Stadium Expansion

[bustertimberlake]

given we know there is already an issue re kitchen availability, there are 2 options here. 1 - there will be a substantial increase in the rear of the east stand with the inclusion of new kitchens to cater for the new facilities. 2 - new boxes would reach into the North stand allowing access to the existing kitchens.

either way, none of us know - but it is very exciting!!

[Norfolk Royal]

Why do you need a load of kitchens in a football ground?

[Green]

What is the single most important thing for a company? Is it the building? Is it the stock? Is it the turnover? It's the people, investment in people.

Sometimes I think this place is a right shithole.

[melonhead]

isnt that just what companies tell employees to keep them engaged and motivated?

[under the tin]

What is the single most important thing for a company? Is it the building? Is it the stock? Is it the turnover? It's the people, investment in people.

The company might possibly take the view that maximising profitability and revenue earning opportunities is quite important, too.

Why do you need a load of kitchens in a football ground?

Corporates need feeding at inflated prices. A bunch of suits ignoring the match whilst having a marketing strategy meeting and munching on Chicken Royale contribute proportionately a lot more towards Pog's wages than the average fan does.

It's a balancing act - if they didn't want to force anyone to move or to ever be inconvenienced we'd still be at Elm Park, so they can't let a relatively small number of people derail the whole exercise.

All they can do is make sure they're fair and do the best to minimise the inconvenience to those forced to move - for instance by offering them a discount ST and giving the, the first pick of the new seats.

But even if they do that, you can be sure that there'll still be some people who'll dig their heels in and object just because they can and because they want to be a martyr.

Quite. The club may cheese a few people off, but will keep their eyes on the new fans that will be able to occupy the extra seats. Tomorrow's RL's, if you will.

[SLAMMED]

[Royal Lady]

AZ has already stated that more boxes are a consideration, so if that was to happen, all existing seats should be fine.


Those are the old plans, and AZ has said we are considering more hospitality than was initially planned. If they do add another row of boxes then it will be from where the current stand ends at the top, and then the second tier on top of that.
.

How do you know that? Why would they build expensive boxes at the back of the stand when they could carve out a section in the middle with a better view as originally proposed.

IMHO I think there will be even more rows in a similar area to go, i.e boxes and 4 rows of seats in front, so rather than X to DD going it will be V to FF (ha RL!)

Better fooking not!! Don't go giving them ideas!

[Royal Lady]

*RL

Just seen this - if I'd known about this comment I wouldn't have wished you a happy birthday druggo.

[melonhead]

*RL

Just seen this - if I'd known about this comment I wouldn't have wished you a happy birthday druggo.

mwah

[Once were Biscuitmen]

I don't know why people think the new plans will consider the impact to fans more, his Madj after building the club up for years didn't, AZ will have less inclination to accommodate or minimize the impact to supporters.

Be under no illusions we are just shit on their shoes that they will wipe off to make a fast buck.

I've no doubt they will do what is best for the corporates and impacted fans will just have to make way.

The only way to make a small fortune out of football is to start with a large one.

Absolutely nobody aside for the Glaziers has bought a club in recent years to actually make money in the short or even medium term. The vast majority of clubs lose money every single year and are kept afloat by debt, indulgent owners and the hope of increasing revenue streams in the future.

What the likes of SJM and AZ want is for the club to be a self-sustaining as possible, corporates and the revenue they bring are a significant part of that. If it were not for the corporates tickets prices would be even higher or the playing squad weaker.

[Green]

If it were not for the corporates tickets prices would be even higher or the playing squad weaker.

It'd be the latter.

They charge as much as they think the market will stand, they're not doing the supporters a favour by artificially keeping them low.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

There's a bit of a debate going on in football about ticket prices levels at the moment. Do clubs "price for attendance" or "price for revenue"?

The higher up the leagues you go the more clubs are "pricing for revenue" - so that they set the prices to get the most money, even though they don't always sell out (Karen Brady at West Ham is the Queen of this, something she learnt at Birmingham.)

It's stunning to think that there can be a business model that says "it doesn't matter if the ground is half-empty just as long as we get more dosh off those who are here" - but I suppose that's football in the 21st century.

[reading_fan]

Surely it should be down to the balance of economics? ie. 5,000 people paying £10 each gives the same revenue as 10,000 people paying £5 each to watch a game. But, with 10,000 people in the ground there will be more associated revenue generated (eg sales of merchandise, food, programmes etc). Surely then it is better to charge slightly less money and get more people in, rather than having a less full stadium being charged higher prices?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Surely it should be down to the balance of economics? ie. 5,000 people paying £10 each gives the same revenue as 10,000 people paying £5 each to watch a game. But, with 10,000 people in the ground there will be more associated revenue generated (eg sales of merchandise, food, programmes etc). Surely then it is better to charge slightly less money and get more people in, rather than having a less full stadium being charged higher prices?

You'd think so, yes, and Bradford did it successfully with their £50 season ticket a year or so ago.

But this is football, where the usual rules of economics and common sense don't apply.

I think part of it is the idea that people who pay more to get in will spend more, and also that the lower the price the more likely you are to have hooligans and general riff-raff who won't have any money to spend while they're there and will just swear and sing songs which offend the nice middle-class families you're trying to sell the product to.

[Elm Park]

Surely it should be down to the balance of economics? ie. 5,000 people paying £10 each gives the same revenue as 10,000 people paying £5 each to watch a game. But, with 10,000 people in the ground there will be more associated revenue generated (eg sales of merchandise, food, programmes etc). Surely then it is better to charge slightly less money and get more people in, rather than having a less full stadium being charged higher prices?

But it doesn't work out like that, You are not going to double the ticket sales by halving the price, You might increase it to 7,000 paying £5 but in the end you still lose money even allowing for food sales etc. If the average additional spend is £2.50 you would have 5,000 spending £12.50 giving £62,500, if the ticket price was reduced to £5 (giving total spend per person of £7.50) would give you 7,000 x £7.50 = £52,500 and then you would have the extra cost of more stewards etc

However, on the up side you would get a better atmosphere and if that helps performance you might increase ticket sales that way over time.

[reading_fan]

I realise the numbers are fairly simplistic and there isn't a directly linear relationship between price and attendance, but it was to help explain my point.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

And that's exactly the debate going on ......

Pricing is going to get more sophisticated over the coming seasons as clubs try to maximise either attendance or revenue - already a couple of Championship clubs are using dynamic pricing models, where the price you pay for a ticket depends upon exactly when you buy it and what the demand for tickets at that time is.

[mr_number]

It's stunning to think that there can be a business model that says "it doesn't matter if the ground is half-empty just as long as we get more dosh off those who are here" - but I suppose that's football in the 21st century.

Is it? A business trying to maximise its revenue in a market where not many companies are financially successful? That doesn't seem very surprising at all to me.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

It's stunning to think that there can be a business model that says "it doesn't matter if the ground is half-empty just as long as we get more dosh off those who are here" - but I suppose that's football in the 21st century.

Is it? A business trying to maximise its revenue in a market where not many companies are financially successful? That doesn't seem very surprising at all to me.

It's only viable as a very short-term business model. It pays no regard to the long-term health of the industry or the product itself.

[mr_number]

Well what you're discussing only applies to clubs with a large amount of spare capacity - otherwise there's no reason to reduce ticket prices to increase attendance.

By reducing income now in order to try to boost future revenues, you're taking quite a lot of risk - will more people in fact come in the future etc etc. You're also turning down revenue now, unless you're confident that reducing prices will drive up attendances so much that it generates more revenue (which I just think is fairly unlikely). Most lower league clubs are struggling financially, and so turning down revenue now is a massive risk... Which is why I don't see it happening on a regular basis.