Except your entire premise is based on the mistaken belief that the fans have to pay for Stadiums and not only pay for them but pay for them in the shortest possible time.
Please explain to me why we can't have a virtuous circle were the increased value of the Club pays for a bigger Stadium which in turn increases the value of the Club. You know a virtuous circle were an increased capacity drives matchday revenue which in turn drives commercial revenues, which in turn increases our chances of being successful on the pitch which again drives revenues and which increases the value of the Asset.
Sorry but that is total shite.
I should explain, the value of the club is based on its nett income (more accurately, the return on investment) - what it earns after cost. This applies to all forms of income (TV, Commercial, Matchday). For the sake of clarity. Value is not based on cost. It is not based on the cost of players. It is not based on the cost of a stadium. A £500m stadium does not make the value of the club £500m greater. It doesn't. Sorry and all that but it just doesn't.
An increase in value comes from the difference between what the club earns and what it costs to earn it. Generally expressed as a percentage compared with the amount that percentage could pay for as a loan at prevailing interest rates over a fixed period of time. In short, a paper exercise, if an important one.
You can't spend Value. The only 'money to pay for a stadium' in that equation is the income (less the costs). The value itself pays for nothing.
Nevertheless, you could raise money on the value of an asset by selling shares or debentures in the asset as a separate entity or in the whole business but that would in effect be selling return, which would be self-defeating as it would decrease the availability of funds to improve the team (and as the investors will want their return).
Not only that but unfortunately the income after costs must come first. ie., you have to build and pay for the stadium and realise the income before the value is increased. Of course you could punt the whole thing into the financial market but then what you'd get back would be considerably less than the value you propose. Because every man and his dog would factor in risk for the bet.
So I'm afraid your little 'virtuous circles' either run in reverse or run at significant discounts.
What is more, matchday revenue does not drive commercial revenue. It just doesn't. Profile drives commercial revenue. The fanaticism of support in the ground might help and certainly does around the world but to follow your argument, a huge (and costly) stadium with low ticket prices and income would send matchday revenue down, not up. Our global profile has been just as big if not bigger with a smaller stadium and lesser matchday income (eg., in 2005). It's only a pity we had two dipsticks in control who knew three parts of not very much how to exploit it.
What does increase our chances of winning on the pitch is better players and better management. The money required to put these in place comes from revenue after costs. The increase in value is important but incidental (as JWH said at the start, as some of us with better memories will recall).
Only in the short term though. Look at the Kop we pay £50 a game for a stand that cost a pittance.
Why should owners get the fans to pay for Stadiums and then walk away with hundreds of millions of profit.
Why would they do otherwise?