Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by Stevohorn, Jul 13, 2019.
Totally agree with you
A new stadium is not a guarantee, there are no assurances of better things if this is built, but if it increases revenue, then it's worth doing. The number crunches will work that out and if it's viable, as it appears to be, then it will happen. They certainly wouldn't go to all that trouble in order to take the club backwards or to wind up some fans that are not onboard.
There are examples of clubs who have gone on to better things and clubs who have not after building a new stadium. What is clear, if you don't improve stadia then you don't have that opportunity to develop as a club. That door is closed. A new stadium opens that door of opportunity, but it's up to the club to walk through it.
Liverpool seem to have improved as a club recently. Didn't they develop their own ground which is also surrounded by houses or did I miss their new stadium build? You don't always need to move to develop, you need to have that ambition within the club.
£18m for Gray says to me something needs fixing before a new stadium.
I think Liverpool are part of the thinking Diamond. Massive expense for comparatively little stadium gain. I posted about it earlier on the thread:
I see what you mean but honestly, I'd rather have my football club playing at a stadium that didn't have people living in it.
There's also Burnley with their old ground.
Add in West ham with the new Olympic stadium. Tottenham have had their worst season in recent years.
That's not at all clear at all.
Wolves developed as a club. Bournemouth developed as a club. Sheffield United developed as a club.
We have developed as a club a lot over the last several years - or is that all in my imagination?
It's strange that some people are falling over themselves to point out clubs where things have not worked out after a stadium build or where they have improved without development. Like I said, a new stadium doesn't guarantee anything, and you can be successful without it, but if you want a chance to permanently improve the stature of a club, then this is a sure fire way of doing it. If it increases revenue streams, then it makes sense to do.
I firmly believe, and it's just my opinion, that the image of a club is closely linked to the stadium. How attractive a club appears to be and their appeal is closely linked to the stadium.
Be honest...….when you think of Bournemouth, which league do you associate them with? Now do the same with Sunderland. My immediate thought is fanbase and stadium to determine the size of a club and their rightful place in the football world.
It depends on your definition of development. Small incremental or leaping great strides. If we get relegated this season, then I would say our development as a club would have been modest. If we stay in the Premier League then I would say the development of the club is large, but not convincing. We don't look like a Premier League club. The same applies to clubs like Bournemouth and Burnley. All these clubs give me the impression they are visitors to the Premier League rather than established and deserving to be there on merit. This is nothing to do with the squads or how well the team performs. I'm talking about the image of those particular clubs off the field.
We've been here for a while were a comfortable mid table team and reached an FA cup final.
Whether we go down or not this season does not change the fact that the last few years have been leaps above the Bassini era
Sunderland's stadium looks like a Premier League stadium. Bournemouth's stadium looks league one. Yet Bournemouth are in the Premier League and Sunderland League One, which shows the big shiny stadium hasn't been of any benefit against a 10k capacity stadium. I'm sure Bournemouth couldn't care less that Sunderland might seem a 'bigger' club with a bigger stadium whilst they count out their £120m TV money every year.
In the modern day game everything is about TV and TV revenue and having a penis extension stadium isn't that important.
I disagree....a big one is always better...….
If you find a big one meets your needs more effectively, that's fine. We're all built differently.
If you were a player and both Sunderland and Bournemouth wanted to sign you - would you rather play for £3k a week in front 25,000 people in a 50,000 capacity stadium or play for £60k a week in front of 10,000 people in a tiny stadium?
We will never be a 'big' club because of our location, we're in small town next to one of the largest cities in the world. The club has taken huge strides forward in the last few years. I work at a 'big' club in marketing. Watford's marketing and set-up is far superior to the club I work at, despite having a much smaller fanbase.
As a player you would or should pick the Premier League side every time, however, it's unlikely both Bournemouth and Sunderland would be going for the same player considering there is two leagues between the clubs, so the question is a little unrealistic.
You have to look at this differently. If both Bournemouth and Sunderland were in the same league, which club would have the bigger pulling power then?
This is the point I'm making. You have to raise your profile as a club order to be more attractive. This filters out everywhere. You are more attractive to players, investors and even supporters. Image is so important. Who would players rather sign for, Sheff Utd or Everton? Sheff Utd are above Everton in the table, but Everton would trump you every time in a straight race.
You need every advantage possible in order to compete, and a new stadium is just one of those things.
Sunderland built a ~50,000 capacity stadium because that's what they needed. In its heyday, before it literally fell apart from age and what was left became seating Rocker Park held 50,000+.
Sunderland didn't realistically have an option to build a 10,000 capacity stadium. OK they could but it would have been ridiculous to limit their customer base to 20%.
Bournemouth have a 10,000 capacity stadium because that's what they need.
Whoever is prepared to pay the most and has best prospects on the pitch. That might be the club with the bigger stadium as they have larger crowd revenues. Or it might be the club with the smaller ground as they didn't spend and have to pay back £50m on a new stadium. Everton > SU as they are a richer club and pay better wages and better prospects. Not just because their stadium is bigger.
Anyone using Leicester as an example of a club that moved forward when the built a new stadium must have forgotten that since building that stadium they have gone into administration twice (I think) and been as low as League One.
It isn't the stadium that moved them forward, it was the mega rich owners.
A flash new stadium may make it easier to sign players, but only if you've got the money - and does a club like Watford have the money to fund a new stadium while also improving the team? Arsenal certainly couldn't do that, nor Sunderland. We've got two very big clubs close by - is there room for Watford to grow to the same size?
We know the Pozzos aren't the usual PL owner billionaires willing to throw hundreds of millions of pounds at success; our club has to wash it's own face. From the last financials it's barely doing that, so it's obvious to me the club needs to generate more cash.
A bigger stadium allows a club to do that. If the club can't generate more cash via a bigger stadium we might discover it does it in other ways - selling players, increasing season ticket prices etc. Or perhaps Pozzo's decide the club's ceiling was getting hammered at Wembley and start to think about developing elsewhere. I'd say be careful we understand if there are consequences of staying in VR.
There is no proof the club can evolve based on the Pozzo buy young sell high model. In 5 years we've had precisely one success - Richarlison. It's worth considering if there is a ceiling to the Pozzo model, and it doesn't really work once you're towards the top of the football pyramid because there are fewer and fewer potential customers.
If your view is f*** the Pozzos the club should stay at VR and I don't care what league we play in that's a fair opinion and i'll defend to the death your right to have it. But you can't then bleat about performances like yesterday or bouncing off the bottom of the league. Beer money doesn't get you champagne, and in PL terms our budget is a 6 pack of Stella.
Of course there is no guarantee that more cash equals more success on the pitch, but more cash does equal bigger scouting, recruitment, and coaching budgets.
Plus - and this is crucial - moving to a multi-million point brand spanking new stadium means I no longer have to look at the piece of cord dangling from the Rookery roof right in my eyeline.
I found this quite an interesting read:
It looks at the stats behind all the top-flight clubs in Europe which have moved stadiums since 2000 (pre-Spurs). Long story short, the first season in the new stadium almost every team has got fewer points at home than the season before. If that is the case, and we're currently just scraping through the seasons (hopefully) then perhaps the priority for now should be the playing squad until we jump up the league consistently.
One of the 'quirks' of the Rookery. When those giant party popper things went off the other season, I couldn't even see the VR End through all the streamers stuck in the netting for the next few months.
100%-in the current PL the mega rich owners have bankrolled Brighton and Wolves as well as Leicester to have new/expanded grounds. The ones without mega rich owners are us, Norwich, BMuff and Burnley. The others have by and large either a large stadium already and are expanding because they are either successful on the pitch or have the wealth of the owners that means they can take that chance-the 2x Merseyside clubs as an example.
I think only Palace had plans to increase capacity/improve Corporate spend/make the ground more appealing and that has been paused partly because the USA based guys who bought into the club and have a lot of wealth behind them want out-partly as they realised Palace cannot make into the top 6 where the real money is (says my mate who is a palace season ticket holder).
That leaves us as the only club thinking of moving and we might be in the championship for some of the next few years. If the Pozzo's can fund it by selling Vicarage rd and/or commercialising the new ground (hotel/conference/retail/naming rights) then great but taking on a lot more debt to do so would make me uneasy.
As others have said, we need to invest in the squad to help make us "established"-sadly the championship is littered with clubs who thought they were established but once relegated cannot get back up-Derby, Boro, Stoke-even Swansea. Yes none of these have the proximity to the London catchment area but taking on a lot of debt and then failing to stay in PL could leave us like Bolton, Sunderland, Ipswich-even QPR.
Fulham are expanding -£80m cost to get 30k capacity but funded by their owner-wealth $7bn.
Seems the hospital trust is about to have loadsamoney.
Maybe the taxpayer will be paying top dollar for the Vic?
It would make good sense. The club vacate the site and if they have any sense the Health Trust build a new hospital there with better access and part of the old site is regreened. The club moves to Bushey Hall. Maintaining a dilapidated and poorly designed hospital makes no sense in the long run. I have no idea why hospitals are not built on a modular basis anyway. It would make them far cheaper to build. Instead we get differing designs here, there and everywhere. Not to mention the internal design makes them hard to clean, slow down movement, manage patient traffic, cramped and hard for new data management/AI that could save large amounts of time to be integrated.
Hospital design in Britain is appalling.
Simple solution: Move the hospital to Bushey Hall, 100 times better links to transport facilities and it needs bulldozing anyway. We build the stadium we don't need on the hospital site.
Actually a very good shout. A state of the art hospital with a mixed housing development, just off the M1 for access to A+E. The Horns build a Pozzo dome, hotels and whatnot on the hospital site. The new stadium could be built on the hospital (albeit the new hospital would have to come first).
Some of us would live long enough to see it finished.
As an aside, a football ground, entirely reliant on cars, would be hellish for anyone living near Aldenham Road on match day.
Bushey residents would object.
Well I'm confused.
One quote was personal to me going to a moved football ground when 30,000 others are doing the same, one quote was for for the general public coming from Motorways and A roads into a new hospital when it's unlikey 30,000 are also going there.
Did you really need me to explain it in simple terms for you?
Yes please. Are the simple terms that one is 30,000 people half a mile from the motorway you just praised, as opposed to 21,000 people driving all the way through a town on residential roads not designed for traffic? You're rubbish at being patronising, but well done for trying.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
Really? I found spurs far far better than Arsenal and you are closer to the pitch.
I love Vicarage Road, I love my view and how close to the pitch I am and I will be really sad to leave if it happens. But, Perfect it is not. People can't get seats together so don't go. We have a season ticket waiting list of 3k (i think). We aren't very accomodating to away fans. We,ve really struggled and with a lot of disruption to meet our ambulant/wheelchair seat quota. There are many reasons to move and not to but i think for the club to compete it has to.
Right thing to do, wrong time to do it.