Main Stand redevelopment thread

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Historical success before the oil money.
Man City Div 1 winners twice, FA cup 4 times, League cup twice, Euro Cup winners cup twice
Chelsea Div 1 winners once, FA cup twice, League cup twice, Euro Cup winners cup twice
Aston Villa European Cup once, Div 1 winners 7 times, FA cup 7 times, League cup 5 times.

All far more success than us and considered big clubs.

And we can't have oil money?

What makes Chelsea, City or Villa a bigger club? They have bigger stadiums. They have won more trophies. They have a bigger fan base. They have owners who put money into the club.

We could achieve all of those things.

I cannot understand negativity. If you don't strive to grow, you will surely go backwards.

 

[mogrem]

Were Man City a big club a few years ago? Were they part of the cartel? What about Chelsea?
How About Aston Villa? They are in the Champions League. Bournemouth finished 6th. Newly promoted Sunderland finished 7th. They are in the second tier European competition. Something we have never achieved through the league.

This club can progress for sure, but obviously, it can't match the historical success or income of the elite clubs. That is not the objective.

Just wanna say that AV has pretty much doube our budged. Fines or not fines. Our club is econimics around 12th so. But I get the idea since AV failed SCR and was fined. But they won EL and qualified for CL which even there leauge position would have done.

But we can not spend like that, they didn't fail PL at least what I know, only the SCR (70%) wich we ourslevers wouldnt have passed 3 years ago since we were back then over 80%

 

[Painter]

And we can't have oil money?

What makes Chelsea, City or Villa a bigger club? They have bigger stadiums. They have won more trophies. They have a bigger fan base. They have owners who put money into the club.

We could achieve all of those things.

I cannot understand negativity. If you don't strive to grow, you will surely go backwards.

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

 

[Badger11]

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

Corporate boxes are a big part of the new stand and will generate a lot of revenue.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

A new stadium would change a lot. Income and image. That means attracting and buying better players.

Being negative will achieve nothing.

 

[Norbury Old Git]

We may not have a history of success but history starts now! We have an academy rated one of the best in the UK based in an area on the edge of a huge population and with little immediate competition unlike Liverpool, Manchester, North London etc. A couple of years ago the U21s put 7 goals past PSG! Why have the young players not been pushed quicker to the first team? All around the UK and Europe we see U17 and U19 internationals coming on for the big teams, albeit mainly as subs, to see if they sink or swim. Vieira and Glasner dabbled a bit but not enough. It was the whole idea of the Academy and what the kids and their parents expected. Our conservative approach is holding talent back and in the long run losing us money, £13 million on Jake O’Brien for starters.
We can’t afford the big priced players but we can develop them if we run the Academy properly.

 

[dreamwaverider]

For all the while our shareholders are talking of selling, I can't see any finance for a new stand until club ownership is settled. Woody Johnson could take out Harris and Blitzer and then hold roughly 85-90%, with SP holding 10%.
He would probably only have to pay $150m for their shares.
The Jets are valued at $5 billion and he paid $600m. So we are relatively small fry for him. It will depend on why he bought Textor out.
Time will tell.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

I agree. It's not a question of ambition, just one of understanding the regulations.

Even if the new stand made Palace attractive to wealthy investors (and setting aside for one moment the fact that our American owners are actually unbelievably rich), it makes no difference. You can have the richest owners in the world and it doesn't matter if they can't spend it on the team. Hence Newcastle having to sell their best players.

There will of course be economic benefits from the new stand, but (firstly) they will be eaten into for some time by the repayments on the loan we took out to build it, and (secondly) will not be even remotely enough to get Palace to compete with the bigger boys, much less the biggest. Our revenue will still be miles behind theirs.

The only potential short circuit is if a rich owner decides to pay for the new stand or stadium out of his own pocket. That saves the club having to make repayments on a loan and means the greater revenue will go into the team sooner. There is no suggestion that is happening at Palace. Even if it were to happen, we are talking about having about £125m extra to spend, but spread out over however many years the repayments are due for. So what's that, £10m extra a year? Not earth shattering. (That's the cost of the loan, by the way, not the revenue from the stand).

It's all worth doing, as it potentially puts even more ground between us and those beneath us in the food chain, but it won't catch us up to many above us.

 

[Spindle]

Not really. Most new grounds/stands are built with steel frames so I was a bit surprised when I heard the plans were to use concrete. The downside of steel is that in 50-100 years it will have to be rebuilt but who cares. In Qatar a number of new steel stadiums were built in 2/3 years for the World Cup. It’s a shame we could not buy up a disassembled one, knock down Selhurst Park and reassemble the Qatari one on the site.

You could. This one was supposed to be "sustainable" just because it was built using stacked shipping crates. Was it f***.

 

[est1905]

And we can't have oil money?

What makes Chelsea, City or Villa a bigger club? They have bigger stadiums. They have won more trophies. They have a bigger fan base. They have owners who put money into the club.

We could achieve all of those things.

I cannot understand negativity. If you don't strive to grow, you will surely go backwards.

I agree with this completely. The one difference between Palace and all other top clubs in London is at some point in their history (some currently) they have had a massive injection of funds to kick them on. All Palace's owners have ever done (with the exception of Arthur Waite who never really had any serious money)is to take what they can out of the club. Despite over a century of under investment (and Al Fayed's) huge outlay, I'd opine we are still bigger that Fulham, of comparable size to West Ham, have a similar sized catchment area to Chelsea. Some will disagree, I get that, its only my opinion but just imagine where Palace could get to if we just for a few years had the money to spend us right up to the maximum allowed consistently while getting this main stand built and then moving on to designs for a new Arthur.
Dont get me wrong, I appreciate Parish and all he has done for the club but his finances are limited while the billionaire shareholders just dont want to spend it.

 

[est1905]

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

The revenue a new Main Stand would generate is huge. The corporate side of the business would instantly treble over night.
Parish has said this many times. You only have to look at what Arsenal and Spuds make from corporate hospitality on a typical matchday

 

[est1905]

For all the while our shareholders are talking of selling, I can't see any finance for a new stand until club ownership is settled. Woody Johnson could take out Harris and Blitzer and then hold roughly 85-90%, with SP holding 10%.
He would probably only have to pay $150m for their shares.
The Jets are valued at $5 billion and he paid $600m. So we are relatively small fry for him. It will depend on why he bought Textor out.
Time will tell.

I heard Textor is a family friend of the Johnsons and he took the shares off his hands as a favour with the intention of selling them on in a year or two.
So either that plan sticks and he is also looking to sell or he has changed his mind and sees an opportunity to gain 85% control of a Premiership football club on the cheap.

 

[HKOwen]

Corporate boxes are a big part of the new stand and will generate a lot of revenue.

Crystal Palace does not publicly disclose the specific revenue generated by individual corporate boxes. However, based on the club's hospitality pricing, a 10-person Executive Box generates between £58,500 and upwards of £75,000+ per season, resulting in an estimated £15.6 million total annual matchday revenue across all stadium premium and general admission offerings. [1, 2]

From AI search

So, suppose we have twenty new boxes and by the time they are ready the season cost is 70K, then total annual gross revenue might be 1,5 million per match, if they are all booked every game. There would be various expenses, staff, F and B, maintenance etc etc.

The annual gross revenue might be 25-30 million if a lot of things fall in to place.

The new stand is likely to cost 200-250 million. It will provide extra regular seats as well, the payback period might be 7-8 years

 

[rikz]

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

It has nothing to do with preventing anyone from competing with the big clubs. FFP is to ensure all clubs are self sufficient as a buisness and stops them living off of a billionaire who gets bored personally funding them, leaving the club in financial ruins.

The big clubs are big because of their fanbase and money they generate for themselves, even before the rich owners, Chelsea and city have always been far bigger than us. We were struggling to get 14k in the second tier while city were selling out in the third tier.

If you're a billionaire and you want to buy a club to compete at the top, you're looking at Everton, leeds, sunderland, West ham, who already have big enough fan bases. You could pump as much money as you want into Carlisle, they'll never be big as they dont have the catchment area to attract enough fans.

That's where we are different, we do have a massive catchment area, at one time the biggest in the country tho i believe that was before Sutton, Bromley and Crawley all became league teams, i think we're currently about 3rd behind Newcastle and Swansea.

The only way we're going to become bigger than we already are is from increasing our stadium and giving local youngsters access to watching us. When i was young any number of me and my mates could turn up at Selhurst, buy a ticket and all be sat together, that's completely impossible now.

 

[HKOwen]

It has nothing to do with preventing anyone from competing with the big clubs. FFP is to ensure all clubs are self sufficient as a buisness and stops them living off of a billionaire who gets bored personally funding them, leaving the club in financial ruins.

The big clubs are big because of their fanbase and money they generate for themselves, even before the rich owners, Chelsea and city have always been far bigger than us. We were struggling to get 14k in the second tier while city were selling out in the third tier.

If you're a billionaire and you want to buy a club to compete at the top, you're looking at Everton, leeds, sunderland, West ham, who already have big enough fan bases. You could pump as much money as you want into Carlisle, they'll never be big as they dont have the catchment area to attract enough fans.

That's where we are different, we do have a massive catchment area, at one time the biggest in the country tho i believe that was before Sutton, Bromley and Crawley all became league teams, i think we're currently about 3rd behind Newcastle and Swansea.

The only way we're going to become bigger than we already are is from increasing our stadium and giving local youngsters access to watching us. When i was young any number of me and my mates could turn up at Selhurst, buy a ticket and all be sat together, that's completely impossible now.

Why would giving local youngsters a cheaper way to watch the games have any impact on becoming a bigger club. We are not going to suddenly get hordes of talented youngsters trying to get in to the Palace system which I would imagine is already considerably over subscribed . We wpould be already on the list of clubs to try and get into . If you want to give cheap access to local kids fine, but don't justify it by implying it would improve the team.

Of the current squad, the graduates of the academy are

• Tyrick Mitchell - Defender
• Kaden Rodney - Midfielder
• Joe Whitworth - Goalkeeper

Only Tyrick is a regular starter, if we become bigger and by inference wealthier , and can afford to buy more prospects, the opportunites for local youngsters will become fewer.

How do you define "local "?

Might as well give away a couple of hundred tickets every home game to local school students. But, when the club sees that would cost them perhaps 250K a year it would be a non starter

 

[chris123]

We have money, ranked 25th richest club in the world, but we cant spend it on the team. This due to historical big clubs, implementing FFP rules to stop other clubs infringing on their monopoly.
Its not negativity, its reality, a new stand isnt going to change that much, except ticket prices.

Having tv money definitely helps, not sure 25th in revenue equates with being the same in terms of riches

 

[Painter]

It has nothing to do with preventing anyone from competing with the big clubs. FFP is to ensure all clubs are self sufficient as a buisness and stops them living off of a billionaire who gets bored personally funding them, leaving the club in financial ruins.

The big clubs are big because of their fanbase and money they generate for themselves, even before the rich owners, Chelsea and city have always been far bigger than us. We were struggling to get 14k in the second tier while city were selling out in the third tier.

If you're a billionaire and you want to buy a club to compete at the top, you're looking at Everton, leeds, sunderland, West ham, who already have big enough fan bases. You could pump as much money as you want into Carlisle, they'll never be big as they dont have the catchment area to attract enough fans.

That's where we are different, we do have a massive catchment area, at one time the biggest in the country tho i believe that was before Sutton, Bromley and Crawley all became league teams, i think we're currently about 3rd behind Newcastle and Swansea.

The only way we're going to become bigger than we already are is from increasing our stadium and giving local youngsters access to watching us. When i was young any number of me and my mates could turn up at Selhurst, buy a ticket and all be sat together, that's completely impossible now.

Newcastle have a huge fan base, 52,000 capacity stadium and the richest owners in football, but cant break into the top 6 due to FFP and PSR. The only teams these regulations protect is the top 6 and their
revenue.
Increasing Selhurst to 35,000 isnt going to change much.

 

[mtp1958]

What a new stand will do is open up for other corporate events plus increase in concerts as a venue , this is why spuds invested more in there stadium than the team ,

And of course bigger investment in the club , we are a long long way from getting anywhere near being a top six club Due to FFP , Chelsea and City have forced FA to close the door also other governing body's as well , which still keeps the them and us sadly ,

If we can become a top ten team with a good income we can still win big comps , regardless of the bigger clubs spending power , thats football ,

 

[rikz]

Why would giving local youngsters a cheaper way to watch the games have any impact on becoming a bigger club. We are not going to suddenly get hordes of talented youngsters trying to get in to the Palace system which I would imagine is already considerably over subscribed . We wpould be already on the list of clubs to try and get into . If you want to give cheap access to local kids fine, but don't justify it by implying it would improve the team.

Of the current squad, the graduates of the academy are

• Tyrick Mitchell - Defender
• Kaden Rodney - Midfielder
• Joe Whitworth - Goalkeeper

Only Tyrick is a regular starter, if we become bigger and by inference wealthier , and can afford to buy more prospects, the opportunites for local youngsters will become fewer.

How do you define "local "?

Might as well give away a couple of hundred tickets every home game to local school students. But, when the club sees that would cost them perhaps 250K a year it would be a non starter

Is this a serious question ? You don't understand how having a bigger fan base would make us become a bigger club ? If you can't work that out, then there's no point debating it.

There's a reason tottenham are referred to as one of the big 6 and it has nothing to do with what they've achieved on the pitch.

 

[HKOwen]

What a new stand will do is open up for other corporate events plus increase in concerts as a venue , this is why spuds invested more in there stadium than the team ,

And of course bigger investment in the club , we are a long long way from getting anywhere near being a top six club Due to FFP , Chelsea and City have forced FA to close the door also other governing body's as well , which still keeps the them and us sadly ,

If we can become a top ten team with a good income we can still win big comps , regardless of the bigger clubs spending power , thats football ,

Why would 8000 extra seats change the likelihood of corporate events and concerts?

SE25 will not be a magnet for corporate away days.

What concerts has Selhurst hosted in the past ten years?

Selhurst Park, home to Crystal Palace F.C., is not currently used for large-scale summer music concerts. Due to its compact, residential location, the stadium is rarely permitted to host major music events, and no large concerts are currently scheduled or hosted there. [1, 2]
The stadium's most notable history with live music took place in the 1980s. The most famous of these open-air performances include: [1]

• Status Quo (July 1984): Played their massive "Farewell London" concert at Selhurst Park to a crowd of 25,000, supported by acts like Chas & Dave and Dave Edmunds.
• Peter Gabriel (July 1983): Performed a major open-air gig at the ground.
• Thompson Twins & The Undertones (July 1983): Shared the stage at the ground for a notable electro-pop and indie concert.

It's a nice idea but not going to happen