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

    Ratings Received:
    +2,582 / 48 / -12
    Firstly my apologies for starting a thread and then having to walk away from it due to work commitments.

    I'll try to answer a few of the posts.

    I included the "standing still " option as some people have used that as a pro Stratford argument.

    With the benefit of hindsight, I should have just stuck to the NDP v OS angle.

    But, I deliberately used the 2010 accounts, which excludes most of the benefits of Champions League as the base of the figures.

    But at the end of the day, I am arguing for a new stadium, I'm 100% behind that. It just happens to be in N17.

    I get it. I get it very well thanks.

    I'll tackle these, as well as a more detailed response to Mr Ben in one go if that's okay.

    I've broken it out before, I'll probably have to do it again. The entire NDP will cost £450m apparently.

    Financed as follows:

    £100m-£150m on naming rights

    £100m is what the goons got, widely acknowledged as being too low, which is why they have tried to renegotiate it.

    £50m profit on disposal of the hotel, supermarket and housing.

    £250m loan to build the stadium. It's lower than the £260m the gooners got for their stadium. I have in previous posts illustratrated that increased normal attendance could fund interest and repayments. Increasing ticket prices, which will happen with both options, and increased corporate will fund improvements in the squad.

    Based on the above, up to £50m equity contribution from ENIC.

    When the NDP was first announced, ENIC stated the funding would be done as above, including an equity contribution.

    It is the amount of the equity contribution that I believe is the biggest issue.

    The biggest issue is CABE saying the 400 flats in the first planning application was too many, resulting in it being cut by 50%.

    But you are correct that the implications of the additional £50m has probably spooked Levy, the the sense that ENIC could have to contribute some of this via an increase equity contribution.

    But if it was viable at £400m, it should still be viable at £450m.

    If it wasn't, would we really have gone to a second planning application, agreed s106 with Haringey and agreed contributions with TfL?

    Don't know where you get your figures from. TfL wanted £5.6m for refurbishing Tottenham Hale, we wanted to pay £2m.

Share This Page