Home
Advantage
15/03/02 | by Alex Walker
as published in the Lincoln Defender
Leicester
City have finally got permission to build a new stadium and work
at the Freeman’s Wharf site began earlier this season. The
Foxes have long wanted to leave Filbert Street, ever since they
won promotion in 1996. But although their new 32,000-seater
stadium will finally give them a Premiership quality home, it is
almost certain that it will be hosting Nationwide League
football.
City are rooted to the bottom of the Premier League and the price
of their new stadium has been to break the club’s budget,
leaving manager Dave Basset no money for transfers, making
relegation a near certainty.
It is also not apparent why Leicester so desperately needed a new
ground: their average home attendance for the 2000/01 season of
20,452 is significantly below Filbert Street’s 22,000
capacity, suggesting that they wouldn’t be able to fill
Freeman’s Wharf even if they did somehow avoid relegation.
They need not look far for warnings against blowing money on new
stadia: Derby County are currently one place above Leicester in
the league, struggling with £30m debts amassed from the
construction of their Pride Park stadium in 1998.
Meanwhile, Nottingham Forest are still paying for the Trent End
stand at the City Ground, seven years after it was opened, adding
to the already substantial debts of the club.
Other examples of teams suffering as a result of investing in new
properties include Middlesborough and Bolton who were both
relegated shortly after changing venues, and Chelsea who, after
expanding Stamford Bridge to include a hotel and leisure complex,
now face £90m of debt.
There are some exceptions - clubs who have had success since
changing their ground. Southampton’s St Mary’s Stadium
seems just as lucky for relegation battles as The Dell ever was,
and Sunderland, Charlton and Ipswich have all done well since
moving or improving their grounds.
Whether this was a direct result is difficult to say, but
considering the level of financial risk involved with developing
modern stadia and the unpredictable nature of the game, there
can’t be many clubs in a position to safely gamble that much
money, just for the sake of state-of-the-art facilities.
Not only that, but many new stadiums are unpopular with fans.
Huddersfield’s McAlpine Stadium and the Britannia Stadium in
Stoke may both look good, but supporters complain of poor
atmosphere compared to traditional grounds due to a combination
of bad acoustics and restrictive seating arrangements in the name
of safety.
With this in mind, it begs the question: why are the FA are
spending £700m on rebuilding Wembley when the money could be put
to much better use? Developing more talented young players, for
instance. With the whole economic structure of football currently
hanging in the balance, owing to the over-spending by ITV Sport
upon purchasing television rights, the FA’s own
over-spending could see the national team in the same unfortunate
position Leicester City currently find themselves in - suffering
on the pitch because of poor fore-sight and the desire for
aesthetically pleasing stadia.