11 hours ago, Kev56 said:

Recent spending is not a very good start then.

I definitely read that article but can't find it now. I know residents were angry about the Stoll mansions sale because of rumours that some military vets would be made homeless, but it all got sorted .

In fact, despite not having a 60,000 match day stadium , and not being able to hold money making events , we have been out spending clubs who have got those type of stadiums . 

But having done it, looks like  that's it until we get a money spinner of a stadium , in about 5 years or 7 years, or longer depending on who you believe .

I never thought back in the day that a 42,000 stadium wouldn't be big enough for us !

 

 

 

 

Does anyone still believe this ownership are geninually trying to redevelop the stadium?

Is all PR manipulation. There is no money in it for them. They will make money as we are are, the lower wage bill is all they need, then sell the club for 5bill and walk away very happy with their money. Maybe will even do a Galzers and sell a stake in the club so they can hand over the running while getting fat off the profits.

22 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

 

I read that the local residents association have, since the original stadium plan was permitted , got organised, are very vocal, and well funded (whatever that means).

It'll take a long time to get a stadium plan in place, and then to have it approved will take more time 

And the local council has to grant a licence for any event we hold.

 

It's going to be a long long time before we ever have a money making stadium, ( if ever) so we have to use our income wisely for years to come. 

You can slice it up anyway you want, spending a billion on a stadium- outlay versus post construction revenue- anyone with half a brain would realise it would take decades to pay for itself 

On 22/06/2024 at 22:24, The Rising Sun said:

 

I read that the local residents association have, since the original stadium plan was permitted , got organised, are very vocal, and well funded (whatever that means).

It'll take a long time to get a stadium plan in place, and then to have it approved will take more time 

And the local council has to grant a licence for any event we hold.

 

It's going to be a long long time before we ever have a money making stadium, ( if ever) so we have to use our income wisely for years to come. 

 

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

I definitely read that article but can't find it now. I know residents were angry about the Stoll mansions sale because of rumours that some military vets would be made homeless, but it all got sorted .

In fact, despite not having a 60,000 match day stadium , and not being able to hold money making events , we have been out spending clubs who have got those type of stadiums . 

But having done it, looks like  that's it until we get a money spinner of a stadium , in about 5 years or 7 years, or longer depending on who you believe .

I never thought back in the day that a 42,000 stadium wouldn't be big enough for us !

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Timmy Elms said:

You can slice it up anyway you want, spending a billion on a stadium- outlay versus post construction revenue- anyone with half a brain would realise it would take decades to pay for itself 

If the stadium is redeveloped and it could be many years for that to happen and as you say @Timmy Elms it could take decades for it the pay for itself. I'll probably be in the great football ground in the sky.

Much has been written about a larger stadium which may also be used for non-football events bringing in extra revenue to the club and no doubt that will happen but for it to receive approval from local residents there would have to be evidence that the larger ground will benefit the community as a whole. Stamford Bridge is, as we know, in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the residents of that borough will have a say but I suspect that the residents of the neighbouring borough, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will be consulted. 

It may come down to the residents and the council(s) approving redevelopment on the proviso that the stadium is used a maximum number of times in the year so it may be non-football events do not go ahead especially if the women's team play all games at Stamford Bridge.

Tonight's flavour of what the revenue opportunities might be like for our new stadium ... if we ever get one  🙂 

Mrs SF in attendance after buying an eye-wateringly expensive ticket via Stubhub 2 days ago !

1 hour ago, Timmy Elms said:

You can slice it up anyway you want, spending a billion on a stadium- outlay versus post construction revenue- anyone with half a brain would realise it would take decades to pay for itself 

There more to it than paying for itself with tickets, its also adding value as an asset to the club.

8 hours ago, dkw said:

There more to it than paying for itself with tickets, its also adding value as an asset to the club.

Exactly, spuds have won FA and are now valued more than us. As a fan not my major worry. As an owner/ investor thats all it is about.

9 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Tonight's flavour of what the revenue opportunities might be like for our new stadium ... if we ever get one  🙂 

Mrs SF in attendance after buying an eye-wateringly expensive ticket via Stubhub 2 days ago !

 

Cobham got there first:

11 hours ago, dkw said:

There more to it than paying for itself with tickets, its also adding value as an asset to the club.

That’s very much the point add in the impact of inflation and in a blink of an eye the cost is swallowed up or at least in real terms diminished 

Let’s just suppose that it will cost a billion the owners almost certainly won’t use their won money or indeed the clubs money they will, like Spurs, just service the loan and kick down the road for say 20 years,  the need to pay back any capital.

Let’s assume they borrow that billion at 5% ( interest rates will be falling in the UK) that’s around £50 million a year to increase gate receipts  based on todays numbers by circa £50 million . With increased capacity comes more match day spend , more food , etc but you then have the potential for more weekday use for such things as conferences and so on.

Of course on day one it won’t generate enough to pay the loan off but in 20 years time almost certainly the annual turn will be way above a billion , the value of the club will probably have doubled and then some so Clearlake’s investors who aren’t like the majority of us who look to gat an almost immediate return on our investments will be more than happy.

 

14 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

I definitely read that article but can't find it now. I know residents were angry about the Stoll mansions sale because of rumours that some military vets would be made homeless, but it all got sorted .

In fact, despite not having a 60,000 match day stadium , and not being able to hold money making events , we have been out spending clubs who have got those type of stadiums . 

But having done it, looks like  that's it until we get a money spinner of a stadium , in about 5 years or 7 years, or longer depending on who you believe .

I never thought back in the day that a 42,000 stadium wouldn't be big enough for us !

 

 

 

 

My understanding was that BlueCo weren’t the biggest bidders but unlike some/ all of the other bidders we were the only ones that were prepared to make sure current tenants were offered alternative accommodation in the local area.

 

I think they worked it out in the end but some of them will be relocated outside the Borough but close enough still.

They also won't knock it all down. They said one side/wing will remain. I'm guessing the front/face will remain, other 3 sides knocked down.

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

That’s very much the point add in the impact of inflation and in a blink of an eye the cost is swallowed up or at least in real terms diminished 

Let’s just suppose that it will cost a billion the owners almost certainly won’t use their won money or indeed the clubs money they will, like Spurs, just service the loan and kick down the road for say 20 years,  the need to pay back any capital.

Let’s assume they borrow that billion at 5% ( interest rates will be falling in the UK) that’s around £50 million a year to increase gate receipts  based on todays numbers by circa £50 million . With increased capacity comes more match day spend , more food , etc but you then have the potential for more weekday use for such things as conferences and so on.

Of course on day one it won’t generate enough to pay the loan off but in 20 years time almost certainly the annual turn will be way above a billion , the value of the club will probably have doubled and then some so Clearlake’s investors who aren’t like the majority of us who look to gat an almost immediate return on our investments will be more than happy.

 

Yeah, i think its being lost a bit that payback for all this isnt only on footfall, it also means the club can borrow at lower rates etc due to a higher asset value, and probably loads of other financial twaddle us mere mortals would never understand ha ha...

35 minutes ago, dkw said:

Yeah, i think its being lost a bit that payback for all this isnt only on footfall, it also means the club can borrow at lower rates etc due to a higher asset value, and probably loads of other financial twaddle us mere mortals would never understand ha ha...

I rarely point to Arsenal and Spurs  and say look at them but in terms of stadium finance they have been brilliant 

 

KSE ( Kronke Sports Enterprise) are the US parent company of Arsenal. KSE were able to borrow a sizeable sum (£500+ million ) using their US links at a far lower rate that the rates that prior to that Arsenal were having to pay to UK lenders .Ok there was a one off charge of £32 million fo facilitate but the6 from what I can remember reduce interest payments significantly and kicked the can down the road.

 

As for Spurs they are borrowing a chunk of their debt over 15-30 years at a rate of 2.5% 

 

Of course the owners want to re develop the site they are business people and business people always will have a cost benefit analysis arounfpd such matters and to be honest increasing the assets, increasing cash flow whilst using someone else’s money really is a no brainer

16 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Does anyone still believe this ownership are geninually trying to redevelop the stadium?

Is all PR manipulation. There is no money in it for them. They will make money as we are are, the lower wage bill is all they need, then sell the club for 5bill and walk away very happy with their money. Maybe will even do a Galzers and sell a stake in the club so they can hand over the running while getting fat off the profits.

How much can they make as things are? 

7 hours ago, Kev56 said:

Exactly, spuds have won FA and are now valued more than us. As a fan not my major worry. As an owner/ investor thats all it is about.

Spurs are the most indebted club in world football. 1.17 Billion the red 

Though I appreciate they have a billion pound asset. Not sure what the estimated cost of our rebuild was. Construction material costs have risen hugely over last couple of years.

4 hours ago, BS66 said:

How much can they make as things are? 

They are smart with money. I reckon they will do very well.

So many challenges here.  Building costs (materials, construction cost, interest on loans) have soared, all somewhat compounded by our location.  Would be great to see some plans this coming season - love the Bridge (mainly location), but its old and too small.  I've never really missed the old wooden seat west stand, and am sure I'd feel the same about a new SB. 

3 hours ago, Timmy Elms said:

Though I appreciate they have a billion pound asset. Not sure what the estimated cost of our rebuild was. Construction material costs have risen hugely over last couple of years.

Issue is it will only get more and more expensive as time goes by.

12 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Issue is it will only get more and more expensive as time goes by.

Not necessarily, theres a lot of innovation in construction currently being looked at because of the cost rises currently, ways to build with different material etc. Prices over the last few years have fluctuated ridiculously at times, due to world situations. Once it all calms down (hopefully) this will see prices settle.

18 hours ago, Timmy Elms said:

Spurs are the most indebted club in world football. 1.17 Billion the red 

Perspective. Their borrowings are at only 2.9% and mostly over a 25 year period. In the meantime, the stadium alone earns them 100m a year, thus 2.5bn over a 25 year period. They're more than okay.

On 24/06/2024 at 07:41, Kev56 said:

Exactly, spuds have won FA and are now valued more than us. As a fan not my major worry. As an owner/ investor thats all it is about.

Despite having that fantastic stadium, Levy says the club need "significant investment" if it is to move forward. They are considering selling a stake in the club to raise funds.  Most of their shares (80plus %) are held by that investment group (enic) ?

And their 3 year losses are about £230 million, despite hardly lashing out on players.

Maybe the extra revenue goes to pay dividends to shareholders? But I'm pretty sure that counts as spending in the same way player's wages are ?

Anyway, I'll be happy if we can rebuild whilst staying at the bridge, looks unlikely though.

We can't touch the Stoll mansions for a few years anyway

They had a net spend on players of 140m in 22/23 and 150m in 23/24.

6 hours ago, dermott said:

Perspective. Their borrowings are at only 2.9% and mostly over a 25 year period. In the meantime, the stadium alone earns them 100m a year, thus 2.5bn over a 25 year period. They're more than okay.

Spurs won't be banking everything from the stadium income and then not spending any of it for 25 years.

You have to deduct the usual stuff, player transfers, wages etc rtc from that income every season.

Anyway we make £80million a year on match day revenues.

Almost pays for a Mudryk !

 

 

1 minute ago, dermott said:

They had a net spend on players of 140m in 22/23 and 150m in 23/24.

Thanks for info.