible for the demolition and making safe/returned to green of the SJP, then the spending needed to secure A N Other area big enough then the cost of a new stadium and they will not want anything looking like another stadium so on a very conservative guess i would be thinking 5 Billion...that is an incredible amount of investment.
Click to expand...


Honestly think they will be away within a couple of years, they haven't even tried really imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John 11:35, ISOE II, samwise_new and 1 other person
Comfy said:
Don't think there's a chance of that, as mentioned it could be years away for it to be so bad games would be cancelled and if they're then I'm sure they would switch or make a deal with a ground near them or maybe further away like Carlisle. So long as we are not considered
Click to expand...

Spitballing again, but I'd imagine Sid James would still operate, only at a massively reduced capacity.

It's supposed to be the Millburn and Leazes stands, in particular the extensions, that have the problems. If that's the case and the Gallowgate and East stands aren't affected, they could operate on just those two stands while they demolish and rebuild the Millburn and Leazes stands. But while they did that they'd have a capacity of a lot less than 20k (from Google approximately 17k) and neither stand is equipped with corporate, media or changing facilities, not to mention segregation. No matter how wealthy the owners are, there's no way they could get by for long on gates of 15-16k (they'd have to lose more seats to accommodate the press, TV cameras and team benches) and massive reduction in corporate money. On top of that the mags as fans wouldn't be able to live with the humiliation of losing over 2/3s of their capacity due to the ground being unsafe. The meltdown from them towards the Saudis would be epic. It won't matter that it was fat Freddie that built the extension, the Saudis will cop it for neglecting the ground, not investing in it, not building a new one in time etc. They'd be burning tea towels from Denton to Walker! It would hurt them even more that the only ground in reasonable travel distance that could accommodate them is ours, but the humiliation of having to rent our ground for any extended period of time would see some of them off. They could try and rent Gateshead stadium, but that only holds 12k an even with extended temporary stands wouldn't be much bigger than the reduced Sid James park, if at all. Kingston Park rugby ground is even smaller. All told for at least a couple of years they'd be f@cked, with massive costs to demolish and rebuild the knackered stands and hugely reduced income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gil T Azell, DH4, gelders pie and 6 others
C Montgomery Burns said:
Spitballing again, but I'd imagine Sid James would still operate, only at a massively reduced capacity.

It's supposed to be the Millburn and Leazes stands, in particular the extensions, that have the problems. If that's the case and the Gallowgate and East stands aren't affected, they could operate on just those two stands while they demolish and rebuild the Millburn and Leazes stands. But while they did that they'd have a capacity of a lot less than 20k (from Google approximately 17k) and neither stand is equipped with corporate, media or changing facilities, not to mention segregation. No matter how wealthy the owners are, there's no way they could get by for long on gates of 15-16k (they'd have to lose more seats to accommodate the press, TV cameras and team benches) and massive reduction in corporate money. On top of that the mags as fans wouldn't be able to live with the humiliation of losing over 2/3s of their capacity due to the ground being unsafe. The meltdown from them towards the Saudis would be epic. It won't matter that it was fat Freddie that built the extension, the Saudis will cop it for neglecting the ground, not investing in it, not building a new one in time etc. They'd be burning tea towels from Denton to Walker! It would hurt them even more that the only ground in reasonable travel distance that could accommodate them is ours, but the humiliation of having to rent our ground for any extended period of time would see some of them off. They could try and rent Gateshead stadium, but that only holds 12k an even with extended temporary stands wouldn't be much bigger than the reduced Sid James park, if at all. Kingston Park rugby ground is even smaller. All told for at least a couple of years they'd be f@cked, with massive costs to demolish and rebuild the knackered stands and hugely reduced income.
Click to expand...


oh let us pray......
 
  • Like
Reactions: gelders pie and C Montgomery Burns
C Montgomery Burns said:
Spitballing again, but I'd imagine Sid James would still operate, only at a massively reduced capacity.

It's supposed to be the Millburn and Leazes stands, in particular the extensions, that have the problems. If that's the case and the Gallowgate and East stands aren't affected, they could operate on just those two stands while they demolish and rebuild the Millburn and Leazes stands. But while they did that they'd have a capacity of a lot less than 20k (from Google approximately 17k) and neither stand is equipped with corporate, media or changing facilities, not to mention segregation. No matter how wealthy the owners are, there's no way they could get by for long on gates of 15-16k (they'd have to lose more seats to accommodate the press, TV cameras and team benches) and massive reduction in corporate money. On top of that the mags as fans wouldn't be able to live with the humiliation of losing over 2/3s of their capacity due to the ground being unsafe. The meltdown from them towards the Saudis would be epic. It won't matter that it was fat Freddie that built the extension, the Saudis will cop it for neglecting the ground, not investing in it, not building a new one in time etc. They'd be burning tea towels from Denton to Walker! It would hurt them even more that the only ground in reasonable travel distance that could accommodate them is ours, but the humiliation of having to rent our ground for any extended period of time would see some of them off. They could try and rent Gateshead stadium, but that only holds 12k an even with extended temporary stands wouldn't be much bigger than the reduced Sid James park, if at all. Kingston Park rugby ground is even smaller. All told for at least a couple of years they'd be f@cked, with massive costs to demolish and rebuild the knackered stands and hugely reduced income.
Click to expand...
Essentially the Saudi owners have been sold a pup! Due diligence would have established the lack of ownership of the land St. James Park is built on, the adjacent Listed Buildings situation and a thorough Survey of the Buildings and amenities would have identified structural problems and the ensuing cost of delapidations. If the estimates being bandied about on this Forum are realistic there would be a strong case for cutting their losses, folding the enterprise and moving out and on. Always assuming they will not find a Buyer for the whole sorry mess. God help the people who advised them to take over Newcastle United.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Young Ted, John 11:35, Northumberland Rocks and 5 others
Pontsafc said:
Essentially the Saudi owners have been sold a pup! Due diligence would have established the lack of ownership of the land St. James Park is built on, the adjacent Listed Buildings situation and a thorough Survey of the Buildings and amenities would have identified structural problems and the ensuing cost of delapidations. If the estimates being bandied about on this Forum are realistic there would be a strong case for cutting their losses, folding the enterprise and moving out and on. Always assuming they will not find a Buyer for the whole sorry mess. God help the people who advised them to take over Newcastle United.
Click to expand...

I've said before, the Saudis are wealthy enough that even if the mags are a loss, they'll not be a big enough one for them to be forced to sell as a drain in resources. It's not like Ashley or Shepherd who couldn't afford to have a huge loss making asset so would have to sell up to be rid. The Saudis can afford to hold into them but not invest in them until THEY want rid. It's the worst of all worlds. You can't force them out, they can cut the losses by just not spending in them and if they do get rid it's at their choosing.

It's likely that the Saudis get rid of the mags, because they served a purpose for sports washing, but as Saudi has the 2034 world cup, the mags aren't needed anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smug in Boots
mrs em said:
Was in Gatwick Airport yesterday not a mag top to be seen thankfully, it was heaving at five in the morning it’s even got a Harrods shop. Mags must look on in airport envy
Click to expand...

I did some work in Heathrow a few years back. And was speaking to the guy who opened what was going to be a shop unit up for me.

He said Heathrow makes more money from retail than any shopping centre etc.. across the UK. He reckoned there were times when billionaires or whatever flying to buy a watch as it was limited availabilty doing a bit more shopping and never leaving the airport as they flew straight back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrs em, ISOE II, Becs and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back