- Jul 29, 2005
- 1,247
- 406
Hmmm. While I agree that ultimately redevelopment or a new stadium will be necessary, I think there is a danger of "overcapitalising" if we are not careful. A couple of points:
1. Everyone is pointing to the Scum as an example of how a new stadium allows you to improve revenue and keep/buy players. In actual fact, while that may well be true in the future, it absolutely is not true so far. They have kept/bought their players DESPITE not because of their new stadium. They have been had to be very careful over the last few years because of the cost of funding the new stadium. Their net cash flow has been severely damaged in the short term. That may well pay off in the future (unfortunately), but they have had 5 years now of shoestring budget because of it. It is only the Paedo's brillinat to lure young african kiddies to his nest that has kept their onfield success at a top four (but not title winning) level. And they are still a way off getting back to where they were.
2. The conseqences of getting it wrong on the pitch, while you are paying for the stuff around it, can be disastrous. Do you not recall all the Articles in the paper pointing out that the ability of Arsenal to fund the payment of Cashgonefurburton grove was predicated on their ability to continue to qualify for the Champions league. They were one lasagne away from missing that, and the knock on effects could have been cataclysmic. ManU's entire finance is based on the same premise, although are more likely to deliver each year because their Revenue is so much higher than those outside the top , it wasn't relegation, for those of you who want to argue). Orfour anyway, stadium or not. Leeds anyone? West Ham's Lost Generation (which had to be sold because of the crippling debt they incurred to redevelop Disney Park (no those with a memory will remember the lean years in the nineties where our own redevelopment nearly broke us. It's like any leverage: it enhances success; but it accentuates failure just as much. Are we so sure we will win enough matches to bring in enough money to pay the Bank? We played 40 last year, our most successful in ages.
3. The other clubs (apart from the Russian whores), including the Scum, all built/expanded their stadiums FOLLOWING success; not to garner it. "If you build it, they will come" is all very well for Kevin Costner, but it's a high risk play for the reasons above.
4. A big stadium (and the revenue it generates) doesn't guarantee success. The BarCodes have had one for years, in a one team town, and although they have enjoyed the revenue that brings in at times, they haven't won a thing.
Don't get me wrong, I agree we need to expand. The waiting list for Season Tickets evidences that. But we have to be cautious about it. There was no such waiting list two seasons ago.
1. Everyone is pointing to the Scum as an example of how a new stadium allows you to improve revenue and keep/buy players. In actual fact, while that may well be true in the future, it absolutely is not true so far. They have kept/bought their players DESPITE not because of their new stadium. They have been had to be very careful over the last few years because of the cost of funding the new stadium. Their net cash flow has been severely damaged in the short term. That may well pay off in the future (unfortunately), but they have had 5 years now of shoestring budget because of it. It is only the Paedo's brillinat to lure young african kiddies to his nest that has kept their onfield success at a top four (but not title winning) level. And they are still a way off getting back to where they were.
2. The conseqences of getting it wrong on the pitch, while you are paying for the stuff around it, can be disastrous. Do you not recall all the Articles in the paper pointing out that the ability of Arsenal to fund the payment of Cashgonefurburton grove was predicated on their ability to continue to qualify for the Champions league. They were one lasagne away from missing that, and the knock on effects could have been cataclysmic. ManU's entire finance is based on the same premise, although are more likely to deliver each year because their Revenue is so much higher than those outside the top , it wasn't relegation, for those of you who want to argue). Orfour anyway, stadium or not. Leeds anyone? West Ham's Lost Generation (which had to be sold because of the crippling debt they incurred to redevelop Disney Park (no those with a memory will remember the lean years in the nineties where our own redevelopment nearly broke us. It's like any leverage: it enhances success; but it accentuates failure just as much. Are we so sure we will win enough matches to bring in enough money to pay the Bank? We played 40 last year, our most successful in ages.
3. The other clubs (apart from the Russian whores), including the Scum, all built/expanded their stadiums FOLLOWING success; not to garner it. "If you build it, they will come" is all very well for Kevin Costner, but it's a high risk play for the reasons above.
4. A big stadium (and the revenue it generates) doesn't guarantee success. The BarCodes have had one for years, in a one team town, and although they have enjoyed the revenue that brings in at times, they haven't won a thing.
Don't get me wrong, I agree we need to expand. The waiting list for Season Tickets evidences that. But we have to be cautious about it. There was no such waiting list two seasons ago.