Main Stand redevelopment thread

Hrolf The Ganger said:
Wow. OK.

West Ham moved to a converted athletic stadium. It is far from ideal, but it cost them peanuts and they get plenty of income from the extra capacity. We would have a purpose built stadium in this imaginary future.

A larger stadium would be a first step in growing the club. In fact, it is the only way to build the club since there is a restriction on what you can spend. We will never be Liverpool or Man U, but we could be in the next level. Players are attracted to image and big crowds. We could also pay bigger wages which is crucial and we are in London which has always been attractive.

Staying at Selhurst risks standing still or going backwards, but that is what is happening like it or not.
Improving the ground is essential if we are to stay in the Premier League. It will keep us ahead of the Championship.
Click to expand...

I need no convincing of the benefits of a bigger and better stadium. Principally, they make a higher level of expenditure sustainable. On that basis, personally I'd be content to sell a player or two to fund the new main stand if needs be. I'd also love to see further expansion and redevelopment at Selhurst, and have posted in detail about what is involved in that.

My concerns are about the (hypothetical) prospects of leaving selhurst for a new stadium. Whilst that would bring the benefits you list, of course, it would also come at a cost. There is the cost of building it (Spurs and Arsenal fell behind in the spending race after building new grounds, the latter for a very long time).

More importantly in my view, there is also the cost emotionally of leaving home. It might not matter to some, but I place a value on walking my son to the same ground, down the same streets my father walked me down 40 years earlier. That value seems only to increase over time.

For me, it's not a question of whether a new stadium would bring benefits, it's whether those benefits would outweigh the costs. If the increase in revenue made us regular participants in the Europa League, for instance, then perhaps the benefits would outweigh the costs. I don't think that is what would happen, though.

That's why West Ham are such a pertinent warning. Their grumpiness is not just down to inappropriate stadium design (although it is awful). It's also because a lot of them felt very emotional about Upton Park, but didn't object or protest against moving because they were told it would take the club to the mythical 'next level'. It hasn't, and won't, because the economics don't stack up that way.

Even with 60,000 punters through the door every other week they still can't compete with the big boys. They still lose their best players to bigger clubs. Moyes got them in the top ten and won this daft conference thing, but not by outspending the rest. The good things they've done could have been done at Upton Park, and overall they seem no better off for the move. They are grumpy all the time because they've sacrificed their emotional roots for very little reward. Even arsenal fans will sometimes say something similar about their purpose built cash cow of a stadium.

So for me it's a big yes to redeveloping Selhurst, and a no thank you to ever leaving.

Not that it's even on the cards at all!
 
TheBigToePunt said:
I need no convincing of the benefits of a bigger and better stadium. Principally, they make a higher level of expenditure sustainable. On that basis, personally I'd be content to sell a player or two to fund the new main stand if needs be. I'd also love to see further expansion and redevelopment at Selhurst, and have posted in detail about what is involved in that.

My concerns are about the (hypothetical) prospects of leaving selhurst for a new stadium. Whilst that would bring the benefits you list, of course, it would also come at a cost. There is the cost of building it (Spurs and Arsenal fell behind in the spending race after building new grounds, the latter for a very long time).

More importantly in my view, there is also the cost emotionally of leaving home. It might not matter to some, but I place a value on walking my son to the same ground, down the same streets my father walked me down 40 years earlier. That value seems only to increase over time.

For me, it's not a question of whether a new stadium would bring benefits, it's whether those benefits would outweigh the costs. If the increase in revenue made us regular participants in the Europa League, for instance, then perhaps the benefits would outweigh the costs. I don't think that is what would happen, though.

That's why West Ham are such a pertinent warning. Their grumpiness is not just down to inappropriate stadium design (although it is awful). It's also because a lot of them felt very emotional about Upton Park, but didn't object or protest against moving because they were told it would take the club to the mythical 'next level'. It hasn't, and won't, because the economics don't stack up that way.

Even with 60,000 punters through the door every other week they still can't compete with the big boys. They still lose their best players to bigger clubs. Moyes got them in the top ten and won this daft conference thing, but not by outspending the rest. The good things they've done could have been done at Upton Park, and overall they seem no better off for the move. They are grumpy all the time because they've sacrificed their emotional roots for very little reward. Even arsenal fans will sometimes say something similar about their purpose built cash cow of a stadium.

So for me it's a big yes to redeveloping Selhurst, and a no thank you to ever leaving.

Not that it's even on the cards at all!
Click to expand...
OK, nothing is certain in life.
What you seem to be saying is that on balance, you would rather stay in a tatty old stadium rather than get a nice new one. Well I understand sentimental part and I accept that big new stadiums are not the holy grail alone and will have a big financial burden. However, if we always applied a negative attitude to progress, we would still be using flint axes and hunting our food.

If you don't progress in football, you go backwards, because every other ambitious team will be looking to increase capacity and generate more income. Our relatively modest plans will pull us up to the middling teams in the Premier League. Currently, we are down the bottom in terms of capacity and income.

West Ham were virtually handed a new stadium, as were Man City. The former have squandered their good luck and have a fan base that is never happy. I don't think they are the pin up for new stadiums. Neither are Spurs. They are serial failures with inflated expectations that always defeat them. Everton could go the same way.

Palace has a different vibe. We don't expect much. In terms of Stadium development, it's just as well, because at this rate, I don't see Selhurst Park being a fully modern stadium in the next 50 years. By then, it will be time to start rebuilding it again.
 
Last edited:
Hrolf The Ganger said:
OK, nothing is certain in life.
What you seem to be saying is that on balance, you would rather stay in a tatty old stadium rather than get a nice new one. Well I understand sentimental part and I accept that big new stadiums are not the holy grail alone and will have a big financial burden. However, if we always applied a negative attitude to progress, we would still be using flint axes and hunting our food.

If you don't progress in football, you go backwards, because every other ambitious team will be looking to increase capacity and generate more income. Our relatively modest plans will pull us up to the middling teams in the Premier League. Currently, we are down the bottom in terms of capacity and income.

West Ham were virtually handed a new stadium, as were Man City. The former have squandered their good luck and have a fan base that is never happy. I don't think they are the pin up for new stadiums. Neither are Spurs. They are serial failures with inflated expectations that always defeat them. Everton could go the same way.

Palace has a different vibe. We don't expect much. In terms of Stadium development, it's just as well, because at this rate, I don't see Selhurst Park being a fully modern stadium in the next 50 years. By then, it will be time to start rebuilding it again.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct that standing still is going backwards in football, but by extension that means that moving forward can be standing still.

That's my assessment of the argument for a hypothetical new stadium: It wouldn't be progress (on the pitch), just part of maintaining the status quo. That leads to a different overall cost/benefit sum than if stadium capacity directly equalled team quality. Do I want to leave selhurst to see a far better palace team? Possibly. Do I want to leave to watch much the same standard of team finish in the same midtable positions? Not really.

It seems possible to me to maintain our status without a top ground through EPL TV money. That puts us in a different orbit to most clubs in this country and abroad, and allows us a far stronger place in the food chain than other clubs that have bigger stadiums but aren't on the gravy train. Despite what seem like eye watering costs we tend to break even, albeit with player trading and youth development required. A bigger stadium would help of course, but it's not like we cannot survive otherwise.

Equally, it's not like clubs with bigger and better stadiums don't struggle. It didn't save Sunderland or Leeds from going down to the second and third tiers, and didn't seem to ensure their swift return either. Middlesbrough, Southampton, Derby, and however many others will tell you that new stadiums aren't a bulwark against regression down the leagues.

When I was a kid the maths seemed really simple, the more people who come to watch, the more money you get to spend on players, the stronger your team, the more people come to watch, and so on. I don't think it works that way now, gate receipts are part of the revenue stream but not decisive.

Put it this way, if the club announced plans for a new stadium tomorrow, I'd be easily as concerned I was excited. I certainly wouldn't expect a new stadium to take palace to a different level on the pitch, as there is simply no precedent for that happening.
 
TheBigToePunt said:
I think you are correct that standing still is going backwards in football, but by extension that means that moving forward can be standing still.

That's my assessment of the argument for a hypothetical new stadium: It wouldn't be progress (on the pitch), just part of maintaining the status quo. That leads to a different overall cost/benefit sum than if stadium capacity directly equalled team quality. Do I want to leave selhurst to see a far better palace team? Possibly. Do I want to leave to watch much the same standard of team finish in the same midtable positions? Not really.

It seems possible to me to maintain our status without a top ground through EPL TV money. That puts us in a different orbit to most clubs in this country and abroad, and allows us a far stronger place in the food chain than other clubs that have bigger stadiums but aren't on the gravy train. Despite what seem like eye watering costs we tend to break even, albeit with player trading and youth development required. A bigger stadium would help of course, but it's not like we cannot survive otherwise.

Equally, it's not like clubs with bigger and better stadiums don't struggle. It didn't save Sunderland or Leeds from going down to the second and third tiers, and didn't seem to ensure their swift return either. Middlesbrough, Southampton, Derby, and however many others will tell you that new stadiums aren't a bulwark against regression down the leagues.

When I was a kid the maths seemed really simple, the more people who come to watch, the more money you get to spend on players, the stronger your team, the more people come to watch, and so on. I don't think it works that way now, gate receipts are part of the revenue stream but not decisive.

Put it this way, if the club announced plans for a new stadium tomorrow, I'd be easily as concerned I was excited. I certainly wouldn't expect a new stadium to take palace to a different level on the pitch, as there is simply no precedent for that happening.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say, but I don't see it as a reason not to jump at a new stadium. Progress cannot be negative unless it is mismanaged so badly that you end up bankrupt.

Unfortunately, the choice is not currently available.
 
mtp1958 said:
Ok but we're are the pubs , seriously were are the pubs around there don't know the area around there
Click to expand...
The nearest to Penge West Station is the Bridge House Tavern which is very close by. I go there occasionally. Penge used to be famous in the area for its “real ale” pubs but only a few survive. The Pawleyn Arms, The Crooked Billet, Goldsmiths, Southey Brewing Tap Room and W/Spoons are all nearer the centre of Penge.

Unfortunately Mayor Khan has decided to waste more of our council tax on the athletics track by changing it into a white elephant to go alongside his new dinosaur park. Our chances of a nice new stadium are dying a quick death.
 
Norbury Old Git said:
The nearest to Penge West Station is the Bridge House Tavern which is very close by. I go there occasionally. Penge used to be famous in the area for its “real ale” pubs but only a few survive. The Pawleyn Arms, The Crooked Billet, Goldsmiths, Southey Brewing Tap Room and W/Spoons are all nearer the centre of Penge.

Unfortunately Mayor Khan has decided to waste more of our council tax on the athletics track by changing it into a white elephant to go alongside his new dinosaur park. Our chances of a nice new stadium are dying a quick death.
Click to expand...
Is real ale at the tavern , yes I can't understand how that guy got in he is just a empire builder , and yes for us to get a stadium there won't happen , unless it turns into another Olympic stadium , so no atmosphere 😢
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top