Stadium Expansion

Need some help with a few issues im having.

Playing as Tottenhm I moved to my new 73515k stadium with a roof in 2020. Am now in 2025 and have asked for an expansion for the last 4 seasons with the response of the board don't feel the need for expansion. The thing is i've had average attendnce of 70k, 69k, 70k and 71k last season. Have over £160mil in the bank but a loan of £70mil.

I checked FMRTE to see what was going on with the stadium. These are the stats it gives me.

Tottenham Stats

Average Att : 79547

Min Att: 36310

Max Att: 99433

Stadium Stats

Capacity: 73515

Seating: 73515

Capacity Used: 0

Expansion capacity: 65000

The thing i dont understand is the Capacity Used and Expansion capacity. Does this mean my stadium is fixed at 73k or is there hope for a expansion. I have checked all the new stadiums built in the Prem since i started (Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea) and they all have the same stats for the last 2.

Don't know about the last 2, but I can you that this:

Max Att: 99433

Means that 99433 is how many seats you can expand your stadium to before it maxes out and you need to build a new one.

Average Att : 79547

Min Att: 36310

Max Att: 99433

Stadium Stats

Capacity: 73515

Seating: 73515

Capacity Used: 0

Expansion capacity: 65000

What Ive always thought was that the 'Max Att' is the club record.

And the 'Expansion capacity' is how much it can be expanded to.

What Ive always thought was that the 'Max Att' is the club record.

And the 'Expansion capacity' is how much it can be expanded to.

Then why would the 'Expansion Capacity' stat be the same for all the clubs, as the OP stated here?

Capacity Used: 0

Expansion capacity: 65000

The thing i dont understand is the Capacity Used and Expansion capacity. Does this mean my stadium is fixed at 73k or is there hope for a expansion. I have checked all the new stadiums built in the Prem since i started (Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea) and they all have the same stats for the last 2.

What Ive always thought was that the 'Max Att' is the club record.

And the 'Expansion capacity' is how much it can be expanded to.

I didn't claim to be right.

Then why would the 'Expansion Capacity' stat be the same for all the clubs, as the OP stated here?

I didn't claim to be right.

I didn't claim you were wrong.

If 'Expansion capacity' is how much it can be expanded to, why is it lower than the current capacity of the stadium? Think it through

Just checked out Old Trafford and capacity, seating and capacity used are all set to the current capacity and expansion capacity is set at 100k. Have heard OT can't go past 100k in the game. im a little worried my new stadium is max out already at 73k as the expansion capacity is already below my current capacity.

On FM 09, St. James' Park could be expanded to 60,000.

and on FMRTE on there, the Expansion Capacity on there for Newcastle was 60,000.

If 'Expansion capacity' is how much it can be expanded to, why is it lower than the current capacity of the stadium? Think it through

Maybe because the stadium is at maximum capcity, FMRTE doesn't read it properly?

Why do you want Spurs stadium to be bigger than 73,000 anyway? Surely the board realises that the Jewish population in north London isn't that large? /safetywink/

Im pretty sure thats close to racism

Im pretty sure thats close to racism

The term is anti-semetic.

We weren't all a 'Homeschooled IGCSE student'.

Sorry if my vocab isn't up to your standards.

We weren't all a 'Homeschooled IGCSE student'.

Sorry if my vocab isn't up to your standards.

What's your problem? :confused:

Im pretty sure thats close to racism

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere even remotely close to racism.

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere even remotely close to racism.

It is actually a bit, mate...

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere even remotely close to racism.

I know sorry, its 'anti-semetic'

I'm pretty sure it's nowhere even remotely close to racism.

Yeah.....it is

Yeah.....it is

No........ it's not.

Judaism is a religion not a race, and further more it's a tongue-in-cheek dig about a club with an acknowledged Jewish following and involvement, if not current then certainly historically.

I know sorry, its 'anti-semetic'

Can you please stop throwing my correction back in my face.

I agree with you, why are you arguing with me? :confused:

Go to White Hart Lane, call them all Jews, and see how you get on.

No........ it's not.

Judaism is a religion not a race, and further more it's a tongue-in-cheek dig about a club with an acknowledged Jewish following and involvement, if not current then certainly historically.

Actually, Jewish people now have a recognised blood line, which makes them a kind of race, don't you think?

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what we call it though, I still think it was unsavoury.

Can you please stop throwing my correction back in my face.

I agree with you, why are you arguing with me? :confused:

I'm only playing bro

I'm only playing bro

Really? Didn't seem that way...

Maybe you need some safety winks.

Actually, Jewish people now have a recognised blood line, which makes them a kind of race, don't you think?

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what we call it though, I still think it was unsavoury.

WHS

Regardless of semantics, it was still clearly meant as a dig, one that many people would take far more offence to than us.

WHS

Regardless of semantics, it was still clearly meant as a dig, one that many people would take far more offence to than us.

I actually take quite a lot of offense to it, being Jewish myself. But I accept that he could be misinformed about what adds up to race/blood/whatever the hell we want to call it-ism. I therefore gave him the benefit of the doubt, and didn't tear his head off.

I apologise for any offence caused, but the remark was intended in the same humorous nature as similar coments about Arsenal and French people/French speakers. Nobody took offence at those, maybe no Arsenal fans or French speakers saw them, maybe they weren't offensive, I don't know. Just bewildered that the mere mention of Judaism seems to be met with howls of "racism" and "anti-scemitism". Fwiw Vic, although Im not Jewish myself, I have Jewish family, a few of whom consider themselves to be Spurs fans. I've had similar banter with them in the past, and it never occured to me that other people would be offended by the same.

Once again, I apologise.

I can't believe anyone would take offence to a comment like that! And, actually, it is anti-semitic.

Re: the ground, it is quite straightforward.

Tottenham Stats

Average Att : 79547 - Quite obvious, the average attendance your club can get, groundsize permitting.

Min Att: 36310 - The minimum attendance your club can expect.

Max Att: 99433 - The maximum attendance your club can get. This can be higher than your actual groundsize - it is referring to the amount of fans you CAN get. (So if it is higher than your current groundsize, you may get a new ground )

Stadium Stats

Capacity: 73515 - Simple, the capacity of your current stadium at the minute.

Seating: 73515

Capacity Used: 0

Expansion capacity: 65000 - This is how much your current ground can be expanded by. So this stadium has a possibility of being built as big as 138,515. It does not mean your board will ever build it that big, just that there is room around the stadium to develop it to that size should they wish.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

I apologise for any offence caused, but the remark was intended in the same humorous nature as similar coments about Arsenal and French people/French speakers. Nobody took offence at those, maybe no Arsenal fans or French speakers saw them, maybe they weren't offensive, I don't know. Just bewildered that the mere mention of Judaism seems to be met with howls of "racism" and "anti-scemitism". Fwiw Vic, although Im not Jewish myself, I have Jewish family, a few of whom consider themselves to be Spurs fans. I've had similar banter with them in the past, and it never occured to me that other people would be offended by the same.

Once again, I apologise.

Apology accepted. No worries, mate.

Your family are probably okay with it because they're your family. They know you don't mean it in a nasty way.

I agree that we can sometimes be senstive, but that sensitivity is very much passed down from our grandparents, to who being Jewish was a big problem.

Again, no hard feelings.

How is referring to Spurs' Jewish fanbase anti-semitic or racist? It's a statement of fact (Spurs have a partially Jewish fanbase) that was exaggerated for comic effect. There is no reference to Jews being inferior to other races. Accusing him of racism is akin to telling me I'm racist because I've noticed that a lot of Chinese live in the Chinatown district of Sydney.

The only even semi-racist comment here is the suggestion that non-Jewish Spurs fans would take exception to being called Jewish.

Let's not let yet another thread descend into childish bickering and intellectually malformed 'politically correct' inanities.

We're not arguing, wwfan.

By the way, I wasn't saying it WAS anti-semitic, because it was not. I was just pointing out the correct spelling of the word!

Just wanted to be clear the intent was to poke fun at Spurs, not poke fun at Jews or Judaism.

By the way, I wasn't saying it WAS anti-semitic, because it was not. I was just pointing out the correct spelling of the word!

It's kinda a matter of perspective.

But let's not argue 'bout it. Everything sorted now.

It's kinda a matter of perspective.

But let's not argue 'bout it. Everything sorted now.

Fair play, not looking for an argument

I have this bit wrong actually :o

'Expansion capacity: 65000 - This is how much your current ground can be expanded by. So this stadium has a possibility of being built as big as 138,515. It does not mean your board will ever build it that big, just that there is room around the stadium to develop it to that size should they wish.'

It actually, as someone else said, refers to the maximum capacity that ground can be built to. So it can be built to 65,000, and not as I said 138,515.

Liverpool's ground capacity is exactly 45,362 on my game. I used FMRTE to check their expansion capacity, and it is also, exactly 45,362. SI are taking the approach that irl, Anfield can not be increased in capacity (which I believ to be true).

So I can't see both being exactly the same, so expansion capacity definitely refers to the maximum it can be built up to.

top notch thread! ROTFL

It's kinda a matter of perspective.

But let's not argue 'bout it. Everything sorted now.

It's not a matter of perspective. What it is an example of, yet again, is of some users of this forum feeling they can enter threads and accuse other posters of unsavoury bias, opinion or behaviour with no reflective thought, little respect to the nature of the original post or the feelings of the person who wrote the post they disagreed with. These interjections are completely irrelevant and undermine the purpose of the thread, degenerating into childish bickers.

If there is something you find offensive, report it and let the mods deal with it. Do not feel you 'just have to comment'. It's getting more and more irritating to see thread after thread spoiled by irrelevant and highly personal 'arguments'.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of this post.

It's not a matter of perspective. What it is an example of, yet again, is of some users of this forum feeling they can enter threads and accuse other posters of unsavoury bias, opinion or behaviour with no reflective thought, little respect to the nature of the original post or the feelings of the person who wrote the post they disagreed with. These interjections are completely irrelevant and undermine the purpose of the thread, degenerating into childish bickers.

If there is something you find offensive, report it and let the mods deal with it. Do not feel you 'just have to comment'. It's getting more and more irritating to see thread after thread spoiled by irrelevant and highly personal 'arguments'.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of this post.

I am pleased with that!

The thing i dont understand is the Capacity Used and Expansion capacity. Does this mean my stadium is fixed at 73k or is there hope for a expansion. I have checked all the new stadiums built in the Prem since i started (Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea) and they all have the same stats for the last 2.

There appears to be something odd with the data FMRTE has presented. In most cases, the difference between expansion capacity and capacity used would be the amount by which the stadium can be expanded. So for a 50k stadium which can be expanded to 100k, the capacity used would be 50k and the expansion capacity 100k.

In your case, I would assume that your stadium can be expanded by a further 65000 seats. However, as you have not been consistently filling out your stadium of 73515 in the last four years, the board see no real need to do so.

Not filled out over the last 4 years? He has averaged 70k, 69k, 70k and 71k and on avergage that's a 95% coverage...

/JB

Just one point:

minimum attendance and maximum attendance are not fixed. these numbers can change as you progress through the game.

Not filled out over the last 4 years? He has averaged 70k, 69k, 70k and 71k and on avergage that's a 95% coverage...

/JB

That is the board's opinion (see opening post), not mine.

As far as i understand 65 k is the maximum a stadium with roof can be expanded to...(?) (ofc can be built bigger) On my save theres 6 teams in PL that have a roof on their stadium, from A Villa (73k) to Hull (34k). All of these stadiums have a max expansion capacity of 65k...

Then to these numbers:

This are the numbers Fm works with when dealing with a query for an expansion

Tottenham Stats

Average Att : 79547 Indicates how many people "in the area" who are willing to go to most of your teams homegames

Min Att: 36310 As far as I understand this is the number of "die-hard fans" who goes on every single match, no matter whom you meet.. (ie on my save L'pool has a min att of 33k, and they've been down to an att of 33k vs teams like Tampere utd, HJK Helsinki, and random teams in 1st rounds of the domestic cups. Man City has a min att of 40k and the lovest att they have had is 40.100 in EURO cup 4th qual)

Max Att: 99433 This is the number of fans "in the area" that "supports" Spurs, and inkludes those who are only willing to go to the really big games/local derby.

So in an average game there are ca 80k who wants to see their team (the board may see the difference between 73k and 80k as to small to expand, as they have to lower the ticketprice because everyone who wants to see the team fits in the stadium, so there's no excuse for raising the prices). But ofc when you meet Arsenal theres 100k whom wants a ticet, an the AI upps the prices a bit.

Om my save Man United had these stats before they expanded their 77k stadium:

Avg: 108k

min: 50k

max: 136k

So i guess it could take some time before you cet your next expancion;)

I believe the 65k - in reality it's probably 65k-0, the "capacity used" which should indicate earlier expansions - really does state how much of an expansion is possible for the current stadium. Have you ever thought that the 65k is a hard-coded value from SI and that's why it's used so frequently in the game?

At least that's the way I see it, because it wouldn't make much sense, having an expansion capacity value smaller than the current stadium size, which should actually be impossible if it were done by your logic.

It's not a matter of perspective. What it is an example of, yet again, is of some users of this forum feeling they can enter threads and accuse other posters of unsavoury bias, opinion or behaviour with no reflective thought, little respect to the nature of the original post or the feelings of the person who wrote the post they disagreed with. These interjections are completely irrelevant and undermine the purpose of the thread, degenerating into childish bickers.

If there is something you find offensive, report it and let the mods deal with it. Do not feel you 'just have to comment'. It's getting more and more irritating to see thread after thread spoiled by irrelevant and highly personal 'arguments'.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of this post.

Tbf, man, we didn't rip his head off, shout at him, or post abusive messages. It was a quite polite and adult discussion with no name calling, and at the end an apology was given and accepted.

And, regarding the matter of the perspective issue, practically anything can be seen as an insult by someone.

Which is why you report it and let the 'forum police' deal with it rather than confronting it yourself. I don't really care whether his head was or wasn't ripped off. What I do take issue over is the decision to confront him publicly, thereby derailing the thread.

We then got into further personal debates over whether something was racist or anti-semitic, which further dragged the thread away from its supposed direction. There's also the matter of whether the user should have felt the need to apologise because one or two others decided to confront him. I'm sure the poster in question wasn't all that bothered, but I am not happy that he was made to feel he should apologise for being racist or anti-semitic because a couple of people decided that from their perspective he was being. That's borderline anarchy.

There's a fundamental difference between principles and actions, which needs to be taken on board here. Principles of civility disallow any user from feeling he can insult another by publicly calling him a racist/anti-semite. That the subsequent actions resulted in a mature debate/public apology is irrelevant.

Me and another guy take exception to something someone else says and wwfan says that is borderline anarchy? Pull your head from out your arse mate, whilst you may be a mod, no one made you king of the universe and arbiter of all things vaguely anarchic. It's not like we called for the guys head, we just talked to him about it. Yes the thread was derailed somewhat but it got back on topic shortly afterwards. And do you and the other mods want every tiny little thing reported or is it better for the forum as a whole that sometimes we are left to sort things out between ourselves?

Trying to get the point across somewhat mroe politely than ftg87 did...

If someone feels offended by something another user says, then they have every right to comment on it. Just because you don't feel the person who originally posted the comment (can't even remember who it was now ) didn't make any sort of racist comment, doesn't mean others didn't.

We didn't force him to apologise. He did it off his own bat, and everything then finished. I really don't think we "confronted" him over it either. We simply let out views be known.