Quote:
|
The City Ground has been home since 1898. But, with the advent of the modern era and the forthcoming Financial Fair Play regulations, do Nottingham Forest need a new stadium? Or should they stay put? Talk of a new stadium quelled after England’s 2020 World Cup bid failed and the late Nigel Doughty said Forest would remain at the City Ground — with a plan for a new Main Stand if promotion ever reared its head. But with new owners the question has again been posed. There’s been no official comment from the Al Hasawis, beyond looking at potentially refurbishing the City Ground, but it has to be a consideration if promotion is seriously being targeted and revenues are to increase. Given the commitment to bring Nottingham Forest back to their long-lost status, an up-to-date stadium must surely be at the forefront of the new owners’ minds. And the clear financial benefits are essential in modern football, particularly given the introduction of Financial Fair Play (FFP). Obviously the majority of fans have an attachment to the City Ground: its location is among the best in the country; the stadium is a little dilapidated but a refresh, such as the one at Loftus Road, would do wonders; and, more to the point, it’s home. There are clearly issues with modernising, hence the design of the Bridgford End. And while the proposed new Main Stand was shelved in favour of a new stadium for the World Cup, FIFA’s needs required a larger capacity and facilities that a refurbished City Ground could not offer. So a new Main Stand would increase capacity from 29,700 to approximately 37,000 and a little TLC would see the rest of the ground fit for the 21st century – but would it only be a short-term fix? What kind of capacity do Forest need? Assuming Premier League crowds, anything around 35,000 should suffice — 40,000 at a push — so the City Ground could facilitate our needs. As it is we lose over 1,000 seats because of the away supporters configuration — a situation preferred for policing. But would redeveloping the Main Stand generate sufficient revenues from increased capacity and ticket sales? The share of TV revenues counts for more than match day at most clubs but there’s a reason Chelsea and Spurs are seeking to emulate Man Utd and Arsenal’s match receipts. Forest’s annual gate receipts are around £7 million — comparable to both Reading and West Brom while in the Championship but significantly lower than Leeds’ £12 million, albeit inflated by Ken Bates’ high prices, and Southampton’s £10.1 million during their 2010 League One season (Source: The Swiss Ramble). Clubs often increase attendance after moving to a new ground — we easily average over 20,000 in the Championship and you’d expect that to increase significantly if Premier League football ever returns. Once FFP sanctions come into play in the Championship, as well as the Premier League, generating new revenue streams will be increasingly important. Corporate and hospitality facilities — as well as conferences, concerts, etc. — mean several other similar-sized clubs (Derby in particular) create income more than double our current potential. Selling naming rights for either the City Ground or a new stadium would bring welcome revenues – and the City Ground will always remain the City Ground no matter what it’s officially called. But could the City Ground be entirely redeveloped? Are the logistics actually feasible? And what would the cost be? Quite possibly more than a new stadium. |
Interesting, would be a good place no doubt! With Premier League football and a new stadium I don't think 40,000 is unreasonable.
