Expanding the stadium is an interesting one. Do you think we could fill a 55,000 seater? I think we'd struggle in all honesty to get 50,000 (maybe if it was a massive game, e.g. skates, final day relegation match etc). I think to average gates of 45000 we'd have to have a really good season (e.g. pushing for top six) and fairly reasonable prices. 32000 should be doable in the premier league, unless we were having an awful season.
We took 40-45000 to jpt final, though I realise loads came out the woodwork for that. I have no idea what we could fill, but if we are successful in the top flight and meet the champsleague dream of NC... You never know
Extra seating doesn't lead to higher ticket prices. In fact it's the opposite. They are alternative methods of dealing with demand when it outweighs supply, therefore if the stadium was expanded to 50,000 then ticket prices would actually be lower than they would be at a stadium of 32,000.
What I'm saying is a different business model to the above. I think NC will have a plan to increase prices as we're successful. The stadium wouldn't be expanded until demand was there; demand won't be there unless success is there. If success is there you have a more valuable and marketable product to sell and can command higher price. Neither of us are wrong, they are just different ways of considering the future business.
I actually think you're right about what will happen in the future, my previous comment was purely hypothetical. I imagine that the stadium will remain the same size and prices will go up to meet demand, due to the construction costs of a stadium expansion.
Well if you think Stamford Bridge is only around 42,500, how high would we need to climb before we feel that a stadium of that size is necessary. I agree though, it would be nice.
The reality of it is we do not have the infrastructure in place for crowds in excess of about 35000. IE link roads, train station, car parking facilities etc. As for competing with the prices you have to pay for players etc we did it for 27 years and competed sometimes doing reasonably well although we did not pay top dollar, so why wouldn't we be able to do it again?
Is Saints were a highly successful side in the Premiership ticket prices would be high and season tickets would be beyond the pockets of many. I had a season ticket until I started working Saturdays, now go to as many games as I can. I planned to buy a season ticket again when I retire. If Saints success means that I can't buy a season ticket, but will have to continue buying occasional tickets then so be it. I will always wish for Saints success.
I think season tickets are only going to go one way, and that is up. To be self financing but still having a modicum of success (e.g. top half finishes in the premiership) they would probably have to go well above £750 unless we can somehow get attendances above 32000. Lower than that then in my opinion either you wont be self financing or you will be continually dodging relegation cos you wont be able to afford the wages.
I agree that season tickets are bound to increase, but I believe that they will be competitive with the rest of the Premier League as NC will not want to deter fans from buying them because that is just bad for business. The self financing will come from having a successful academy, that's why money has been spent for scouting and developing young talent. The foundations are in place and there is no reason to suppose that we will be 'cashing in' on these youngsters as early as posssible as was the case in the Rupert Lowe years. It is a long term strategy and there will come a time when the majority of our first team will be players that have been developed by the club.
If we are going to be self financing through producing young talent, wont we have to sell it on fairly early? IMO funding a club through player sales probably requires £15-20 million worth of sales per season (as well as tightly controlled wages and transfer expenditure), which probably means having to sell youngsters on after one or two good seasons (as was the case with Henderson and Jones). Its also a big ask to produce that quality of player consistently, and to not suffer because you're constantly selling your best (look at what happened at River, and a host of other big south american clubs who use a similar system). I'm not saying we can never be self financing that way, but its a bloody big ask to do it, and is more likely to create a yo-yo club than a successful premiership one.
The way I see it is that we will be running at a loss until we are established in the Premier League, (hopefully by 2014) and by then we will have greater ticket sales, merchandise and commercial sales and of course the massive amount of sky money to cover running costs, not by selling our young talent. By that time the Academy will hopefully be 'bearing fruit' and it is surely cheaper in wages and obviously transfer fees to produce our own players. If our past record of producing young talent is carried on then I don't see any reason why we won't have 6 or 7 first teamers from our academy. Our reputation for managing young talent is bound to bring top youngsters to our club, it's just a matter of time before we get a crop of young players like United's and West Ham's in the 90's in my opinion.
That will probably require a VERY constrained wage bill and no net transfer spending. Very few premiership clubs manage to cover running costs through season ticket sales, corporate hospitality, sponsorship, merchandise and sky money. That is why 16 of the 20 clubs made a loss last season. Plus the people who ae lending us the money to cover our losses are gonna want that back at some point. I'm not saying it can't be done. West Brom broke even and Wolves made a good profit last year, but were probably gonna need to be that sort of club to be self financing, and even then a relegation (which is always possible) ****s everything up. The only way I can really see us being self financing and successful is if some strict financial rules are bought in, and history tells us that Turkeys consistently vote against christmas.
The difference is that we will be producing more good quality young players than Wolves and West Brom. Just imagine if we manage to produce more Bales, Walcotts, Chamberlains, Bridges, Lallanas etc. Their wages would be relatively cheap up until their 20's, whilst their value would be increasing year on year, it's a win win, we save on big transfer fees AND we get expensive players playing for us.
Hopefully yes, we will produce some good young players, but its damned difficult to produce even one player who is good enough to play in the premiership as a teenager per season. I don't think that relying on selling young players to fund transfers is a bad idea, in fact its the only really sustainable way forward. I just think it will be an immensely difficult idea to make work, and it could lead to a few near brushes with relegation. I also think it will require a lot of patience from fans. In fact, utilising this policy could see Cortese becoming as unpopular as Lowe.
for info - cheapest premiership season tickets last year Blackburn £224 rising to £393 wigan £250 rising to £295 Newcastle £330 rising to £975 Villa £350 rising to £550 Birmingham £360 rising to £580 fulham £369 rising to £899 most expensive Arsenal £893 rising to £1825 Income from tv money and merit payments ranged from £39m for Blackpool to 60.4m to man utd - full list http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PL-payments-2010-11.jpg
Because they are Blackburn and Wigan. Blackburn is not a fashionable club.. like us in our Prem days, but we have a good catchment area. Wigan is a rugby town, though they are turning that round a bit now.
