So, if we believe what we hear, and I know many don't. The new Riverside stand is due to be available around the 2021/22 season. That's 4 years away. From the recent excellent Cottage talk show with Tom G, and Chris, we learned that this new design is far more ambitious and a much more complicated build and will require the Riverside to be closed down for some period rather than the stand being built around it. This will reduce our capacity to around 18,000.
Now, I don't doubt that if we are given Premiership football at any point in the next few years, Khan will be a happy man and gratefully receive it, however could it be that in the meantime he is not going to bust a gut, or the bank until closer to the day we have the ground ready ?
I have not seen any estimated costs to the new Riverside but it has to be very big bucks, anyone care to guess, let me start by saying it could cost between £50 and £100 Million.
Having spent that sort of dosh, do you think Khan will not push big time for the promised land ?
For me, and I have always said this, the new stand is a massive milestone in Fulham's future, promotions and relegations come and go but a development of this scale is a once in a lifetime, and our equivalent of what Spurs are doing at WHL.
Of course it's got to happen and like many I will believe it when I see it, having said that I have always thought it would happen and have personally taken stick, esp on TIFF for saying so, especially after I met Khan at the Bolton game the season before last where I was promised an iconic new stand was going to happen.
If we look at what he has done at the Jags, it was ground first, team second. Is that what he is going to repeat at Fulham ?
Most likely yes, in an earlier interview he said he is going for self-sustaining and not splurging.
I think many older fans, like me, would far rather see immediate money spent on the team and challenging for promotion, and then think about the ground.
I think if you spend enough on the team and manager you can almost guarantee promotion.
Fulham only got into the Prem before because of MAF's money, but this doesn't seem to be Khan's policy, which is, I suppose more sensible, but when was supporting a team about being sensible!
Quote from: RaySmith on December 07, 2017, 06:50:40 AM
I think many older fans, like me, would far rather see immediate money spent on the team and challenging for promotion, and then think about the ground.
I think if you spend enough on the team and manager you can almost guarantee promotion.
Fulham only got into the Prem before because of MAF's money, but this doesn't seem to be Khan's policy, which is, I suppose more sensible, but when was supporting a team about being sensible!
I am sure we would all like him to spend money on the team. My question is, does Khan consider that getting the infrastructure right first is the correct way round ? Getting this stand built has so far taken 2 more year, then another nearly 4 years from now. Spending money on new players and going up is a potentially much quicker cycle. For example, we could get promoted and then relegated before the stand is half built. I agree however, would love Khan to do both, but maybe that's not how he sees it ?
Could be Stu.
But in football, on the pitch success is everthing. We could, as you say, go up and come down again before the new stand is built, or even, in the worst case scenario, just go down! Then what use is a new stand if it's half empty?
Likely he does want both promotion and the new stand, and I doubt if you'd find many fans who didn't want both, or who wouldn't put on the pitch success first if they were forced to make a choice.
If you go up, then revenue and crowds will greatly improve anyway.
But I suppose there is also FFP to contend with re spending on the team, and Khan would probably point to all the money he has spent. But as fans, we know that spending really big gets results, and we will always be disappointed in bargain buy foreign imports with no track record in British football, who can prove a big success, but can also disappoint.
Far be it for me to doubt the Khans having a strategy or plan but I am sorry to say it continues to be my position. The flaw in arguing that Khan always has the idea 'to build the infrastructure then the team' is that when Khan arrived he had PL football in a stadium that wasn't at all bad as stadia go. And so I just say the idea that Khan ever had a worthy plan or strategy is nuts. I'd also argue that Khan has been overtly influenced by the NFL dream to import American football to the UK during his tenure and much of his thinking about owning Fulham and what it means has been muddled by that and issues concerning his son and his business. But perhaps I sell the multi-billionaire short.
I am not in awe of the 'new' Riverside development as compared to the original or the Heatherwick ideas which appeared to offer much of the same opportunity to increase out of football time revenue with a little imagination, innovation and a lot of flair. However, as with MAF, Khan needs to endear himself with the right people in order to increase his influence for other challenging ideas which are yet to come and yet to witness. Khan has a lot of valuable land at Motspur Park and planning options and opportunities, like all things, change with the times.
I don't see the RIverside development as a holy grail but more a case of trying to join up some dots that have nothing to do with how a football team does on a pitch. Lots of teams have wonderful stadia that are almost always empty
The existing Riverside cost £300,000 - and if the new one comes to pass it'll be twice in a lifetime.
When that was built the argument was to build it before prices became outrageous but many were critical that the money should have been spent on the team - as Portsmouth were doing at the time. For quite a while we went one way while they went on to greater things. It depends what point in time you choose to say who was right.
The new stand, however, does have more earning potential than the existing.
Many of us will remain a little wary of plans and the owners attitude to The Riverside merely because The Riverside has a history of being controversial. To build the infrastructure first is never a good idea until we have a team capable of staying in the Prem. If we can do both then fine. But it shouldn't be an either or. However our owner and his advisers have made some very odd decisions since he has been here so I have no real idea what his overall strategy is.
Quote from: RaySmith on December 07, 2017, 06:50:40 AM
I think many older fans, like me, would far rather see immediate money spent on the team and challenging for promotion, and then think about the ground.
I think if you spend enough on the team and manager you can almost guarantee promotion.
Fulham only got into the Prem before because of MAF's money, but this doesn't seem to be Khan's policy, which is, I suppose more sensible, but when was supporting a team about being sensible!
The Chairman can spend whatever he wants on the groundnut is limited by FFP on the team.By spending on the New stand and the Academy it's possible to bring money into the club and not effect FFP.
Statto, my point re the OP, was to set out a theory for discussion, that Khan sees the clubs infrastructure as a fundamental base to building up the club to a Premier Club status and that he sees this as a priority to spending big on the team. He has changed the original plans to one that will after its built, bring in more revenue at a significant extra cost. If he was not committed in this direction why change the design to increase significantly the cost ? Why continue to spend big money on Motspur Park as well as the Riverside, improvements to the Cottage and the Johnny Haynes ?
Getting promotion to the premier league does bring in a massive increase in tv revenue, but this is pretty much wiped out in one go by Premier players wages and other costs.
All I am saying is that MAYBE Khans does have a strategy, one that requires a lot of patience and I am saying that Building up the infrastructure is long term, buying a football team is very short term.
Putting money aside for the new stand etc or splashing on new players is still spending money, one gives you something that is certain, the other is rolling the dice, yes often it pays off but certainly not always i.e. QPR, Portsmouth, Leeds and many others.
To another post, yes the old Riverside was built in the 70,s. This new stand will be built 50 years later so I think it's reasonable to call that once in a generation, unless you really do want to split hairs. I have plenty of family that will have only seen one or the other !
I am not trying to big up Khan, I am just putting forward a thought that he may not be the villain he is normally made out to be.
MK Dons have a lovely stadium with lots of shops and restaurants close by. Obviously the football is rubbish!
My reading of the Riverside plans is that it is about maximizing ancillary revenues, not about investing in the squad.
As a wise old 81 year old I have a different view. firstly I can't afford to think long term and secondly if we play football like the second half of last season I'm happy.
Thirdly whatever happened to the W formation?
Quote from: Kent Cassandra on December 07, 2017, 12:02:52 PM
As a wise old 81 year old I have a different view. firstly I can't afford to think long term and secondly if we play football like the second half of last season I'm happy.
Thirdly whatever happened to the W formation?
The W formation seemed to dissapear round about the time £ S D. That's Pounds Shillings & Pence was changed to the dreaded Decimalisation, and this country has been a lot poorer since, by losing both.
Who is to blame for all this.
As for The Chairman and his reasons for buying the BBC land across the road, it's an investment that will increase in value, like improvement to Motspur Park, it increases in value.
If the Riverside is ever developed then that is an investment that will uncrease in value.
When it comes to the football team and what happens on the pitch, then it's a different ball game.
The football to him is not a priority, as much as his spokesmen spin the fairy tales, his interest is that nfl.
Of course I want to see the Riverside redeveloped asap, although I am not that much struck on the design. But I shall believe when I see it. The prawn sandwich brigade can have what they want, but where were they in the hard times, and where will they be if the hard times return.
More importantly where will Khan the invisible man be, he can sell his assets like the bbc, Motspur Park, Riverside etc, whereas players, their values can decrease, land and bricks and mortar will increase over any period of time.
I still maintain his hidden agenda when he first arrived was to establish his Jaguars in England, and Craven Cottage was a foothold for his hidden agenda, that has not quite gone to plan, and he is probably wishing he had bought Tottenham Hotspur instead. Because he is not exactly a football nut is he.
But for me, unlike Khan, it's what happens on the field that counts, promotion is everything, it will guarantee more or less full Gates, the clubs image in football will multiply 100 fold, including sponsorship and the Millions of English Pounds that come with it. So it pays for itself, and think of the players, who would they rather play in, Championship or Premier.
So we may have to get used to free transfers, loaners and deadwood from overseas.
What I would like to see are our Academy home grown players like Matt Oriley, Edun, De la Torre, Matties Kait, Humphries and Steve Sessegnon to name but a few to join his brother Ryan in the first team, they are far better prospect than some of the current squad. Because they will put in an honest shift.
But to bring that altogether Khan has to flash the cash on a Goalkeeper, a Centre Back and a Striker, and that's just for starters, otherwise we will be having the same debate next season and the one after.
Yes I would love to see the Ground developed, that has to be inevitable, but I would rather stand on an open terrace in the pouring rain and high winds like we all use to, and watch a successful team on the pitch, and that is something the khans and their enterage have never understood and never will, because it's not in their DNA.
What is in their minds more than anything than our football, is to make sure they are secure in their investment in CC, MP and BBC, more than our football, which is all very well, but it has to run in conjunction with the football on the pitch, but definitely not at the expense of the football.
Quote from: FulhamStu on December 07, 2017, 10:34:38 AM
I am just putting forward a thought that he may not be the villain he is normally made out to be.
I don't see Khan as either villain or victim but simply someone who has a lot of money but lives in the USA and doesn't know a lot about English football. I'd like to see him outside a ground talking to 'ordinary' supporters in the manner of the after match Brentford video. Perhaps then he'd be a bit more, and better, 'advised' about what to do next. When Khan visited CC and after the game 'Fred' asked him if he was off to watch his team play at Wembley his answer suggested to me that Fulham is just another item in his shopping bag. I remain unconvinced he has any deep interest in Fulham at all.
Quote from: toshes mate on December 07, 2017, 01:08:23 PM
Quote from: FulhamStu on December 07, 2017, 10:34:38 AM
I am just putting forward a thought that he may not be the villain he is normally made out to be.
I don't see Khan as either villain or victim but simply someone who has a lot of money but lives in the USA and doesn't know a lot about English football. I'd like to see him outside a ground talking to 'ordinary' supporters in the manner of the after match Brentford video. Perhaps then he'd be a bit more, and better, 'advised' about what to do next. When Khan visited CC and after the game 'Fred' asked him if he was off to watch his team play at Wembley his answer suggested to me that Fulham is just another item in his shopping bag. I remain unconvinced he has any deep interest in Fulham at all.
I have to admit, I have always been under the impression that Fulham is second to the Jags and everything he's said and done since hasn't done anything to change this perception.
Re the stadium/club going first, I do see how it makes sense - especially if you're going to permanently take away one side of the stadium - how it'd be stadium first and then playing squad. The thing that worries me though is how having only a capacity of 18,000 will affect our ability to attract players with the FFP. How does FFP get affected by this?
Ideally I'd like to see us groundshare again in order to keep the figures up (although not sure who has a capacity nearby similar to ours) and I wouldn't like to see the squad take a hit due to the redevelopment.
Quote from: Robbie on December 07, 2017, 11:42:41 AM
MK Dons have a lovely stadium with lots of shops and restaurants close by. Obviously the football is rubbish!
My reading of the Riverside plans is that it is about maximizing ancillary revenues, not about investing in the squad.
Let's say the Riverside costs £100M to complete. That money comes from Khan, who can afford it but does nothing to harm FFP.
Now say the new stand with flats, revenue from non football and extra revenue from football brings in an extra £10M a year, you can take that extra £10M away from what we spend on transfers because it does count towards FFP. In other words, the stand allows us to spend £10M a year more on players than we would be able too without it.
Similarly we have spent £10M on Motspur Park which does not count towards FFP, but if we unearth a Roberts or Sessegnon every 2 or 3 years, and sell them for £10M plus, that's another £10M we have to build the squad, or better still gain a £10M player for nothing.
There are extra running costs attached to both the Riverside development and Motspur Park which must be offset against any additional revenues they bring in and I'd like to believe a lot of the procrastination over stadium development has been caused by running the rule over such things and realising the risks involved. Developing traffic along the riverside walk between Hammersmith Bridge and Putney Bridge is going to take some effort to achieve given that the current walk around the stadium adds a couple of hundred yards to a pleasant afternoon stroll and isn't going to be so popular outside better weather.
Now if the complex added live music, concerts, entertainment and sporting facilities other than football then traffic might increase but the stadium is located in the middle of a residential area with a park and river on two sides and those facilities need licenses and local community agreement. If there is going to be shopping and hospitality facilities then they are not exactly going to be instantly popular or have a wide spectrum of custom overnight. Perhaps Khan already has some commercial interest for what he proposes but what if it fails?
I just feel that a huge part of what is going on is not going to bring the kind of revenues in that people are talking about.
In any event, as Statto says, if we are in the PL then (a) why worry about FFP? and (b) take a risk with developing something that may really raise interest and temperatures among the local resident....
Quote from: Statto on December 07, 2017, 01:51:12 PM
To clarify my comment Stu, I agree with you developing the ground makes us more sustainable and is a good long-term stategy, and if/when Khan actually delivers on this it will indeed suggest that's Khan's plan.
I just don't agree with this suggestion that it justifies delaying near-term expenditure on the team.
Unless we're saying Khan can afford the £100m for the ground but not additional £13m on top of that for players. Ie if his budget for all fulham spending is £100m and not a penny more, so player spending and the development are genuinely "either, or" options... which cannot be true
As to the extra revenue when it's built in 2022 allowing us to spend more under FFP, all I'll say is if FFP is still relevant (ie, if we're still in the Championship) in 2022... well khan will already be an utter bloody villain in my eyes no matter what he does/spends thereafter
Yes, agree with all of that.
Quote from: toshes mate on December 07, 2017, 02:17:00 PM
There are extra running costs attached to both the Riverside development and Motspur Park which must be offset against any additional revenues they bring in and I'd like to believe a lot of the procrastination over stadium development has been caused by running the rule over such things and realising the risks involved. Developing traffic along the riverside walk between Hammersmith Bridge and Putney Bridge is going to take some effort to achieve given that the current walk around the stadium adds a couple of hundred yards to a pleasant afternoon stroll and isn't going to be so popular outside better weather.
Now if the complex added live music, concerts, entertainment and sporting facilities other than football then traffic might increase but the stadium is located in the middle of a residential area with a park and river on two sides and those facilities need licenses and local community agreement. If there is going to be shopping and hospitality facilities then they are not exactly going to be instantly popular or have a wide spectrum of custom overnight. Perhaps Khan already has some commercial interest for what he proposes but what if it fails?
I just feel that a huge part of what is going on is not going to bring the kind of revenues in that people are talking about.
In any event, as Statto says, if we are in the PL then (a) why worry about FFP? and (b) take a risk with developing something that may really raise interest and temperatures among the local resident....
Are you seriously saying the new stand is a waste of time ?
If you are then, I totally disagree. Craven Cottage is a beautiful football ground but totally lacks facilities required to compete in the modern era. We will continue to fall behind others if we don't improve the facilities. I would hope the Hammersmith end and Putney ends are developed soonish after the completion of the Riverside. Hopefully I got the jist of your post wrong.
Just to add, the club must have done significant research on what will or will not bring in additional revenue via the new stand, does anyone have any inside info on this ?
I start from the premise that business is always about people, not things, and that family business is always about family people - no-one else matters in the same way.
So the prospect of a new stand, and prospect is all it is, is but a minor piece on the chess board. The two players, Mr Khan Snr and Jnr hunched over the board locked in a lengthy tussle. Will the prospect of a new stand be sacrificed in some greater gambit or make to the end game to be played with a flourish? Don't know. They probably don't either.
What's the whole thing about? My guess is Mr Khan cares passionately about car parts business that he grew from nothing and gridiron, the sport he followed for decades. His son hasn't yet displayed his clearly exceptional business talent. The nice way to present it is that Fulham allows Jnr to make mistakes and learn before carrying that through in what really matters, or opt for a playboy lifestyle and let the businesses in the US be run by business people.
It's not that Mr Khan doesn't have a passion for Fulham, it's that he doesn't have a passion for association football. He quite likes being a sports club owner though.
None of this makes him a bad owner, just my estimation of what is really going on.
Im sure its a mixture of long term and short term thinking. Its the only way running a football club can work.
Long term is the Stand and Craven Cottage as a whole, Motspur Park upgrades plus purchase of other land, Youth team development and long term contracts for players.
Short term is the need to go up but also to set in place plans if that does not happen (refer to the long contracts above as part of that) and support given to the First Team setup. Many believe thats splashing cash and that will solve all the problems and its doesn't, it can actually increase problems through debt and sanctions if it all goes wrong.
Quote from: FulhamStu on December 07, 2017, 09:52:47 PM
Are you seriously saying the new stand is a waste of time ?
If you are then, I totally disagree. Craven Cottage is a beautiful football ground but totally lacks facilities required to compete in the modern era.
What makes Craven Cottage a charismatic football stadium is the part of it that is listed property. The Riverside is unattractive and has not aged well but then it wasn't planned well either. The single most important part of the original intention of the development of the Riverside/Hammersmith/Putney sides (the only sides that can be developed) was to increase capacity pushing the maximum close to or slightly above 30k. That was when we were still in the PL. Football attendances are not a particularly successful revenue raiser outside perhaps the top half of the PL, i.e the most successful clubs, and even then TV/media money still trumps everything else because of its certainty regardless of being best playing the game of football. Improving stadium ambience and atmosphere by filling them to capacity has always been good for the spectacle of game, paradoxically the case with smaller clubs and smaller grounds. The larger grounds which are seldom full have little or no ambience and atmosphere, hence the argument they have no soul. So how do you look at a development plan?
My take on stadium development has always been the necessity of obtaining revenue unrelated to the football business and, as I said in my previous post which you clearly haven't noted, it is that that should drive a development because otherwise it is simply indulgence which will not further the cause of the club involved. Football stadia are more often (by a long way) empty than they are full and that is something football as a business needs to address particularly given the situation of certain grounds like Craven Cottage. There are a lot of ways that Craven Cottage income could be improved. I saw some evidence of it in the original Riverside update plan but I don't see it in the new one and I guess that is because the reports didn't reveal any likelihood of successfully diversifying Craven Cottage.
Quote from: Statto on December 08, 2017, 09:28:04 AM
Quote from: MJG on December 08, 2017, 08:54:16 AM
Many believe thats splashing cash and that will solve all the problems and its doesn't, it can actually increase problems through debt and sanctions if it all goes wrong.
For me, and I presume a lot of others, the call for short-term spending on players comes with the implied caveat that it's within the limits of FFP. But that still leaves room for Khan to inject significant capital and underwrite significant losses. I just want to see that happening (and I acknowledge things like our big money approach for Gayle suggest that money is there, which is reassuring)
I dont disagree with that. Although I'm not one who advocates spending every penny to the limit either. There has to balance in it somewhere. The 'splashing cash' quote is really aimed at those who dont think FFP or sensible use of money should come in to play.
Quote from: toshes mate on December 08, 2017, 09:13:36 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on December 07, 2017, 09:52:47 PM
Are you seriously saying the new stand is a waste of time ?
If you are then, I totally disagree. Craven Cottage is a beautiful football ground but totally lacks facilities required to compete in the modern era.
There are a lot of ways that Craven Cottage income could be improved. I saw some evidence of it in the original Riverside update plan but I don't see it in the new one and I guess that is because the reports didn't reveal any likelihood of successfully diversifying Craven Cottage.
I have to disagree with this take on the two plans. The new plan gives a lot more time (and space) to non match day income than the previous plan.
Quote from: MJG on December 08, 2017, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on December 08, 2017, 09:13:36 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on December 07, 2017, 09:52:47 PM
Are you seriously saying the new stand is a waste of time ?
If you are then, I totally disagree. Craven Cottage is a beautiful football ground but totally lacks facilities required to compete in the modern era.
There are a lot of ways that Craven Cottage income could be improved. I saw some evidence of it in the original Riverside update plan but I don't see it in the new one and I guess that is because the reports didn't reveal any likelihood of successfully diversifying Craven Cottage.
I have to disagree with this take on the two plans. The new plan gives a lot more time (and space) to non match day income than the previous plan.
My understanding is the new stand will include flats, resteraunts, a massive increase in corporate facilities, a pub, bars, open to the public not just match days. Could easily use for weddings, funerals you name it. Surely this is all increased revenue. Sorry if I misread your original post but I really can't see your objection ? I can understand some people not loving the design, personally think it's fantastic and do agree the current stand is terrible in design terms. Surely however you can see that it will be a revenue earner, and that extra revenue counts towards balancing FFP which has to be a good thing does it not ?
By the way, the original Al-Fayed design moved the Cottage and totally rebuilt the Stevenage Road stand leaving just the facade, brick work facing out. I think this was also approved before Mo changed his mind because he thought £100M was too much money.
Actually I am impressed with the way Khan seems to be going for quality rather than looking for the cheapest or quick fix options.
In the long term it is critical that the redesign is done properly. When it is completed the supporters will be living with the outcome longer than Khan and is family are likely to do so - so give him some credit. A poor quality and/or run down stadium is a potential target for developers as we only know too well from our not so recent history. A well designed stadium with modern facilities which still retains the uniqueness of our beautiful ground can only be good for the long term sustainability of the club.
It is apparent to me that poor owners splash the cash on short term vanity issues (expensive players & managers) and interfere with team selection. The better ones balance the necessities of seeking to continually upgrading the playing side with also improving the infrastructure (the ground and training facilities).
We all have legitimate criticisms of how the team went downhill when he took over from Al Fayed (possibly the down turn might have happened anyway) but it seems to me he is one of the better ones and hopefully he has learned the lessons of recent years.
If his legacy is a sustainable club with a modern stadium and training ground, which continues to develope good young players and a team which consistently challenges for promotion from the Championship I will take that - if on the way we can get into the Premiership and importantly stay amd compete there even better.
Where is the evidence of 'massive' corporate and hospitality revenue increase? For sure the 'flats' will make a 'healthy' return but even that will not be 'massive' in terms of the kind of money required to improve the balance sheets of an average sized football club. I certainly want the stadium improved it is that I just don't see this latest design doing anything other than building another stand that will not age gracefully and could even become an eyesore as fashions change.
My understanding of the listings on the JH Stand and the Cottage is that it is their entirety but my understanding may be incorrect.
Quote from: toshes mate on December 08, 2017, 11:23:44 AM
Where is the evidence of 'massive' corporate and hospitality revenue increase? For sure the 'flats' will make a 'healthy' return but even that will not be 'massive' in terms of the kind of money required to improve the balance sheets of an average sized football club. I certainly want the stadium improved it is that I just don't see this latest design doing anything other than building another stand that will not age gracefully and could even become an eyesore as fashions change.
My understanding of the listings on the JH Stand and the Cottage is that it is their entirety but my understanding may be incorrect.
Good ol Tosh, did you watch him by the way, you must be older than me if you did. Try and find the Al-Fayed design, maybe someone can post it. It was a total re-build of Craven Cottage, it developed all 4 sides and I seem to remember people calling it the space ship design. The Cottage itself was planned to be taken apart brick by brick and re-built in Bishops Park. If you are really Toshes mate, you surely must remember ?
Ok, what do you consider massive ? I guess I could go through the 50 pages in the plans submitted to try and prove my massive comment, again maybe someone can be more specific. I will come back to you when I can qualify my massive statement in the meantime I am willing to take others words, like Tom G etc that the corporate facilities are much greater than before, would you accept that ?
When ,if the Riverside gets developed I for one would consider moving over there. I'm sure it would cost me more in terms of my season ticket but they would have to make it worth my while.I would like to have a decent bars /restaurants were we could go before and after the game to enjoy decent beer/food in a pleasant environment. God knows how much we spend outside the stadium on food and drink which at the moment the club can't provide.I currently sit in Johnny Haynes stand and have 1 or 2 drinks at half time.So for me there is great potential for the club to increase revenue on matchdays as well.
A few years ago Wolves supporters held up placards "F$ck the new stand, buy some players" They built the stand and It's taken a few years but look where they are now.
