New Stadium

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
MemphisWill said:
£500M in revenue is quite a rosy outlook if you ask me. Feel free to bookmark this post and come back at me whenever next years financials are released in about 2 years. It just doesn't pass the sniff test, as all we've done since leaving WHL is build a stadium - there's been no new major commercial deals.

A stadium isn't going to boost revenue that much, that's simply illogical. If a £1Bn stadium were worth even £100M in annual revenue. Then you'd see every club in England lining up to knock down their gaff. Doesn't take a sharp dressed finance man from the city to see that investing a pound for a 10 pence increase in annual revenue is a pretty smart and safe maneuver.

Therefore, if the forecast comes good it will be driven by increased media income of which our competitors will receive a marginally larger slice. So the idea that we'll have vaulted into financial parity suddenly is a bit of a fantasy.

My prediction? We're on par with woolwich and chavs (without Roman dumping more rubles in), though ever so slightly behind. We're about £40M behind the dippers. And we're £150M+ behind United. City doesn't matter as their financials are just a masquerade anyway. We're closing the gap, but there's still a lot to be done.
Click to expand...

Our match day revenue increased significantly by going to Wembley ( going from 36k at WHL to average ,63k at Wembley) but at WHL we will both be getting an average gate of approaching 60k but importantly far more corporate/premium areas which will make up the same amount of revenue as 'general adnission' match day revenues - that is why match day revenues shoot up even from the Wembley revenuss as corporate is smaller at Wembley.

Food and drink sales are running at 3 times WHL levels as the offering and location is so much better

Add in extra events such as NFL rugby and the 20 odd non sports events which are at NWHL together with appropriate food and drink sales etc.

Commercial income is booming - look at the increase from 2 years ago and then factor in that NWHL has the 3rd largest conference centre facilities in London.

Many large corporates want to be associated with a stadium which everyone is calling ' one of the best in the world' so sponsorship ncome is significantly increasing.

Loads of other revenue sources which are running at a different level to WHL.

The bit which seems to being underestimated is that this is not just s football stadium but a multi sport stadium with conference and corporate facilities - a first of its kind and that is why it's not just the £100m increase you have assumed. Levy worked out years ago that building another football stadium to get £100m increase was not good enough, hence all the added extras at NWHL to generate more revenues
 
MemphisWill said:
£500M in revenue is quite a rosy outlook if you ask me. Feel free to bookmark this post and come back at me whenever next years financials are released in about 2 years. It just doesn't pass the sniff test, as all we've done since leaving WHL is build a stadium - there's been no new major commercial deals.

A stadium isn't going to boost revenue that much, that's simply illogical. If a £1Bn stadium were worth even £100M in annual revenue. Then you'd see every club in England lining up to knock down their gaff. Doesn't take a sharp dressed finance man from the city to see that investing a pound for a 10 pence increase in annual revenue is a pretty smart and safe maneuver.

Therefore, if the forecast comes good it will be driven by increased media income of which our competitors will receive a marginally larger slice. So the idea that we'll have vaulted into financial parity suddenly is a bit of a fantasy.

My prediction? We're on par with woolwich and chavs (without Roman dumping more rubles in), though ever so slightly behind. We're about £40M behind the dippers. And we're £150M+ behind United. City doesn't matter as their financials are just a masquerade anyway. We're closing the gap, but there's still a lot to be done.
Click to expand...

Quick number crunch.

£100m divided by 25 games a season is £4m. So £4m a game ÷ the 62k who go is £64.52.

So for me £100m is easily doable. Average ticket price has to be over £65 once corporate is included, add food and drink, NFL games and concerts could easily see £150m being done.
 
Spursidol said:
Worth putting into perspective that forecast of £500m turnover for next year :

1. Spurs turnover for year to June 2017 - the last year at WHL where we played CL matches at Wembley - was £ 310m. So if crudely we have £200m more turnover next season at NWHL and if interest and capital repayments are £40m to £50m pa then that gives us an extra £150m pa of which maybe £100m might need to be allocated to increasing wages up to Woolwich levels but we are also left £50m pa to spend on player purchases.

Of course there may be extra costs with extra revenues but if we are right that we will significantly exceed the revenue forecast, those extra costs might well be covered. And if the debt is converted to bonds there is no immediate capital repayments so interest only repayments might be £10m to £15m instead

Either way we look to be vastly better off than at WHL - worth recalling that the accounts to June 2016 turnover was £ 210m.....less than half the forecast for next year.

2. Swiss ramble figures for our main competitors for 2018 were :

Manu. £590m
Mancity £500m
Liverpool £445m
Woolwich and Chelsea with less.

So it looks like we could get to be on a level pegging with Liverpool and Mancity revenues and well ahead of Chelsea and Woolwich - the latter two have no current stadium plans which would add significantly to revenues whilst Livrpool stand redevelopments might boost revenues a tad but not that much.

So again our revenues are looking to put us in a very competitive position
Click to expand...

I think we will get about 450m.

But its still a lot.
 
VoiceOfThePoshSeats said:
I think we will get about 450m.

But its still a lot.
Click to expand...

We got £381m last season with average 63k attendance.

Not much less attendance at NWHL but much bigger corporate seat/ box income ( which will double general admittance revenues unlike at Wembley or WHL

Then add in extra sports events,. Doubling or trebling food and drinks sales, 3rd largest conference centre in London (a brand new revenue stream). Increased sponsorship income extreme sports centre with abseiling and diving ...and the large!eet club shop in Europe etc.

Difficult to forecast revenues as it's almost like a start up business so "to dare is to do' - give people challenging but doable target revenues for all the business streams and see what happens

And take some comfort that given the size of the borrowing the banks will have been crawling all over the business plan to ensure the numbers are as robust as possible

Personally think DL will be unhappy at anything under £500m
 
Spursidol said:
Our match day revenue increased significantly by going to Wembley ( going from 36k at WHL to average ,63k at Wembley) but at WHL we will both be getting an average gate of approaching 60k but importantly far more corporate/premium areas which will make up the same amount of revenue as 'general adnission' match day revenues - that is why match day revenues shoot up even from the Wembley revenuss as corporate is smaller at Wembley.

Food and drink sales are running at 3 times WHL levels as the offering and location is so much better

Add in extra events such as NFL rugby and the 20 odd non sports events which are at NWHL together with appropriate food and drink sales etc.

Commercial income is booming - look at the increase from 2 years ago and then factor in that NWHL has the 3rd largest conference centre facilities in London.

Many large corporates want to be associated with a stadium which everyone is calling ' one of the best in the world' so sponsorship ncome is significantly increasing.

Loads of other revenue sources which are running at a different level to WHL.

The bit which seems to being underestimated is that this is not just s football stadium but a multi sport stadium with conference and corporate facilities - a first of its kind and that is why it's not just the £100m increase you have assumed. Levy worked out years ago that building another football stadium to get £100m increase was not good enough, hence all the added extras at NWHL to generate more revenues
Click to expand...
We'll see, as I say it simply doesn't pass the smell test - £1Bn investment generating a £100M increase in annual revenue seems to be a bit of a business fantasy. If it were that simple you'd see every club undertaking big building projects...that analysis, and no insult intended, seems similar to the spam fantasy that the Olympic would vault them into the big 6 realm financially. When something seems too good to be true, it generally is...generating revenue isn't that simple, ifnit were we'd all be rich.

And we're also talking in terms of pure revenue, not net income. The O&M of NWHL is going to be much, much higher (though more efficient) than we previously had. The stadium is going to be a boost, and in the long term it's a massively important and valuable investment. But the idea that its put us on par with Liverpool and put United in our sights financially is just a dream. We've probably moved from 6th to 5th in revenue, closed in on 3rd and 4th.

For reference United's reported matchday income for a 75k average attendance was £110M. It's just wishful thinking that a 62k stadium is going to boost our revenue by £100M+...it just is. I don't care how many NFL games, concerts, rugby matches, etc. You throw in there. Venue fees for hosting events isn't a massive money maker for stadiums - it's a nice income stream, but not highly profitable (see Wembley and the FA begging someone to take it off their hands).

It's a step up. It's a glorious stadium. I love it, can't wait to be there, and think it's the greatest thing any chairman in global football has produced in nearly a century. But it isn't a license to print money...and people who expect it to deliver us to financial parity with the global leaders of football are going to be very disappointed.
 
MemphisWill said:
We'll see, as I say it simply doesn't pass the smell test - £1Bn investment generating a £100M increase in annual revenue seems to be a bit of a business fantasy. If it were that simple you'd see every club undertaking big building projects...that analysis, and no insult intended, seems similar to the spam fantasy that the Olympic would vault them into the big 6 realm financially. When something seems too good to be true, it generally is...generating revenue isn't that simple, ifnit were we'd all be rich.

And we're also talking in terms of pure revenue, not net income. The O&M of NWHL is going to be much, much higher (though more efficient) than we previously had. The stadium is going to be a boost, and in the long term it's a massively important and valuable investment. But the idea that its put us on par with Liverpool and put United in our sights financially is just a dream. We've probably moved from 6th to 5th in revenue, closed in on 3rd and 4th.

For reference United's reported matchday income for a 75k average attendance was £110M. It's just wishful thinking that a 62k stadium is going to boost our revenue by £100M+...it just is. I don't care how many NFL games, concerts, rugby matches, etc. You throw in there. Venue fees for hosting events isn't a massive money maker for stadiums - it's a nice income stream, but not highly profitable (see Wembley and the FA begging someone to take it off their hands).

It's a step up. It's a glorious stadium. I love it, can't wait to be there, and think it's the greatest thing any chairman in global football has produced in nearly a century. But it isn't a license to print money...and people who expect it to deliver us to financial parity with the global leaders of football are going to be very disappointed.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of this.

I doubt the extra revenue streams will bring in more than 120m all in for matchday.

450m per year is alot of money. And puts a big gap between us and West Ham, Everton, Villa and so on.

It also gets us close to the other big 5 teams.

The stadium will attract better players, and help keep our best ones. Like Levy said, you cant convince a top player to come to Spurs if we have a 36k stadium.

Once we have the players, stadium and success. Sponsors will come. Then we catch up.
 
MemphisWill said:
We'll see, as I say it simply doesn't pass the smell test - £1Bn investment generating a £100M increase in annual revenue seems to be a bit of a business fantasy. If it were that simple you'd see every club undertaking big building projects...that analysis, and no insult intended, seems similar to the spam fantasy that the Olympic would vault them into the big 6 realm financially. When something seems too good to be true, it generally is...generating revenue isn't that simple, ifnit were we'd all be rich.

And we're also talking in terms of pure revenue, not net income. The O&M of NWHL is going to be much, much higher (though more efficient) than we previously had. The stadium is going to be a boost, and in the long term it's a massively important and valuable investment. But the idea that its put us on par with Liverpool and put United in our sights financially is just a dream. We've probably moved from 6th to 5th in revenue, closed in on 3rd and 4th.

For reference United's reported matchday income for a 75k average attendance was £110M. It's just wishful thinking that a 62k stadium is going to boost our revenue by £100M+...it just is. I don't care how many NFL games, concerts, rugby matches, etc. You throw in there. Venue fees for hosting events isn't a massive money maker for stadiums - it's a nice income stream, but not highly profitable (see Wembley and the FA begging someone to take it off their hands).

It's a step up. It's a glorious stadium. I love it, can't wait to be there, and think it's the greatest thing any chairman in global football has produced in nearly a century. But it isn't a license to print money...and people who expect it to deliver us to financial parity with the global leaders of football are going to be very disappointed.
Click to expand...
I really don't think it's that unrealistic. The thing I've not seen factored in is the corporate income. We've got 8k corporate/premium seats, many of them sold at absolutely huge prices - that's going to be very valuable and could definitely bump it over the £100m mark combined with the increase in capacity, ticket prices, non-Tottenham events and concession sales. The reason everyone doesn't do it is because you need a combination of an attractive new stadium, impressive facilities, and success on the pitch. (A location in or near London also helps but isn't totally essential). You won't get enough people forking out so much money for those packages at clubs outside the "Big 6". Of those clubs, ourselves, Woolwich and City do have modern stadiums, Chelsea have desperately tried to get one, Liverpool tried and failed and had to resort to expansion instead. It's only United who've turned it down and you can thank the chronic short-termness of their inept owners for that.

In fact, I wouldn't be that surprised if City shocked the world by building another new stadium with bigger and better facilities than the Etihad - certainly if there's ever an actual FFP crackdown and they continue to have infinite money it'd make sense because they could increase their revenue substantially while the cost of stadium improvements doesn't count against you for FFP purposes.
 
94Spurs94 said:
I really don't think it's that unrealistic. The thing I've not seen factored in is the corporate income. We've got 8k corporate/premium seats, many of them sold at absolutely huge prices - that's going to be very valuable and could definitely bump it over the £100m mark combined with the increase in capacity, ticket prices, non-Tottenham events and concession sales. The reason everyone doesn't do it is because you need a combination of an attractive new stadium, impressive facilities, and success on the pitch. (A location in or near London also helps but isn't totally essential). You won't get enough people forking out so much money for those packages at clubs outside the "Big 6". Of those clubs, ourselves, Woolwich and City do have modern stadiums, Chelsea have desperately tried to get one, Liverpool tried and failed and had to resort to expansion instead. It's only United who've turned it down and you can thank the chronic short-termness of their inept owners for that.

In fact, I wouldn't be that surprised if City shocked the world by building another new stadium with bigger and better facilities than the Etihad - certainly if there's ever an actual FFP crackdown and they continue to have infinite money it'd make sense because they could increase their revenue substantially while the cost of stadium improvements doesn't count against you for FFP purposes.
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait a while to settle it, I suppose. Obviously I'd be overjoyed if you were right, I just won't get my hopes up.
 
Saudi Arabia contracts with Populous to implement Baghdad's sports city
Saudi officials have contracted with Populous, a global architectural design firm, to implement the sports city donated by King Salman, which worth over $400 million. The deal, according to Saudi Makkah newspaper, stipulates that the stadium should look similar to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, with a capacity of 85,000 spectators, with minor differences. The implementation of the project should start in June.
 
mickdale said:
Saudi Arabia contracts with Populous to implement Baghdad's sports city
Saudi officials have contracted with Populous, a global architectural design firm, to implement the sports city donated by King Salman, which worth over $400 million. The deal, according to Saudi Makkah newspaper, stipulates that the stadium should look similar to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, with a capacity of 85,000 spectators, with minor differences. The implementation of the project should start in June.
Click to expand...
Imitation being the greatest form of flattery and all that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom