The pinkun article......I have some concerns over some of the McNally comments

User Posted Link

I dont disagree with what David McNally says but I question some of the numbers.

He says we would need 35,000 to be self-sustainable and 27,000 would not.

I find this very strange comment for several reasons.

What revenue would the extra 8000 seats generate over 19 league games (I think we can assume they wouldnt be needed for cup games)

Just for chuckles lets assume we fill every seat in every game and they generate 25 quid in total revenue (seat and consessions)

Thats 200,000 per match or 3.8million a season.

Sounds great until we give it some thought

I would assume that to totally rebuild the stand and all the facilities it would take 20 million (has to be 25 million after interest payments)
So it would take 8-10 years of filling every single seat to pay back the money for the stand.

Its also a huge assumption that we have a big enough fan base to constantly fill such a stadium.

While we seem to have little problem filling 26,000... anything over 28,000 might be a problem.
Anything over 30,000 might just not be possible for most games as we just dont have the fan base for it. (or enough fans who can afford the current prices)

You would assume that demand this season would be incredible yet we are still seeing a few tickets being sold to the general public.
Assuming we stay in the PL, will the demand decrease over the next few years when the novelty wears off?

I like the idea that McNally is shooting high. I also like the fact he is delaying things by insisting 3 years of PL status.

By which time we would have a clearer idea of our core fan base and what is sustainable going forward. (plus the economic situation)

The bit that I dont understand is why they think 35,000 is self-sustainable when it only generates "at most" an extra 3.8M a year which is small potatoes compared to the 40M PL TV money and the 25M income from the 27,000 stadium, especially when you factor in the cost of building such a stand.
Couldnt you be self-sustainable by just spending around 2M per year less and not spending 20M on a stand we might not need?

Posted By: usacanary on October 14th 2011 at 22:56:17

Message Thread

The pinkun article......I have some concerns over some of the McNally comments (NCFC) - usacanary, Oct 14, 22:56:17
- From footballgrounsguide.com re: future development (NCFC) - JD3, Oct 14, 23:40:58
  - So the Pinkun article is wrong when it states 10,000 instead of 12,000 (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Oct 15, 00:19:09
  - I suppose the money invloved now could eventually make adding to the South Stand worthwhil (NCFC) - Huge Small, Oct 15, 00:03:05
  - Also past Bowkett interview: (NCFC) - JD3, Oct 14, 23:42:48
- After today's accounts, I trust him with numbers. He knows his shizzle. (NCFC) - jafski, Oct 14, 23:11:20
  - I agree, I dont want to piss on the parade because obviously...... (NCFC) - usacanary, Oct 14, 23:27:06
    - That's the gamble which at some point you have to take. (NCFC) - jafski, Oct 14, 23:28:35
- Isn't the Jarrold designed to have a second tier added relatively easily (and cheaply)? (NCFC) - JD3, Oct 14, 23:04:39
  - No. Not from what i remember (NCFC) - Huge Small, Oct 14, 23:36:27
    - Ahaaa, so new City Stand it is then. It's too small as it stands. (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Oct 14, 23:38:48
      - City stand has the foundations of a much bigger capacity stand (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Oct 14, 23:41:30
        
        Nope, already been mentioned that it has to come down witha complete rebuild (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Oct 15, 00:18:25
  - One other thing which is puzzling about the article (NCFC) - usacanary, Oct 14, 23:13:35
    - Also says 'the main focus' will be developing the City stand, implying expansion elsewhere (NCFC) - jafski, Oct 14, 23:16:29
      - If they can expand 2400 seats elsewhere........why not just add those only? (NCFC) - usacanary, Oct 14, 23:20:20
        
        If we did stick another 8000 seats on (NCFC) - Huge Small, Oct 14, 23:53:27
        
        Yep, surely an aim is to have one eye on making it accessible and affordable for future ge (NCFC) - Yellalee, Oct 14, 23:56:13
        
        You're over-analysing this and coming up with the wrong answer I fear. (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Oct 14, 23:25:09
        
        That's his specialty (n/m) (NCFC) - Brandonio, Oct 15, 06:24:25
        
        Like I said. You have to tip your hat to McNasty and trust him with the figures. (NCFC) - jafski, Oct 14, 23:23:16

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.