chesterfield, and all that new ground = non-football related income | Page 2 | Vital Football

chesterfield, and all that new ground = non-football related income

Interesting stuff. I've never taken it as a given that a stadium move necessarily results in a more sustainable club. There are so many variables involved, not least how competent the Board (and future Boards!) are.

I've always said any move must be preceded by a detailed, costed business plan that is accessible to critique by all. Hand-waving about "hotels, casinos, conference facilities" and the like just won't cut it. Show me the figures.
 
King Power, KC Stadium, New Den Stadium, New York Stadium, Amex Stadium or The Hive
leicester and brighton are not really a comparison to us though are they.
the new den was opened in 1993. not so new.

i noticed hull were currently getting around 12k for home games, so amazing to think we are not that far off them...[/QUOTE]

They are all stadium moves though? I'll take that as a tacit admission that they have been "successful" though..

(Brighton commissioned their new stadium while they were in the 3rd tier by the way, where we hope to be next season..)
 
Interesting stuff. I've never taken it as a given that a stadium move necessarily results in a more sustainable club. There are so many variables involved, not least how competent the Board (and future Boards!) are.

I've always said any move must be preceded by a detailed, costed business plan that is accessible to critique by all. Hand-waving about "hotels, casinos, conference facilities" and the like just won't cut it. Show me the figures.

Agreed, no room for emotion in this kind of decision, too much rests on it..
 
As I said recently in a discussion with Liam Scully (yes, even a pleb like me gets to name-drop, occasionally!), the Board's decision in our case is made that much more difficult by the fact we have a 10,000 capacity stadium that actually isn't bad at all for L2.

If we were in a dump like Blundell Park, moving would be an absolute no-brainer.
 
i think it would be dangerous to base our plans of success on examples like leicester and brighton.

strike oxford off the list.

i'm down to 4: rotherham, maybe burton, maybe hull, shrewsbury.

too soon to tell on brentford.
 
i think it would be dangerous to base our plans of success on examples like leicester and brighton.

strike oxford off the list.

i'm down to 4: rotherham, maybe burton, maybe hull, shrewsbury.

too soon to tell on brentford.

Is that the dragging sound of goalposts being moved I hear?
 
As I said recently in a discussion with Liam Scully (yes, even a pleb like me gets to name-drop, occasionally!), the Board's decision in our case is made that much more difficult by the fact we have a 10,000 capacity stadium that actually isn't bad at all for L2.

If we were in a dump like Blundell Park, moving would be an absolute no-brainer.
absolutely, the 'problem' is that we have a very high league two average attendance.

ideal to keep playing and then make a seamless move once the new stadium is ready.
downside is that the fanbase will stagnate if we do nothing in the meantime.

i still believe we need a second, temporary short-mid term plan for increasing capacity at sincil bank.
 
i am also interested to know where these shining examples are …
there are 11 clubs - at approximately our size/level - that have made ground moves in the last twenty years:


league 2
2010 morecambe.
6k stadium. cost 12million. constantly struggling at the bottom of league two. is the stadium making lots of money for them?

2008 colchester
i believe they have around circa30million of debt, presumably connected to the stadium build.

[2007 mk dons
30,000 seater is a bit beyond us. 9.7 million debt in last accounts. propped up by winkleman.]


2006 forest green
tiny stadium. propped up by eco money.


league 1
2007 doncaster
with liam in mind, are doncaster the new beacon?
a club with conference dark days, that have since flirted with the championship and the top end of league 1. but have also dropped back into league 2.
sports complex cost 32m
complex paid for and owned by local district council
99yr lease by the club to manage the complex negotiated in 2012. i believe we have stated that we want to own the ground?
doncaster r fc losses:
2016; 2m
2017; 2m


2007 shrewsbury capacity 10k + design for expansion
ring road stadium. are they making loads from off-field activities?

2005 burton
ground[land] donated by pirelli, in exchange for ground naming rights.
cost £7m
capacity 7k. seats 2k. 300 seat conference facility.
on a roll football-wise. until this season.
2012 300k loss
2013 101k profit
2014 94k profit
2015 … promotion
2016 162k profit [first ever year in league 1] promotion again
2017 1.3m profit [first ever year in championship]

[2005 coventry
nope!!! enough said]


2001 oxford
3 sided stadium + hotel… but ring road stadium. could they be the ones making money. would the imps be able to build a hotel into the new complex? i am sure better equipped companies would be lined up to build any hotel within our new complex.


championship
2012 rotherham [capacity 12,000] any off-field facilites?
and brentford [capacity 17,250] are in the process of moving…
Why are you quoting profit and loss on an overall business? That doesn't prove or disprove anything.
 
In the same way that Notty wants specific forecasts for revenue etc how is anyone judging the success or not of clubs that have already moved grounds? With the exception of those that no longer have any control over the ground (Coventry etc) we can judge how well the club is doing or whether the ground is any good for supporters but without before and after accounts etc cannot necessarily judge if it was good for the club as a business (don't say Darlington!).

I'm struggling to think of any club that has an ok ground kept relativily up to date (like Sincil Bank) that then moved, a lot of the ones already moved (Northampton, Barnet, Colchester, Chesterfield, Oxford, Brighton etc) didn't really have any choice but to move.
 
Why are you quoting profit and loss on an overall business? That doesn't prove or disprove anything.
not trying to prove or disprove anything. more an attempt to keep the ball rolling.

tbh, i was hoping to find some evidence that moving grounds and providing the mythical off-field facilities has a significant positive effect on a club’s finances - particularly at the size/level relevant to us. don’t you think that should be part of our case for moving?

e.g. the information about oxford.
maybe others will add to the financial case… or detract.
 
not trying to prove or disprove anything. more an attempt to keep the ball rolling.

tbh, i was hoping to find some evidence that moving grounds and providing the mythical off-field facilities has a significant positive effect on a club’s finances - particularly at the size/level relevant to us. don’t you think that should be part of our case for moving?

e.g. the information about oxford.
maybe others will add to the financial case… or detract.
Well, yes, but listing those profits and losses wouldn't bring you any closer to finding that because it's looking at an overall picture rather than specifics.

For all we know, Burton's catering might have increased by 20% and wages by 80% or Colchester's catering up by 110% but wages increasing 180%, in which case, based on what we're looking at, Colchester's caterings figures are better but masked by their increase in wages.

You'd have to look at the like for like, before and after figures of catering, functions etc. Whether they're broken down within accounts nowadays, who knows (I'm not expecting you to delve that far!) but I'm sure the questions are being asked behind the scenes.
 
In the same way that Notty wants specific forecasts for revenue etc how is anyone judging the success or not of clubs that have already moved grounds? With the exception of those that no longer have any control over the ground (Coventry etc) we can judge how well the club is doing or whether the ground is any good for supporters but without before and after accounts etc cannot necessarily judge if it was good for the club as a business (don't say Darlington!).

I'm struggling to think of any club that has an ok ground kept relativily up to date (like Sincil Bank) that then moved, a lot of the ones already moved (Northampton, Barnet, Colchester, Chesterfield, Oxford, Brighton etc) didn't really have any choice but to move.


How do you justify Sincil Bank is "up to date"?
 
How do you justify Sincil Bank is "up to date"?
'relatively ' in that it's had all the stands replaced and rebuilt post Bradford rather than as an example Grimsby where 3 sides pretty old. I didn't mean it was as good as a new ground or a ground rebuilt as of now. This was the point Notty made with the conversation with Liam, the ground is actually "ok" for it's current football requirements.
 
I did'nt visit the Manor or the Goldstone, but did have had the dubious pleasure of having graced: Saltergate, Layer Road, The County Ground and Underhill. While some will argue those grounds had a certain charm and character. However, in the context of the original question, the Sincil Bank that was redeveloped from the mid '80s to the early '90s was up to date and at that time was possibly ahead of the curve for a lower league ground and is still better than the likes of the Crown Ground.

The current debate about move or stay is entirely different.
 
Last edited:
too soon to tell on brentford.

Brentford's an entirely different question. The owner has now put £100m into the club, £30m of which relates to the new ground.

I always find it very strange when people use their approach as some kind of model. It's more Bournemouth than Lincoln.
 
Brentford's an entirely different question. The owner has now put £100m into the club, £30m of which relates to the new ground.

I always find it very strange when people use their approach as some kind of model. It's more Bournemouth than Lincoln.
of the new builds, which approach do you think ours will be closest to...