I dont know what you dont get about british stadium policies, but I know that they have some of the most famous venues in the world and also some of the most modern and profitable with virtually no public money spent. Its a huge part of the financial succes of british sport, praised by financial institutions and currently being copied where possible all over europe.
i'm sorry but your wrong.....unless your manchester united,who have funded the redevelopment of old trafford privately,arsenal,who have funded ashburton grove with a massive loan from a german bank,liverpool are doing the same for their new stadium and chelski who could fund any new stadium with the loose change found down the back of romans sofa nearly everyother club has to go to the local goverment for help to fund new stadia....also you'll struggle to find a football club that turns a profit......they might have hugh turnovers but the profits get eaten by wages,operating cost and loans to banks....just look at manchester city, the 16th richest club in the world (according to a recent list) fantastic new stadium (built by the council) and 70 million pounds in DEBT......
and i've not got a problem with our stadiums....it's the people that run some of them......politics
lets get back to croke park,the irish football team will me playing at ANFIELD if they aren't allowed at croke park....it's stupid..."no you can't play in our fantastic 80,000 capacity stadium because football is a pro sport and croke park is for the gealic amature sport" IF IT'S AN AMATURE SPORT WHERE THE HELL DID THEY FIND 135 MILLION EURO TO BUILD IT.....sorry,it makes me mad...and i'm english for christ sake
sorry, but you are wrong. The vast majority of british stadium spending is private capital from the clubs who usually own the venues. True there are sometimes council involvement but overall its very limited and probably equal to the extra costs of many stadiums where clubs are paying for things for the council in order to get permission. True City got a cheap stadium because they were obviously in a good barganing position with the city hosting the com.games and needing to "get rid" of the stadium but that was unusual.
Yes many british clubs have large debts but please, even Man city have better finances than anyone in Italy for instance and most british clubs have huge assets and can quickly bring down cost if they need to. They have modern, heavily utilised privately owned stadiums and it works excellent and is why 10 of the turnover top 20 are british, indeed probably the entire 20 club premiership is inside the euro top 40.
I do hate, though, the influence of money in football which forces everyone to spend too much on players and hurts competition in football etc. but thats a different issue. british clubs are generally in a vastly superior position financially as they seem to be in most sports and the stadium model is considered key just look at financial reports from the likes of deloitte & Touche
The philosophy is pretty much:
Try to own it yourself to make sure you control what happens to it and strengthen its identity. Build modern of high quality with all facilities to maximise income. Dont build too big as its just expensive, will lower utilisation, and hurt the core product as empty seats "kill" events. However dont share, its too risky as it could cloud the clubs long term identity and existence