I have an Ipswich supporting friend who has grown pretty tired of hearing my tales of Wembley and has suggested it’s time for me “to move on”. To be fair to him, I have recounted every single detail of that day… several times.
He’s heard all about the seventeen passes that led to Redmond’s goal and Tettey’s celebratory jig after the final whistle. I’ve even tried to recreate the moment in the 88th minute when the yellow half of Wembley belted out that chorus of On The Ball City. I like to think I did it justice.
But putting aside the irony of an Ipswich fan telling me to stop referring to past glories, it probably is time to look to the future and in doing so, to consider two significant numbers: 40,000 and 120 million.
Two numbers which to my mind prompt a familiar point of debate – namely whether to increase the capacity at Carrow Road?
40,000 City fans at Wembley suggests there is the demand. £120million of guaranteed income suggests that the finances are available if needed.
3 years ago the club commissioned a study from the UEA looking at the feasibility of stadium expansion. The details were not made public but three key messages emerged:
– An increase of 7,000 above the current capacity was seen as ‘viable’
– Expansion to that level would cost between £20-30million
– There is a desire to expand, but only when or if the club establishes itself in the top flight.
Referring to the report, David McNally wrote “This independent research project is really important as it deals with facts, such as population growth, and real numbers, such as socio-economic data, and not instinct or intuition”.
Without access to the findings of the report, instinct and intuition is all I have – although those who know me would probably suggest that I’m not blessed in either department.
But for what it’s worth, intuitively I don’t believe there will be a time when it’s appropriate to expand much above our 27,000. My instinct tells me that despite socio-economic data (whatever that is) and the fact that we sold our allocation at Wembley, our current capacity is and will remain just about right for us.
Before I explain my reasoning, I’ll admit that it doesn’t contain any of Mr McNally’s ‘real numbers’ and the only fact is that the figures I’ve used are easier to pull apart than Millwall’s defence of last season.
However let’s imagine that we take the stadium up to 34,000 at a cost of £25million. I’m no architect so feel free to mentally knock down which ever stand or hotel you choose in order to accommodate it (apart from my beloved Barclay).
If we assume that each of those 7,000 additional seats generates an average income each season of £500 from ticket sales then that’s an additional £3.5million a year. Throw in the revenue from assorted merchandise, Delia’s half-time pies and an over-priced bottle of Carling here and there and let’s call it a nice round £5million.
(I did warn you that the numbers were flaky).
Broadly speaking it pays back in five years (notwithstanding any income lost during construction) and at face value it represents a sound and ‘viable’ investment – at least provided we sell-out each and every week.
Much has been made of our consistently high attendance regardless of league position or division and rightly so. We have an incredibly loyal fan base but I’d suggest it’s also down to a high percentage of season ticket holders (roughly 80 per cent) and overall demand just exceeding our current capacity.
I may grumble at the occasional price increase and I often moan about the quality of football but I’ve never seriously contemplated cancelling my season ticket. If I did, there’s a waiting list of people ready to take my place. Increase the capacity and that waiting list disappears and therein lies my concern.
To continue to sell-out we’d need a further 5,000 or so casual supporters through the turnstiles at each game. Assume those supporters are able or prepared to attend one in every three matches, then you actually need a pool of around 15,000 people.
No problem for a showpiece event at Wembley, but what about a match against Stoke or Leicester on a cold Monday evening in December when it’s on Sky anyway? What about if we slip back to the Championship?
As soon as capacity exceeds demand I’d suggest it’s potentially a very slippery slope. Fans no longer need the security or guarantee of a season ticket. They can pick and choose depending on the fixtures, the performances and quite simply whether they fancy it on the day.
This originally occurred to me during the away match at Middlesbrough last November while standing in a half-empty and soulless Riverside Stadium but there are numerous examples of clubs who expanded their capacity to what turned out to be an unsustainable level. Clubs where I’ve found myself gleefully chanting “your ground’s too big for you” to a bank of empty plastic seats.
I don’t know if I’ll ever get to hear 40,000 City fans singing On The Ball City again. However I do know that 25,000 home supporters in full voice at Carrow Road will do me just fine.
I couldn’t agree more. I think we need to be very cautious about increasing capacity without being confident that we can still fill it for most games. One of the joys of following City is that we do sell out most weeks and don’t have the rows of empty seats that seem to suck the atmosphere from a lot of grounds.
Very interesting article, I had not viewed it as the importance of having ever so slightly more demand than seats. However my personal intuition is we could make another 4000-5000 seats and probably fill it even in the championship. I suspect an extra 7000 may be pushing it.
Most important of all is certainly results on the pitch. After a few more years in the premier league the whole thing may look quite different. Trick is getting a few more years in the premier league- easier said than done.
Can’t wait for 8th August, OTBC
A good article, Steve, and an interesting debate. I don’t live in Norwich, which rules out a season ticket (and all the related costs), but like many others I’m sure, would love to be able to watch a few more games a season than I can. But I agree with your point that the question is whether there are 15,000 people like me, who collectively would fill another 5,000 seats a game, every game, and even if we were back in the Championship.
Since you can’t test the answer in advance, then the UEA modelling is the only more thorough ‘evidence’ one can go on. I do think I’d go a bit higher than you though, I feel that 30,000 people a week is feasible, especially as we often don’t offer that many seats to away fans either. But I agree, the fact that the stadium is full, helps to sustain the capacity, make it less likely that ticket holders will not attend matches.
However, there is unmet demand, that much is clear, and at some point, the club is going to need to gamble on it, even if it will take another 2-3 seasons before they do – and this will require of course, then taking on all the problems of a reduced capacity whilst the Geoffrey Watling stand, in particular, as I understand it, is enlarged. Plenty of reason to wait, but not an argument for foregoing enlargement completely.
I enjoyed the discussion which shows how finely balanced the decision is whether to expand now orwait a little longer.
I have always been in favour of expansion. The decision to rebuild a miniature stand after the fire in the mid eighties was one of the worst decisions made at that time especially as gate receipts were a major part of a club’s income at that time.
I am mindful of the fact that Ipswich have struggled to fill their expanded capacity and by creating too many extra seats the club might lose the excitement generated by a weekly rush for members’ tickets and a full stadium.
Nonetheless the club must seek to move forward. To plan to stay the same risks the inevitable annual relegation struggle and, when luck turns, eventual relegation. Lets be positive and plan to go for it in a year’s time.
I stand to be corrected but I always understood that the City Stand was designed in such a way that a second tier could be built over it with supporting rear brickwork on the old Carrow Rd, which I think the Club owns, and the road passing under it so no expensive voids underneath.
Nice piece Steve and has provoked a lively response on here and elsewhere. Here are a few of the Twitter comments…
“Where would the expansion be? The city stand is too small for purpose but can’t be expanded apparently.”
” I’d prefer spending that money on inventing a time machine to go back to 2000 when we got a 14,000 crowd and Zema Abbey…” 🙂
“City Stand would need rebuilding but relocating the dressing rooms and directors box etc. not easy.”
“I’d prefer to increase capacity by turning lower Barclay into a standing area & lowering ticket prices #dreamer”
“… and I would’ve thought a much cheaper way too!”
“… wasn’t the lower Barclay built for seats after Hillsborough? I’d imagine it’s too steep for standing”
“I assume people who write these articles have season tickets already? Tried for years never managed to get one.”
” broadly agree. Only expansion to consider avoiding reduced capacity. Additional tier Jarrold? Next Generation fans?”
“‘if’ we become established in PL then you’d think City stand would be redeveloped eventually. It’s pretty tired now.”
” I reckon expanding to 30,000 would be about right for us. Completely agree, don’t want to have any empty seats.”
“think they said could replace city stand but reduce capacity for a season not a viable idea”
” or fill in the hotel corner. Would make stadium look so much better…”
” In ye olde South Stand, if/when the roof leaked, you had pick of half the seats to move to. Glory days! GLORY DAYS!”
Interesting piece but you are looking at a very short pay-back period rather than the longer term. Even if we get another 7k seats we only need to fill half for it to be the correct commercial decision just over a slightly longer period of time and remember once it’s up it is there and will provide a source of income for decades. Any new stand will also no doubt have high end corporate entertainment and catering facilities which will provide another non-core source of income for the club.
My other point would be what else does the club do with the money? Do we blow it all on transfer fees and bloated player wages which have zero long term return? Do we retain a sovereign wealth fund and start buying up land or other companies? We already have a tier 1 academy so that box has been ticked and anyone visiting the city recently can’t help but note just how many massive housing developments there are currently and once the Northern distributor road has been completed yet more to come. The city is growing rapidly and so our club should keep pace whilst it can. Surely the best and least risky time to invest in capital assets is when you have a cash surplus – its not like we’ll be going back to the dark days when stand redevelopment nearly bust us.
Of course another option would be to repay the faith of the fans who have followed the club through the lean times by dropping the price of season ticket renewals and giving us a free pie and a pint at half time but I don’t see that one happening anytime soon…..
Great piece – no easy answers. Like Steve as long as they don’t touch the Barclay (except Crush City aka the UB bar) I’m happy. However another five thousand or so would be brilliant if logistically possible. Curses on that p*xy hotel!
I think adding 7 or 8k(34/35k overall) would be too much but adding 3 or 4k (30/31k overall) would probably be about right given the cost of building a new stand or upgrading an old one.
I often wonder if the often quoted “build another tier on the City Stand” is nothing more than a myth?
Certainly, if ever a provision was actually made back in the 1980’s, I suspect that it would almost certainly been on the basis of a build “on top of” (keeping the same footplate) rather than behind the existing stand.
Personally, I’m not sure how great, or effective, that would be?
Also, didn’t Alan Bowkett suggest that it would be easier, and quicker, to completely knock down the City Stand and start again, rather than add an additional tier behind?
Yes, Norfolkbhoy’s argument about the growth of Norwich’s population suggests it certainly would be viable to redevelop the City Stand in a year or so…
Firstly I can confirm the Geoffrey Watling Stand was designed for a second tier to be added just like the Norwich and Peterborough and Barclay stand upper tears. But David Mcnally has commented that construction costs would be much lower if the present Geoffrey Watling Stand was removed and a near replica of The Jarrold Stand was built. But this would mean losing the capacity of the Geoffrey Watling stand (about 4500 seats) for ¾ of a season. Where would you put these people, the premier league would not allow a period of no away fans.
As you say additional revenue from the additional seats would be about £3.5 million per season if we sell out every game. I also think season ticket sales would drop. If everyone knew you could just about get a ticket whenever you wanted many may well pick and choose games. The club may well have to reduce the price of season tickets to make them more attractive thus reducing revenue.
To compare two income streams. From seat sales, present revenue probably around £12million. From next season TV revenue £120 million plus. Obviously the most important revenue stream to try to protect is that from TV. So if 20-30 million is available it would make more sense to strengthen the squad further than build a new stand to try to protect this revenue stream. Even if the club were to get relegated there would be a stronger squad to go for promotion.
A point to always remember is that the Jarrold stand wasn’t built to increase capacity, if I remember correctly I think maintenance of the old South Stand was in excess of £1million per season and that was why the stand was replaced.
This is just as I see it from a financial point of view. I agree it is a shame the Geoffrey Watling stand wasn’t built with two tiers when originally constructed. This is the only part of the ground that looks a little bit less than how a premier league ground should look.
In my opinion we should knock the city stand down and build a new 12,000 seat stand with say 15 boxes at £30,000 each . every year we wait the price goes up by half a million .We could fill 30 thousand each week so you must have 10 thousand over that for big games . over the next 20 years Norfolk is going to grow so fast we need to build carrow road in to a 40,000 football ground .
Gary G this discussion was aired here by you (and me and others) as recently as Feb 2013. Search on “stadium expansion” and see similar comments, ideas and misgivings.
I’m aware of several people, including me, who for various reasons have given up their season tickets. At the end of last season (13-14) the club was very coy about the numbers. I met one bloke who only applied at the end of the season and got one virtually straight away – whereas not so long ago in the Lambert era Mr McN was boasting about a waiting list of around 2000 as I recall. This end of season the tone of the marketing has suggested to me that the queue is still not very long at all,
despite the Wembley euphoria.
If expansion went ahead, then capacity would have to be reduced at least for a while. Perhaps the bigger more attractive matches could be played at say Portman Road !!!
Adrian (14) – Thanks for researching! Knew I had penned one along similar lines, albeit neither as eloquent or reasoned as Steve’s, but didn’t think to link it.
For what it’s worth, it’s here… https://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2013/02/20/with-a-lucrative-third-premier-league-season-tantalisingly-close-the-city-board-have-one-massive-headache-on-the-horizon/
Hi, for a casual City fan like myself, I would love to be able to attend the occasional game or more but unless you’re a season ticket holder the chances of doing that are very slim. In the 70′ s when I went to every game, it was always packed out with 25-30 thousand fans.Now that it’s all seating and on TV and social media I don’t think that we could fill Carrow Rd with 35,000 fans every match. Can’t we compromise and stick another 2,000 seats on top of the Geoffrey Watlington stand?
Not sure about the UEA study but this American firm of architects seem to have dreamt something up on behalf of their client, ‘Silver Lodge Casino’ with very similar figures – anyone know what that’s about?!
http://www.meisstudio.com/carrow-road/
..should have been ‘Silverton Lodge Casino’ – we’ve already got the hotel in one corner – not a casino in another surely?
It’s good to get a debate going when there’s little by way of news coming out of the club.
From discussions on Twitter, a popular view seems to be to increase by 3,000. Preserves the delicate balance between demand and capacity. The issue as I see it is where do you put those seats? There’s no infill or corner left and so we’d be forced to upgrade or replace an existing stand – presumably the City. If you’re going to those lengths and losing capacity for a prolonged period, the temptation would surely be to go beyond 3,000… otherwise is it worth it?
Frank’s point on revenue is key. Whilst additional income from tickets is welcome, it’s dwarfed by the top flight riches from sponsorship and TV. It’s why Wigan could sustain Premier League football for so long despite their attendance figures.
Perhaps safe standing is the answer? There’s certainly an appetite and it might allow the incremental growth we need? Not sure on the chances of it being accepted and widely introduced or the timescales. I thought there was a section at West Ham near the away end when we played them a couple of years ago but can see no reference to it.
Loving your work Gary… you didn’t resort to tenuous figures! I see we both made reference to Stoke. They obviously haven’t become a crowd-puller in the last two years!!
Steve(19) – ah, safe standing is another nugget of discussion from previous articles which generated plenty of heat but not much light e.g.
https://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2014/03/24/harrowing-stories-to-be-told-at-the-fresh-hillsborough-inquest-could-derail-city-fans%E2%80%99-safe-standing-campaign/
..it needs a change in the law – not much chance. No one in the football league is allowed a standing area.
That link I sent(17) is worth a look as it has an image of a 2-tier GW stand with fancy-pants Wembley-style arch.
One thing which hasn’t been mentioned is that an increased capacity could attract other art forms to the venue during the summer months. Are there bands who won’t play in front of less than 30,000? I have no idea but I am sure Delia and Co do.
I think 2 or 3 thousand seats somewhere would be enough.should have seats between Barclay and jarrold instead of the hotel!surely extra rows of seats could be installed somewhere?