Newcastle United’s biggest question is creeping, finally, towards a conclusion.
The club have revealed a decision will be made on whether to stay at St James’ Park or move in “early 2025”.
But is that a sign of progress or the sound of a can being kicked further down the road?
Here i reveals what the club’s majority owners the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) are thinking and the key issues that have come under consideration in phase one of the feasibility study. Here’s what we know.
The ‘risks’ of St James’ Park
Newcastle CEO Brad Miller wasn’t joking when he said that the stadium question is “complex”. With listed buildings around one side of the stadium and issues to contend with behind the Gallowgate End, it is far from a straightforward decision.
“We know what a transformed St. James’ Park would give us and we now have a significant amount of data and feedback on our stadium footprint and surrounding area, so we are several steps forward,” Miller said of the feasibility study findings.
“But it is also clear that this option has several risks associated with it, so we need to fully analyse those risks against the opportunities to reach truly informed and intelligent outcomes.”
What that translates to is that this isn’t easy folks. St James’ Park might be the club’s spiritual home but what makes it great is what makes expansion so costly and – as Newcastle are admitting for the first time – possibly not quite worth the sizeable cost of the scheme.
So what are the risks? Alongside planning difficulties Newcastle’s lease on the ground expires in 2097 which is a long way away but also will need to be extended – perhaps beyond the 99-year lease that was agreed last time the ground was expanded in 1998. i understands the city council are amenable to that, but haven’t been approached yet.
All of those risks are manageable but Miller’s point about “assessing risk against opportunity” hints at what is really underlying all of this: is it worth it? Throwing £500m or more at the stadium for a small upgrade in seats and negligible returns in terms of facilities clearly isn’t. A bigger spend for a “transformed” St James’ Park might – and that’s what stage two will ultimately decide in the coming months.
What PIF are really thinking
When i asked about the stadium recently the message came back that “the bigger question hasn’t changed” since day one of the takeover. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that PIF remain undecided on the future and i has been told the role of the feasibility study is “critical” to what comes next.
It all boils down to this. Any change at St James’ Park needs to follow the same process that any big decision in the PIF portfolio will: does it make sense for the investment?
That is a million miles away from the more feverish predictions for the club when PIF took over, when perceptions among the support was that money wouldn’t be an object to revamping the squad and the stadium. It is true that hundreds of millions have been invested but PIF insiders insist there is no such thing as a blank cheque.
All PIF projects are now being made to walk through a “gateway” which determines whether they are value for money, add value to the investment and forward the interests of Saudi Arabia. It feels like the stadium project is going through a similar process.
Sources have made it clear that everything – from redeveloping the existing ground to moving somewhere else in the city – is on the table.
The final word here to Miller: “We are challenging our appointed design team, and ourselves, to make sure our eventual chosen route delivers a fantastic fan experience – one that represents the fans, city, region and club, and aligns with the long-term ambitions of our ownership group.”
New stadium has clear benefits
Ask any architecture expert and they will tell you a new-build offers a blank canvas and bigger opportunities for Newcastle.
The brains behind the SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles told i just that earlier this year and in terms of scope, facilities and potential capacity, a new-build ticks boxes for Newcastle.
But it will come with an absolutely huge bill so it is far from a given.
Miller says whatever they decide “must provide an investible return, and not least deliver strong revenue growth to increase our PSR headroom, which, as everyone knows, means we can invest more in football.”
That is probably the first time the club have said – in black and white, if you pardon the pun – that economics are such a big part of their thinking.
What kind of capacity are Newcastle looking at?
It is understood that one of the biggest considerations for Newcastle in the first phase of the feasibility study was how big St James’ Park could conceivably get. Options up to 80,000 have been looked at – but there are reservations around that because sellouts for every game might not be guaranteed at that level, which has knock on impact for ticket prices, corporate offerings and everything else around the stadium. The Manchester City experience – where midweek games might have to be discounted – is not something Newcastle want to replicate.
But a small increase in capacity to 60,000 – which would still require significant work – might have a huge cost attached to it and not actually bring in much in the way of revenue. The smart money is on something in between if Newcastle stick at St James’ Park.
Experts tell i that any new stadium would likely come with an initial capacity of something like 70,000 but retain an option to add extra capacity, which would come at less cost.
How much will emotion really come into it?
In December 2022 then co-owner Mehrdad Ghodoussi said building a new stadium would be like “tearing your soul out”. When he and Amanda Staveley were at the club they signposted several times that St James’ Park was the preferred option. A “cathedral on the hill” was what Ghodoussi called it back then.
i understands that rebuilding St James’ Park remains the preferred ideal option of many at the club who understands the history and emotional pull of a stadium which has been at the centre of the city for generations. Miller told i in August he had been taking “straw polls” of fans he has met on the street, and even asked reporters what they would do to illustrate how split the supporter base is.
As much as those making the decision understand what is involved in this “historic” call it is difficult to ignore that this will be dictated by pounds, pennies and possibilities.
As one source pointed out: “Do Newcastle fans really want to stay at St James’ Park and finish seventh – or do they want to try for something bigger in every sense?”
The additional consideration that hangs over the decision
Newcastle are among the hosts of Euro 2028, slated to hold group games and a potential knockout fixture at St James’ Park. That creates possible issues around expansion.
If a decision on next steps is due by March 2025 at the latest, first spades are unlikely to be in the ground for a few more months. That creates a tight turnaround to have everything ready in the run up to the tournament kicking off in June 2028.
Newcastle will not want to hand back their allocation of fixtures but it is a possibility with Sunderland’s Stadium of Light or a renovated Elland Road ready to possibly step up.
These are all considerations for phase three of the project – after a decision is made – along with where Newcastle could possibly play if they decide to stick it out at St James’ Park and rebuilding work makes it impossible to fulfil fixtures there. Might they have to ape Barcelona and move to Gateshead for a season?
Is doing nothing really a feasible option?
While Miller’s comments will inevitably be interpreted as Newcastle narrowing their choice to rebuild or move there is a third, possibly more uncomfortable, option for the club: sitting on their hands.
It does not appear to tally with what PIF say in public or private – and quotes about the project being “historic”, “once-in-a-generation” and requiring a “massive cheque” – but nevertheless it can’t be discounted entirely.
It would surely feel like a retrograde decision though. The stadium is good but ageing in places and the facilities are tired compared to Europe’s best. The potential to sweat the asset – through corporate offerings and events like NFL games, major events or world title boxing sellouts – is low. The opportunity to grow PSR headroom at St James’ Park is one of the reasons why Newcastle need to make some big calls.
But most of all, with sellouts almost guaranteed every week, not expanding capacity would lock out generations of fans for the next few years. St James’ Park in its current state simply isn’t big enough for what Newcastle are at the moment, never mind what they aspire to be. PIF would face serious questions about their sporting ambition if that happened.
Endgame is finally in sight for the biggest talking point at Newcastle United
Ever since the PIF took over Newcastle, this has been the single biggest item on the agenda. But really it has loomed large over the club for longer than that, with Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos group walking away from a possible takeover of the club six years ago because they didn’t feel there was any realistic prospect of expanding St James’ Park.
Changes in architectural technology, building materials and competition among firms means that’s no longer true but just because it is possible doesn’t mean it is easy and that is why Newcastle’s stadium issue has rumbled on for so much longer than Manchester United’s.
The feasibility study has been ongoing for more than a year – season ticket holders were polled for their views in December 2023 – but the time is fast approaching when the question needs to be answered for everyone’s sake. We now have a timescale for that call – “early 2025”. So by March at the latest, next steps will have been mapped out. As Miller admits, it will be a difficult decision for the club to make.
