Mega City One FC: Club Dredd
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Mega City One FC: Club Dredd
Suggesting a maximum capacity below 30k is surely setting the bar far too low. Sure, we may struggle to pull in higher amounts of fans, but given that we know that we can draw mid-20s at the moment why should we limit ourselves to never aiming any higher? I know that the big cliche in football stadiums is that any empty seats are mocked by opposition fans and should be avoided, and I know it costs more money to run a stadium where half the seats are never occupied, but this is not western Europe where every club knows its maximum likely attendance and feels guaranteed of a sell-out every week without feeling too much pressure to expand - football is still a growing sport in the US and there should be expected to be a certain margin of anticipated increase, with seats that may not be filled right now but might be in 5-10 years. No point capping yourself from Year One and then regretting it later.
True, having the capacity for growth is great. Especially given how hard it is to build. By the time you've got a plan approved and are building, makes sense to try to get set up for as long as possible.
The flip side is you end up with a substandard fan experience if the stadium feels lifeless, and struggle to maintain your base, no less grow.
I think the ideal solution is start small, but have a site (and a plan) that can accommodate later expansion.
If you're forced to choose between competing goods, such as room to grow vs imposing home field and crowd excitement, there is definitely some guess work (and subjective preference) involved.
You could well be right: if NYCFC takes flight, ownership would be kicking themselves for not being more aggressive if they were at 28K.
I tend to be cautious, and would rather up the odds of short term success than roll the dice on significant (and speculative) future growth.
The way I look at it is, if there is a need to expand seating down the line than it can be done. It was just done at Anfield, So starting in a safe spot of 30-35k is a solid move. NYC will be the main tenant and it will be our stadium but we all know they are going to pack every last thing they can in their (smaller concerts, USMNT/WNT, ICC, Rugby) so the stadium will get used even if the team is not there. Now if only this forum ran city council this thing would get built tomorrow
True story. As soon as I saw this news yesterday, I texted my wife about the convenience of getting to and from Yankee Stadium from Philly in a future Elon Musk run economy. She told me to fuck off
I'd gladly take a mammoth Art Deco monstrosity that's big enough for the World Cup and NFL someday. But realistically I fully expect them to build smaller and charge more. Even 25,000 seats gets you World Cup qualifiers, concerts, and can handle high school and college championships. Complete scratchpad numbers but 28,000 seats at $50 a ticket is the same money as 35,000 seats at $40 a ticket. It's a whole lot easier selling less product to the dedicated core that doesn't mind paying more and then discounting if you have to then waiting for demand to catch up to the size you've built.
I am in the build it smaller camp. But that's probably cause I'm a greedy capitalist pig. I want a smaller venue that will be sold out, meaning my season tickets which I am holding on to could actually be exclusive and worth something on the secondary market. I couldn't care less if the sheik doesn't squeeze an extra 300k out of some nosebleed tickets. Also makes for easier entry and exits with less people.
But more then anything really, the smaller it is the cheaper it is to build, the more room in the budget for bells and whistles to make it state of the art. Cause tickets at a state of the art venue in NYC proper should sell well on the secondary market, oink.
But more then anything really, the smaller it is the cheaper it is to build, the more room in the budget for bells and whistles to make it state of the art. Cause tickets at a state of the art venue in NYC proper should sell well on the secondary market, oink.
But this isn't just you, this is most season ticket holders. The financial base the club builds on. Make the experience top shelf, both in-stadium and as a season ticket holder, and then you build out from there. Buzz begets buzz. A full stadium and a wait list gives you proof positive that there's demand to build more capacity.
This is one of the real questions. Will the club want to maximize butts in the seats? Or is it willing to have smaller crowds as a tradeoff for higher ticket prices?
At almost every seat # we're talking about in this thread, we're still building excess capacity over current demand. Meaning the popularity of the club, and demand for seats, are going to have to grow before there's real upward pressure on ticket prices.
If the club was looking at a 22K seater, maybe then you'd be talking about higher prices, but lower attendance. Since that seems doubtful, I don't think the club is really looking at that trade off right now. What they're looking at is how to drive up demand so that they reap that benefit down the road. Which is a win-win for everyone--CFG's bottom line, for sure-- but also fans, b/c it means the club is kicking ass.
Rebuild the Polo Grounds! CFG can foot the bill for replacing the low income housing on the site at a 2-1 replacement rate.
If I recall correctly what our resident expert has said over the years (and I may not get this exactly right because #team40), waiting to expand in this jurisdiction is not an optimal alternative because, among other things, you would actually need to spend the money, resources and time at the outset in any event to plan and build the proper (architectural) infrastructure to sufficiently support any future expansions. And there is no guarantee that you will be able to successfully navigate the difficult NYC approval and permit processes the second time around. From that perspective, buying a size up with room to grow makes more sense.
Our luxury box to bleacher seats ratio is going to be through the roof. I wouldn't be surprised to see 25k proletariat seats, 5k bourgeoisie seats (club seats), and 50+ luxury suites.
For comparison, Yankee Stadium has 56 suites and MetLife has 218. Avaya Stadium has 576 club seats, 12 luxury suites, 6 field-level game day suites and 4 patio suites, so we would be blowing them out of the water. All the suites there are sold out. Orlando City has 31 with 2 still available for purchase, and something like 2,500 club seats (can't find the final number).
I'm a small stadium proponent, but the argument for a larger stadium initially to get around the approval process for expansion is persuasive. 30k seats with a ton of luxury suites could work for a long time.
Last edited:
I agree with what you're saying in principle, but I feel like you're assuming that the opposite of building small is to build so big that the stadium is only 40% full most games. I feel like there should be a happy medium in the middle. No-one is suggesting to start with a 40k+ stadium and hope we grow into it.
If we built a stadium with a capacity of 35k and got our current ~23k crowds, it's still 2/3rds full, not 2/5ths. At the lower end, a 30k stadium could already be 3/4 full and still have room for more. I don't think that a, (picking a figure out of the air) 32k stadium would be so empty every game that it would seriously affect atmosphere, especially as in large parts of the ground fans will clump together/pick the furthest-forward seats they can get, thus banishing most of the spare seating to the outskirts.
On top of that, there's all types of ways of laying out the stadium which could further combat the idea of empty seats killing the atmosphere - this is the great thing about a stadium which hasn't been built (or even designed) - yet, in that we can talk about it being laid out any way we like. What if the stadium were built in the classic modern "bowl" layout, but in two uneven tiers? A second tier above the first tends to be less "visible" in general, and where whole stands are empty they can be covered up with semi-permanent canvas to further reduce the effect - perhaps even cover the canvas with tifos for artistic effect.
The bottom one could be much bigger than the top, with, perhaps, 20k+ seats in it, and should reasonably expect to be filled, if via no other method than restricting what seats are on sale. You then build a smaller bowl of less than 10k as a second tier. Start by selling tickets only in the sections behind the goals, because this is where most of the excitement happens and because there's nothing better than a huge bank of fans behind the goal going crazy when someone scores, and then let the stands on the second tier slowly be filled in as more STH sign up.
Observe how the seats at the back at BC Place are covered here, and now imagine the covering perhaps having proper tifos on them instead of just being blank (and also imagine that those canvas covers are only on the second tier, not right at the front like here):
I agree with what you're saying in principle, but I feel like you're assuming that the opposite of building small is to build so big that the stadium is only 40% full most games. I feel like there should be a happy medium in the middle. No-one is suggesting to start with a 40k+ stadium and hope we grow into it.
If we built a stadium with a capacity of 35k and got our current ~23k crowds, it's still 2/3rds full, not 2/5ths. At the lower end, a 30k stadium could already be 3/4 full and still have room for more. I don't think that a, (picking a figure out of the air) 32k stadium would be so empty every game that it would seriously affect atmosphere, especially as in large parts of the ground fans will clump together/pick the furthest-forward seats they can get, thus banishing most of the spare seating to the outskirts.
On top of that, there's all types of ways of laying out the stadium which could further combat the idea of empty seats killing the atmosphere - this is the great thing about a stadium which hasn't been built (or even designed) - yet, in that we can talk about it being laid out any way we like. What if the stadium were built in the classic modern "bowl" layout, but in two uneven tiers? A second tier above the first tends to be less "visible" in general, and where whole stands are empty they can be covered up with semi-permanent canvas to further reduce the effect - perhaps even cover the canvas with tifos for artistic effect.
The bottom one could be much bigger than the top, with, perhaps, 20k+ seats in it, and should reasonably expect to be filled, if via no other method than restricting what seats are on sale. You then build a smaller bowl of less than 10k as a second tier. Start by selling tickets only in the sections behind the goals, because this is where most of the excitement happens and because there's nothing better than a huge bank of fans behind the goal going crazy when someone scores, and then let the stands on the second tier slowly be filled in as more STH sign up.
Observe how the seats at the back at BC Place are covered here, and now imagine the covering perhaps having proper tifos on them instead of just being blank (and also imagine that those canvas covers are only on the second tier, not right at the front like here):
I get what you're saying. If it's done smartly, it can be done. We're all kind of relying on "best case" thinking to some degree. In my mind, you can build at 28K, and the architectural plan could be designed from the beginning with the ability to add 10K later if the need arises. In reality, that may not be so easy, for a number of reasons that have already been discussed.
In your case, with forethought, can you make a 2/3 full stadium seem almost full? Sure. You've laid out a couple ways it could be done. There would have to be equally thoughtful approach, IMO, in terms of restricting ticket sales to keep the secondary market tight. [btw, I've found it harder to move seats at a lower price this year than last, with a relatively modest drop in attendance, but I digress...] I don't think covered up sections and cosmetic fixes could ever be the same as a packed arena, but there's a huge difference between a thoughtful approach to distributing the crowd, vs. just letting people go everywhere and having obvious gaps. Given the difficulty and lead time to add on capacity, it could make sense to build bigger up front.
I'm somewhat biased as I spent my formative years in Cameron Indoor, which is sold out every game and the crowd is dialed up all the time. I would love to see NYCFC have a home that creates that kind of intimidating environment for the visiting club. Obviously different sport, contained gym vs open air, and 100 year old program vs expansion club. I get that you can't generate that type of crowd intensity out of thin air, but many MLS franchises (thinking specifically of the Pacific northwest, to your Whitecaps example) seem to have built a ton of energy and flavor in short order. And by the way, I feel like NYCFC has done that pretty well, despite the obvious difficulties of YS.
Last edited:
You need to go back and read my past posts on the infrastructure needs that have to be accounted for to accommodate expansion. Once those are accounted for, you might as well "expand" with the initial construction to save yourself the headache of government agencies and community groups.
The expansion idea, as I've said, is a "perfect world" that probably won't come together without a lot of pain. So if that's the case, and it comes down to big vs small, lets look at it through the lens of downside risk. If you build big and demand stays constant (or even continues its decline), you could have the worst case scenario where you see season ticket holder attrition because of the fan experience, or simply because folks can't sell their unused tickets and walk away. You would have a situation where the fan experience is not optimized (although as Falastur points out, there are ways to mitigate).
Regardless, if you build smaller you certainly have more margin of error in terms of filling the stadium, and keeping prices up. That's just math.
So the downside to smaller is that you leave money on the table if demand grows significantly. The downside to larger is that you overbuild and hurt the season ticket base. The latter could be a setback to the franchise, the former is not.
Btw, at 28K we're still above the average demand from opening year, and significantly (~27%) above current season average attendance. At 35K capacity, we'd be 37% vacant on average, given current year average attendance. And we're still seeing a downward trend (see Seth's chart above). I do expect this trend to reverse at some point (as I'm sure we all do), but do we want to be 40% vacant on average to kick off the new stadium?
I guess the right question to be asking is this: do we expect that having a permanent home leads to significant uptick in overall demand for tickets? Not just "new stadium" demand that fades after a season or two, but lasting demand?
My initial thought is that it's a zero sum game (add some demand from those who can get to the location more easily, lose some demand from those for whom its farther). But I'm open to evidence proving the opposite.
Mets and Titans/Jets migration from Polo Grounds to Shea? RSL moving from Rice-Eccles to Rio Tinto?
My initial thought is that it's a zero sum game (add some demand from those who can get to the location more easily, lose some demand from those for whom its farther). But I'm open to evidence proving the opposite.
Mets and Titans/Jets migration from Polo Grounds to Shea? RSL moving from Rice-Eccles to Rio Tinto?
There's been a lot of discussion on social media of STH giving up their tix because of YS and it's polluted (as opposed to purity) experience of soccer via distant seating. A real stadium will definitely get a bump back in STH purchases, regardless of location within the 4 boroughs. Definitely not a zero sum game.
