What's new

Danny Rose

elfy

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2013
1,583
6,991
Agreed but it brings us closer.. then once the new stadium is in place and related commercials like naming rights are agreed our revenue should get close to Liverpool currently £100m a year more rev. If we are then successful on the pitch we could eventually catch Arsenal approx £150m a year more rev..

Dude, our total revenue for the latest published year was just over £200m. There is no possible way that we will increase our revenue by 50% just because we have a new stadium. Don't get me wrong, it will make a difference but gate receipts are currently around £20m, even if we assume that we can double that with a new stadium (and that is a BIG assumption) it would only increase revenue around 10%, when the costs of servicing the debt on the stadium build are taken into account it would probably be closer to a 5% uplift.

If anyone thinks that the new stadium will elevate us to the levels of Liverpool or Arsenal (lets not even mention the Manchester clubs, and the Russians) they are going to disappointed.

Liverpool and Arsenal have the revenues they have largely due to past success, and have built that over decades. If we want the even begin to compete with either of them in terms of revenues we need success on the pitch consistently.

It's the catch 22 we are in, we (arguably) wont have success on the pitch until we have larger revenues but we won't have larger revenues until we have success on the pitch.

We are run as a business, not a plaything. From a business point of view the stadium is going to be a great success, from a footballing point of view - especially in the current climate of mental transfer fees and wages we are never going to compete with those clubs with questionable owners with unlimited wealth - not in terms of fees and wages anyway.
 

bomberH

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2005
28,471
168,308
Harsh by Poch

sw63ssE.jpg
 
Last edited:

Everlasting Seconds

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2014
14,914
26,616
Dude, our total revenue for the latest published year was just over £200m. There is no possible way that we will increase our revenue by 50% just because we have a new stadium. Don't get me wrong, it will make a difference but gate receipts are currently around £20m, even if we assume that we can double that with a new stadium (and that is a BIG assumption) it would only increase revenue around 10%, when the costs of servicing the debt on the stadium build are taken into account it would probably be closer to a 5% uplift.

If anyone thinks that the new stadium will elevate us to the levels of Liverpool or Arsenal (lets not even mention the Manchester clubs, and the Russians) they are going to disappointed.

Liverpool and Arsenal have the revenues they have largely due to past success, and have built that over decades. If we want the even begin to compete with either of them in terms of revenues we need success on the pitch consistently.

It's the catch 22 we are in, we (arguably) wont have success on the pitch until we have larger revenues but we won't have larger revenues until we have success on the pitch.

We are run as a business, not a plaything. From a business point of view the stadium is going to be a great success, from a footballing point of view - especially in the current climate of mental transfer fees and wages we are never going to compete with those clubs with questionable owners with unlimited wealth - not in terms of fees and wages anyway.

I agree broadly with your post, however I'd like to point out that I believe you are underestimating stadium generated income, both today and in the future. Total matchday income is generated from more sources than only gate receipts, and will increase drastically in %. Also, the stadiums multi-purpose use will generate added cash. However, I'd assume expenses also will increase. Bottom line is, your prudence is correct in general, but I believe somewhat overstated in it's nature.
 

elfy

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2013
1,583
6,991
I agree broadly with your post, however I'd like to point out that I believe you are underestimating stadium generated income, both today and in the future. Total matchday income is generated from more sources than only gate receipts, and will increase drastically in %. Also, the stadiums multi-purpose use will generate added cash. However, I'd assume expenses also will increase. Bottom line is, your prudence is correct in general, but I believe somewhat overstated in it's nature.

That is very, very true.

It's just that if anyone thinks that the new stadium is going to be a silver bullet that means we will be on a financial par with the big spenders they are in for disappointment.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
Dude, our total revenue for the latest published year was just over £200m.
To be fair - in 2016, the date of that revenue, our TV revenue was around £95M. Last season, our TV revenue was approximately £148M. And, we will have had CL money on top of that. So, with the new stadium, and continued top-4 prize money/CL money we would be over £300M pretty easily.

Its not Man City or Man U revenue - but we will have closed the gap with Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool - and can continue to concentrate on marketing revenue.
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
That is very, very true.

It's just that if anyone thinks that the new stadium is going to be a silver bullet that means we will be on a financial par with the big spenders they are in for disappointment.

Agree that we won't compete with doped clubs (Chelsea, Man C, PSG) or ridiculously rich super clubs (Man U, Real, Barca), but we can easily catch and overtake the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool. The three main differentiators were CL money (which we now have), sponsorship deals (which we are now getting), and match day revenue (which we will have and some). Already our sponsorship deals are matching their level. Our match day revenues will be higher (assuming we sell out each week which will be related to on pitch success). The main differentiator is that our stadium, with its artificial NFL pitch, can host both NFL events (potentially massive money spinner for naming rights - potentially the biggest in the world!) and other stadium events (concerts) without damaging the football pitch. This means for example tha we could host 30+ stadium concerts a year furthering our stadium related income. Levy is someone who will squeeze the last drop of revenue out of it. If we get a NFL franchise based at new WHL imagine the income!
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
Agree that we won't compete with doped clubs (Chelsea, Man C, PSG) or ridiculously rich super clubs (Man U, Real, Barca), but we can easily catch and overtake the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool. The three main differentiators were CL money (which we now have), sponsorship deals (which we are now getting), and match day revenue (which we will have and some). Already our sponsorship deals are matching their level. Our match day revenues will be higher (assuming we sell out each week which will be related to on pitch success). The main differentiator is that our stadium, with its artificial NFL pitch, can host both NFL events (potentially massive money spinner for naming rights - potentially the biggest in the world!) and other stadium events (concerts) without damaging the football pitch. This means for example tha we could host 30+ stadium concerts a year furthering our stadium related income. Levy is someone who will squeeze the last drop of revenue out of it. If we get a NFL franchise based at new WHL imagine the income!

NFL aside, Arsenal do all that already. I've been to several big concerts at the Emirates. So that's not unique to Spurs.

The NFL franchise I'll give you but that is far from set in stone. Also interested to see how that plays out - whether Spurs owns the franchise, ENIC, or it's US owned and they just play in London, we get gazumped, or it doesn't even materialise.
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
NFL aside, Arsenal do all that already. I've been to several big concerts at the Emirates. So that's not unique to Spurs.

The NFL franchise I'll give you but that is far from set in stone. Also interested to see how that plays out - whether Spurs owns the franchise, ENIC, or it's US owned and they just play in London, we get gazumped, or it doesn't even materialise.
The difference is we can host a significant larger number of such concerts as we don't have to worry about damaging the pitch.
 

james Stock

Active Member
Aug 31, 2012
165
448
The outcome with the NFL is not clear , but a sum of 50 mill was deposited from the US according to the accounts . They are not depositing sums like that to play the occasional game.
 

jay2040

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
2,694
4,290
NFL aside, Arsenal do all that already. I've been to several big concerts at the Emirates. So that's not unique to Spurs.

The NFL franchise I'll give you but that is far from set in stone. Also interested to see how that plays out - whether Spurs owns the franchise, ENIC, or it's US owned and they just play in London, we get gazumped, or it doesn't even materialise.

How the fuck can you go the Emirates for a concert? Go see the concert somewhere else. Seriously take a look at yourself.
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,626
45,274
Isn't it depressing that we're having a big discussion about incomes and turnover and catching up to the rich clubs etc, and really all we're really getting at is ultimately being able to pay some already massively overpaid prima-donna's even more vast amounts of money they absolutely don't deserve?
 

DJS

A hoonter must hoont
Dec 9, 2006
31,279
21,788
Isn't it depressing that we're having a big discussion about incomes and turnover and catching up to the rich clubs etc, and really all we're really getting at is ultimately being able to pay some already massively overpaid prima-donna's even more vast amounts of money they absolutely don't deserve?

Yep.

There really should be a wage cap as amount of money some sports people are paid (for playing a sport they are supposed to love so really it's a hobby ffs!!!) is quite frankly obscene when compared to far more important jobs like police, health staff etc are paid.

Crying over 65 grand a WEEK, fuck me id be happy earning that in a year...
 

For the love of Spurs

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2015
3,453
11,284
Yep.

There really should be a wage cap as amount of money some sports people are paid (for playing a sport they are supposed to love so really it's a hobby ffs!!!) is quite frankly obscene when compared to far more important jobs like police, health staff etc are paid.

Crying over 65 grand a WEEK, fuck me id be happy earning that in a year...

I know but it's the way of the world. Thing is it's not even traditional market forces leading to this mess, it's not fans going that increasing the wages but in the case of Man City a government buying the club and throwing any old wages at the problem and inflating everything or in the case of Chelsea a rich criminal.

It's crazy and if this situation existed 40-50 years ago laws would have been put in place to deal with it but we are now so apathetic to this type of thing no one in power cares.
 

Everlasting Seconds

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2014
14,914
26,616
Simples, it's too early to categorically state anything about Rose. He may still leave, or he may be staying. No sense making any promises in the media right now. Do we have a Danny Rose-Peters in the academy?
 
Top