A bit-one eyed there from FSG. They could also factor in additional revenues from the possibility of having residential properties (was it plush apartments rumoured?) etc within the new Stand, or additional income from bars - not just on match-day, food and drink, and maybe even a sponsor for the stand?
Think SOS have mentioned the possibility of fan investment in the stand for a stake in the club as return?
Or they could, as a possibility, just highlight this 'ticket price / income issue' as a way/excuse/means to introduce corporate seating to a new ARE to help pay for it (despite previous statements that they wouldn't - but heh, things change over time) and help pay it off more quickly?
Got to hit the 60,000 sweetspot afterall? Maybe?
Ayre is being disingenuous with his statement of “If we had built a new 60,000 stadium say, the extra 15,000 seats would have had to pay back the whole investment.", technically it may be correct, though if they had built a new ground there sure would have been a lot more corporate facilities and premium seats and the like - at the expense of general admission seats) to help pay it back more quickly. As well as the obvious building a bigger ground than 60,000 results in extra seats to help pay it back (offset against the increase in price to build a bigger ground and requirements therein, of course - sweetspots, maybe?)
The club may have also found it slightly easier to push up the ticket prices that much more in a new ground where there is no restricted views or restricted legroom - and better facilities all around - every little helps, afterall.
Don't worry people who go into a huff when the topic of a 'new ground' is ever mentioned on here - it's just an opinion highlighting some not wholly accurate spin from Mr Be Careful What You Wish For.