A red herring or a white elephant?

A sup headline on the back page of today's Times shouted:
'Crystal Palace to be rebuilt'.

In my head I immediately assumed we had been given the go ahead for our new stand. But, on reading the item it is telling us that the Mayor is committing millions to refurbishing the Sports Centre up the hill.

I can't help thinking that site would offer much better prospects for a brand new stadium for CPFC. Pity we aren't able to ride on the back of the refurb up there.

that is the question that needs to be considered, as we have to have a balance between real estate investment and the need to maintain a team in the EPL. I really cannot see how Parish under the current investors set-up is going to do this because he personally does not have the wealth necessary and the investors with the biggest pockets have wanted out for sometime now and the other one has gone off to France to spend his money there!

I understand the argument that an 8000-seat increase won't make us much more competitive in the league, especially if we have to choose between spending on the stand or the team.

At the same time, we have clearly hit a glass ceiling as a club. We cannot have anything more than a mid-table top-flight team unless we become a bigger club, and that means expanding the ground.

A slightly different way of looking at it is this: Apparently, we have the 34th largest football ground in the land (33rd largest club ground, once Wembley is omitted):

[Link]

There are a good few clubs in the Championship, League 1 and sometimes even League 2 with bigger and better stadiums than us who could, sooner or later, end up in the top flight. There is a risk that we may become the smallest club in the league if we don't develop the ground, just by virtue of other clubs getting promoted. They would all have greater revenue than us, and be more attractive to investment. Even if a new main stand won't get us a team that finishes much higher up the league, we may need to build it just to stay where we are.

Regarding the money, I was under the impression that the Americans, who have actually paid for a few players as it turned out, came in with the intention of paying for the bricks and mortar. Firstly, they are allowed to spend what they like on facilities without breaching FFP regulations and, secondly, that would seem a far safer way to invest in a club if you want its value (and your share) to grow. Even if we have a bad year and go down, the asset remains far more attractive if the facilities are there.

The delays to the main stand have cast doubt over my (probably very simplified) understanding of the funding idea, but then again when I listened to Parish talking to Gary Neville about the sheer scale of investment the academy and training ground have required, perhaps we've drained the Americans pockets already!

My instinct is that work on the stand will start in earnest in the next couple of years, that the costs will be bourne in the main, or at least in part, by the investors rather than the club, and that they will look to sell their share once the stand is open and successful.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (26 May 2023 3.03pm)

I understand the argument that an 8000-seat increase won't make us much more competitive in the league, especially if we have to choose between spending on the stand or the team.

At the same time, we have clearly hit a glass ceiling as a club. We cannot have anything more than a mid-table top-flight team unless we become a bigger club, and that means expanding the ground.

A slightly different way of looking at it is this: Apparently, we have the 34th largest football ground in the land (33rd largest club ground, once Wembley is omitted):

[Link]

There are a good few clubs in the Championship, League 1 and sometimes even League 2 with bigger and better stadiums than us who could, sooner or later, end up in the top flight. There is a risk that we may become the smallest club in the league if we don't develop the ground, just by virtue of other clubs getting promoted. They would all have greater revenue than us, and be more attractive to investment. Even if a new main stand won't get us a team that finishes much higher up the league, we may need to build it just to stay where we are.

Regarding the money, I was under the impression that the Americans, who have actually paid for a few players as it turned out, came in with the intention of paying for the bricks and mortar. Firstly, they are allowed to spend what they like on facilities without breaching FFP regulations and, secondly, that would seem a far safer way to invest in a club if you want its value (and your share) to grow. Even if we have a bad year and go down, the asset remains far more attractive if the facilities are there.

The delays to the main stand have cast doubt over my (probably very simplified) understanding of the funding idea, but then again when I listened to Parish talking to Gary Neville about the sheer scale of investment the academy and training ground have required, perhaps we've drained the Americans pockets already!

My instinct is that work on the stand will start in earnest in the next couple of years, that the costs will be bourne in the main, or at least in part, by the investors rather than the club, and that they will look to sell their share once the stand is open and successful.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (26 May 2023 3.03pm)