Ted Maul Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 15 minutes ago, Fox92 said: I don't get this "eventually go back where you belong" stuff. The only clubs with consistent top tier football are Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and to a lesser extent Spurs and Chelsea. Only money would make me put Manchester City in that category too now. Villa are a big club, the biggest outside the PL, and I'd never have thought to see them relegated. ... But that's it. All other clubs just jump between divisions. It's unfair to put WBA and Stoke in the same category as Bournemouth. Stoke and WBA are similar clubs to us in terms of jumping between tiers 1 and 2 - WBA even more so given their success of winning tier 2 and the odd domestic trophy (a great FA Cup record). Attracting fans has is all about now. If young kids want to pick a side (without parents influence) then naturally they'll go for a successful side. There's no way a kid would go "ohh yeah they have a good history so I'll go with them even though they're an average Championship side now" surely? But as always you've also got to consider population. We're in a great position being a one club City - naturally we should get 40,000 a week. Same applies to Leeds and Newcastle. But for clubs like WBA it's difficult being in an area where you've got other clubs of similar size and then a bigger club in Villa (though I can't imagine people from the Black Country choose a club from the City of Birmingham). We would sell out an expansion of our ground (or should do given the size of Leicestershire and the fact we're the only professional side) but relegation would see people filter out like always. Yeah our average attendance has always been good but I can remember going every week between 05-08 and they'd be large spaces in the ground. There are big grounds around the country where stands aren't even opened - look at Leeds, Wednesday, Port Vale etc. We need to be at a point where we've got a turnover of good players, a good youth system and where we look for good managers so we can build to be stable. In recent years Southampton have been excellent at this. The only thing they have been missing is a trophy. I get what you're saying, and how well-run a club is certainly goes a long way to determining how successful it is. Being 'bigger' puts you at an advantage to get quality players and staff though, and although the vast majority of clubs tend to move between divisions, the bigger ones tend to spend more time in the top tier than below- some of them aren't particularly well-run, either. Completely agree about attracting fans being about now though. We've never been a more attractive club to support (last year more so than this), and we should be doing anything possible to capitalise and grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 28 minutes ago, Ted Maul said: Completely agree about attracting fans being about now though. We've never been a more attractive club to support (last year more so than this), and we should be doing anything possible to capitalise and grow. Agree, it's a shame we didn't push on in the summer to at least have a good go at Europe again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 12 hours ago, fleckneymike said: We won the Premier league with 32k. Liverpool haven't. Aston Villa haven't. Sheff Weds haven't. Sunderland haven't. Newcastle haven't. Spurs haven't. I could go on. Its the size size of your trophy cabinet not the size of your stadium that counts. You've completely missed the point. Us winning the league was an anomaly, for want of a better phrase we won it through luck. I don't mean that we were lucky to win it and it was undeserved as we were the best team in the country last season. I mean that we were lucky because we got unbelievable value out of our players for the money we spent on transfer fees and wages. Relying on brilliant value is an unsustainable model though. You only have to look at our transfer policy in the summer to see how things have regressed to the mean. Spending £30m or whatever it will cost to increase the stadium isn't that significant an investment any more. It what Slimani cost or Musa/Mendy cost. A 40,000+ stadium is hardly over ambitious considering for three years we've sold out every league game and we're turning wannabee season ticket holders away. Whilst the Premier League money is great it is only a matter of time until a club like Leicester is relegated again. I want us to solidify our foundations by getting a bigger core support whilst our stock is high and it is relatively cheap to do so. Crowds become a major source of income in the Championship and clubs like Newcastle, West Ham, Sunderland, etc will make that advantage count eventually whilst ex Premier League clubs like Wigan, Blackpool and Bournemouth when they eventually go may never be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKCJ Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 13 hours ago, fleckneymike said: We won the Premier league with 32k. Liverpool haven't. Aston Villa haven't. Sheff Weds haven't. Sunderland haven't. Newcastle haven't. Spurs haven't. I could go on. Its the size size of your trophy cabinet not the size of your stadium that counts. Thats not really the point. There are thousands of City fans missing out each week. An expansion allows them more opportunities to come to games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 1 hour ago, Fox92 said: I don't get this "eventually go back where you belong" stuff. The only clubs with consistent top tier football are Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and to a lesser extent Spurs and Chelsea. Only money would make me put Manchester City in that category too now. Villa are a big club, the biggest outside the PL, and I'd never have thought to see them relegated. ... But that's it. All other clubs just jump between divisions. It's unfair to put WBA and Stoke in the same category as Bournemouth. Stoke and WBA are similar clubs to us in terms of jumping between tiers 1 and 2 - WBA even more so given their success of winning tier 2 and the odd domestic trophy (a great FA Cup record). Attracting fans has is all about now. If young kids want to pick a side (without parents influence) then naturally they'll go for a successful side. There's no way a kid would go "ohh yeah they have a good history so I'll go with them even though they're an average Championship side now" surely? But as always you've also got to consider population. We're in a great position being a one club City - naturally we should get 40,000 a week. Same applies to Leeds and Newcastle. But for clubs like WBA it's difficult being in an area where you've got other clubs of similar size and then a bigger club in Villa (though I can't imagine people from the Black Country choose a club from the City of Birmingham). We would sell out an expansion of our ground (or should do given the size of Leicestershire and the fact we're the only professional side) but relegation would see people filter out like always. Yeah our average attendance has always been good but I can remember going every week between 05-08 and they'd be large spaces in the ground. There are big grounds around the country where stands aren't even opened - look at Leeds, Wednesday, Port Vale etc. We need to be at a point where we've got a turnover of good players, a good youth system and where we look for good managers so we can build to be stable. In recent years Southampton have been excellent at this. The only thing they have been missing is a trophy. Chelsea have never been a huge top club. Romans millions have transformed them and nothing else. As for Wednesday parts of the ground are shut for safety not because they want them shut. The new owners are leaving no stone unturned in trying to sort it. Be it Hillsboro redeveloped or a entire new ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 2 hours ago, Bob Weasel Fox said: Excellent post. Err Stoke, WBA ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 Speaking of Stoke, they're filling in one of the corners ATM increasing capacity to over 30,000...even stoke are catching us up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmarteyAndChill Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 14 minutes ago, fleckneymike said: Err Stoke, WBA ... Is this seasons in the top flight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 18 minutes ago, fleckneymike said: Err Stoke, WBA ... This is why I said it was unfair to put Stoke and WBA in the same category as Bournemouth. Hull are more like Bournemouth rather than traditional top flight clubs like WBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 Longevity in the top flight doesn't make you a big club. Coventry spent about 25 consecutive seasons at the top but were just the Bournemouth of that time having rising from the depths and now back where they started that's not me suggesting Bournemouth will do the same. Not that I can define a big club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussianFox Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 There's a clear difference between "traditionally big" clubs and "contemporary big" clubs. Only ManUtd, Chelsea, ManCity, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and maybe Everton - were stable enough in the last 10-15 years. All other clubs had their ups and downs but never (excluding our miracle season) had been even close to be contenders for the title or even top-4. Even being more than 1-2 consecutive seasons in the top-6 wasn't achieved by anyone else during this period. History is important but, IMHO, last 10 seasons are far more important in defining which clubs are "big" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 27 May 2017 Share Posted 27 May 2017 1 hour ago, purpleronnie said: Speaking of Stoke, they're filling in one of the corners ATM increasing capacity to over 30,000...even stoke are catching us up. The local council there were hesitant to build it for some reason, and had been for a few seasons. Their fans had regularly called for it to be built to both increase the number of seats to meet demand (obviously) and also make the Bet365 more of an intimidating atmosphere for the visiting players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 29 May 2017 Share Posted 29 May 2017 On 27/05/2017 at 11:13, Gerard said: You've completely missed the point. Us winning the league was an anomaly, for want of a better phrase we won it through luck. I don't mean that we were lucky to win it and it was undeserved as we were the best team in the country last season. I mean that we were lucky because we got unbelievable value out of our players for the money we spent on transfer fees and wages. Relying on brilliant value is an unsustainable model though. You only have to look at our transfer policy in the summer to see how things have regressed to the mean. Spending £30m or whatever it will cost to increase the stadium isn't that significant an investment any more. It what Slimani cost or Musa/Mendy cost. A 40,000+ stadium is hardly over ambitious considering for three years we've sold out every league game and we're turning wannabee season ticket holders away. Whilst the Premier League money is great it is only a matter of time until a club like Leicester is relegated again. I want us to solidify our foundations by getting a bigger core support whilst our stock is high and it is relatively cheap to do so. Crowds become a major source of income in the Championship and clubs like Newcastle, West Ham, Sunderland, etc will make that advantage count eventually whilst ex Premier League clubs like Wigan, Blackpool and Bournemouth when they eventually go may never be back. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 The amount of TV money in the PL has actually made the size of team's stadium less important than ever. It is hard to make a pure economic argument for an expansion. The risk is of course, that by running at close to 100% capacity is that those who cannot get tickets, or cannot take their kids means a tail off in support in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie the Fox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 4 hours ago, stripeyfox said: The amount of TV money in the PL has actually made the size of team's stadium less important than ever. It is hard to make a pure economic argument for an expansion. The risk is of course, that by running at close to 100% capacity is that those who cannot get tickets, or cannot take their kids means a tail off in support in the future. And an increase in illegal streams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 On 5/27/2017 at 12:40, davieG said: Not that I can define a big club. This one looks pretty big ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 Not as big as this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 1 hour ago, stripeyfox said: Not as big as this one... Captain caaaaavvvveeeeemmmmaaaaaannnnnnnn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 7 hours ago, stripeyfox said: The amount of TV money in the PL has actually made the size of team's stadium less important than ever. It is hard to make a pure economic argument for an expansion. The risk is of course, that by running at close to 100% capacity is that those who cannot get tickets, or cannot take their kids means a tail off in support in the future. You're probably right but I would argue that the cost of expansion is pretty minimal considering the revenue of clubs and the decades you get out of that expansion. Also economically it may not pay for itself with extra ticket revenue but a bigger ground with bigger attendances creates the impression of a bigger club which in turn is good for bigger sponsorship deals, merchandise sales, etc. If our attendances were below 30,000 then that's fine but we're turning wannabee season ticket holders away. If we got another 10,000 through the gate then those fans become bigger fans and buy more merchandise and when we do eventually get relegated a percentage of them will stay with the club when ticket sales become a more significant part of your income. The crux for me is all we have to do to get in this position of 40,000 is sell Slimani to fund it if we chose, it hardly makes a dent in the club. I think it's important to set some money aside for the infrastructure of the club rather than spending our money whilst we have it on transfer fees and wages and be no better off when that inevitable relegation happens in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h1210 Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 Much of this talk seems irrelevent to me. If the demand was there for extra corporate/hospitality then an extension would be built. This is literally the only reason they expanded the main stand at Anfield and the only thing that would prompt an increase in capacity for us. This is also why any expansion at City would be of the East stand and not the Kop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 1 hour ago, Gerard said: You're probably right but I would argue that the cost of expansion is pretty minimal considering the revenue of clubs and the decades you get out of that expansion. Also economically it may not pay for itself with extra ticket revenue but a bigger ground with bigger attendances creates the impression of a bigger club which in turn is good for bigger sponsorship deals, merchandise sales, etc. If our attendances were below 30,000 then that's fine but we're turning wannabee season ticket holders away. If we got another 10,000 through the gate then those fans become bigger fans and buy more merchandise and when we do eventually get relegated a percentage of them will stay with the club when ticket sales become a more significant part of your income. The crux for me is all we have to do to get in this position of 40,000 is sell Slimani to fund it if we chose, it hardly makes a dent in the club. I think it's important to set some money aside for the infrastructure of the club rather than spending our money whilst we have it on transfer fees and wages and be no better off when that inevitable relegation happens in the future. Let's get it done come on City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 41 minutes ago, h1210 said: Much of this talk seems irrelevent to me. If the demand was there for extra corporate/hospitality then an extension would be built. This is literally the only reason they expanded the main stand at Anfield and the only thing that would prompt an increase in capacity for us. This is also why any expansion at City would be of the East stand and not the Kop. Explain Manchester City.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudulike Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 On 27/05/2017 at 13:26, RussianFox said: There's a clear difference between "traditionally big" clubs and "contemporary big" clubs. Only ManUtd, Chelsea, ManCity, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and maybe Everton - were stable enough in the last 10-15 years. All other clubs had their ups and downs but never (excluding our miracle season) had been even close to be contenders for the title or even top-4. Even being more than 1-2 consecutive seasons in the top-6 wasn't achieved by anyone else during this period. History is important but, IMHO, last 10 seasons are far more important in defining which clubs are "big" now. I'd argue the last 25 years are more of a guide as 1992 saw the sea change that heralded the Premier League. 25 years is sufficient to be refered to as an era. All time Premier League table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promised land Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 2 hours ago, Spudulike said: I'd argue the last 25 years are more of a guide as 1992 saw the sea change that heralded the Premier League. 25 years is sufficient to be refered to as an era. All time Premier League table Some interesting facts in that table, only 19 clubs are into double figures for seasons in the premier league, out of 25 seasons, I'd have said Leeds had played in more than they have, yes they were in L1 for a few seasons but they were also a top side when the premier league started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie1999 Posted 30 May 2017 Share Posted 30 May 2017 6 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said: Explain Manchester City.... The reason Man City expanded when they can't fill it is to do with ffp and allow them to spend a fortune on players. They can demonstrate that they have the potential to sell x amount of seats, even if they are empty which is what ffp is all about, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.