PDA

View Full Version : New-Ground Syndrome


Scott.Cooper
02-02-2012, 12:51
I caught the end of an interview on Talk Sport earlier with a guy (didn't catch who he was or where he was from) but he was talking about the effects new grounds have on clubs.

The jist of his point was that clubs who move to a new stadium take at least ten years to settle with the majority of clubs moving backwards before they go forwards. He cited the likes of Derby (Relegated), Middlesbrough (Relegated), Stoke, Coventry, Reading and a load more (who I can't remember).

The reason for this is the cost of the new stadium and he says this has a direct result on the investment of the first team.

I know we're not moving to a new stadium but the cost of the re-build must be having a similar effect.

V Wolf
02-02-2012, 13:12
Pretty sure Bolton got relegated and spent their first season in the Reebok in the old first division. Sunderland too I think, although not as sure about them. Also, when Charlton got relegated they'd just been building and had further, big, plans for The Valley. To a lesser extent, Arsenal haven't exactly been flying since moving to The Emirates either.

Sandwell Wolf
02-02-2012, 13:14
How about Man City at the Etihad?

Sharples
02-02-2012, 13:20
Man Utd rebuild numerous times and do OK.

Ginger Chimp
02-02-2012, 13:23
How about Man City at the Etihad?
They didn't build it so impact on finances was minimal.

big-blue-wolf
02-02-2012, 13:24
One of the teams who buck the trend is Arsenal. They may not have actually won anything but finishing in the top 4 all the time since moving must be looked on as success compared to relegation.

big-blue-wolf
02-02-2012, 13:24
Man Utd rebuild numerous times and do OK.

The guy was talking about moving to a brand new stadium, not rebuilding an existing one.

big-blue-wolf
02-02-2012, 13:25
How about Man City at the Etihad?

Built for the Commonwealth Games. City rent it from the Council I believe.

V Wolf
02-02-2012, 13:27
I think Man Utd are the exception that proves the rule and Citeh can afford to make their own rules. As has been mentioned, they didn't build the COMS/Etihad and, even if they had, they wouldn't have had to trade off team-building against it like anyone else.

Scott.Cooper
02-02-2012, 13:35
I think Man Utd are the exception that proves the rule and Citeh can afford to make their own rules. As has been mentioned, they didn't build the COMS/Etihad and, even if they had, they wouldn't have had to trade off team-building against it like anyone else.

And to be fair, Utd are an exception as a club with regards to their finances.

London Wolves
02-02-2012, 13:40
Swansea?

FetishWolf
02-02-2012, 13:40
Darlington bring the obvious current example, Plymouth perhaps too

Scott.Cooper
02-02-2012, 13:50
Swansea?

They share with Ospreys so I'm unsure as to who owns the stadium. It's also 7 years old (which surprised me!)

Trotter
02-02-2012, 14:03
This is exactly why our development is a phased development.

Scott.Cooper
02-02-2012, 14:08
This is exactly why our development is a phased development.

..but has arguably already had a detremental effect on the first team?

Edgmond Wolf
02-02-2012, 14:23
I do not believe our development of the North Bank has had any affect on the team.

Scott.Cooper
02-02-2012, 14:26
I do not believe our development of the North Bank has had any affect on the team.

Out of curiosity, what do you think it is then?

Personally I don't think we've invested enough. I also dont believe either Mick, Jez or Morgan are stupid enough to believe the current squad is good enough to survive (nevermind kick on to 10th as they wished!) and therefore I think the development has used the resources and there wasn't enough left to invest on an improved squad this month.

Macman
02-02-2012, 14:45
MK Dons... moved from Hockey Stadium into StadiumMK and doing well. Admittedly it screwed Wimbledon up but you know what i mean.

Bostin
02-02-2012, 14:47
Brighton

Edgmond Wolf
02-02-2012, 14:52
Out of curiosity, what do you think it is then?

Personally I don't think we've invested enough. I also dont believe either Mick, Jez or Morgan are stupid enough to believe the current squad is good enough to survive (nevermind kick on to 10th as they wished!) and therefore I think the development has used the resources and there wasn't enough left to invest on an improved squad this month.


We under invested in the summer, bringing in just Johnson to the team that barely survived last season was fool hardy in the extreme.

We also failed to bring in sufficient in this window. We have three strikers in the squad, Fletcher who is the business, Doyle who is way out of sorts and cant buy a goal and SEB who the Premier League is a step too far.

Having said all that I do not know why Morgan has not invested more to ensure we survive?? But equally I do not buy into the building of the new North Bank has diverted funds as they had planned to redevelop the Steve Bull........so funds are there but they have not been released

Bertiewolf
02-02-2012, 14:54
It was Paul Fletcher - ex Burnley forward and CEO. He has been involved in many of these stadium redevelopments.

Also top after dinner speaker in tandem with our own Steve the tank Kindon!