I think the point is that there are points in the construction and financial cycle that are more, and less favourable. To date, post Taylor, we have missed them all.
We didn’t move to a new stadium in 1999 because our eye was off the ball. How a much reduced cost is funded is irrelevant.
It is not true that a redevelopment is inherently less expensive than new build. The reverse is often the case.
It is true that, for us, building one or two new stands, in situ, is cheaper than building a new stadium. But there again, building one or two new stands is more expensive than building a new hot dog stand. In itself, it does not justify the hot dog stand.
There is nothing wrong with paying down a stadium investment over ten years that pays back over fifty. The cycle of opportunity post, and pre, dates both the Millenium stadium and Emirates ( see The Stadium of Light new build and the Hawthorns redevelopment).
What the Club has always needed is a stadium fit for the 21st Century and our status, in all stands, and a capacity commensurate to our support. The argument that you don’t expand capacity because you might not fill it is a poor one. You examine the evidence, and make a decision. Chelsea, Spurs and West Ham have done just that, and determined that the growth was there, as did Man U, Man City, Arsenal, Leicester, Southampton, Stoke, Swansea, Bournemouth, and Sunderland before them. That is why we are where we are.
As you say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
We can't make good the mistakes of the past, let us hope that our new main stand and ARE provide a platform for greater things all around.
