It’s an age-old conundrum and one that, for different reasons, gets reignited from time to time. This time I blame BBC Radio Norfolk’s Richard Hancock, who tweeted this last week.
#ncfc fans: Would you be up for moving to a brand-new stadium out of Norwich?
I'm thinking 30kish, steep single-tiers in the style of Aachen, Wolfsburg, Leverkusen or Dresden.
A few years ago I'd have said "over my dead body" but I'm really warming to the idea. pic.twitter.com/D7FpRt9RiW
— Richard Hancöck 🔰🇩🇪🇬🇧🔰 (@CanaryWorf) June 14, 2019
If nothing else, I admired Rich’s chutzpah, as I once wrote a piece on that very subject for this site and still have the bruises and scars to show for it. There was an overwhelming – and I mean overwhelming – sense of it being totally nonsensical to even think about moving from Carrow Road.
And I get it. For all its quirks, our stadium remains a thing of beauty. It has soul. It echoes to the sound of days gone by. When On the Ball City rings out, it feels like more than 26,000 voices are singing it.
In addition to the emotional attachment, there are also the more practical realities of having a city centre stadium, which has Norwich’s glorious skyline as its backdrop.
First up, there’s the accessibility issue, which means the ground is a short walk from the railway station, pubs, restaurants and bars that collectively make the place so wonderful. The alternative would not only mean these same hostelries miss out on match-day trade, but would totally transform, for the worse, the match-day experience of the faithful.
Similarly, there’s also the fact an out-of-city stadium would deny visitors the chance to sample the delights of our fine city, along with the subsequent financial impact on the city centre economy.
The reasons against are numerous – as I was reminded – but Rich’s point was made against the backdrop of City now re-joining the Premier League for the fifth time in this decade.
Because that’s the point. As a Championship club, a stadium that holds 27,244 fans just about works. Just. Okay, it creaks at the seams a bit when Leeds come to town – what stadium wouldn’t when 30,000 straight-talking Yorkshire folk descend en masse – and also when we play our friends down the A140, but bonafide sell-outs are fairly rare.
This, of course, changes when the Championship becomes the Premier League.
All of a sudden, the stadium becomes, in terms of numbers at least, unfit for purpose. Well, not strictly true – when the likes of Bournemouth, Burnley and, say, Brighton arrive we’ll likely hover around the ‘97% of capacity’ mark – but there will be several games next season when, if we still had them, the ‘sold out’ signs would be out.
For a club that’s currently upwardly mobile, we have a stadium that isn’t quite big enough. A 32,000 would probably do the job, 35,000 would be ideal and even better if among those 35,000 were some safe standing spaces.
So, how do we do it? How do we engineer ourselves a ground that can accommodate 32-35,000 while satisfying the clear and obvious desire not to relocate to an identikit stadium that would invariably be built adjacent to, or form the part of, a shiny new industrial estate?
Tis a valid question, especially when the UEA report commissioned by David McNally in the early part of this decade suggested that the cost-per-seat of expanding the existing Geoffrey Watling stand would be over £,2800 … the pay-back period of which would be at least four seasons, even before you think about funding the £20-£30 million upfront cost in the first place.
But given the forward-thinking, that clearly now goes on in the corridors of power – new membership schemes aside – it’s a given that these types of discussions will have taken place, even if, for now, there is no obvious solution.
An interesting compromise suggested by Rich was the prospect – as ludicrous as it sounds – of going down the purpose-built, brand new stadium option but still within walking distance of the city centre; the suggestion being the old, soon to be vacated, Colman’s site be purchased and remodelled into the new home of Norwich City.
OK, we're in fantasy-land here, how about a completely new stadium, but remaining "in Norwich" (strictly speaking it's Trowse), on a soon-to-be-vacant site?….. I give you Carrow Abbey: pic.twitter.com/iikts9OOe8
— Richard Hancöck 🔰🇩🇪🇬🇧🔰 (@CanaryWorf) June 14, 2019
‘Fantasy Land’ is how he described it, but it’s an enticing thought that would retain some of the pros of staying at Carrow Road while at the same time offering the opportunity to have a cool, beautifully designed, purpose-built, not identikit stadium, that would enable the club to get another 7000 bums on seats. One that wouldn’t have a carbuncle of a hotel perched in one corner where there should be supporters.
But, when reality strikes, the cost of buying said city centre land would be rather more costly than purchasing land out-of-town; one of the very reasons why shopping centres industrial units and football stadiums pop up in these places.
Is a nice thought though.
As things stand, only four Premier League teams have stadiums with a lower capacity than City, yet in terms of crowd potential we could, I’d suggest, more than compete with those middling Premier League clubs. So there is a big imponderable to be pondered.
But minus a ground with a greater capacity, this club’s medium and long-term future will be hindered by this glass ceiling that, in part, takes the form of a Holiday Inn.
As this whole piece has been framed around Rich’s original tweet, it’s only right that ‘Norfolk’s’ finest is permitted the final say. So…
‘I totally agree that moving to an identikit bowl on a retail park would risk tearing the heart out of the club, not to mention the infrastructure headaches and harm to businesses in the city that would come with a move out of town.
‘I do however think that Carrow Road, requires significant development to realise the club’s potential, and throwing a new tier on a 35-year-old stand just won’t cut it for me. A complete rebuild is out of the question, I mean where do you ground-share during construction?
‘That’s why, when we establish ourselves as a Premier League club, I’d be happy to move to a new ground if it were in a location within walking distance of the City and with an interesting, innovative stadium designed to create an atmosphere.
‘There’s bags of potential for this just across the river at the old Colman’s Carrow Works site, which is soon to be vacant I believe and brimming with local history.
‘We moved from The Nest and grew as a club, I don’t think there’s a reason we couldn’t do it again.
‘Fancy a Saturday afternoon at The Mustard Bowl?’
So… who’s up for it? As ever, we welcome your thoughts.
I would be more than up for that move over the river, call it Carrow Park. It was known as Carrow Works. The stands names could be kept, but one should be named after Colmans ,who in fact allowed the club to build on Carrow Road in the first place.
There is the current location to be considered, surely the land that house the Road, would be worth a fair old bit too, especially for the housing development to be continued. . New road layout to allow easier access onto the ring road. More parking could be added, a proper coach area for the many who come in by that means. A park and ride scheme could also be introduced.
Traffic congestion would be reduced in the already restricted area it is now. More permanent kiosks for food and drink, sponsorship with. .supermarket chain for a smaller quick snack store. Probably even room for cinema or other leisure pursuits could be added. Stadium could be built with other events in mind, like concerts etc. The whole site could in use 7 days a week generating income, but the club and football must be centre
O I just woke up
4
Too hasty just yet, although i understand the need for forward planning with big changes like this. Who knows what irons are in the fire? If we are able to settle in the Prem…after 3 years say?…perhaps a pre-existing plan will then be implemented. Carrow Road still has useful potential development. Lose the hotel, build that second tier…about 32,000 there…but will moving to a new site be better value in the long term? Might just be…as long as eyes are not taken off the ball, and the action upon the green stuff does not suffer. Without that change is folly…
1
Good comment … yes, the whole thing has to be a way of, in the mid to long-term, improving things on the pitch. Given our tendency to yo-yo, any changes must not and – I’m sure will not – be to the detriment of the playing side.
1
Firstly, I agree with the concept entirely, whether that be an extension of Carrow Road or a fresh build at an alternative City centre site.
I also absolutely agree that this idea / project is about long term planning for a healthier, more competitive future.
But part of implementing such a plan that is that eventually you have to act in the here and now, or risk looking back and being embarrassed by a dithering inability to make a decision (Heathrow 3rd runway anyone??)
Look at the foresight this management team displayed with the plans for the training ground. If a decision is left until we’ve had ‘3 seasons in the Prem’ then yet again we risk there being another ‘valid’ excuse / reason not to do it at that time….
Progress is not without risk & inconvenience….ignore the noise & implement the long term plan…..In Webbers words, “invest in the root, not the fruit”
1
Martin, indecision costs money – just ask Levy at Spurs. All the time he was faffing about with moving the club to Stratford, delayed the approval of the new stadium and the price of construction went up.
If the same exercise was done now to extend the City Stand, £20 to £30m will now be £40 to £50m for one stand x by 4 = £200m, cost to by Colman’s £100m, maybe so total £300m for an up-to-date stadium with a 45k capacity – no brainer.
2
Hi Gary
A very interesting read.
City like many clubs in the past never had a plan for up dating their stadiums.
If you look at a lots of grounds even Old Trafford they are a patch work of different designs, then you look at the newer grounds Huddersfield, Bolton, Arsenal and now Spurs all purpose built with the possibility of extending the capacity if required.
I can remember when the city stand was a smouldering wreck at at the time questions were asked why a single teir was being built when a double tier was also in the plans.
It would be a great shame to relocate to an out of city location and I agree with you on how it will have side effects to the local businesses.
If the old Colman’s site is available the club would be lacking in ideas if they weren’t interested or at least enquired about the possibility of purchasing it.
On the money side surely and I might be proven wrong but using the present site would any bank loan city the money to buy the Colman site for future development, if city are slow of the mark maybe Barretts or some other housing company will move in first.
Possibly selling Carrow Rd to a developer and getting other possible users interested in parts of the site would help pay for the new Stadium.
Spurs purchased the land and built a Sainsburys, a Hotel is being completed, and high rise apartments being sold off plan all these will help them pay for the new Stadium, city needs to look into something similar to build a 21st century ground and possibly name it after both the older ones ie The Carrow Rd Nest
Onwards and upwards
OTBC
1
The reason the old wooden City Stand was replaced with a single tier is that the only way to have put a two tier stand in would have meant building over Carrow Road, which at the time was part of the inner ring road. It could have been done as a cantilever stand, but the city council didn’t like the idea of effectively making part of the inner ring Road a tunnel. Since then of course, the ring road has been moved over, and Carrow Road is just a service road, so building out over it may now be possible, subject to the current foundations being adequate.
However, if that were to be done, you’d have to consider how you accommodate the season ticket holders from there while the building work was done. It would mean lower capacity for at least a couple of seasons. Look at how Spurs new build over-ran it’s schedule. Please don’t suggest a ground share with the paupers down the A140 while it’s done!
For an out of town site, how about the new Nest? Loads of room there.
2
I agree, building over Carrow Road part the no longer takes traffic.
I seem to recall many years ago driving in Madrid during under a cantilevered stand, feel sure it must have be Alethico Madrid’s stadium.
The would be big enough. Would alway have a full stadium .
0
Out of town stadium, a tale from the Costa del Colne, Colchester had a right little stadium on layer road , and many a legend was made there. A game against Leeds in the fa cup springs to mind , and the ground was packed to bursting. Fast forward to Colchester’s promotion to the championship and the need for a bigger ground. Layer Road sold for housing and a purpose built 10,000 seater ice box built near the A12. No local pubs, nowhere to get a meal, and as its not supported the shuttle bus on match day from the town centre has been dropped. Car parkings a bit iffy as the nearby park and ride isn’t used for football parking officially. If all the Colcestrians who signed the petition for the new ground went it would be full rather than having 35% capacity.. New ground no , but pull down the main stand and put in a two tier to start.
1
Personally I think it would be a great idea especially in the style of Schalke 04 Stadium (Veltins Arena) BUT I would want to ensure we stayed in the Premiership for a few seasons – maybe as DF’s contract comes to an end we could use the new stadium idea as a contract renewal bargaining chip
1
What a good read.
I’m seemingly the first Luddite to put my head above the parapet but I must be honest and say that after 50 years I couldn’t imagine watching us anywhere else other than the Carra.
Just because it suits me? No, but from my angle it sure does suit me.
I can walk or get a lift from Mrs P (or occasionally a bus if I’m desperate) to Tombland, have a couple of fags on my journey, speak to a few folks I know en route, obtain “refreshments” at Morrisons and from thereon in have my usual chat with a couple of stewards I know well and enter the ground.
And we all know what that experience has been like lately. Unbeatable I’d say.
Then I can walk back or get a cab from the Courtesy lads on Prince of Wales if it’s teeming it down or I’m mentally and physically knackered. Stoke at home last season comes to mind as an illustration.
Plus to me, football and a few beers stroll down the road hand in hand.
I do not want to drive as it would reduce the experience for me.
This is a very subjective and selfish view I would agree but it’s my take on it.
However Rich’s concept of the Colmans Carrow Works site sounds feasible and should it ever come to fruition I would understand why.
The hotel was indeed the big mistake.
Anyway a great article and equally good comments.
4
I think the point about safe-standing raises an interesting conundrum.
Safe standing advocates suggest 1.8 standing fans for 1 seated fan. Should safe standing therefore become legal, Carrow Road could increase to around 35,000 capacity through the conversion of 9000 seats to safe standing areas, I’m not sure what the capacity of the lower Barclay and N&P is combined, but I’m not sure we’d be all that far away.
The club could at this point commit to an expensive, multi-year construction of a new stadium, or a logistically tricky rebuild of the Geoffrey Watling – but then find that a change in legislation within the next few years removes the need to move, or makes the design of the new stand/stadium sub-optimal.
2
Interesting information DH canary, I was always led to believe that there would be no increase in the capacity with the introduction of safe standing.
That’s the main reason I’ve always been dead against it, I simply couldn’t see the point of introducing such a costly change in the stadium unless there was a material improvement, I.e. An increase in capacity. Also, if the safe standing populates the same space as normal seating how would it be priced?
I would change my opinion totally with regard to safe standing if it increased the ground capacity,
1
Although of course you could fit in more people standing than sitting, my understanding is that it’s not so simple, especially in terms of safety. The whole structure of the stand – especially the entrances & exits ways – is geared to a particular number of fans, if you increased the number, you’d have to change those exits (“vomitories”).
That’s one of the reasons current plans for “safe standing” areas assume no increase in capacity. It may be an option one day, but it’s not easy and/or cheap.
1
Vomitories? 😖
0
I believe Caesar and his pals often used the vomitoria in ancient Rome in order to throw up what they’d consumed and thus begin gorging again.
Julius was probably a Roma supporter – in the gladiatorial sense, not the football one. After all you could hardly hit a thunderba$tard while wearing glorified sandals.
Mind you, Maximus could hardly fight Lucius whilst sporting a pair of pink Nikes. Maybe they wore IX or XIV on the back of their armoured jerkins in an early version of Holty and Wes.
History does not record this in detail.
1
I’m afraid that’s what they’re called! Could be a political comment too, of course….
1
Would the eventual sale of the existing ground really yield mega-money? Is Norwich such a dynamic economy as to make the real estate value attractive enough, if a move to Carrow Park is envisaged?
The up front costs for a brand new stadium would dwarf an expansion of the City stand or a rebuild of the Barclay into a gigantic tiered Thorpe Wall. There’s space behind either of those.
If Glasgow Rangers could enlarge their listed Leitch main stand by building over it, then surely such an approach offers a template for doing likewise with the City stand. And it could be done in stages in say two summers, not necessarily all in one go, thereby allowing the existing seats to remain occupied.
Simon Inglis wrote a superb book about football stadia, must have been 15 to 20 years or so ago, where he described the challenge and techniques involved in upgrading Ibrox. Worth a read..
Of course it all depends on becoming firmly established in the Prremier League. A couple of seasons will give a clue to that, but that will be just at the point where Messrs Webber and Farke would be at their most valuable to other people with deeper pockets, and when they might relish new challenges and the accompanying lure of financial security.. What succeeds under them might not be achieved under a successor regime . . . . .
But let’s enjoy the ride while we can
1
Waiting the so called couple is season and costs will go up they never go down and the sooner a decision is made and the work is done the sooner it will be paying for itself
0
Waiting the so called couple is season and costs will go up they never go down and the sooner a decision is made and the work is done the sooner it will be paying for itself.
Onwards and upwards
OTBC
0
I agree Alex. I wasn’t advocating delay in getting started, only suggesting scheduling the build so as to keep the present City stand available between the summer build phases, recognising that it wouldn’t all get completed in one summer, even with PL permission to begin the next season with a (undesirable) raft of away games before any home matches.
0
As the city stand woukd impact the local residents it could possibly be built within a 4 to 5 month period wirking 24/7 like spurs had, yes there were delays but thst was due mainly to all the bew systems getting linked up.
Being so close to the river all the large sections could possibly arrive pre assembled and craned into position like on many construction sites.
If the club decided to follow Losepool and build over the stand that is already there then possibly close the Rd for a few weeks to underpin the foundations, that is assuming Carters never put deeper foundations into support work later on.
We have to remember that at the time the city stand was constructed the club was owner by Robert Chase who had his own construction company so just might have planned for future development
0
Dunno, not sure the numbers add up. Back of a fab packet numbers, but an extra 7000 seats x £35 X 20 home games = c. £5m per year. That’s a drop in the ocean next to the TV money.
0
Good mid cricket season read thanks Gary.
Let’s say 5k more fans per game paying say £35 for a seat and all spending a tenner at the ground each game, then you are looking at an additional £4.5m extra income per season.
0
This is a great debate, and one which a number of clubs have faced over the years. I can definitely see both sides of the story.
May to August is a very short window to complete any meaningful building work, so I fear that what could be achieved over a summer is very limited (I think we put a couple of extra rows in the South stand a few summers back). And unlike Spurs or Chelsea, we don’t have a convenient 90,000-capacity stadium down the road to borrow for a season or two. A significant rebuild of Carrow Road would probably involve operating at a significantly reduced capacity for some time, maybe around a season (Spurs fans can testify that these things take time), probably reducing the temporary capacity below the normal quota of season ticket holders plus away fans. That would not be popular in the short term, especially with any who had to give up a season ticket seat (perhaps the club would restrict season ticket holders to a limited number of matches rather than excluding people completely?).
The city centre location of CR is a huge advantage, but of course being restricted to 27,000 or so means that a lot of existing and potential fans become disgruntled at the difficulty of obtaining casual tickets. As we’ve seen with the recent furore over membership, any method of rationing in-demand tickets with very limited supply is likely to be unpopular. If a new stadium were built, I’d like to see it combine modernity with respect to our history, different stands having a clear identity, and accessibility by foot and public transport is important. In terms of when and whether to do a rebuild and how large the new capacity should be, I think any business plan has to accept that we may spend some seasons in the second tier over any given period. There are perhaps 7 truly established Premier League clubs for whom relegation seems an unrealistic prospect in the short-to-medium term; any of the other 13 are only one bad season from going down. There’s always the risk that one day we end up with excess capacity at the bottom end of the Championship or even in the third tier and it’s not hard to identify clubs to whom that’s happened.
3
food for thought, Gary. I had a smile when I read your description of the hotel as a “carbuncle” 😂 Just the other day in reply to another article I described it as “a monstrous carbuncle”. We can now justly claim that we share our florid descriptive style with that of HRH The Prince of Wales no less.
That aside the hotel really is a curse, one which it seems we cannot dispose of or erect a stand, however temporary in front of, I recall McNally trying to do just that only to be vetoed by the hotel management. Does anybody know if there is actually any benefit to the club from having it wedged in where the south stand corner used to be?
I was once told by an employee of the club that the Main Stand was built with substantial footings in order to take the weight of a top level should the club decide to enlarge the stand. I believe the work would be less disruptive than commonly thought and could be conducted quite swiftly. That might be an option.
I saw a,suggestion recently that the club could use the Italian funding company that operated the Colney upgrading. I understand they are looking to fund bigger projects in sport and given the take up and success of the last scheme many more may be encouraged to participate.
Some very interesting facts and figures above, food for thought.
1
Ha! Although not a conscious decision to plagiarise your description of the hotel, I do wonder if it subconsciously registered 🙂
1
👹 hardly plagiarised Gary. I borrowed the phrase from Prince Charles!
0
Ha! … of course, bless him
0
This is a subject that has exercised my mind over the past season. The Colmans site is a factor but my thinking was that this could be an opportunity to build the missing link in the Ring Road. King Street to Morrisons is the only part of the road network where the Inner and Outer Ring Road are the same. Many years ago it was suggested that a new road be built from Bracondale to Riverside, this thankfully did not happen but a new bridge from Martineau Lane to Thorpe with cycle facilities and additional housing could happen and I feel that would make it difficult to stay in Carrow Road. It would be interesting to know how many supporters live in Norwich, I remember it being said in the 70s that 75% of fans live outside the City. The majority of residents probably view the club as an inconvenience with the traffic that is required, Driving into Norwich and then parking is pain especially in the run up to Christmas. As is the case with many fans I do not have a direct train link to Norwich so public transport means bus which takes 45 minutes to travel from Carrow Hill to Martineau Lane after matches if you are lucky enough to find a space. I have cycled to matches but not a February midweek match. I feel the club and the city are not compatible and sadly think we will move out of town one day
0
I believe Stuart Webber said if we were to expand the city stand it would be done much the way Liverpool’s recent new stand was done, build behind the current stand to have the top tier first, move season ticket holders there while the lower tier is then built and offer season ticket holders the chance to move back down if they want or keep the upper tier seats
1
Surely now that the road behind the City Stand is only a service road, this is the obvious solution?? If a club of Liverpool’s size (sorry everyone but currently they’re rather bigger than we are) can do this then with the right permissions etc. it has to be the way forward…
O T B C
0
Surely the Colmans site is worth infinitely more as a housing project than a stadium. Colmans would maximise their profit, we’d never get close to out bidding anyone
0
I’d say you’re almost certainly spot on there, Tony – unfortunately.
0
If VAR is allowed to continue then a 5,000 seat stadium will do nicely. I’ve turned off watching the current games on TV because nothing is in real time any longer, VAR a huge threat to the live game.
0
I’d like to think that the club is looking very closely at this question now. One way or the other (new stadium, or expansion of CR), NCFC needs to find a way to get more young fans in seats otherwise we will miss out on drawing in the next generation of fans. No club will survive long-term without nurturing the growth of its fanbase. Expanding capacity is the only sure-fire way to achieve the necessary.
Me personally? I’d go for a new stadium. I would never cheer for the demise of Carrow Road, but it seems like the best long-term solution. CR is a small 27k – by which I mean, it holds more people than it looks like it should. Most of the seats are cramped, and I say that as someone who is only 5’8. We can build bigger and more attractive facilities on a new site. And this is without considering the commercial aspects which I am sure could enable NCFC to draw more income from a new site than they could at the existing. The Colman works proposal seems ideal in terms of location.
Two final thoughts:
1. After the success of the academy bond. Could consideration be given to opening another investment to at least part-fund aspects of work?
2. If a new stadium is built and it is called anything other than the New Nest, then it would be a travesty.
0