What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
I can't see any way that West Ham's skill [fortune] at securing an inexpensive rented stadium would contravene FFP regulations. All it does is to reduce their running costs, which makes them more viable by FFP standards, not less.

The downside for them is that they have no asset. They don't own anything that is worth money. Tottenham has a huge pile of borrowing to pay off, but once we've done that, assisted by the receipts from the residential development, one hopes, we'll have a property worth millions, along with many other property assets in the neighbourhood that are worth further millions. West Ham just have an ever-depreciating lease.

It's a contrast between short-term money-saving and long-term investment.

Club infrastructure is not included in FFP.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
Presently West Ham move doesn’t really benefit them financially. I think they make about an extra £10m on gates. But then minus the rent the £0 income from concessions ( or very low amount) the inability to host any other events. And they are probably break even if not worse off. The only way it will really come into play is if they start making top 4 and can seriously hike prices. And I guess there’s the perception of being a “big club “ with 60k gates. But then trade that off with a shit facility and a pretty awful matchday experience and you’d have to say overall as a club it’s probably a L. And it’s not exactly a secure future, that Stadium was built to be taken apart. I dread to think what state it will be in 20-30 years. Will probably have the feel of those awful aging massive Olympic stadiums of the past. Plus the uncertainty with the ownership and lease. It’s a house of cards imo.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
The Olympic Stadium deal does not violate financial fair play as they have not received an undue infusion from their ownership which is what FFP deals with. What the deal does violate however is UEFAs prohibition against state aide. As a quasi government agency the olympic group has given WHU an undue or unearned benefit and this is in violation of UEFA rules. I dont read enough of them to know the penalty though.

The eu has rules on state aid. As far as i'm aware uefa doesn't but i could be wrong.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,891
45,039
I can't see any way that West Ham's skill [fortune] at securing an inexpensive rented stadium would contravene FFP regulations. All it does is to reduce their running costs, which makes them more viable by FFP standards, not less.

The downside for them is that they have no asset. They don't own anything that is worth money. Tottenham has a huge pile of borrowing to pay off, but once we've done that, assisted by the receipts from the residential development, one hopes, we'll have a property worth millions, along with many other property assets in the neighbourhood that are worth further millions. West Ham just have an ever-depreciating lease.

It's a contrast between short-term money-saving and long-term investment.
So could we use the stadium asset as colateral to borrow enough money to purchase players?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
So could we use the stadium asset as collateral to borrow enough money to purchase players?
Could in theory, but wouldn't in practice. There would be nothing to recommend charging a long-term asset (100+ years) to raise money to pay for a fast-depreciating asset (5 years). There is plenty to recommend keeping capital funding for infrastructure separate from revenue funding for player transactions and salaries.

The stadium is probably charged already anyway. I don't know the details of the short-term capital finance that paid for most of the build, nor what plans the club has to refinance that as long-term debt. The refinancing may wait for the completion and sale of the housing and hotel, or it might be done now and then done again once those receipts can be used to reduce the size of the debt. Whichever: I expect the stadium itself will be most or all of the collateral. So they won't want to charge it now to raise cash for anything as ephemeral as player transfers.

I doubt the club is so short of cash that it would need to charge the stadium to pay for transfer fees. There is nothing to suggest a liquidity or cash-flow problem.
 

irradiation

Member
May 26, 2019
28
63
To add just a bit more detail to what @davematzdorf said, the stadium proper and the stadium site are already the collateral for the loan facility we have with Goldman, HSBC and BofA, along with the matchday revenue generated. The plan is to convert the debt into notes. The press release from the club on the announcement of the facility is here, while an AP article from when the stadium first opened detailing the financing is here.

Either way, I agree with what Dave said, there's no sense hanging another millstone around the stadium's neck for something as impermanent as a player. Even a casual observer would call that a high of fiscal irresponsibility from the club if it ever (and assuming it could've) happened at all.

Edit: Phone keeps autocorrecting BofA to BoFA
 
Last edited:

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
So could we use the stadium asset as colateral to borrow enough money to purchase players?

Unless you have to, it’s never a good idea to secure a loan against your “home” if you have other assets you can use. It’s why lots of clubs use future gate receipts. Obviously we own other property assets in N17 but they aren’t worth enough to use as security for purchasing a player.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Presently West Ham move doesn’t really benefit them financially. I think they make about an extra £10m on gates. But then minus the rent the £0 income from concessions ( or very low amount) the inability to host any other events. And they are probably break even if not worse off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while West Ham haven't really made any more money, didn't GSB cash in personally by flogging the stadium off?
 

PT

North Stand behind Pat's goal.
Admin
May 21, 2004
25,468
2,408
Always worth a trip back in time to the first pages of this thread all the way back in 2008.
Just goes to show how much planning and researching has gone in to our new home.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,382
Joshua Vs Ruiz rematch could (note that's a could) take place at NWHL in November:

(jump to the 15 minute mark)




Wembley and Cardiff are the other two venues being considered.

But it goes to show that Levy's plans are coming together.
 

PT

North Stand behind Pat's goal.
Admin
May 21, 2004
25,468
2,408
Joshua Vs Ruiz rematch could (note that's a could) take place at NWHL in November:

(jump to the 15 minute mark)




Wembley and Cardiff are the other two venues being considered.

But it goes to show that Levy's plans are coming together.

More likely to be Madison Gardens according to the Sky Sports report.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,382
More likely to be Madison Gardens according to the Sky Sports report.

So if you listen to that interview, which is basically straight from the horse's mouth, EH says that Joshua wants to have the rematch in the USA, which is a risky strategy. However, if it's there then MSG would be the favoured venue as you say.

But EH wants it back in the UK and this is the most 'typical' strategy. And if it were back here then Wembley, NWHL and Cardiff would be the venues.

It's very encouraging that EH says our stadium is 'amazing'. Everyone already knows this, but it shows that non-footballing promoters are seriously considering our stadium for big events, as was the plan all along.

Makes you wonder how much extra moolah a year we can coin in with these types of things!
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
An architect who gets it:

What makes Tottenham Hotspur Stadium special?
“It’s definitely the sense that it already feels like home for the fans, which isn’t always the case when a club moves into a new stadium. Also, the atmosphere in the bowl is incredible. With all the work we did designing the acoustics, and the huge South Stand, the noise generated by the crowd is immense. Even with over 60,000 spectators in the bowl, they’re all so close to the pitch that it still feels really intimate. That’s an incredible achievement. Seeing the stadium open and witnessing the choreography of the fans, everyone singing, it gives me goosebumps. The atmosphere is electric.”
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
Correct me if I'm wrong, but while West Ham haven't really made any more money, didn't GSB cash in personally by flogging the stadium off?

They didn’t make that much in comparison to what the development will be worth. Something dodgy has likely gone on with that. I think they got £35m for the land. Some went back into club some they pocketed.
 
Top