What's the point of rebuilding the Riverside??

[bobby01]

Because all threads end up having a dig at tony Khan, sad but true.

[Somerset Fulham]

It does seem that way.

Especially now that 'Parker Out' has simmered down, at least until the weekend.

[Statto]

The new stand c;learly makes financial sense, up to a point.

But we all know that football is lttered with teams that are failing having improved or moved to fantatstic new stadiums. Teams like the arse and spours do not count in this respect because of the nature of their size but there are plenty of others. Eric Miller built the new stand and that got 30 years in the doldrums with only a handful seats ever sold.

If we fail to stay up and decline as we did when we first went down with the khans, crowds and interest in us will dwindle.

you need to do both, build the stadium and build the team in parallel..and that means getting a forward or two, who should have been here in time for tonights and saturday's game.

I need to be careful how I respond, it's not an argument, but the new stand will generate a lot more non football income that the old riverside stand couldn't .

It will and the capacity to exploit the facilites is way better understood in these days than then. Coporate stuff etc. alone ramps up the money.
But we know failure to invest in the team will be a very bad thing and you lnow my view on what I think needs to be done in that respect.

But this thread was started with the argument that the Khan's investment in the new stand has a negative effect on the investment in the squad. Unless our alleged failure to invest in a striker is a consequence of the new stand that argument is already dead in the water. So far no one has even indicated why the two would be linked in any way. As for threads on our transfer activity I believe we already have a million of those.

This was not directed at you personally by the way, just responded to the last post. I just don't understand how this thread have reached 3 pages and still have failed to include anything at all justifying any sort of discussion on the matter of the original post.

Well hold on

Neither the OP, nor any post in the chain you're replying to, nor any others that I can see (admittedly I may have missed one somewhere) are saying that "that the Khan's investment in the new stand has a negative effect on the investment in the squad." You just appear to have conjured that conclusion from thin air.

People are just saying, reasonably IMO, that whilst it is beneficial to invest in the stand, it is equally, perhaps even more, important to invest in the team, and failing to to that makes the investment in the stand a bit pointless - the simple rationale being, what's the point in going after a few million in non-matchday revenue but not simultaneously going after the £100m TV money we get from staying up? Similarly, what's the point in having a 30,000 seat stadium if we allow the team to descend to the Championship where our average attendance will only be half that?

TK is in charge of player recruitment so any discussion of our failures in that area is likely to involve some criticism of TK. Again quite reasonable, and relevant.

[Statto]

Bump

Bateman's OP looking very relevant right now, after that pathetic shambles of a window

[The Rational Fan]

Because all threads end up having a dig at tony Khan, sad but true.

The fans want to embrass Tony Khan until he spends his money in the transfer market more wisely, just like Ebenezer Scrooge and Mike Ashley would do. WARNING: WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT WE WISH FOR, WE MIGHT GET IT.

[hovewhite]

Jacksonville Jaguars have an unbelievable stadium but are the worst team in the NFL.

there looking for the same in England.

[mrmicawbers]

This window has been effected by the previous Premier League debacle and Covid.Let's hope the new boy comes out flying.Should be no excuse regards time to settle in.

[The Rational Fan]

The new stand c;learly makes financial sense, up to a point.

But we all know that football is lttered with teams that are failing having improved or moved to fantatstic new stadiums. Teams like the arse and spours do not count in this respect because of the nature of their size but there are plenty of others. Eric Miller built the new stand and that got 30 years in the doldrums with only a handful seats ever sold.

If we fail to stay up and decline as we did when we first went down with the khans, crowds and interest in us will dwindle.

you need to do both, build the stadium and build the team in parallel..and that means getting a forward or two, who should have been here in time for tonights and saturday's game.

I need to be careful how I respond, it's not an argument, but the new stand will generate a lot more non football income that the old riverside stand couldn't .

It will and the capacity to exploit the facilites is way better understood in these days than then. Coporate stuff etc. alone ramps up the money.
But we know failure to invest in the team will be a very bad thing and you lnow my view on what I think needs to be done in that respect.

But this thread was started with the argument that the Khan's investment in the new stand has a negative effect on the investment in the squad. Unless our alleged failure to invest in a striker is a consequence of the new stand that argument is already dead in the water. So far no one has even indicated why the two would be linked in any way. As for threads on our transfer activity I believe we already have a million of those.

This was not directed at you personally by the way, just responded to the last post. I just don't understand how this thread have reached 3 pages and still have failed to include anything at all justifying any sort of discussion on the matter of the original post.

Well hold on

Neither the OP, nor any post in the chain you're replying to, nor any others that I can see (admittedly I may have missed one somewhere) are saying that "that the Khan's investment in the new stand has a negative effect on the investment in the squad." You just appear to have conjured that conclusion from thin air.

People are just saying, reasonably IMO, that whilst it is beneficial to invest in the stand, it is equally, perhaps even more, important to invest in the team, and failing to to that makes the investment in the stand a bit pointless - the simple rationale being, what's the point in going after a few million in non-matchday revenue but not simultaneously going after the £100m TV money we get from staying up? Similarly, what's the point in having a 30,000 seat stadium if we allow the team to descend to the Championship where our average attendance will only be half that?

TK is in charge of player recruitment so any discussion of our failures in that area is likely to involve some criticism of TK. Again quite reasonable, and relevant.

If you don't believe stadium-size affects team success, then let me list the eight biggest attendances of the 2017/18 Championship and I'll ask is a correlation (of course there is and its not really debatableble). Is the stadium-size correlation with success prove the stadium-size is causation of the team's success?  Everyone has to say YES, the only debate is to what extent is the causation, and whether it is significant causation. Summary the correlation between stadium size and success is huge, the degree of causation is between a little and a lot. 

2017/18 Championship Team and their Attendances (and position now)
1    Aston Villa    32,097 (currently 9th in Premier League)
2    Leeds United    31,521 (currently 11th in Premier League)
3    Wolverhampton 28, 298 (currently 14th in Premier League)
4    Sunderland 27,635
5    Derby County 27,175
6    Sheffield United 26,854 (currently 20th in Premier League)
7    Sheffield Wednesday    25,995
8    Norwich City 25,785 (currently 1st in Championship)

A Bigger Stadium will help us in many ways by small margins, a youth player may be more likely to join, a sponsor may choose us over Crystal Palace, the crowd maybe a little louder and we might get a few more overseas supporters visit once and subscribe to something. In the end, a 30,000 stadium would be a big reason for a player (or a fan or a sponsor) to join (or support) Fulham rather than Bournemouth.