Does building a new ground = no new players

[Statto]

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.

+1
my thoughts exactly

[The Rational Fan]

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.

+1
my thoughts exactly

+2
Flex-N-Gates is doing very well, plenty of cash flow would be an understatement. As revenue of $7.5B per year, probably generates decent a cashflow too. 

[ALG01]

I have poredicted more than once a bottom 6 finish next season so the new stand gives me no pleasure. I can see many teams with wonderful stadiums in the lower leagues because they forgot a new stadium is a waste of money if the team is not up to it. currently we barely have half a squad and some of them we would be better off without.

Team first always!
If there is any money left, then buy a new stand.

[The Rational Fan]

I have poredicted more than once a bottom 6 finish next season so the new stand gives me no pleasure. I can see many teams with wonderful stadiums in the lower leagues because they forgot a new stadium is a waste of money if the team is not up to it. currently we barely have half a squad and some of them we would be better off without.

Team first always!
If there is any money left, then buy a new stand.

Fulham doesn't have enough money on its "balance sheet" to build a new stand. Mr Khan must be making a cash injection, hopefully it's a big injection that enough for the stand, the lost riverside revenue,  the squad, the youth and training facilities combined. Shahid Khan can afford it provided he delays buying a seventh plane for a year. 

[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

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?

Digging ground over with a fork is, arguably, improving it, but, on a serious level, many 'improvements' are subjective, have proven rather detrimental in the face of their declared purpose, have disastrously collapsed, or have themselves been demolished and rebuilt in favour of something new.  Archie Leitch's stand had a simple and quite modest purpose which was rather elegantly engineered and executed, except for the fact, perhaps, that someone forgot to ask him to include changing rooms and a tunnel out onto the pitch ...  The most effective improvement any football club has ever encountered is success in playing the game.   And so, to be clear, I am not knocking the ambition but I am doubting the means to get there. 

[b+w geezer]

I am not knocking the ambition but I am doubting the means to get there. 

Which presumably means you anticipate less spending on the playing side because of  investment in the stadium. (The question posed originally).  If so, then the following would be up for discussion, yes.

The most effective improvement any football club has ever encountered is success in playing the game.

Liverpool won successive League titles a generation ago and, though they haven't since, have stayed one of the most prestigious clubs in the land. On the other hand, they were already.

Huddersfield won three League titles in a row in the 1920s and it made no long-term difference to their status.

I think any shifts in these matters tend to be incremental at best. Leicester won the league recently, and we reached a Europa final, but we're still essentially the same level of club that we were before. 

Main thing was that supporters had a whale of a time at the time. Who is not all for that? Just wouldn't ascribe too much long-term signficance to it, that's all.

Stadium improvements are less fun, but tend to last longer than winning teams.

[ALG01]

I have poredicted more than once a bottom 6 finish next season so the new stand gives me no pleasure. I can see many teams with wonderful stadiums in the lower leagues because they forgot a new stadium is a waste of money if the team is not up to it. currently we barely have half a squad and some of them we would be better off without.

Team first always!
If there is any money left, then buy a new stand.

Fulham doesn't have enough money on its "balance sheet" to build a new stand. Mr Khan must be making a cash injection, hopefully it's a big injection that enough for the stand, the lost riverside revenue,  the squad, the youth and training facilities combined. Shahid Khan can afford it provided he delays buying a seventh plane for a year.

I am sure he has  plenty for us and a new plane too. The issue is if he is building the stand will he also invest properly in the team. So many clubs do one but not the other and in a choice of two surely the team comes first.... I am missing matches to talk about, I would rather the new season was underway and we can discuss the finer pints of tactics and personnel.

[toshes mate]

I am not knocking the ambition but I am doubting the means to get there. 

Which presumably means you anticipate less spending on the playing side because of  investment in the stadium. (The question posed originally).  If so, then the following would be up for discussion, yes.

I make no such assumption since one is controlled by FFP aside from any other factor and the other is not.  My point is simply one of the logic of any club that if you are going to do anything you do it well, and I question the virtues of our owners' decision making on both team building and stadium development.  It really is that simple.

[Sting of the North]

I have poredicted more than once a bottom 6 finish next season so the new stand gives me no pleasure. I can see many teams with wonderful stadiums in the lower leagues because they forgot a new stadium is a waste of money if the team is not up to it. currently we barely have half a squad and some of them we would be better off without.

Team first always!
If there is any money left, then buy a new stand.

Fulham doesn't have enough money on its "balance sheet" to build a new stand. Mr Khan must be making a cash injection, hopefully it's a big injection that enough for the stand, the lost riverside revenue,  the squad, the youth and training facilities combined. Shahid Khan can afford it provided he delays buying a seventh plane for a year.

I am sure he has  plenty for us and a new plane too. The issue is if he is building the stand will he also invest properly in the team. So many clubs do one but not the other and in a choice of two surely the team comes first.... I am missing matches to talk about, I would rather the new season was underway and we can discuss the finer pints of tactics and personnel.

I understand what your concern is. However, since our owner can afford to do both, there is no obvious reason to suspect that investing in one would exclude investing in the other, is there? So far SK cannot be accused of not investing in the team (good or bad investments are an entirely different topic). What are the actual comparable clubs for which investment in the team has been neglected in favor of investment in the stadiums to the long term detriment of the club (genuine question out of interest)?

I mean, sure we can always be afraid of the owner losing interest or otherwise just deciding that he won't invest any more than the bare minimum. However, this can happen regardless of the riverside development. I guess I just fail to see the investment in Craven Cottage as something that is not a good thing for FFC.

[bill taylors apprentice]

I can't see an issue with ground building over team building as described by b+w geezer and others.

Recruiting players over the time the Khans have been in control has not been an issue, I haven't checked but we have seen plenty of players arrive and I expect it to continue alongside the investment in facilities.

The problem has too often been the choice of players signed when we needed something else along with the timings of the recruitment in preseason.