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.