Spur-of-the-moment
Well-Known Member
- Jul 26, 2003
- 669
- 276
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
No actual figures have been released as the Legacy board have asked for confidentiality. Believed to be in the region of £5m a year, a lot less than the interest on a £450m loan.
Isn't an enormous events company prepared to partner us in Stratford? Why haven't they done the same for the NDP?
And won't we be able to sell much more land in Tottenham for development if we move out, probably without needing to borrow £200 million to develop it? That has to be factored in, too.
That's leaving aside the issues of extra income from naming rights and corporate, on a site that by 2019 will be on the Crossrail route, and the financing costs.
I hope we stay and the NDP happens, but the idea that the move doesn't make a lot of sense from a bottom-line perspective is strange. Indeed, I think it weakens the argument to stay, as it makes it about comparative costs of stadia, rather than about what we would be leaving behind.
Super Tottenham
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2010
- 2,654
- 2,270
£5m a year meaning we pay £1bn over the 200 year lease? Doesn't seem the cheapest option in the long term.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,009
- 45,321
Unless we can make an extra £5m a year in additional sponsorship which I'd suggest the club believe is very likely at the flagship stadium in the Olympic park.
Super Tottenham
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2010
- 2,654
- 2,270
Are we likely to keep on getting great naming rights after the first sponsorship deal though?
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,009
- 45,321
It's not so much what we get for any particular sponsorship it's whether what we get is more than we get from a ground at Whte Hart Lane that is the relevant thing, I believe the club thinks that is potentially the case.
StartingPrice
Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
- Feb 13, 2004
- 32,568
- 10,280
Thank you, Samson.
SOTM
You are just spinning, again.
The club have made it clear that this is the case...you perspective is that you are vehemently against the move 'and thereforre you WILL NOT accept their statements that this IS the case'.
What Samson has said, here, and mroe, has already been explained to you...rather than asking me to explain it 'again' you could have just went through the thread, and all of the bumph on the subject and compiled a report yourself (as that seems to be the only reason you will believe the blatantly obvious).
As Samson says, the vast majority of us really, really want to stay in Tottenham, but to persist in this 'questioning' (always negative questions, only:shrug
of the apparent truth that the OS will be far cheaper just makes you seem like an ostrich, I'm afraid.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Not necessarily at the price Spurs plc is hoping for, especially as it will presumably still be necessary for any developer to go through the CPO process the Dear Leader says it could take years to complete.
Have just seen the Skysport.com poll on this. West Ham are edging ahead on 58.7% of votes. If you have strong feelings either way on this here is the website to vote yourself:
http://www.skysports..._188617,00.html
http://www.skysports..._188617,00.html
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,009
- 45,321
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,469
- 21,846
Because itas hard to get to :bang:
Yes.
*1* - Correct but only as a developer will know Spurs have to sell
*2* - This is entirekly dependant on what the developer plans to do with the land and how Spurs package it up for sale. There is a very likely possiblity that no CPOs will be needed by any other purchasers
danielneeds
Kick-Ass
- May 5, 2004
- 24,183
- 48,814
Looks like we have gone out on the betting too. Currently WH 11/10, Spurs 9/2, Neither 6/4...from Skybet.
With the rumour that Boris wanted us to bid, and with him being one of the people ultimately deciding, I might be tempted at a little longer than 9/2.
With the rumour that Boris wanted us to bid, and with him being one of the people ultimately deciding, I might be tempted at a little longer than 9/2.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
We know the difference in budgeted expenditure between the two is £200m, that's because the architect in charge of both projects has told us it is.
That means our maximum exposure on each project is as follows:
OS/CP - £250m
NDP - £450m
This means that we have to raise £250m finance for the OS, whereas it's £450m for the NDP.
We'll have to borrow money from a bank or banks.
Banks are wary lenders these days. The less sound the investment the more the cost of borrowing goes up.
A bank then, will decide whether to lend us money and at what rate.
According to MattyP, Arsenal managed to borrow at 5% or there abouts.
Man Utd borrowed at 14%.
Liverpool at 10%.
That's an example of the different rates lenders will charge depending on how they rate the riskiness of the venture.
The point Levy's been trying to make is that each additional cost set alongside the reduced budgeted income (250 apartments instead of 450), make the project riskier and so less viable, especially when you consider the impact that will have on the cost of borrowing for us.
Indeed it may be that in the current climate they'll simply refuse to lend to us. But if they do we're far more likely going to be charged at the Utd/Liverpool end of the scale than the Arsenal one.
On the other hand, all the corporate bullshit the OS comes with and the considerably lower level of borrowing required make the OS a far less risky proposition as far as lenders are concerned hence the cost of borrowing is lowered.
Let's consider for a moment how significant the cost of borrowing highlighted above potentially could be.
These are not speculative figures but instead case studies based on the above real world examples.
If we were to be charged at 10% (the lower of the two examples quoted above), then we would be having to pay £45m p/a on interest alone. Over five years that would be £225m just on interest.
If we were charged at the 5% Arsenal secured, then we clealy would be paying half that, £22.5m (£112.5m over five years).
Still a hefty sum.
But on the OS we would be paying £25m (£125m over 5 yrs) at the top rate and only £12.5m (62.5m over 5yrs) at the lower.
Finally, factor in the reality that the NDP is more likely to suffer high interest rates, while the OS more likely to secure low ones and you can start to see why the OS argument stacks up.
In all of this btw. we've only spoken about the cost of borrowing. In order to pay off the debt we'd have to find money over and above all of that quoted above.
ShayLaB
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2006
- 1,510
- 1,689
Does Boris have a say in the decision on Friday? He always struck me as a thoroughly pragmatic chap...he will want to be sure the solution pays its way.
ThorntonSpur
every away game is a home game
- Jan 21, 2011
- 2,440
- 645
Boris has no say Seb Coe has more sway than Boris.
danielneeds
Kick-Ass
- May 5, 2004
- 24,183
- 48,814
OPLC makes the recommendation to Boris and the Hugh Robertson. They have final say.
Davey P
New Member
- Aug 12, 2008
- 27
- 0
MattyP
Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
- May 14, 2007
- 14,041
- 2,980
Board meeting is on the 28th, rumours gathering force that they will not make a decison this month. Even if they do, have read they will continue discussions with the losing party in case the other one pulls out.
DiscoD1882
SC Supporter
- Mar 27, 2006
- 6,986
- 14,848
Does anyone know how the desicion is made and who is on the board for this desicion?
