It’s been called the cathedral on the hill, a towering presence that has overlooked Newcastle since 1880. St James’ Park. More than just a football ground.
Perched high above the rest of ‘the town’, it’s like almost no other in English football. It’s location is almost symbolic - dominating the skyline just as football dominates the city. When the atmosphere inside the stadium is buoyant, so are the sales and revenue in the bars, restaurants and shops that sit in its shadow.
The Tyne Bridge, Grey’s Monument and St James’ Park. Newcastle ’s holy trinity of iconic landmarks.
READ MORE: Howe's work, Bruno and Trippier tactic, Grealish motivation - Inside Almiron's Newcastle revival
And yet all the while the atmosphere and football inside the stadium is as good as it’s been in a long time, it is creating a dilemma that could see the latter of that famous trio, incredibly, seal its own fate.
Just three years ago, Newcastle were forced to give away 10,000 season tickets after masses cancelled their seats, weary with the lack of ambition under Mike Ashley off the pitch, and the turgid football being served on it by Steve Bruce. Now, they could probably shift another double that number, on top of the sell-out they already have.
Not since the mid-90s Keegan era has demand outstripped supply in such a way. A ‘champagne problem’ as chief executive officer Darren Eales told the Chronicle last month.
How to cater for the extra clamour for seats is one of the burning issues facing the board, led by Amanda Staveley and Mehrdad Ghodoussi. Revamp and expand St James’ Park or build a brand-new purpose built stadium elsewhere?
It isn’t as straightforward as just deciding whether to stay or go. Expansion is the preferred option for the Saudi owners and the rest of the board - plans have been drawn up in the past - but achieving that would involve a lot of planning, red tape and money. The East Stand, as everyone is aware, is hemmed in by Grade II listed buildings while increasing the size of the Gallowgate brings structural - and cost - issues of its own.
"The reality is, we are in a situation where we are limited in capacity,” admitted Eales. “We’ll obviously be looking at if there are ways we can flex that.”
Eales and the owners have vowed to consult fans all the way on plans, both around moving from St James’ or expanding, and over potentially selling the naming rights to wherever Newcastle play their football over the next few years. Transparency and dialogue will be at the forefront as they look to make a decision that is best for supporters but also the club and city as a whole.
The Chronicle, over the last few weeks, has carried out a survey of our own, consulting fans on their views on the two hot topics. Almost 3,000 opinions were offered, and on St James’ the opinion was unanimous with a whopping 74% saying they preferred the club to redevelop the famous ground that has been the club’s home for all of its 130 years.
Paul Lynch, from Great Park, has had a season ticket for 32 of those. For him, whatever the club does, it has to be with making tickets affordable at the very heart of the decision.
“In an ideal world, the stadium stays where it is and it is expanded - the principles should be as many fans attending as possible at affordable prices,” he said. “I think 60,000 would be adequate, but a larger capacity could help to reduce ticket prices.
“People criticise Manchester City fans about empty seats, but if you are as successful as they are, the amount of games and cost of following the team can be extortionate, especially if you pay for kids also. Season tickets and going deep into all cup competitions is very expensive, especially if you have Champions League football also. That is before you factor in away games.
“We have to remember that we live in the poorest part of the country and we are heading into further economic difficulty. Any extra capacity should be to create opportunities for 'ordinary' fans to attend, not more expensive corporate seats.”
Twenty one per cent of those who took the Chronicle survey believe the club need to move to a new stadium to fulfil its ambitions, with the remaining 5% unsure of what is the best course of action. Paul admitted: “I do understand the other argument but keeping the stadium where it is, is my preference. It is the perfect city centre location and we have played on the site of the stadium for over 100 years - tradition is important, particularly given how everything else changes so quickly in football.
“If the stadium did move, then I think it should be on the proviso that: one, another city centre site is found; two, that the move is made in order to make watching Newcastle play affordable for everyone; three, the design of the new stadium places atmosphere at its core; and four, it doesn't look like other boring new stadia.
“The city centre location is critical. It fuels the economy of the city and it's regularly lauded as best away day for away fans, as borne out by the away end being regularly sold out. Going for a drink in town after a Newcastle win, you can feel the atmosphere of the city being driven by the football club and its fortunes. I'd hate to ever lose that.”
Sean Whelan, 38, from Harlow, Essex, has held his season ticket for 22 years and he thinks rebuilding the stand where he sits is the best option. “They don't need to move,” he said. “Like a lot of people I want to see them increase the size of the Gallowgate to bring it in line with the Milburn and Leazes.
“A 60,000 capacity would be enough. I don't doubt they could sell more tickets, but I'd rather not lose a city centre location to accommodate the bandwagon jumpers.
“If we were to move, I’d feel like the club's identity was going to change. Every big city club that has moved to a new stadium has lost something. Regardless of results, Manchester United and Liverpool still look and feel like the establishment clubs.
“Arsenal lost that when they left Highbury. Go to West Ham now and you don't even feel like you're in East London. Even Spurs have lost something, they rely on London tourists buying tickets on the seat exchange to fill their ground.
“I like the quirks of St James' Park and the way it looks from the outside - the brutalist 1970s reinforced concrete of the East Stand in contrast to the Georgian façade of Leazes Terrace.”
While staying at St James’ Park seems the obvious winner among the fanbase, the issue of stadium naming rights is less clear cut, and could all depend on where United play their football over the next decade.
Newcastle fans have been burned before here, of course. Ashley’s infamous, petty - no, spiteful - call to rebrand St James’ Park as the Sports Direct Arena in 2011 is one of the most controversial, heartbreaking moves he inflicted on the club’s supporters. We are in a different era now, however, and any decision over selling the naming rights to the Gallowgate would be done to benefit the club financially, not one man’s favourite child, you’d think.
Fans, though, are split. For some, the need to drive the club’s revenues in order to catch up with the Premier League’s biggest spenders means it’s an option that should be explored. When Ashley bought Newcastle in 2007, their commercial income was £28million; when he sold up 14 years later it was just £29million. Compare that to Spurs, who has risen their commercial activity from £39m to £162m in the same period, and it's easy to see why FFP boundaries need to be pushed back - with naming rights a serious consideration.
The more money you make, the more FFP allows you to spend on new players.
If it’s good enough for Barcelona with their Spotify Camp Nou, is it not good enough for Newcastle? Those on the other side of the fence point to the homes of two of the biggest commercial clubs in the world, Old Trafford and Anfield, not being ‘tainted’ by sponsorship, and insist Barcelona aren’t the best example of how to run a financially successful club.
That split in opinion is reflected in the results of our survey, with 51% believing selling the naming rights to the stadium is the right thing to do, 37% voting against it, and 12% unsure.
Naming rights have tended to come hand in glove with new stadia. We have the Etihad and Emirates already, as well as the King Power in Leicester, though that was previously the Walkers Stadium too. Chopping and changing the name of your home every time a sponsorship deal is renewed feels uncomfortable.
“I’m not so bothered on naming rights,” added Lynch, “It'll always be St James’ Park, although if it was a new ground, then you don't have that battle against tradition that will come with a stadium sponsor. As long as the money is invested in the club, I'm not precious.”
Whelan, however, has a different take. “Naming rights sounds like fool's gold to me. Take Man City, they were gifted a brand new publicly funded stadium that is now a billboard for an airline. Partly as a result of the stadium, Man City have an air of nothingness about them.
"It's easy to get carried away when results are positive and better players are being signed, but naming the stadium of a football club after a corporate brand has to be a red line. It will change your interpretation of the club forever.”
