- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
As someone said, a lot of people are overthinking this. The chances of delaying the first match in the new stadium, once it has passed all of its necessary safety certificates and is ready to go, are precisely zero.
The rumour mill is already in overdrive because of the fire alarm delays. The negative rumours that would swirl around if we aren't using a functioning stadium would not be good publicity. It would be open-season of bullshit speculation.
At present, the club is shelling out major seven-figure sums in order to play an indeterminate number of matches at Wembley (and one at Stadium MK). Arguably, depending on the precise terms of the construction management contract with Mace, some or all of those consequential costs could be recharged as part of the liquidated damages for late completion - it depends on whether the damages clause includes actual consequential costs as incurred, or was set as a fixed sum per week at contract stage. Most contracts incorporate the latter arrangement, but not all. The key point: once the stadium has been signed off as ready to play football, any further costs to play matches at Wembley would be irrecoverable.
These are large sums. I think the club would be highly unlikely to blow the chance of recouping multi-millions of Wembley-rental and staffing and stewarding and re-ticketing costs, as well as the loss of rental income from scores of concessions at the THS, just because someone gets a bug in their ear about having the first match be against a top-6 rival and be televised live to a satellite/cable channel in the UK, when the matches are all televised over the rest of world anyway. It's a disproportionate, parochial concern, the sort of thing that only local, English fans would worry about, but no one else in 21c. globalised EPL football.
As soon as the stadium is available for use and we are free of contractual commitments to play matches elsewhere, the club will start playing all our home matches there. They'd be nuts to do otherwise.
The rumour mill is already in overdrive because of the fire alarm delays. The negative rumours that would swirl around if we aren't using a functioning stadium would not be good publicity. It would be open-season of bullshit speculation.
At present, the club is shelling out major seven-figure sums in order to play an indeterminate number of matches at Wembley (and one at Stadium MK). Arguably, depending on the precise terms of the construction management contract with Mace, some or all of those consequential costs could be recharged as part of the liquidated damages for late completion - it depends on whether the damages clause includes actual consequential costs as incurred, or was set as a fixed sum per week at contract stage. Most contracts incorporate the latter arrangement, but not all. The key point: once the stadium has been signed off as ready to play football, any further costs to play matches at Wembley would be irrecoverable.
These are large sums. I think the club would be highly unlikely to blow the chance of recouping multi-millions of Wembley-rental and staffing and stewarding and re-ticketing costs, as well as the loss of rental income from scores of concessions at the THS, just because someone gets a bug in their ear about having the first match be against a top-6 rival and be televised live to a satellite/cable channel in the UK, when the matches are all televised over the rest of world anyway. It's a disproportionate, parochial concern, the sort of thing that only local, English fans would worry about, but no one else in 21c. globalised EPL football.
As soon as the stadium is available for use and we are free of contractual commitments to play matches elsewhere, the club will start playing all our home matches there. They'd be nuts to do otherwise.