I suspect the EPL warning Beohly not to continue to amortise player signings and it additionally looking like we will miss out on the CL and generally European football next year might put our plans on hold.

 

34 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

I suspect the EPL warning Beohly not to continue to amortise player signings and it additionally looking like we will miss out on the CL and generally European football next year might put our plans on hold.

 

I'm not so sure. Didn't Boehly and Clearlake already have funds allocated for the stadium?

38 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

I suspect the EPL warning Beohly not to continue to amortise player signings and it additionally looking like we will miss out on the CL and generally European football next year might put our plans on hold.

 

Building a new stadium has no impact on FFP. In fact, not building one has a bigger impact. 

On 27/03/2023 at 12:13, Big Nigel said:

Craven Cottage seems like a good shout. Arent they looking to do an extension as well? 

4 years seems like an awfully long time away though, how long did the spuds stadium build take? 

Spurs built some of the new stadium around the old one before they had to move to Wembley 

6 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Building a new stadium has no impact on FFP. In fact, not building one has a bigger impact. 

It's crazy. We are allowed to spend a billion on a new  stadium, just to earn extra income every year that is the equivalent of the price of a  mediocre player.

Not to mention paying out to another club for using their stadium for a few years.

6 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Building a new stadium has no impact on FFP. In fact, not building one has a bigger impact. 

For simplicity supposing we built a 62,000 stadium 

That an extra 20,000 seats.

If you sold them all as top price season tickets at astronomical £3,000 a season that's an extra £60 million a season.

All for a massive outlay.

I know others have done it,  and I think it was part of the takeover that money is guaranteed to rebuild, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I just don't fancy moving during the rebuild, . The team rebuild is enough to stomach!

 

 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

For simplicity supposing we built a 62,000 stadium 

That an extra 20,000 seats.

If you sold them all as top price season tickets at astronomical £3,000 a season that's an extra £60 million a season.

All for a massive outlay.

I know others have done it,  and I think it was part of the takeover that money is guaranteed to rebuild, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I just don't fancy moving during the rebuild, . The team rebuild is enough to stomach!

It's a bit too simplistic to think in terms of just the revenue per year on match day revenue. 

Take Tottenham for example. Their stadium and therefore their name is known around the world. The stadium itself has elevated them a notch, that impacts on players they can attract and commercial revenue. 

The longer we are at Stamford bridge, the more stark the comparison with Tottenham, arsenal and west hams stadiums become.

And when it comes to the value of the business, I think it will add at least a bn to the value of the club in 10 years time, thats before you even factor in all the other factors it elevates - which is ultimately all our owners care about. 

57 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

It's a bit too simplistic to think in terms of just the revenue per year on match day revenue. 

Take Tottenham for example. Their stadium and therefore their name is known around the world. The stadium itself has elevated them a notch, that impacts on players they can attract and commercial revenue. 

The longer we are at Stamford bridge, the more stark the comparison with Tottenham, arsenal and west hams stadiums become.

Whtie Hart Lane was far more prominent a "brand" than whatever the f**k their new stadium. It has hardly elevated them since they have continued to descend into domestic irrelevance after 2019.

Quote

And when it comes to the value of the business, I think it will add at least a bn to the value of the club in 10 years time, thats before you even factor in all the other factors it elevates - which is ultimately all our owners care about. 

The problem is the stadium will cost way more than 1bn to build and the interest on the debt needed to finance it would outstrip any eventual value-add, especially in this current high-interest rate financial climate. It is a wholly different proposition to say Abramovich spending 2bn from his own pocket, interest free.

Many, many clubs around the world have "invested" in stadium upgrades only to be destroyed by the debt, and that was in a much more favourable financial climate.

The only way to organically increase valuation in football is to win trophies. Success brings sponsorships, and the revenue from commercial partnerships dwarfs anything that can be made by match-day revenue.

Edited March 28, 20233 yr by SydneyChelsea

6 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Whtie Hart Lane was far more prominent a "brand" than whatever the f**k their new stadium. It has hardly elevated them since they have continued to descend into domestic irrelevance after 2019.

 

This is complete nonsense. Every single football fan I know has said "I need to go to that stadium at some point" 

Internationally it's known in America as "the best stadium in the UK" because of the NFL partnership. 

They've been irrelevant domestically since 1990, this stadium gives them the foundations to become something. They just need to be run better. 

47 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

This is complete nonsense. Every single football fan I know has said "I need to go to that stadium at some point" 

Nobody I know has said that LOL. Not even the Tottenham fans 🙂 

10 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

For simplicity supposing we built a 62,000 stadium 

That an extra 20,000 seats.

If you sold them all as top price season tickets at astronomical £3,000 a season that's an extra £60 million a season.

All for a massive outlay.

I know others have done it,  and I think it was part of the takeover that money is guaranteed to rebuild, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I just don't fancy moving during the rebuild, . The team rebuild is enough to stomach!

 

 

That outlay will not be completely cash out of the club/owners pocket. A lot of it will get claimed back via all kinds of schemes (R&D reclaims, tax schemes etc) funded using all kinds of other schemes etc. Currently spending CapEx money on infrastructure is better than having the cash in the bank, though as interest rates rise that can change.

 

DP Sorry.

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by bluehaze

West Ham is a no no their fans would object plus it would mean too many matches at the stadium sometimes three or four a week if both teams are in Europe.

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by bluehaze

2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

his is complete nonsense. Every single football fan I know has said "I need to go to that stadium at some point" 

Internationally it's known in America as "the best stadium in the UK" because of the NFL partnership.

Not a single football fan I know has ever said that. If I went to Tottenham and Chelsea weren't playing the thought of watching a Spurs game or American Football I'd react the same way Damien did when he's brought to church in The Omen.

19 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Building a new stadium has no impact on FFP. In fact, not building one has a bigger impact. 

That is good to know.

Can't see us going to another club ground so it is either Wembley or build on another site, read even Twickenham fans have already complained.

If we go for say the Earls Court option we can play with near full crowds at SB  until the stadium is ready, otherwise trying to redevelop SB for a limited capacity upgrade while reducing crowd size during the rebuild which might take several seasons.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out and how quickly it starts, will Boehly and co wait until matters on the pitch improve like getting back into the top 4 or make plans this summer?

 

2 hours ago, bluehaze said:

Not a single football fan I know has ever said that. If I went to Tottenham and Chelsea weren't playing the thought of watching a Spurs game or American Football I'd react the same way Damien did when he's brought to church in The Omen.

Hating Spurs and NFL isn't a valid argument against it's the best stadium in the country. It's arguably the best stadium in Europe. If we played there as a neutral ground (e.g. old school fa cup semi final) it would have more demand than any other stadium to go there - and not just so we could rip it up.

if we had that stadium, signing players becomes easier, getting a shirt sponsor gets easier, getting corporate events in the week would be easier. 

16 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Hating Spurs and NFL isn't a valid argument against it's the best stadium in the country. It's arguably the best stadium in Europe. If we played there as a neutral ground (e.g. old school fa cup semi final) it would have more demand than any other stadium to go there - and not just so we could rip it up.

if we had that stadium, signing players becomes easier, getting a shirt sponsor gets easier, getting corporate events in the week would be easier. 

I don't know in the US, but certainly in Europe Chelsea is more known than Spurs, no matter how shiny their toilet-looking stadium is. Being known by football fans is more down to playing against the best European teams and winning trophies at national and international level, and Spurs... well, they're Spurs.

As to it being the best stadium in Europe, I guess that it is down to preference, but the Camp Nou, Bernabeu, or Bayern's are better. But they are widely know because of their titles and competing in international trophies every year, not because of their stadium.

20 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Hating Spurs and NFL isn't a valid argument against it's the best stadium in the country. It's arguably the best stadium in Europe. If we played there as a neutral ground (e.g. old school fa cup semi final) it would have more demand than any other stadium to go there - and not just so we could rip it up.

if we had that stadium, signing players becomes easier, getting a shirt sponsor gets easier, getting corporate events in the week would be easier. 

You said every fan you know wants to go there which is such a sweeping statement and not true it's an impressive stadium in one of the most downtrodden parts of London.  We haven't got that stadium so what sort of point that makes I don't know we don't have the Emirates either and when was the last time Chelsea fans or any other fans tore up a ground it's 2023 not 1983 which is the last time I remember us doing that at the Baseball Ground.

1 minute ago, RMH said:

I don't know in the US, but certainly in Europe Chelsea is more known than Spurs, no matter how shiny their toilet-looking stadium is. Being known by football fans is more down to playing against the best European teams and winning trophies at national and international level, and Spurs... well, they're Spurs.

As to it being the best stadium in Europe, I guess that it is down to preference, but the Camp Nou, Bernabeu, or Bayern's are better. But they are widely know because of their titles and competing in international trophies every year, not because of their stadium.

The best stadium in the most sh*ttiest area possible ..

14 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

For simplicity supposing we built a 62,000 stadium 

That an extra 20,000 seats.

If you sold them all as top price season tickets at astronomical £3,000 a season that's an extra £60 million a season.

All for a massive outlay.

I know others have done it,  and I think it was part of the takeover that money is guaranteed to rebuild, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I just don't fancy moving during the rebuild, . The team rebuild is enough to stomach!

 

 

But if 6 people buy a hot dog and 3 people buy some socks from the megastore then the stadium is paid for and we could by 9 more Lukakus. 

4 minutes ago, bluehaze said:

You said every fan you know wants to go there which is such a sweeping statement and not true it's an impressive stadium in one of the most downtrodden parts of London.  We haven't got that stadium so what sort of point that makes I don't know we don't have the Emirates either and when was the last time Chelsea fans or any other fans tore up a ground it's 2023 not 1983 which is the last time I remember us doing that at the Baseball Ground.

Every fan I know wants to go. That's not a lie, I don't know you. 

Yes it's in a sh*t hole. Yes it's Tottenham. But it's the best thing about them. Imagine what a stadium like that would do for us, a club that has more about them and is in a nice area.

The entire point being, if it costs 1bn and generates an extra 25m a year in match day, that isn't the only sums that matters. We'd see more revenue generated in every other aspect of our club.

I know we don't tear up stadiums, it was a joke. 

20 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Every fan I know wants to go. That's not a lie, I don't know you

Yes that's my loss I'm gutted.  How about a straw poll on here if everyone on here wants to go to WHL. Away fans get about 3,000 tickets more for a cup game I don't recall everyone saying I really want to go if not just to see what the ground is like I'll make sure I can get tickets to the NFL. It's an impressive football stadium not one of the seven wonders of the world and nice back tracking about tearing up the ground.

8 minutes ago, bluehaze said:

Yes that's my loss I'm gutted.  How about a straw poll on here if everyone on here wants to go to WHL. Away fans get about 3,000 tickets more for a cup game I don't recall everyone saying I really want to go if not just to see what the ground is like I'll make sure I can get tickets to the NFL. It's an impressive football stadium not one of the seven wonders of the world and nice back tracking about tearing up the ground.

I'm fairly sure every sports fan gets interested by a shiny new stadium. I don't see how that's controversial and why you're so desperate to argue that point.

34 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm fairly sure every sports fan gets interested by a shiny new stadium. I don't see how that's controversial and why you're so desperate to argue that point.

So if we get a new ground or the Bridge is redeveloped let's see if every sports fan in the country is as excited as you and your mates are about White Hart Lane.

I know it’s fun to sh*t on Spurs but you can’t deny their stadium is amazing and exactly what we should be aiming for as a minimum. 
 

I haven’t been to every stadium (obviously) but have been to most of the others being mentioned in this thread and for me Spurs is by far the best of them.