Uefa Financial Fair Play rules and the stadium issue

Discussion in 'The New Stadium' started by MattyP, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. MattyP

    MattyP Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

    Messages:
    13,859
    Ratings Received:
    +2,466 / 46 / -12
    In the plethora of threads on the stadium, a number of times people have stated "we have to do something because of the financial fair play rules".

    So, I have done a little bit of work on this in my lunch hour, in order to start the process of taking this out of the debate on moving to Stratford once and for all.

    Hence the new thread.

    Here we go:

    - Spending on stadium and depreciation of stadiums is NOT taken into account in the determination of whether we meet the fair play regulations. Therefore the cost of the NDP, including it's financing is irrelevant to the debate.

    - If we stayed at the current site with our current capacity and made neither a profit not a loss on transfers, we would have to raise ticket prices by approximately £12 per ticket, per game in order to meet the acceptable deviation on break even.

    - As long as ENIC were prepared to contribute between £10m and £15m per season in equity, we would not have to raise ticket prices at all.


    I will readily admit that the above is based on a few minutes of reading the financial fair play rules (available here http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf )

    and based on interpretting these based on the information available in the 2010 financial statements and assuming that all things remain equal going forward.

    I have excluded transfer profits from the analysis to show what would happen if we did not sell any players at a profit.

    I am a bit stretched time wise at work at the moment to do a full examination, but the above is based on a preliminary assesment.

    At the very least, it does not exactly add much weight onto the argument that we absolutely MUST move in order to meet the new regulations coming into force.

    Okay, I've put that out there, put the proviso's in place about the constraints on my time - I'll happily withdraw any of the above assetions if someone with more time on their hands can demonstrably prove that they are incorrect.

    But don't just assume that's the reason we must move.

    Edit: To clarify, the above excludes any money earnt from champions league and is based on a 19 game home season.
     
  2. Monkey Bastard Hands

    Monkey Bastard Hands Large Member

    Messages:
    1,228
    Ratings Received:
    +551 / 7 / -3
    I don't think the issue is that we have to move/get a bigger stadium to meet the financial fair play rules, it's more that if we want to continue to progress as a club and be one of the best in Europe, we need the bigger stadium so that we can buy new players (if needed) AND meet the financial regulations at the same time. By staying at the current WHL or getting a new stadium at a high cost it may mean that we'd meet the regulations but wouldn't be able to buy world class players. The proposed move to the OS seems to give the ability for us to do both.
     
  3. michaelden

    michaelden Knight of the Fat Fanny

    Messages:
    20,236
    Ratings Received:
    +9,429 / 233 / -45
    Matty, - £12 pp/pg is just to stand still with our current wage structure. And to attract better players?
     
  4. MattyP

    MattyP Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

    Messages:
    13,859
    Ratings Received:
    +2,466 / 46 / -12
    If standing still is competing in the champions league and pushing in the league, then it's not a bad place to be standing still.

    And we could increase ticket prices and have ENIC make equity contributions and be able to attract better players and pay higher wages.

    I included that analysis to show what the effect would be of "doing nothing" stadium wise. No-one really wants or expects that to happen.

    The main emphasis of the post was to illustrate that the financial fair play rules should not, per se, be the reason to beat us around the head into submission of accepting a move to the Olympic site.

    As for having money available due to the NDP costing more, I have in other threads questioned the alleged £200m difference in the two sites, so don't really see the need to repeat it again in here.
     
  5. sloth

    sloth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,990
    Ratings Received:
    +7,036 / 170 / -64
    A few points.

    I think everyone realises that stadium development is not included in the Financial Fair-play rules. If it was we wouldn't be able to go ahead with either the NDP or the OS.

    The argument for building the NDP or the OS is that to grow under the rules we need to increase turnover and we need to move away from dependence on the inherently volatile CL qualification or bust model.

    In later replies you point to our single year qualification for CL as proof that we are being successful on the current budget. But as I'm sure you're aware you'd be laughed out of economics 101 if you proposed using a 20 year high as your single measure of a schemes viability. Just as you'd have been laughed out if you'd made the equally preposterous, but opposite claim two years ago that two points from 8 games demonstrated that the current player investment model was unsustainable.

    You then later go on to glibly suggest ENIC donate £15m-£20m p/a to the company. For what possible reason would they do that? On what basis do you suggest they might? That private investment would be almost as much again as the £28m p/a we currently make from match day revenue. It's the equivalent of asking them to stump up what to fans would be a 70% ticket price hike.

    Truth is Champions League qualification will remain in budget projections a low probability, variable income.

    The best and most sustainable way of increasing turnover is through a bigger stadium.

    Given UEFA's financial fair-play directive it offers the best most likely prospect of getting up to the level of the big boys. Simple as.
     
  6. MR_BEN

    MR_BEN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,793
    Ratings Received:
    +873 / 138 / -140
    u dont get it do ya?
     
  7. Hoowl

    Hoowl Dr wHo(owl) Staff

    Messages:
    6,513
    Ratings Received:
    +233 / 4 / -0
    Come on, that's not a particularly constructive post.
     
  8. MR_BEN

    MR_BEN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,793
    Ratings Received:
    +873 / 138 / -140
    Ok. Constructiveness.

    As i see it - the options are Olympics Stadium Site in 2015ish. Or still be fighting to get a compulsory purchasing order in 2015, thus remaining in our current 36k stadium for at least another 8 or 9 years.

    Under the new rules we will struggle with a 36k stadium when the likes of Man U, Man City, Arse, Chelsea, Sunderland, Newcastle, Aston Villa all have the potential to generate more revenue - thus the potential for more profit to spend on players.

    We will end up TENTH again year in year out. At the moment we are competing at the top, but at the moment we are not making a profit.
     
  9. roosh

    roosh aka tottenham_til_i_die

    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings Received:
    +535 / 15 / -34
    You are right in saying that we don't have to move to meet the regulations, but, as has been stressed by others, it isn't simply a case of meeting the regulations, it's a question of continually improving under the new regulations, buying new players and paying competitive wages to get the best players.

    You mention that, if standing still means competing in the CL and challenging for the league, then there would be nothing wrong with standing still, but the issue is that if we are standing still, while those around us are moving forward, then we are effectively going backwards. We can see this with respect to this season. We have progressed a bit this season, but our main rival for 4th last season have progressed by much more than us, meaning that we are not actually competing for the title, but rather competing for 4th, with the distinct possibility that we won't finish in the top 4 this season.

    Now, the NDP would mean that we would progress, but it is a question of whether that progress will match that of our competitors, or whether it will be enough to exceed those who were miles ahead of us as they experience [what may not be a steady] decline.


    As for ENIC investing £10-15m pa in equity, where will that money come from? If it is to be borrowed, then who is going to repay it, as well as the interest? If it is going to come form Joe Lewis, then would that mean we had sold out like Chelsea and City?
     
  10. ThorntonSpur

    ThorntonSpur every away game is a home game

    Messages:
    2,392
    Ratings Received:
    +621 / 62 / -22
    If Enfield bent over backwards to accommodate a new training facility imagine what they may offer to have our new stadium on thier patch.

    it would make sense if we have to move to move northwards rather than eastwards.

    if we go east then we will become the Hotspurs like woolwich we just drop the first name.
     
  11. andyw362

    andyw362 New Member

    Messages:
    993
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Look, Matt. We dont have 450m. Get over it. We going to Stratford.
     
  12. roosh

    roosh aka tottenham_til_i_die

    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings Received:
    +535 / 15 / -34
    North London's still ours, North London's still ou-hours, even in Stratford, North London's still ours
     
  13. gibbs131

    gibbs131 Banned

    Messages:
    8,870
    Ratings Received:
    +8 / 0 / -0
    But you told me that we can easily generate the cash/handle the debt to get the stadium built at WHL and be profitable in the stadium thread. You went into a long detailed descriptions from everything from naming rights down to transport.

    You scoffed at me saying it probably isn't a financially viable option.

    Since Lev stated today that keeping the stadium at it's current location is risky if we want to remain competitive:

    Why should ole Gibbsy trust your opinion on this subject?
     
  14. andyw362

    andyw362 New Member

    Messages:
    993
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    You did indeed Gibbsy. You know how I know? Cos I agreed. Anyone can see 450m is out of reach or us.
     
  15. gibbs131

    gibbs131 Banned

    Messages:
    8,870
    Ratings Received:
    +8 / 0 / -0
    It pays to trust ole Gibbsy, but it is a long term commitment.

    Some outlets are saying it's gone up 50 million. Perhaps that is what took Lev over the edge.
     
  16. roosh

    roosh aka tottenham_til_i_die

    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings Received:
    +535 / 15 / -34
    am I wrong in thinking that the projected cost of development has risen a few times over the past year or two?
     
  17. gibbs131

    gibbs131 Banned

    Messages:
    8,870
    Ratings Received:
    +8 / 0 / -0
    The 50 million hike rumor hit the press a couple of months ago.
     
  18. roosh

    roosh aka tottenham_til_i_die

    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings Received:
    +535 / 15 / -34
    have there been others as well, or has it just been the 50m in the past few months?
     
  19. gibbs131

    gibbs131 Banned

    Messages:
    8,870
    Ratings Received:
    +8 / 0 / -0
    There was a divide in the discourse related to how much Spurs have to pay towards revamping the transit system and the cost we had to cover.

    I think it was around 7 million.

    Where we wanted to put around 7 million towards it and they wanted 14 million out of us.
     
  20. roosh

    roosh aka tottenham_til_i_die

    Messages:
    4,621
    Ratings Received:
    +535 / 15 / -34
    cheers dude
     

Share This Page