Another bowl in the making

[Andrei says Shhhhh]

Reminds me of the ramshackle that is Celtic Park,

Three big souless stands glued together and also has an undersized Main Stand.

[safcftm]

New grounds are a long-term business decision. Everyone sees just how well Arsenal has done with their new build, and it's no doubt that Sunderland has been that much more successful due to their strong gate revenues.

I have no problems with Wolves getting a bit stronger. They're a storied team and I'd like to see them in the Premiership more, although I wouldn't mind if their thuggery was curbed.

The design itself actually looks quite nice. A good mix of a classic looking football ground with some modern touches. Sometimes I wish the Emirates had kept a little more of an old-school flair; it definitely looks American (although I think the murals outside are excellent and a great, unique concept).

Possibly, although remember we were as shit as ever for a good while with higher gate receipts (I say higher, rather than strong, because the ticket prices for SAFC are amongst the lowest in the league, and therefore us selling 40,000 gets less money in than some other clubs selling 30,000). The thing that has helped make us better of late is Quinny bringing in a load of fairly rich Irishmen (the Drumaville consortium) and then by convincing Ellis Short (who is apparently worth a good few billion, although no one knows exactly how much) to invest.

Now, I suppose the argument is would such people invest if we were still at Roker, and maybe the answer is no, but it isnt the gate receipts which have led to being able to compete in the top half. I suppose Wolves might be hoping that their new stadium can attract new investment, but clubs can end up overextending themselves by building big new stadiums that they cant get near to filling (which wont attract big money investors) and putting themselves into a position whereby they cant compete for transfers for a while whilst they pay it off. This can be acceptable for PL clubs who are well established, but for other clubs who are just in the league it can end in relegation and subsequently not being able to gain promotion again, which again puts off investors. They could end up like Southampton in a lower league with a ground that costs a lot to run and nowhere near the supporters to fill it.

Right enough SAFC moved grounds when not established, but then we managed to get our ground incredibly cheap- it only cost £23m so it wasnt anything like as crippling as even the likes of St Mary's, which was another 10m or so more expensive

[norfbankN16]

New grounds are a long-term business decision. Everyone sees just how well Arsenal has done with their new build, and it's no doubt that Sunderland has been that much more successful due to their strong gate revenues.

I have no problems with Wolves getting a bit stronger. They're a storied team and I'd like to see them in the Premiership more, although I wouldn't mind if their thuggery was curbed.

The design itself actually looks quite nice. A good mix of a classic looking football ground with some modern touches. Sometimes I wish the Emirates had kept a little more of an old-school flair; it definitely looks American (although I think the murals outside are excellent and a great, unique concept).

Possibly, although remember we were as shit as ever for a good while with higher gate receipts (I say higher, rather than strong, because the ticket prices for SAFC are amongst the lowest in the league, and therefore us selling 40,000 gets less money in than some other clubs selling 30,000). The thing that has helped make us better of late is Quinny bringing in a load of fairly rich Irishmen (the Drumaville consortium) and then by convincing Ellis Short (who is apparently worth a good few billion, although no one knows exactly how much) to invest.

Now, I suppose the argument is would such people invest if we were still at Roker, and maybe the answer is no, but it isnt the gate receipts which have led to being able to compete in the top half. I suppose Wolves might be hoping that their new stadium can attract new investment, but clubs can end up overextending themselves by building big new stadiums that they cant get near to filling (which wont attract big money investors) and putting themselves into a position whereby they cant compete for transfers for a while whilst they pay it off. This can be acceptable for PL clubs who are well established, but for other clubs who are just in the league it can end in relegation and subsequently not being able to gain promotion again, which again puts off investors. They could end up like Southampton in a lower league with a ground that costs a lot to run and nowhere near the supporters to fill it.

Right enough SAFC moved grounds when not established, but then we managed to get our ground incredibly cheap- it only cost £23m so it wasnt anything like as crippling as even the likes of St Mary's, which was another 10m or so more expensive

west ham anyone?

[safcftm]

west ham anyone?

Its definitely a possibility with West Ham, but of course they are going to get it a bit easier by not having to fund the whole thing themselves. Getting a loan of public money for it will help them and so, even if they go down, they should still be able to spend a bit. Obviously they would sell some of their "stars" which would earn them money, and they'd have parachute payments, so i think they could keep a fair few players, add some good championship level players (where west ham will always be a major attraction due to being London based) and bounce straight back, or if not get back in 2 seasons. Had they had to pay it all themselves they could have been in bother, but I suspect it will work out fine for them in the end. What they will find is that, if they go down to the championship, it is very difficult to shift executive boxes and maintenance will be high on the stadium.

These fancy new stadiums are only really worthwhile if you can attract a lot more fans than your current ground. Sunderland were right to move as we get a lot more than the 23,000 capacity at Roker, Arsenal were right to move as they get a lot more than the 38ish thousand capacity at Highbury, but I'm not convinced that West Ham will be able to regularly get significantly more than the 35,000 capacity at Upton Park tbh

[augie]

What?! A club fighting relegation that hardly ever sells out their ground in its current state want to re-develop?
You can noly lower the prices so much to get more fans in the ground, I think it would be too big, especially if they get stuck in the championship.

I went to the match yesterday with the wife's cousin who is a wolves fans of sorts (his dad was a wolves fan and he used to go often as a kid even though he is a brummie) and he was quite scathing about wolves and wondered how their fans turn up week after week which I suppose ties in with your "lower prices can only do so much" point. Personally I disagreed totally with his opinions (nothing new there then ) as I have always felt that the style of football your team plays is just a small part of reasons why you support that club but if the modern day fan expects barca or Arsenal style football then will even lower prices draw them in ?

I have always felt that traditionally wolves are a big club and it isnt as if they are building a new stadium so I think they will be ok

[_James_]

It replaces what I think is the stand they put the Arsenal fans in at Wolves which was curved with the middle being further from the pitch for some strange reason.

I doubt they would get 60k every week, maybe for the local derby matches but not every home game.

I would fix the TV screens first though as going to a ground with no clock or scoreboard seems strange, even Adams Park has a TV.

[safcftm]

It replaces what I think is the stand they put the Arsenal fans in at Wolves which was curved with the middle being further from the pitch for some strange reason.

I doubt they would get 60k every week, maybe for the local derby matches but not every home game.

I would fix the TV screens first though as going to a ground with no clock or scoreboard seems strange, even Adams Park has a TV.

Wolves would never get 60k, even for derby matches

[JMascis666]

Lets face it we don't get 60k for most matches, we just pretend we do.

[Barriecuda]

New grounds are a long-term business decision. Everyone sees just how well Arsenal has done with their new build, and it's no doubt that Sunderland has been that much more successful due to their strong gate revenues.

I have no problems with Wolves getting a bit stronger. They're a storied team and I'd like to see them in the Premiership more, although I wouldn't mind if their thuggery was curbed.

The design itself actually looks quite nice. A good mix of a classic looking football ground with some modern touches. Sometimes I wish the Emirates had kept a little more of an old-school flair; it definitely looks American (although I think the murals outside are excellent and a great, unique concept).

Possibly, although remember we were as shit as ever for a good while with higher gate receipts (I say higher, rather than strong, because the ticket prices for SAFC are amongst the lowest in the league, and therefore us selling 40,000 gets less money in than some other clubs selling 30,000). The thing that has helped make us better of late is Quinny bringing in a load of fairly rich Irishmen (the Drumaville consortium) and then by convincing Ellis Short (who is apparently worth a good few billion, although no one knows exactly how much) to invest.

Now, I suppose the argument is would such people invest if we were still at Roker, and maybe the answer is no, but it isnt the gate receipts which have led to being able to compete in the top half. I suppose Wolves might be hoping that their new stadium can attract new investment, but clubs can end up overextending themselves by building big new stadiums that they cant get near to filling (which wont attract big money investors) and putting themselves into a position whereby they cant compete for transfers for a while whilst they pay it off. This can be acceptable for PL clubs who are well established, but for other clubs who are just in the league it can end in relegation and subsequently not being able to gain promotion again, which again puts off investors. They could end up like Southampton in a lower league with a ground that costs a lot to run and nowhere near the supporters to fill it.

Right enough SAFC moved grounds when not established, but then we managed to get our ground incredibly cheap- it only cost £23m so it wasnt anything like as crippling as even the likes of St Mary's, which was another 10m or so more expensive

Admittedly I'm not in the know regarding Sunderland, so thanks for clearing that up. Basically my point is, it definitely helps investors see the club is ambitious, which attracts business; the gate receipts are also a bonus (if like you said, you can fill it up every game).

[Almunia is a clown]

West Spam are not that far behind Chavski & Middlesex **** in terms of their supporter base.

Remember the night Arsenal won the CWC in Copenhagen, there was 8000 odd at Stamford Bridge 2 weeks before the FA cup final that they had reached

No wonder Captain Birds Eye Bates opted out of playing the Chavs Cl games at Wembey as the comparision with Arsenal's support would have been embarrassing!!!

Chavksi & WHU were not that much different in support terms until the last decade when they spent massively & raked up a 100 Million debt & were then bailed by the dodgy Russian!!!!

WHU in a 60K ground would be nto much more than 5000 behind the **** & Chavs in average gates IMO

With cheap seats & deals they could get a decent average gate over the season!

[Almunia is a clown]

Lets face it we don't get 60k for most matches, we just pretend we do.

The tickets are still sold out to muppets who don't turn up though!

Arsenal ould easily fill another 10 or more thousand seats for most games especially if the prices were more fair to the clubs traditional supporters.

But our club just cares about Tarquins & Tourists

[Chips and Chocolate]

They've started knocking down the North Stand, here's the live webcam: http://www.molineuxpride.co.uk/wt/live_cam

Away fans will be allocated a part of the South Bank next season

[MK Gould]

its probably my age and the fact that i didnt go to highbury for many years but i like the grove

Sure the atmosphere is shite for your routine league game but it was hardly rocking at highbury after it turned all-seater.

We've had some big nights at the grove now, if we can start winning some of them and bringing trophies in then it should start feeling like home in no time.

Tend to agree. My fond memories of Highbury definitely date back to when it was terraced. The "spacebowl" has to win hands down v Highbury as an all-seater.....

Taking the kids to Anfield the season before last was also a bit of a let down for me/them (except that it is the one and only time I've seen us win there !). It's not a patch on when the Kop swayed for YNWA....and as a ground it is pretty cr*p.

[Henry Norris 1913]

that ain't a bowl. the final design looks quality IMO as long as they don't fill in all the corners it'll look smart yet traditional . Quite like wolves, good luck to them.

[1886]

I've heard from a Wolves supporter that the final design may not be like the photo on the first page anymore. Apparently one of the stands behind the goal (south bank) will be left single tiered but will most likely be extended backwards.