What our opponents' fans are saying

[spursfan77]

As someone that knows Stratford and the surrounding area pretty well I would say that the gloss has already gone from the whole Westfield and olympic park development already, the locals bringing it down pretty quickly - I wouldn't boast about it too loudly if I was that West Ham poster. 25000 West Ham supporters strolling around there every two weeks will only bring it down further. As they say you can't polish a turd.

I've always thought that mixing the Westfield shopping crowd on a Saturday suddenly with 50,000 odd people is a recipe for disaster. People are going to be pretty put off going to the shopping centre after a while with a load of West Ham fans turning up every other week, let alone the pissed up travelling fans.

 

[goughie1966]

Another attempt to get back on topic.....

From Rawk, a nice little debate about our new stadium and Lloris news:

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1153 on: Yesterday at 07:29:37 PM »

LLoris has broken his wrist. Big blow for them

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1154 on: Yesterday at 07:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Gerry Attrick on Yesterday at 07:29:37 PM
LLoris has broken his wrist. Big blow for them

They have Vorm though... Could have implications for United if De Gea is off.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1155 on: Yesterday at 07:34:22 PM »

Vorm was pretty poor when I saw him last season, though admittedly that was only twice. Certainly could scupper United's plans now, especially as Begovic has already joined Chelsea.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1156 on: Today at 08:29:02 AM »

Shouldn't make much difference to United - Lloris is only in danger of missing the first game or two.
The transfer window doesn't close until Tuesday 01 September. Lloris will be back by then, and as Spurs play United on the first game of the season, Levy wouldn't have sold to United before then anyway.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1157 on: Today at 08:50:48 AM »

Are they really building a 61,000 capacity stadium to have 600 more seats than Arsenal?

I suppose it might just be a coincidence? Otherwise they are pretty obsessed.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1158 on: Today at 10:37:19 AM »

I suppose it might just be a coincidence? Otherwise they are pretty obsessed.

i wish we are obsessed too and build a stadium with 62k seats

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1159 on: Today at 10:38:05 AM »

Would you be happy if we also spent the extra £350m+ to do so to?

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1160 on: Today at 10:49:59 AM »

yes, why not?

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1161 on: Today at 10:52:51 AM »

Because those seats need to be paid for by someone, and that someone will be the fans inside the stadium. We'd be paying off the stadium for decades.

Were building to 58,500 ish by spending about £150m. It's a ridiculous thought that it would be worth spending £300-350m more for a few thousand more.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1162 on: Today at 10:57:06 AM »

^^^

Will be interesting to see if the big capital investments by football clubs eventually cripple them over the next decade or so. By cripple, I actually mean make them less competitive as they are not able to invest effectively in the playing squad i.e. Arsenal 2004-2013ish.

It may mean that FSG are delivering exactly what they/we want for £200m or £250m less than required.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1163 on: Today at 11:02:22 AM »

It's already been having an effect on them I think.

This season they've a more or less even net spend and Levy has said they need to sell some now before buying. If they stick with that it'll be the 5th season in a row they've (approx) not had a positive net spend.
And still finished up you lot too!

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1164 on: Today at 11:10:08 AM »

if we think that we're a big club (second biggest in the country), then we should act like one

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1165 on: Today at 11:11:59 AM »

Excellent.

So you'll be happy with the club covering what, £25-30m a year interest payments for the next decade or two, whilst also bumping up ticket price massively, to cover the added £300m+ to build about 2,500 seats.

Thank fuck you weren't in charge of making that call, as you'd of crippled us.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1171 on: Today at 12:23:06 PM »

You are forgetting that Spurs' stadium currently holds about 35,000 people. That's 10,000 people less than we currently do.

So whilst it is not economically viable for Liverpool to pay £350-£400m for an extra 13,000 seats, Spurs will be paying that amount to add an extra 26,000 seats. Plus they are factoring in the ability to utilise the stadium for other events, such as NFL and concerts etc.

If you factor in a decent naming rights deal and huge corporate opportunities (which White Hart Lane has very little of) then it makes sense for them to build a new stadium.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1172 on: Today at 12:39:35 PM »

It certainly makes it make more sense for them, definitely. As does the fact they're in London and few other options in close proximity.

Makes absolutely no sense at all for us to do it though, and we're going to be in a much better position in a few years than Spurs (stadium income wise) without a shadow of a doubt.

We'll see about that

 

[Geyzer Soze]

I don't think so mate. I'm spurs through and through but am also from south London. Places like Dulwich, Blackheath Mitcham are lovely. Yeh there are shit holes but south London has a far more organic feel than north of the river.

Dulwich is nice. I think I'll live there or Blackheath if I ever return to blighty

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Fair enough i got it wrong as i have already said. Can we get the thread back on topic now please?

The grammars not bad at the moment tbf

 

[Hoops]

South of the river is where its at.

I think there are alot of intangibles that the Liverpool fans are forgetting. An iconic stadium doesn't only bring in money but it promotes the club.

Players want to play in a beautiful stadium, fans want to watch football. Tv cameras show inside. Anfield will look like a badly patched jumper whereas WHL will be one of the worlds best stadiums.

 

[tommo84]

Another attempt to get back on topic.....

From Rawk, a nice little debate about our new stadium and Lloris news:

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1153 on: Yesterday at 07:29:37 PM »

LLoris has broken his wrist. Big blow for them

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1154 on: Yesterday at 07:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Gerry Attrick on Yesterday at 07:29:37 PM
LLoris has broken his wrist. Big blow for them

They have Vorm though... Could have implications for United if De Gea is off.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1155 on: Yesterday at 07:34:22 PM »

Vorm was pretty poor when I saw him last season, though admittedly that was only twice. Certainly could scupper United's plans now, especially as Begovic has already joined Chelsea.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1156 on: Today at 08:29:02 AM »

Shouldn't make much difference to United - Lloris is only in danger of missing the first game or two.
The transfer window doesn't close until Tuesday 01 September. Lloris will be back by then, and as Spurs play United on the first game of the season, Levy wouldn't have sold to United before then anyway.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1157 on: Today at 08:50:48 AM »

Are they really building a 61,000 capacity stadium to have 600 more seats than Arsenal?

I suppose it might just be a coincidence? Otherwise they are pretty obsessed.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1158 on: Today at 10:37:19 AM »

I suppose it might just be a coincidence? Otherwise they are pretty obsessed.

i wish we are obsessed too and build a stadium with 62k seats

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1159 on: Today at 10:38:05 AM »

Would you be happy if we also spent the extra £350m+ to do so to?

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1160 on: Today at 10:49:59 AM »

yes, why not?

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1161 on: Today at 10:52:51 AM »

Because those seats need to be paid for by someone, and that someone will be the fans inside the stadium. We'd be paying off the stadium for decades.

Were building to 58,500 ish by spending about £150m. It's a ridiculous thought that it would be worth spending £300-350m more for a few thousand more.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1162 on: Today at 10:57:06 AM »

^^^

Will be interesting to see if the big capital investments by football clubs eventually cripple them over the next decade or so. By cripple, I actually mean make them less competitive as they are not able to invest effectively in the playing squad i.e. Arsenal 2004-2013ish.

It may mean that FSG are delivering exactly what they/we want for £200m or £250m less than required.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1163 on: Today at 11:02:22 AM »

It's already been having an effect on them I think.

This season they've a more or less even net spend and Levy has said they need to sell some now before buying. If they stick with that it'll be the 5th season in a row they've (approx) not had a positive net spend.
And still finished up you lot too!

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1164 on: Today at 11:10:08 AM »

if we think that we're a big club (second biggest in the country), then we should act like one

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1165 on: Today at 11:11:59 AM »

Excellent.

So you'll be happy with the club covering what, £25-30m a year interest payments for the next decade or two, whilst also bumping up ticket price massively, to cover the added £300m+ to build about 2,500 seats.

Thank fuck you weren't in charge of making that call, as you'd of crippled us.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1171 on: Today at 12:23:06 PM »

You are forgetting that Spurs' stadium currently holds about 35,000 people. That's 10,000 people less than we currently do.

So whilst it is not economically viable for Liverpool to pay £350-£400m for an extra 13,000 seats, Spurs will be paying that amount to add an extra 26,000 seats. Plus they are factoring in the ability to utilise the stadium for other events, such as NFL and concerts etc.

If you factor in a decent naming rights deal and huge corporate opportunities (which White Hart Lane has very little of) then it makes sense for them to build a new stadium.

Re: Spurs
« Reply #1172 on: Today at 12:39:35 PM »

It certainly makes it make more sense for them, definitely. As does the fact they're in London and few other options in close proximity.

Makes absolutely no sense at all for us to do it though, and we're going to be in a much better position in a few years than Spurs (stadium income wise) without a shadow of a doubt.

We'll see about that

It's quite refreshing to see a fan of another club (reply #1163) notice that we haven't really spent any money in recent years. Usually other fans claim we're amongst the highest spenders in the country, whilst also calling us a selling club but completely failing to put those two things together to appreciate the whole picture.

I'm very excited about the future and how we're going to finally start maximising our revenues - it would be interesting to see what the likes of Southampton and Swansea think about it as it's going to leave them even further behind despite years of progress (which isn't great for the league as a whole).

 

[ERO]

« Reply #1165 on: Today at 11:11:59 AM »

So you'll be happy with the club covering what, £25-30m a year interest payments for the next decade or two, whilst also bumping up ticket price massively, to cover the added £300m+ to build about 2,500 seats.

F me, interest rates are high in Liverpool!

 

[guiltyparty]

It's quite refreshing to see a fan of another club (reply #1163) notice that we haven't really spent any money in recent years. Usually other fans claim we're amongst the highest spenders in the country, whilst also calling us a selling club but completely failing to put those two things together to appreciate the whole picture.

I'm very excited about the future and how we're going to finally start maximising our revenues - it would be interesting to see what the likes of Southampton and Swansea think about it as it's going to leave them even further behind despite years of progress (which isn't great for the league as a whole).

"I'm very excited about the future and how we're going to finally start maximising our revenues"

I'm still drinking in this quote. Lord, what has modern football made of us all?

 

[sloth]

I'm now going to embark on one of those pointless exercises which speaks of a person with too much time on his hands, but hey-ho, what the hell.

Looking at what we know about the clubs finances the stadium costs, the money spent so far, and the new TV deal, plus bench-marking naming rights deals at other clubs I want to estimate the affordability of our new stadium. I'll post this in the Stadium thread too (even though I suspect it's already been done there, but I'm too stupid to look).

Anyway the conclusion is we'll have £130m to put up front towards the £450m stadium costs. Therefore we'll have to borrow £320m from either our owner or the banks. But if we continue to finish an average of sixth, we continue to player trade as we have been, and our operating costs only increase by 15% over the next five years, then thanks to the naming rights and the new TV rights deals, plus the additional match-day income our turnover will have increased to about £300m, and our surplus will be at around £150m. In other we're good for the loan.

I've spoilered the assumptions and workings out, so go through them if you dare!!

Spoiler

• Latest accounts had us with no debt and £3m in the bank (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club)
• Since then our transfers have balanced, and the above article says our wages only increased by £4m, although our turnover increased by £40m. We could assume a healthy profit last year too therefore, except that we apparently haven't accounted for the purchases the summer we sold Bale, which is why we appeared to be so profitable that year and were able to have 0 debt. I'm going to say no profit in the period since we sold Bale, so no additional money to go towards the stadium.
• I'm going to assume the total cost of the stadium is £450m, including the work done to date.
• Under the new TV deal, 6th place would bag us £134m (http://www.totalsportek.com/money/premier-league-tv-rights-money-distribution/), a £44m a season increase on the current one. If our operating costs remain as they are and we continue with £0 net spend per season, then that would mean, that since 30th June 2013, our income will have gone up from £147m (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-accounts-club-by-club-david-conn) when we made a £4m profit, to about £225m in three years. But looking at the profile of our signings, who we've let go and who will have come in, our wage bill will have remained static (remember we're getting shot of Soldado, Paulinho, Adebayor), and replacing them with young guns. In theory that's (£225m less £147m plus £4m) £82m additional each year. I can't currently see where that's being spent (other than the stadium), but am happy to listen to theories on where it might be.
• Stadium Naming Rights - arsenal signed a £30m a season deal in 2012. Obviously they've a greater brand profile at the moment, but that was four years ago, and we've seen TV Rights inflation since then. We also have the potential extra draw of NFL. I'll be conservative though and plump for the same deal, £30m a year.
• Match-day income - Again the simplest thing is to benchmark against Arsenal's. So £100m a year to our current £35m, perhaps they'll be closer to full capacity more often, on the other hand we have a genuine multi-purpose stadium with NFL matches to be included too. I also haven't considered inflation in any of these figures. So a further £65m increase to our income.
• Debt: It seems to be close to zero now, and any additional borrowing we can assume is towards the stadium. If we don't reduce the total £450m then we don't have to consider that now. £0 debt means we can borrow, we've got head-room.
• Additional non-stadium related expenditure. So far I haven't estimated any, but I should. I don't know what they are so I'm going to put a 15% contingency in there - based on 2013 figures that's £20m of additional expenditure.
• Timeline - We'll open in three years.
• One more cost - the season away from WHL will see us lose some of our matchday income and have to pay out towards hiring another stadium, let's assume a £20m drop for that season, which, for the purpose of the calculations we'll round up to an annualised £7m a season over the three years.

Annual over next three years
£m
Additional Income (inc money in bank) and Expenditure
+3
+82
-20
-7
£58m p/a

If we multiply that figure by 3 we get £174m (but we have to subtract £44m for next year when we don't have the new TV deal but the current one so:

Three Year Total
£130m

That means we have to find £320m towards stadium costs from somewhere. That's what we have to somehow borrow. That's how much debt we'll find ourselves in. Seems a big number, but no bigger than Arsenal managed. Anyway the real question is how sustainable is it.

So let's add up the extra income once the stadium is opened:

Annual
£m
Additional Income and Expenditure
+82 (TV Rights)
+30 (Naming Rights)
+65 (Match-day)
-20 (Contingency)
£157m

Looking at the above we'd have paid it off in two years.

If that's the case then will our owner be willing to make us the loan?

 

[tottenmal]

F me, interest rates are high in Liverpool!

They only know to go to the one place you see.

www.wonga.com

 

[goughie1966]

From Kumb, our new stadium news:

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by Het-Field on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:46 pm

When I was reading this earlier it actually had the effect of buttressing my beliefs that the move to the Olympic Stadium is imperative, and is an incredible piece of business on the part of the club.

Spurs' new stadium looks top notch, and it seems that Chelsea will follow suit one year prior to the completion of the new stadium, with at least one of them playing at Wembley until the stadium is finished.

We are joining all the top London clubs with a spanking new stadium, which is ideal.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by gavrosh on Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:02 pm

good luck with Spurs earning earning much money out of the \nfl. Theyre well known for ripping the eyes out of the people that actually pay for their stadiums (usually city councils) by simply threatening to move elsewhere, and the announcement they made today about playing 2 games at WHL while also playing elsewhere is exactly in line with that. They will play Wembley and Spurs off against each other, and I'd expect Wembley to win that one thanks to sheer size and earning capacity.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by bitter-iron-ny on Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:23 pm

This. The NFL doesn't pay for anything. You have to pay them for the privilege of printing money at your expense. Parking, concessions, merchandising, hotels, etc. - they will have finger in all of it. Other than brand exposure not sure what's in it for Sp*rs.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by scotnob on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:09 pm

As I tried to explain above, it was inevitable that something like this would happen.

It is a magnificent looking stadium and the NFL deal will ensure that it becomes a reality., and spurs will be the beneficiaries, regardless of what we think of yank football or however much we despise tottenham. This is the world of commerce, and it makes me sick.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by Absolutely Hammered! on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:23 pm

spurs and Levy can kiss our a$$es. Our stadium has the potential to become a 70K seater stadium and we have much better transport links. Oh.. and a westfield. Ave summa that!

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by gavrosh on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:40 pm

Another reason I think that NFL are toying with Spurs and will eventually go with Wembley, if it does go for the London franchise. The International Series is fine because it's one off-ish and with an established US team, but a London franchise will require significant support from within London and playing at WHL will taint any such with a Spurs tag that will preclude support from a huge number of potential fans.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by bubbles1966 on Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:01 pm

I'm working Tottenham at the moment - was on Park Lane yesterday.
The place is terribly located with awful transport connections, and the local residents are what they are.
Suffice to say, no one in their right mind would build a new stadium there.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by The Rebirth on Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:50 pm

Why would the NFL **** off Wembley when they fill it... that's 90k seats... when ***** Hart Lane mk2 will hold precisely 29k less? that's a considerable drop in revenue and Wembley is far better serviced than Spuds ground

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by Georgee Paris on Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:41 am

I know it's a purpose made football arena and has the largest kop ever but the stadium looks incredibly boring to me. Not unique in anyway.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by MB on Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:23 am

Excellent that will churn their pitch up a couple of times a season!

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by jaybs on Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:29 am

People may knock them, but give them credit...............................
Some say the move we are making is imperative, yes agree, but we will only ever be tenants?

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by spyinthesky on Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:40 am

It doesn't have the biggest Kop the OS does actually.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by RichieRiv on Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:59 am

At least they'll get to keep whatever revenue they make. If the Olympic Stadium decide to host NFL, Hurling, netball or a Garth Crookes concert, we see the sum total of **** all.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by hammersk on Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:43 am

MB wrote:An artificial pitch will be under the football one

Ask yourself the following questions:

1. How much does it cost:

(A) to install a completely retractable artificial pitch under the grass field?

(B) to dig further underneath to build supersized changing rooms

(C) who is paying for that, given that you're getting no more than 2 games p.a. for the next 10 years?

Based on what has been made public, the sums are nowhere near adding up..

 

[Qualsonic]

The grammars not bad at the moment tbf

*grammar's

 

[Hoops]

I'm now going to embark on one of those pointless exercises which speaks of a person with too much time on his hands, but hey-ho, what the hell.

Looking at what we know about the clubs finances the stadium costs, the money spent so far, and the new TV deal, plus bench-marking naming rights deals at other clubs I want to estimate the affordability of our new stadium. I'll post this in the Stadium thread too (even though I suspect it's already been done there, but I'm too stupid to look).

Anyway the conclusion is we'll have £130m to put up front towards the £450m stadium costs. Therefore we'll have to borrow £320m from either our owner or the banks. But if we continue to finish an average of sixth, we continue to player trade as we have been, and our operating costs only increase by 15% over the next five years, then thanks to the naming rights and the new TV rights deals, plus the additional match-day income our turnover will have increased to about £300m, and our surplus will be at around £150m. In other we're good for the loan.

I've spoilered the assumptions and workings out, so go through them if you dare!!

Spoiler

• Latest accounts had us with no debt and £3m in the bank (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club)
• Since then our transfers have balanced, and the above article says our wages only increased by £4m, although our turnover increased by £40m. We could assume a healthy profit last year too therefore, except that we apparently haven't accounted for the purchases the summer we sold Bale, which is why we appeared to be so profitable that year and were able to have 0 debt. I'm going to say no profit in the period since we sold Bale, so no additional money to go towards the stadium.
• I'm going to assume the total cost of the stadium is £450m, including the work done to date.
• Under the new TV deal, 6th place would bag us £134m (http://www.totalsportek.com/money/premier-league-tv-rights-money-distribution/), a £44m a season increase on the current one. If our operating costs remain as they are and we continue with £0 net spend per season, then that would mean, that since 30th June 2013, our income will have gone up from £147m (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-accounts-club-by-club-david-conn) when we made a £4m profit, to about £225m in three years. But looking at the profile of our signings, who we've let go and who will have come in, our wage bill will have remained static (remember we're getting shot of Soldado, Paulinho, Adebayor), and replacing them with young guns. In theory that's (£225m less £147m plus £4m) £82m additional each year. I can't currently see where that's being spent (other than the stadium), but am happy to listen to theories on where it might be.
• Stadium Naming Rights - arsenal signed a £30m a season deal in 2012. Obviously they've a greater brand profile at the moment, but that was four years ago, and we've seen TV Rights inflation since then. We also have the potential extra draw of NFL. I'll be conservative though and plump for the same deal, £30m a year.
• Match-day income - Again the simplest thing is to benchmark against Arsenal's. So £100m a year to our current £35m, perhaps they'll be closer to full capacity more often, on the other hand we have a genuine multi-purpose stadium with NFL matches to be included too. I also haven't considered inflation in any of these figures. So a further £65m increase to our income.
• Debt: It seems to be close to zero now, and any additional borrowing we can assume is towards the stadium. If we don't reduce the total £450m then we don't have to consider that now. £0 debt means we can borrow, we've got head-room.
• Additional non-stadium related expenditure. So far I haven't estimated any, but I should. I don't know what they are so I'm going to put a 15% contingency in there - based on 2013 figures that's £20m of additional expenditure.
• Timeline - We'll open in three years.
• One more cost - the season away from WHL will see us lose some of our matchday income and have to pay out towards hiring another stadium, let's assume a £20m drop for that season, which, for the purpose of the calculations we'll round up to an annualised £7m a season over the three years.

Annual over next three years
£m
Additional Income (inc money in bank) and Expenditure
+3
+82
-20
-7
£58m p/a

If we multiply that figure by 3 we get £174m (but we have to subtract £44m for next year when we don't have the new TV deal but the current one so:

Three Year Total
£130m

That means we have to find £320m towards stadium costs from somewhere. That's what we have to somehow borrow. That's how much debt we'll find ourselves in. Seems a big number, but no bigger than Arsenal managed. Anyway the real question is how sustainable is it.

So let's add up the extra income once the stadium is opened:

Annual
£m
Additional Income and Expenditure
+82 (TV Rights)
+30 (Naming Rights)
+65 (Match-day)
-20 (Contingency)
£157m

Looking at the above we'd have paid it off in two years.

If that's the case then will our owner be willing to make us the loan?

Very good. But even if we needed a 25 year loan for 320m. Including interest it will be 15-20m a season. Its peanuts really considering like you say, how much extra the stadium will bring in.

 

[beats1]

I'm now going to embark on one of those pointless exercises which speaks of a person with too much time on his hands, but hey-ho, what the hell.

Looking at what we know about the clubs finances the stadium costs, the money spent so far, and the new TV deal, plus bench-marking naming rights deals at other clubs I want to estimate the affordability of our new stadium. I'll post this in the Stadium thread too (even though I suspect it's already been done there, but I'm too stupid to look).

Anyway the conclusion is we'll have £130m to put up front towards the £450m stadium costs. Therefore we'll have to borrow £320m from either our owner or the banks. But if we continue to finish an average of sixth, we continue to player trade as we have been, and our operating costs only increase by 15% over the next five years, then thanks to the naming rights and the new TV rights deals, plus the additional match-day income our turnover will have increased to about £300m, and our surplus will be at around £150m. In other we're good for the loan.

I've spoilered the assumptions and workings out, so go through them if you dare!!

Spoiler

• Latest accounts had us with no debt and £3m in the bank (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club)
• Since then our transfers have balanced, and the above article says our wages only increased by £4m, although our turnover increased by £40m. We could assume a healthy profit last year too therefore, except that we apparently haven't accounted for the purchases the summer we sold Bale, which is why we appeared to be so profitable that year and were able to have 0 debt. I'm going to say no profit in the period since we sold Bale, so no additional money to go towards the stadium.
• I'm going to assume the total cost of the stadium is £450m, including the work done to date.
• Under the new TV deal, 6th place would bag us £134m (http://www.totalsportek.com/money/premier-league-tv-rights-money-distribution/), a £44m a season increase on the current one. If our operating costs remain as they are and we continue with £0 net spend per season, then that would mean, that since 30th June 2013, our income will have gone up from £147m (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-accounts-club-by-club-david-conn) when we made a £4m profit, to about £225m in three years. But looking at the profile of our signings, who we've let go and who will have come in, our wage bill will have remained static (remember we're getting shot of Soldado, Paulinho, Adebayor), and replacing them with young guns. In theory that's (£225m less £147m plus £4m) £82m additional each year. I can't currently see where that's being spent (other than the stadium), but am happy to listen to theories on where it might be.
• Stadium Naming Rights - arsenal signed a £30m a season deal in 2012. Obviously they've a greater brand profile at the moment, but that was four years ago, and we've seen TV Rights inflation since then. We also have the potential extra draw of NFL. I'll be conservative though and plump for the same deal, £30m a year.
• Match-day income - Again the simplest thing is to benchmark against Arsenal's. So £100m a year to our current £35m, perhaps they'll be closer to full capacity more often, on the other hand we have a genuine multi-purpose stadium with NFL matches to be included too. I also haven't considered inflation in any of these figures. So a further £65m increase to our income.
• Debt: It seems to be close to zero now, and any additional borrowing we can assume is towards the stadium. If we don't reduce the total £450m then we don't have to consider that now. £0 debt means we can borrow, we've got head-room.
• Additional non-stadium related expenditure. So far I haven't estimated any, but I should. I don't know what they are so I'm going to put a 15% contingency in there - based on 2013 figures that's £20m of additional expenditure.
• Timeline - We'll open in three years.
• One more cost - the season away from WHL will see us lose some of our matchday income and have to pay out towards hiring another stadium, let's assume a £20m drop for that season, which, for the purpose of the calculations we'll round up to an annualised £7m a season over the three years.

Annual over next three years
£m
Additional Income (inc money in bank) and Expenditure
+3
+82
-20
-7
£58m p/a

If we multiply that figure by 3 we get £174m (but we have to subtract £44m for next year when we don't have the new TV deal but the current one so:

Three Year Total
£130m

That means we have to find £320m towards stadium costs from somewhere. That's what we have to somehow borrow. That's how much debt we'll find ourselves in. Seems a big number, but no bigger than Arsenal managed. Anyway the real question is how sustainable is it.

So let's add up the extra income once the stadium is opened:

Annual
£m
Additional Income and Expenditure
+82 (TV Rights)
+30 (Naming Rights)
+65 (Match-day)
-20 (Contingency)
£157m

Looking at the above we'd have paid it off in two years.

If that's the case then will our owner be willing to make us the loan?

The initial £400m estimate of the stadium bill included the building of the Hotels and property development in terms of our new build costs of the stadium may of slightly increased but the roof structure is a lot more simple than the old design and cheaper as well

 

[Flynn]

F me, interest rates are high in Liverpool!

They all use wonga up north.

 

[sloth]

The initial £400m estimate of the stadium bill included the building of the Hotels and property development in terms of our new build costs of the stadium may of slightly increased but the roof structure is a lot more simple than the old design and cheaper as well

To be honest it's a bit back of the envelope (I guess you could probably tell ), but the thing is when ever someone tries one of these estimates they tend to be over-optimistic, for that reason I deliberately kind of net away other possible revenue I could think of against expenditure I've no doubt over-looked.

 

[pffft]

A Garth Crooks concert at the Olympic Stadium, you say? Can you imagine the rush for tickets...

And I bet he just covers Elvis and the Beatles.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Sunderland forum:

General consensus among Spurs fans isn't particularly great.

Bit of a cult figure there, they all like him and wish him well but pretty much in unison agree that he's been shite the past 18 months (barring a game against Arsenal which a lot of them are saying was his best ever game for them).

Not pleased with this


Oh and according to journos in London he's done his medical and announcement to be done later this afternoon

Yea. We just being gracious, bi-atch!

Shame like

FFS, serious? They bring their ridiculous inflections into written speech?

Sorry, i was going to do more but they are giving me a headache

 

[Gb160]

Sunderland forum:


Yea. We just being gracious, bi-atch!


FFS, serious? They bring their ridiculous inflections into written speech?

How are they getting internet down the mine?

 

[Ribble]

From Kumb, our new stadium news:
Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by gavrosh on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:40 pm

Another reason I think that NFL are toying with Spurs and will eventually go with Wembley, if it does go for the London franchise. The International Series is fine because it's one off-ish and with an established US team, but a London franchise will require significant support from within London and playing at WHL will taint any such with a Spurs tag that will preclude support from a huge number of potential fans.

Re: The NFL & Tottenham Hotspur new partnership..........
by The Rebirth on Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:50 pm

Why would the NFL **** off Wembley when they fill it... that's 90k seats... when ***** Hart Lane mk2 will hold precisely 29k less? that's a considerable drop in revenue and Wembley is far better serviced than Spuds ground

I guess they probably don't know the thing about restrictions on the number of matchdays at Wembley? The NFL couldn't use it if they wanted to set up a proper franchise in London.