Poll: Players or Stadium?

[bongleblade]

The new Forest ground renovations are costing £100m, and tbh look great... the new stand will be 10.5k capacity taking the entire capacity from 30,000 to 36,000 with brand new facilities etc

If it were a choice of buying players for a season, or renovations to Bramall Lane with no transfer activity for a year (increasing BDTBL to 38k with new facilities), what would you choose?

This is how much Forest's new City Ground redevelopment will cost

For the very first time in over 25 years, the City Ground is set to see some major redevelopment

www.nottinghampost.com

 

[yorkshirecoast]

I think anything other than a combination of a few new players and some ground improvements would be daft. We need both but I’d rather spread the ground improvements over a couple of seasons so we can continue to strengthen the team too.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

I think anything other than a combination of a few new players and some ground improvements would be daft. We need both but I’d rather spread the ground improvements over a couple of seasons so we can continue to strengthen the team too.

Agreed, it’s not an either/or. Forest’s plans are far more extensive by the looks of it than what we’d realistically be looking to do with the Kop and possibly South Stand. Any plans of course will depend on the successful acquisition of all the property assets.

If as has been suggested transfer fees may take a hit as football eventually returns to normal, that would make it even more feasible to look at the stadium redevelopment, or redeveloping the training ground.

 

[Harry's Game]

If we had the money now would be the ideal time to redevelop the Kop as we are probably looking at 12-18 months were the reduced capacity won’t be an issue.

Unfortunately we don’t have the money and we have the upcoming litigation from Sir Kev to deal with so the conversation is mute

 

[S64 Blade]

I don't think it is necessarily as one or the other, question. We should of course always prioritise players and staff, however this priority will never subside. The ground does need redevelopment and expansion, however given the current climate, it'd be prudent to wait it out a while yet.

Oh and Forest have been out of the top flight for longer than the pigs, with similar levels of deludamol.

 

[TJB.]

Forest averaged less than 20,000 as recently as 2016, and just over 20k the season after. In their last full season (18/19) they averaged just over 28k. Where are these extra few thousand fans going to come from to fill those seats if they don't achieve promotion?

I love the enormous difference in those figures, by the way. Fair-weather wankers

Seems daft to me. It may well be case of "If you build it, they will come", but that comes with the caveat of actually going up.

As for us, I dunno. I'm as sick as anyone of the Kop pillars but I've put up with it for this long. In fact, it's all I've known. More investment on the pitch means (hopefully) more consistent high finishes in the Premier League which will keep the telly money flowing. Maybe then we can start thinking about ground improvements.

 

[Whiston Blade]

Upgraded facilities don't keep you in the PL obviously but upgrading the stadium is needed.

 

[Foody]

Upgraded facilities don't keep you in the PL obviously but upgrading the stadium is needed.

True but the flip side is, if you make signings and still go down we're in no better position than we were. If you invest the the stadium and infrastructure you set the club up for the future.

But clearly we need both

 

[Varkanoid]

Arent they still wrangling over ownership of parts of the ground, ie back of the Kop with McCabe PLC so any development cant be done yet ?

 

[SwissBlade]

I’ve gone with Players. It’s a much more complicated issue than just players or stadium though.

For Sheffield United we have a very adequate ground for our needs over the last 10-20 years. Fleeting appearances in the top flight mean that we’ve not needed extra capacity. Until now, but we don’t have it right now... so do we risk dropping the attendance whilst work is done or wait until we’ve been here a couple of years

Yes there are also nice to have/ cosmetic upgrades to the Kop which would enhance the kop for supporters. But to my knowledge there aren’t parts of the ground which have been condemned and have to be upgraded, so it’s more than fit for purpose

Our fine ground is one of the best grounds around for atmosphere, volume and overall look and feel. It’s not a plastic new ground so in some ways I almost don’t want to change a thing. It’s beautiful as it is, if a little small

If however, we had another season of building the squad and have the players available to replace the older players that could be outgoing in 1-2 years, then it’s worth looking at the ground

If the south stand could be developed to add another tier and have minimal disruption by developing from the back first like Liverpool did, then I could see that happening first. Doing this would give fans in the kop a place to go for the duration needed to either completely knockdown and replace the existing Stand or develop the existing to modern standards. This would appeal

However, the forest thing seems a little bizarre for a club unable to launch sustained promotion bids and not having spent much time in the top flight in the last 20-30 years or even recently.

Developing existing Football grounds is always going to come with disruption and buying players to freshen squads up is always going to be priority for most clubs. New grounds or developments seem to be lower priority, despite adding value to the assets

 

[Badger Blade]

The ground needs doing but it's an aesthetic, look at Arsenal and how wrong it's gone for them since leaving Highbury.

Get it right on the pitch and you'll be able to afford to sort the rest out later. If you bought a derelict house, you wouldn't paint the walls before you've rewired the electrics.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Strange but true fact regards Forest.

How many times do you think Forest have averaged over 25,000 in the last 23 years?
Answer: ONCE...that was last year.

Also how many times have Forest averaged over 25,000 in the last 39 years?
Answer: TWICE ..in 1996 when they had 25,916 and last year.

The only positive regards Forest‘s support is that since the Clough era it’s always been solid...usually low 20,000’s each year.
However historically United have always had bigger support.

 

[JohnDenver]

We’ve committed to a staggering amount of cash on Sander Berge, immediately followed by a huge global economic crash and uncertain future.

We won’t be building much for a while.

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

Forest planning for the future,speculating to accumolate,they do have a good chance of going up this season,if they do they will reep the benefits.

 

[Ricky]

There's nothing better for a club to invest in than its stadium. It permanently improves the club, the experience for the fans and if done right, the atmosphere and subsequently home advantage. It's your identity.

In our case doing the Kop properly - prioritising view/acoustics over capacity - would be awesome. We have to do this, and it's now (soon) or never.

But obviously we need to make sure we stay in the PL.

 

[Silent Blade]

The new Forest ground renovations are costing £100m, and tbh look great... the new stand will be 10.5k capacity taking the entire capacity from 30,000 to 36,000 with brand new facilities etc

If it were a choice of buying players for a season, or renovations to Bramall Lane with no transfer activity for a year (increasing BDTBL to 38k with new facilities), what would you choose?

This is how much Forest's new City Ground redevelopment will cost

For the very first time in over 25 years, the City Ground is set to see some major redevelopment

www.nottinghampost.com

Spending on ground improvements doesnt affect FFP rules

 

[Snowflake]

Forest have a seemingly very rich owner. Do we ?

 

[metalblade]

No point speculating I can tell you now we will be buying players over the summer.

 

[spongebobblade]

All well and good investing in the stadium and its definitely needed but it’s no good having a bigger ground if we fall away and end up in the championship again. If European football is secured we also need more depth so for me the squad needs more improvements first. Let’s cement our place in this division first. Obviously if external finances meant we could do both that would be fantastic

 

[TAMUS]

Build a better stadium with free grants like the pigs did , in the sixtys , not even on a level playing field .

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Clearly having my cake and eating it, but I agree with LoughboroBlade and I think both are deliverable and important.
Upgrading our infrastructure is vital to the medium and long term success of our club.
Increase the ground capacity while we are popular and interest in our club is a high will also greatly help our future spending as we don't currently have the huge commercial revenues many teams do but we are growing in all areas very quickly, and I think the stadium needs to go with that.
All that said, the most vital component in determining our sustained success is remaining in the Premier League and we need new players to do that for next season.
It's a balancing act, but personally I'd borrow if necessary, to get the Kop done while the fans aren't likely to be back before the New Year as the current lockdown does offer a rare opportunity which was stopping easier future expansion.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

Couldn't we just nip 4 mile down the hill? That's a top stadium apparently, and would only cost £60m.

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

Perhaps we should start acting like a proper big city club and punch our weight for a change. And on that point I'm sure our manager feels the same stadium-players-training facilities.

I'd knock the current Kop down and build a new 15k Kop stand, I'd also do the extension to the South Stand. Make the Lane numero uno stadium in Yorkshire, make it grand, make it icon, make it grandiose, make it gargantuan, make it reyt good.

 

[bongleblade]

there are pros and cons, a year of no transfers could knock momentum, or on the other hand could actually build the team spirit even higher and give the new players time to bed in further, plus renovations are an investment for life for one season’s sacrifice

personally i am going to go stadium due to permanency and i think this seasons squad would get midtable easy. End of the day, players will come and go but we have a great opportunity to change the club forever positively.

in an ideal world, i’d rebuild a stand this season and provide a small 10m budget to poach lots of lower league prospects and let chris do his magic, then the next season do widespread renovations to facilities, best of both worlds this way, and stretches costs across two seasons

 

[BushBlade]

The ground needs doing but it's an aesthetic, look at Arsenal and how wrong it's gone for them since leaving Highbury.

Get it right on the pitch and you'll be able to afford to sort the rest out later. If you bought a derelict house, you wouldn't paint the walls before you've rewired the electrics.

Do you think Arsenal’s decline was caused primarily by moving stadium or by the change in ownership and keeping Wenger far too long? Moving stadiums didn’t harm Man City.
The difference I suppose is that it took Arsenal a long time to pay back the cost of the Emirates as they didn’t have rich owners. Well, tbf, their owner is minted but he won’t spend any of his own money.
I’m not convinced that long term borrowing is a good idea, given the uncertainty of the future. When we built the south stand we were caught out by the OPEC crisis and the subsequent recession.

Tbh, I’m glad I don’t have to make these kind of decisions.