Does building a new ground = no new players

[Andy S]

Arsenal did it a few years ago and now Spurs. Yes there is a lot of talk but as of yet no action. So what happens when we build a large expensive Stand?

[I Ronic]

It gets injured. So it can't be used for the rest of the season. It says nice things on the Offal about the cheerful fans and it's wonderful view of the river.

[Baszab]

New stand = Absolute vanity Willie-waving project

Let's build a team for promotion

What do supporters want .... a successful team or a half empty gleaming new stand that we can rent out for corporate functions ?

[mrmicawbers]

If your building a shiny New Stand, even more reason to have a decent team to get back to Prem.With the amount of money the Chairman's worth it's only half a Yacht and more importantly will only effect FFP in a positive way.

[Andy S]

Basab whether you like it or not in the time you are living you need both. There is no either. Money dictates and there is no place for a shabby falling down shack of a ground. We want a ground that we can be proud of with decent facilities that obtains a licence from the council and makes money on days it is not being used for football.

[Twig]

I think the key point is that the two go together.  Much as we love our ground, we must surely admit it needs to be improved.  An improved ground with some seats sold at a higher price is both Prem ready and helps increase our income in the short term (which helps a bit with FFP restrictions).  In addition it signals the intent of the owner and encourages him to invest in the players to get us back into the Prem where he can fill all those expensive seats.

[Deeping_white]

New stand = Absolute vanity Willie-waving project

Let's build a team for promotion

What do supporters want .... a successful team or a half empty gleaming new stand that we can rent out for corporate functions ?

You only want the new team because you've been on here for the past few years claiming that Khan was prepping to asset strip us and that the new stand was a ruse for planning permission for flats, and you can't take being wrong

[Camel Club]

I think the key point is that the two go together.  Much as we love our ground, we must surely admit it needs to be improved.  An improved ground with some seats sold at a higher price is both Prem ready and helps increase our income in the short term (which helps a bit with FFP restrictions).  In addition it signals the intent of the owner and encourages him to invest in the players to get us back into the Prem where he can fill all those expensive seats.

Spot on.  :plus one:

[aaronmcguigan]

Both are absolutely key. There can be no under investment to the team over the next few years as you simply will not fill the posh new hospitality or the extra seats in the lower leagues. The second tier is as competitive as ever and standing still in it will only push us backwards

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

New stand = Absolute vanity Willie-waving project

Let's build a team for promotion

What do supporters want .... a successful team or a half empty gleaming new stand that we can rent out for corporate functions ?

Both, but with the ground full.
We've done it before

[Woolly Mammoth]

They both have to run in conjunction with each other.
Whether you want a new stand or not, eventually we will need one, as the costs will rise rapidly to construct.
It's a must, otherwise the alternatives are unthinkable.
No reason why it should prevent the enhancement of our transfers in. 
In fact may even accelerate new arrivals.

[St Eve]

Totally agree with Woolly

[..FOF..]

If your building a shiny New Stand, even more reason to have a decent team to get back to Prem.With the amount of money the Chairman's worth it's only half a Yacht and more importantly will only effect FFP in a positive way.

I think there is something here..... along the line if you are building an expensive stand, do it while you are getting Premiership money?

That were what Spurs and Arsenal doing maybe.... ensuring ability to survive at the top first with less funds for future players.

For us, we probably need to spend on both if we are chasing promotion too..... hopefully just extra money and not funds for transfers being cut.

[I Ronic]

Per square foot it must be one of the most valuable pieces of building site of any football club in the country. To ignore that and pump more money into it to improve it, is pretty impressive. There are plenty of rich business people who would spin a yarn about how financially impossible it was to improve it, sell it and move us out. The Chairman gets a big  :wine: from me.

[The Rational Fan]

Spurs and Arsenal's new stadium was for European Football, they spent the money required to get the players to play European Football.

Fulham's Riverside is for Premier League Football, we need to spend the money required to get the players to play Premier League Football.

The FFP rules are very generous to a team building a new stadium, so I think we can claim last years revenue for the Riverside Stand as allowed loss on player wages.   049:gif

[Roberty]

Our ground could be described as quaint, picturesque or even old fashioned but basically it's living in the past; when peeing behind a wall at the back of a stand was the norm and there was little regard to spectator comfort or for that matter safety.

I know because as a boy I used to go to watch Shrewsbury Town and apart from the roof over the stand and toilets and Craven Cottage being all seated (this was forced on us due to a change in the law), I can see little difference to the spectator experience that I endured at the old Gay Meadow.

The way we live has changed and Craven Cottage has to change too if it is to compete with all the other entertainment on offer and put b*ms on the seats.

So developing the Shadid Khan Riverside Stand will just be the start and sooner rather than later the temporary stands that Mo erected at the Hammersmith and Putney ends will also have to go.

[b+w geezer]

My answer to the original question would be "highly unlikely" as there should be no cashflow issues at the Khan level of wealth.

Not proceeding with the Riverside might have implied lessened interest in FFC, whereas proceeding implies intention to be sticking around.

As previously, I'd therefore expect him to spend what he can on the team, limited by the Financial Fair Play rules -- which the Riverside building costs are exempt from.

Spending it effectively .... a different issue.

[filham]

I was against it for a long while but now it is looking good and it is such a big sign of positive intent from the chairman.
The two years of construction are going to be painful, especially on those big match days when we should be pulling crowds of 25,000.

[toshes mate]

The new 'Riverside' is ostensibly a project to improve the ground and provide improved, non-football related income.  My doubts remain on both sides of this equation and are built upon the notion that trying to kill two birds with one stone is a gift that most often eludes the thrower.   The key is non-football related income and I just wonder, apart from the flats, how successful this will prove to be.  At first sight I thought the plans seemed inspiring from the POV of rendering community improvements that would increase traffic around the Craven Cottage area all the year around, matches or no matches, but the more I have looked at the plans and the more I have looked at the ideas generated during the many consultations the greater my doubts have become.  I am not sure there is an ideal and practical solution to the two sides that has revealed itself to our owners - hence my doubts.

I hope it creates unexpected revenues in line with Khan Snr's expectations but I'll not be surprised if it takes additional and substantial future investments to and modifications of the whole ground to inspire the required changes to FFP income.  In the meanwhile there is a football club to nurture back to the healthy state it enjoyed under our former owner, and that remains my sole mark of achievement that the Khans will have to fulfill to get my blessing.

[b+w geezer]

The new 'Riverside' is ostensibly a project to improve the ground and provide improved, non-football related income.  My doubts remain on both sides of this equation

Doubts on the second score are understandable. On the first part (improving the ground), the re-built stand will have a higher capacity and more matchday facilities within it. Aren't those improvements?