ENGLAND - Stadium and Arena Development News

[joezierer]

Originally Posted by oxo

And you seem to have forgotten that London transport is the most expensive and the most unreliable in the world.

Sincerely,
An American

[oxo]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

...and that Chelsea's success is because of their location.

Indirectly, yes.

No coincidence that the only 2 sustainably successfull clubs are based in the central area of London whilst all the 14 or so others are dotted around the suburbs of the capital.
I regret Spurs will not be based in a place such as Shoreditch or Dalston because this would make them a more central London club.
Suburban clubs Milwall, Brentford, Charlton, etc. are unlikely to achieve much success.

[oxo]

Originally Posted by Harry1990

you only think 2 football clubs in london have been succesful?

Yes, the only 2 truly successfull London clubs have been Chelsea and, kills me to say it, Arsenal.
Both also happen to be the most centrally located clubs.
Begging question: Why on earth should we still be based in the deep suburbs by moving just down the road to Northumberland Park?

[Steel City Suburb]

You're argument really doesn't stack up. You know little of football if you think the geographical location counts.

The owner counts. The manager counts. The academy counts. The investment counts. The income counts. Transport is nothing. Geographical location is nothing.

[Igor Munarim]

Earls Court (Volleyball)

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by oxo

Yes, the only 2 truly successfull London clubs have been Chelsea and, kills me to say it, Arsenal.

So you think Chelsea were more successful than Spurs before Abramovich came in and spent his billions on them?

Before 2003, they had 1 title, 3 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and two Cup Winners Cup trophies.

Spurs have 2 titles, 8 FA Cups, 4 League Cups and 3 European trophies.

I guess Man City's recent resurgence is down to the better transport links and location at the Etihad compared to Maine Road too.

I regret Spurs will not be based in a place such as Shoreditch or Dalston because this would make them a more central London club.

Purely out of interest, how close to those locations do you live?

[oxo]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

So you think Chelsea were more successful than Spurs before Abramovich came in and spent his billions on them?

Before 2003, they had 1 title, 3 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and two Cup Winners Cup trophies.

Spurs have 2 titles, 8 FA Cups, 4 League Cups and 3 European trophies.

I guess Man City's recent resurgence is down to the better transport links and location at the Etihad compared to Maine Road too.

Purely out of interest, how close to those locations do you live?

Would Abramovich have spent billions on a Brentford, Watford or a Charlton?
He'd certainly be wasting his money if he had. He was smart enough to recognise Chelsea as having potential cosmopolitan/international brand appeal rather than mainly local appeal such as West Ham for example.
Chelsea is well known internationally because of its central location and associations with fashion.

Likewise the investors behind Man City would not have wasted billions on the likes of Bolton because it has much less international brand appeal being stuck away on the edge of Manchester. Who's even heard of Bolton or Blackburn outside the UK?

Being central makes you sexy, well known and marketable - the likes of suburban Brentford and Leyton Orient have about as much sex appeal as Nora Batty. That is mainly because of their location - the love for those clubs is predominantly local and unlikely ever to spread.

Spurs' pre-2003 success is impressive but that was a different era, especially before the 90s when marketing and commercialism did not play such a key role and location was therefore of little significance.
Even the likes of Wimbledon achieved some success those days - unthinkable now for such a suburban club.

[MS20]

Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb

You're argument really doesn't stack up. You know little of football if you think the geographical location counts.

The owner counts. The manager counts. The academy counts. The investment counts. The income counts. Transport is nothing. Geographical location is nothing.

oxo actually isn't far off the mark in general, but his assessment of Spurs in particular isn't quite right I feel.

Centrality of location and number of people living within a 10-15 mile radius of the stadium is probably a bigger indicator of success than anything you've just listed. And transport links and accessibility play a vital role in that equation.

Centrality is important because it means that you can diversify your potential fanbase, and aren't consigned to your immediate surroundings. In most English cities this doesn't matter because they are so small that just about everything is centralized. In London its a little different.

People from the south, west, north and even east London could attend Chelsea games potentially. People from the south and west in particular would have a difficult time attending Spurs matches regularly. So its far more likely that Chelsea will pick up wandering supporters from those areas than Spurs. All roads lead to the centre of the city. But to go into the city, then up north, then back to the centre to then go back home in another direction isnt what fans usually do when they attend games.

An equally important factor is the wealth of the people living within your catchment area. Generally, the bigger the city, the more wealthier the people are (obviously this applies to cities only within that country). So, Mancunians are on average richer (more disposable income) than Blackburn natives. Even though people in Blackburn may be more richer than those in Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo holds greater wealth than smaller cities in Brazil. This is just a rule of thumb in cities across the world. Big cities attract and create wealth better than smaller ones.

More disposable income usually leads to better attendance and increased revenue from ticketing, which is even more pronounced when the population is large and where it can create strong demand, and is also highly coveted by sponsors who pay more money to advertise to these people.

So just by virtue of location and population, you've maximized your chances of being successful, largely because you're bringing in more money from the outset than competitors. And in England, London leads the way in both areas.

Where I feel oxo is a little bit off the mark is that Spurs still have a very large population base to draw from in comparison to the rest of the country. And, being richer on average than compatriots in other cities, have natural advantages over most of their competitors.

Man Utd has about 1.3 million people living within 10 miles of Old Trafford, which is gargantuan in comparison to most other clubs, and goes a long way in explaining why they can average 75,000. Spurs could have anywhere between 500k-1m within 15 miles, but London population stats aren't broken up so nicely like they are for the rest of the country. Anything over 500k in England gives you a good platform for being a top 10 club. London has over 7 million people, and while most of those people can't realistically attend Spurs matches, they can help Spurs when it comes to TV ratings. As a quick example, a side known to draw more TV viewers will be shown more often, giving them more money but also make it more attractive to sponsors to pile more money on the club in the form of shirt sponsorship for instance.

If you look at the league pyramid, there is a really strong correlation between market size and attendance/success. A few outliers like Leeds, Bristol, or Bradford, but they can be explained by other factors. Leeds was a top flight side for a long time, and will eventually reclaim its place in the upper echelon. Their market size will force them back eventually.

Bristol has never been a traditionally football supporting city, and is in some ways just waiting for its opportunity to mirror other nouvea-football cities like Hull in the top flight. Unlike Hull though, they have the ingredients in place to keep their place in the top flight for far longer. Bradford has a lot of rugby league tradition, and other sports dominance in some of these other cities helps explain why football hasn't flourished there (other examples like Northampton, Wigan until recently). We could even say the same of Bristol and rugby union. Though Bristol doesn't seem like a place where sport was a intricately linked to its development.

So geographical location is wildly important. And its true of every football league across Europe. Unless you have an American styled salary cap with revenue sharing, centrality, geographic location, number of people living within a set distance from stadium are MAJOR determining factors for success and popularity.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by oxo

Would Abramovich have spent billions on a Brentford, Watford or a Charlton?
He'd certainly be wasting his money if he had. He was smart enough to recognise Chelsea as having potential cosmopolitan/international brand appeal rather than mainly local appeal such as West Ham for example.
Chelsea is well known internationally because of its central location and associations with fashion.

Chelsea are well known internationally because of the money Abramovich spent. Before then, they were nothing internationally.

International fans also don't give a toss how centrally located a club is.

Likewise the investors behind Man City would not have wasted billions on the likes of Bolton because it has much less international brand appeal being stuck away on the edge of Manchester. Who's even heard of Bolton or Blackburn outside the UK?

They are a big city club. The location of the stadium was no factor in their recent rise.

Being central makes you sexy, well known and marketable - the likes of suburban Brentford and Leyton Orient have about as much sex appeal as Nora Batty.

Orient are more central than Spurs or West Ham, yet smaller.

Brentford, QPR and Fulham are all barely further out than Chelsea, yet smaller.


The second most successful club in the country, Liverpool, are based way out from the city centre, nowhere near a train station. Somehow this severe handicap didn't hinder them too much.

Spurs' pre-2003 success is impressive but that was a different era, especially before the 90s when marketing and commercialism did not play such a key role and location was therefore of little significance.

That's a complete contraction.

In the early days, when building a fan base, location was highly important. Once clubs became big, it was much less so.

How does train access have any impact at all on marketing and commercialisation?

If you really think Spurs would attract more fans overseas or nationally by moving to central London, you are utterly barmy.

Bandwagonning gloryhunters are attracted by success, not transport options.

Even the likes of Wimbledon achieved some success those days - unthinkable now for such a suburban club.

It was a different era alright, but not because of transport links, which is the biggest red herring since Sven Svensson of Svenberg in Sweden decided to paint the giant herring above his herring shop in bright red to attract the crowds.

You random fixation on Spurs moving to Dalston rather hints at you being too lazy and wanting them them within walking distance of where you live, rather than "suffer" a half hour trip north. There is no major stadium in the world where there isn't a bit of a delay getting on trains etc after the game, but most fans accept that beyond building a 10 platform terminus next to the stadium, it's inevitable.


I'll have to count myself out again, unless you somehow come up with an argument that's even more amusingly batshit crazy than this one. Life is too short to discuss things with the fixated.

[legolamb]

Originally Posted by MS20

Bristol has never been a traditionally football supporting city, and is in some ways just waiting for its opportunity to mirror other nouvea-football cities like Hull in the top flight. Unlike Hull though, they have the ingredients in place to keep their place in the top flight for far longer..

Hull is not a 'nouveau-football' city. Attendances at the old Boothferry park often topped 40,000+ throughout the 40's, 50's and 60's and 30,000+ in the early 70's whilst the club yo-yoed between the 2nd and 3rd divisions.

The record attendance for that ground was 55,000 and the club recently took over 40,000 to the 2008 wembley play off final before two seasons in which virtually every single home game was at full capacity of 24,750.

The club are already looking good to bounce back to the prem this season or next and not sure how more prepared you can be than having a large catchment arera and one of the finest grounds in the country, which was built to be easily expandable.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[Harry1990]

Originally Posted by oxo

Yes, the only 2 truly successfull London clubs have been Chelsea and, kills me to say it, Arsenal.
Both also happen to be the most centrally located clubs.
Begging question: Why on earth should we still be based in the deep suburbs by moving just down the road to Northumberland Park?

Chelsea was not overly successful historically even due to their central location apart from the late 60's until two buy outs and two spending sprees one in the mid late 90's di matteo, zola team etc and then obviously the mid 00's team which to date has spent 1.8 billion pound on transfer fees and wages.

Arsenal have been successful over the years, but not because of their central location, but Arsenal have always had a bit of glamour about them, Herbet Chapman transformed the club and Highbury used to look and feel just a tad different to other grounds, and of course have players like george graham, thierry henry, dennis berkamp, tony adams etc

Tottenham on the other hand have like Arsenal always had a bit of glamour about them, and always have played attacking football, that could be linked back to Spurs winning the Cup as a non league team back in 1901, as well as the push and run team in 1951 that won the league, a formation and type of play used ever since, than obviously moving onto the 60 and the double team with players like blachflower, mackay, greaves etc and even in periods of the 70's, 80's and 90's we have still attracted some of the most well know players in Britian and around the world, and to say people we would imediatly start winning the title and champions league cause we are based in Tottenham is lunacy, cause we have at least 41,000 people on a waiting list for season ticket and have 24 000 season tickets holders at the current ground too . i believe Chelsea have 25000 season ticket holders and no waiting list despite being the European Champions and there superb transport links and central location which are the most important attributes to think about before picking a team to support of course

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by oxo

No coincidence that the only 2 sustainably successfull clubs are based in the central area of London whilst all the 14 or so others are dotted around the suburbs of the capital.

Sustainably successful, my arse. Have you seen Chelsea's balance sheet in recent years? Probably not.

And as for being centrally located. It is in fact Millwall now whose ground is geographically closest to central London. That alone, however, didn't get the club very far.

[MS20]

Originally Posted by legolamb

The club are already looking good to bounce back to the prem this season or next and not sure how more prepared you can be than having a large catchment arera and one of the finest grounds in the country, which was built to be easily expandable.

Im aware of how much Hull draw to the KC, and what the KC looks like.

Have you got average attendance figures for Hull City for the last 60 years? I can't take your word for it. Too vague to say they were topping 40,000 regularly, because while the 50s and 60s were a golden era for attendances, averages attendance over 40k were still few and far between.

The reason I likened Hull to Bristol is because of other sports in the city: rugby league for Hull. The city is generally seen as being steeped in rugby league history, and football teams from league cities dont tend to be traditional heavyweights, toiling in the lower leagues.

Thats where my nouveau tag came in. Maybe its wrong to use that, but last decades rise to the top flight, along with the building of the KC was a pivotal moment to announce itself as a feature of the top flight in the future. Bristol can announce themselves as a potential force if they replace Ashton Gate and reach the top flight.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

So you think Chelsea were more successful than Spurs before Abramovich came in and spent his billions on them?

Before 2003, they had 1 title, 3 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and two Cup Winners Cup trophies.

Spurs have 2 titles, 8 FA Cups, 4 League Cups and 3 European trophies.

I guess Man City's recent resurgence is down to the better transport links and location at the Etihad compared to Maine Road too.



Purely out of interest, how close to those locations do you live?

In truth, Chelsea only ever won four major trophies as a self sustainable club - the last of them, all the way back in 1971.

They won 2 FA Cups, 1 League Cup and 1 UEFA Cup Winners Cup in the late 1990's / early 2000's only as a consequence of spending massively beyond their means, accumulating debts of some £150 million and being a matter of two days away from going into administration.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by oxo

Would Abramovich have spent billions on a Brentford, Watford or a Charlton?
He'd certainly be wasting his money if he had. He was smart enough to recognise Chelsea as having potential cosmopolitan/international brand appeal rather than mainly local appeal such as West Ham for example.
Chelsea is well known internationally because of its central location and associations with fashion.

Likewise the investors behind Man City would not have wasted billions on the likes of Bolton because it has much less international brand appeal being stuck away on the edge of Manchester. Who's even heard of Bolton or Blackburn outside the UK?

Being central makes you sexy, well known and marketable - the likes of suburban Brentford and Leyton Orient have about as much sex appeal as Nora Batty. That is mainly because of their location - the love for those clubs is predominantly local and unlikely ever to spread.

Spurs' pre-2003 success is impressive but that was a different era, especially before the 90s when marketing and commercialism did not play such a key role and location was therefore of little significance.
Even the likes of Wimbledon achieved some success those days - unthinkable now for such a suburban club.

Before Abramovich bought Chelsea, they were:

- already a high profile, Premier League club
- with a decent fan base and stadium
- in the Champions League (albeit as a consequence of spending money that they didn't have)
- available to buy at a bargain basement price (as a consequence of their woeful mismanagement over the preceding 5-10 years)

So any comparison to a small, League One or Two club like Brentford is spurious.....as you well know.

As to Man City, they were bought as a means to promote Abu Dhabi - which had long resented the international focus on its fellow Emirate, Dubai. You should read up about it. The decision has everything to do with the enormous marketing potential of the Premier League (along with the fact that City was a well supported club with great potential). Nothing to do with location. Because, since it seems to have escaped you, Manchester City are not based in "sexy" central Manchester.

Safe to say that, if location had indeed been the primary criterion, then pretty much anywhere in London would have been preferable to east Manchester.

[JimB]

One other thing, oxo - the notion that Arsenal is a centrally located club is simply wrong. Arsenal are based in Highbury / Holloway, north London. And it is an area that has only relatively recently been considered as anything other than deprived and staunchly working class.

Even now, much of the area is barely less of a shit hole than the area of Tottenham.

[RMB2007]

Update regarding AFC Wimbledon's new stand. Roof looks wonky:

[JimB]

Originally Posted by MS20

Man Utd has about 1.3 million people living within 10 miles of Old Trafford, which is gargantuan in comparison to most other clubs, and goes a long way in explaining why they can average 75,000. Spurs could have anywhere between 500k-1m within 15 miles, but London population stats aren't broken up so nicely like they are for the rest of the country. Anything over 500k in England gives you a good platform for being a top 10 club. London has over 7 million people, and while most of those people can't realistically attend Spurs matches, they can help Spurs when it comes to TV ratings.

Far more than that.

A 15 mile radius from White Hart Lane includes pretty much all of London north of the Thames and a significant portion of London south of the Thames (as far as Bromley, in fact), as well as the densely populated suburban sprawl in Hertfordshire and Essex.

I'd estimate the total population covered by that 15 mile radius to be in the region of 7-8 million.

P.S. London's population is now more than 8 million and the metro area population is almost 14 million.

[oxo]

A great number of reasons can be given to account for Chelsea’s or Arsenal’s success that are unrelated to issues of location. But the plain fact is that among the 16 London clubs they are the only 2 clubs to be found on most maps of central London.

To dismiss this as being ‘’coincidental’’ strikes me as flippant in the extreme.

Arsenal is about a 4 mile road distance from London’s recognised centre-point Piccadilly Circus. Chelsea is about 3 and a half miles away from the centre-point.

This is followed by the ‘’Zone 2’’ clubs such as Fulham, QPR, Millwall and Spurs being between 5 – 6 miles away from the centre point. This proximity reflects their moderate success as clubs (a bit more than moderate in the case of Spurs lately and less so for Millwall who seem to be underachieving in relation to its zone status).

The ‘’Zone 3’’ clubs located over 6 miles away from the centre point include Charlton, Brentford and Dagenham & Redbridge. These are low profile clubs with Charlton slightly overachieving in relation to its zone status.

There is an obvious pattern here between the success of a club and its zone status which can not be denied or dismissed as coincidental. The pattern surely proves that location must have a key influence on the success of a club.

[MS20]

Originally Posted by JimB

Far more than that.

A 15 mile radius from White Hart Lane includes pretty much all of London north of the Thames and a significant portion of London south of the Thames (as far as Bromley, in fact), as well as the densely populated suburban sprawl in Hertfordshire and Essex.

I'd estimate the total population covered by that 15 mile radius to be in the region of 7-8 million.

P.S. London's population is now more than 8 million and the metro area population is almost 14 million.

Yeah on reflection I was very conservative with the figure. Whatever the number is, its certainly above a million, which makes Spurs a prime candidate to contest for titles. All thats needed now is that revenue generating new stadium.