14 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Yep. 19 out of 20 clubs (including us, and Man City themselves) voted to exclude shareholder loans from APT calculations. This was to allow owners to invest into their clubs via below-market or zero interest loans. This is how Abramovich funded us too, with no-interest, unlimited time loans from a holding company (Fordstam). Virtually every other ownership in the league also does this. I believe Boehly/Clearlake's initial investment is cash only and not a loan, however given we have spent most of that any subsequent investment will likely be a no- or low-interest loan from Clearlake, so this affects our plans going forward. 

City successfully argued that the clubs (including themselves) 'conspired' to allow this distortion of the market - ie. that the other clubs using interest-free shareholder loans gave them a financial and competitive advantage over Man City. 

Hopefully you can appreciate what an absurd argument that is!

Of course, conspiring to distort a market is illegal under UK competition law so this part of the Rules is declared unlawful and voided. However the APT rules as a whole were found to be valid.

 

The evidence provided by Chelsea, Newcastle and Everton was in relation to the calculation of Fair Market Value, which City argued (IMO reasonably) is inherently inconsistent and subjective, and therefore APT rules are not possible. The Tribunal rejected this, stating that it was lawful, reasonable and that the Premier League generally followed due process (except in two minor circumstances - there were delays in processing Man City's assessments which City claimed caused them financial harm to due uncertainty). 

The Tribunal stated that APT Rules are necessary for the Premier League to regulate fair competition between clubs. They accepted that Fair Market Value is subjective but ruled that it is still an appropriate way for the Premier League to assess APTs, however they also declared that the PL needs to make more information available to the clubs and the onus should be on the PL to disprove FMV, not the clubs to prove it.  Again, a relatively minor change of process required for PL, not some sort of game-changing win by Man City.

FWIW I don't agree with the Tribunal's reasoning. Their argument was essentially "the ends justify the means" when it comes to the PL preserving competitiveness, which is absurd. You can't enforce something if there's no consistent standard for what is "right".
 

Not in unlimited amounts, no, but owners can still contribute their own money to cover a club's losses, within the 105m limit. Most owners do this through interest-free loans, except City, Newcastle and us (for a limited time).

The Rules will have to be amended to include scrutiny of these loans, which means they will no longer be able to have favourable terms but be set at market rates. No idea what a typical loan looks like in the UK, but if an owner lends their club £100m at 4% interest for 10 years, that's £163m that needs to be repaid to the owner, which is an extra £16.3m per season that needs to be accounted for in PSR.

Man City have essentially told the other clubs "you took my loophole, I'll take yours". Chelsea's owners need both loopholes to be successful, so this decision is not great for us.

Sydney, thanks for your very informative reply mate.

I hope you don't mind me asking you for your views on something?

 

The thing that puzzles me is that as infrastructure spending isn't included in PSR rules, clubs see that massive spending on stadium rebuilds and increasing capacity as a way to increase revenue which can then be used on transfer spending.

But how does that square with " sustainability" if the club is saddled with a massive debt and large repayments for the loans required to finance the project ? And I think part of Everton's PSR breach included some stadium loan repayments ?

What do you think ?

Also, what exactly does " converting a loan into stock' when it applies to football clubs "? I assume "stock" means " shares" ? So is there a load of shares sitting around, not owned by anyone, but can be used in this manner ?

Apologies for my supreme lack of knowledge!

 

 

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

But how does that square with " sustainability" if the club is saddled with a massive debt and large repayments for the loans required to finance the project ?

In short, it doesn't.

As myself, @dkw and others have been saying for years, FFP/PSR are bullsh*t rules with a bullsh*t objective. There is no evidence they have improved 'sustainability', with clubs reaching record levels of indebtedness and former giants of Europe such as Schalke, Bordeaux and Valencia unable to dig themselves out of financial holes because of FFP restrictions on investment. Everyone professed how great an idea it was at the time because it seemed to be targeting Chelsea, and yet it is the fans of smaller clubs that have suffered the most.

It's important to remember the context of the rules being introduced; Arsene Wenger's unhinged, entitled rant about 'financial doping' in 2009 led to a worldwide clutching of pearls at the thought of Chelsea upsetting the established European hierarchy (though his rant was aimed at City and Madrid). The rules were introduced entirely on a reactionary basis to increasing private investment and the rules were designed to accomodate and subsidise the business practices of clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool where the owners could continue profiting without football success. 

So with that context, we understand the true objective of the Rules was to preserve the existing order by tying spending to solely to revenue, rather than investment. 

The stadium question is one exception that shatters the veneer of competence around FFP/PSR rules. Of course stadium investment should be judged by the same rules, since not all clubs have the capacity (financial or otherwise) to invest in their stadium infrastructure.  One justification was that it would allow stadiums to be privately owned rather than government-funded - football, particularly in EPL/Championship, is unique in that the clubs own and pay for their stadium, whereas stadiums are public infrastructure in most countries and sports.  

Another prior justification used to be that stadiums are net assets (i.e they are real estate that is always going to be worth more than the cost to build) but post-GFC we know that is simply not true, across all sports. Take Tottenham for example. They spent over 1.2b on their new stadium precinct, costing 4x as much as predicted - would anyone pay even a fraction of that if it were sold today? The stadium is a loss-making exercise that subsidises the team by generating additional revenue. Tottenham and Barcelona now have similar levels of debt, except that Barcelona are capable of generating 3x the revenue to service it but they are the ones penalised by FFP restrictions, lol.

9 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Also, what exactly does " converting a loan into stock' when it applies to football clubs "? I assume "stock" means " shares" ? So is there a load of shares sitting around, not owned by anyone, but can be used in this manner ?

Yep, stock = shares. Rather than require the club to repay the loan, the loaner can simply convert the outstanding amount into equity/shares in the club. This is what Abramovich did.

This, currently, is not subject to APT Rules or FFP and the APT Tribunal gave a strong hint that it would be hard to include it, as equity is a lot more complex in its effects than a simple cash injection.

On 10/10/2024 at 16:08, Simplymo said:

One question: do you agree the ATP is void/on hold/sabbatical/etc until the ammendments are done? 

One thing we must agree on though...We'd love to be at that meeting right?

🤣

I fully agree with what @terraloon said and his speed limit analogy is perfect. Yes, it is on hold in practice, until the March 2024 amendments are formally repealed and the previous rules reinstated or revised again, which is a minor procedure in the grand scheme of things. It is hard to see the other 19 clubs siding with Man City after they torpedoed the shareholder exclusion.
 

To add to @terraloon, this is only an arbitration. It is essentially a debate adjudication based on the evidence provided by both parties, not tested in-depth in a court against common law. It is a binding ruling, but it does not mean it has the same rigour as a court decision.

As foir being at the meeting - unfortunately, my day job involves considering the pretentious technicalities of cleverer-than-thou lawyers (and taking great satisfaction in rebutting them), so I'd rather not have another occasion on which I'd have to endure it!

I know legal bluster when I see it. I think Man City's letter is a PR campaign, not a statement of objective fact. The PL's statement is necessarily vague to avoid provoking a potentially litigious opponent.
 

21 hours ago, terraloon said:

We know that CFC backed either in full or in part City’s challenge. I explained earlier that they did that for a reason linked to matters Chelsea. It could be around how the hotels were looked at but more likely it’s to do with something in the background could be an associated party sponsorship or an associated party transaction but you can be sure that our owners make most decisions such as not having a lower deal for a front of shirt sponsor because they see other options and options that offer greater financial freedom for BlueCo

I suspect we provided evidence to support City's argument in relation to sponsorships being inherently hard to price consistently, and/or City's argument that the PL engaging in its own sponsorships was a distortion of competition. Given that both challenges failed and shareholder loans are no longer excluded from scrutiny, I think we might come out badly.
 

17 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

In short, it doesn't.

As myself, @dkw and others have been saying for years, FFP/PSR are bullsh*t rules with a bullsh*t objective. There is no evidence they have improved 'sustainability', with clubs reaching record levels of indebtedness and former giants of Europe such as Schalke, Bordeaux and Valencia unable to dig themselves out of financial holes because of FFP restrictions on investment. Everyone professed how great an idea it was at the time because it seemed to be targeting Chelsea, and yet it is the fans of smaller clubs that have suffered the most.

It's important to remember the context of the rules being introduced; Arsene Wenger's unhinged, entitled rant about 'financial doping' in 2009 led to a worldwide clutching of pearls at the thought of Chelsea upsetting the established European hierarchy (though his rant was aimed at City and Madrid). The rules were introduced entirely on a reactionary basis to increasing private investment and the rules were designed to accomodate and subsidise the business practices of clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool where the owners could continue profiting without football success. 

So with that context, we understand the true objective of the Rules was to preserve the existing order by tying spending to solely to revenue, rather than investment. 

The stadium question is one exception that shatters the veneer of competence around FFP/PSR rules. Of course stadium investment should be judged by the same rules, since not all clubs have the capacity (financial or otherwise) to invest in their stadium infrastructure.  One justification was that it would allow stadiums to be privately owned rather than government-funded - football, particularly in EPL/Championship, is unique in that the clubs own and pay for their stadium, whereas stadiums are public infrastructure in most countries and sports.  

Another prior justification used to be that stadiums are net assets (i.e they are real estate that is always going to be worth more than the cost to build) but post-GFC we know that is simply not true, across all sports. Take Tottenham for example. They spent over 1.2b on their new stadium precinct, costing 4x as much as predicted - would anyone pay even a fraction of that if it were sold today? The stadium is a loss-making exercise that subsidises the team by generating additional revenue. Tottenham and Barcelona now have similar levels of debt, except that Barcelona are capable of generating 3x the revenue to service it but they are the ones penalised by FFP restrictions, lol.

Yep, stock = shares. Rather than require the club to repay the loan, the loaner can simply convert the outstanding amount into equity/shares in the club. This is what Abramovich did.

This, currently, is not subject to APT Rules or FFP and the APT Tribunal gave a strong hint that it would be hard to include it, as equity is a lot more complex in its effects than a simple cash injection.

Hi Sydney, thanks for your clarifications etc, much appreciated. And yes, I'm in agreement in regards as to why regulations were introduced..

👍

 

 

There seems to be a developing story about the stadium plans.

Clearlake it seems are wanting to conduct an upgrade rather than a total rebuild upgrading to 55k which centres  around a total rebuild of the East Stand ( they said west in the report but the fact that this element requires decking over the railway suggests it has to be the East. ) I would also imagine the MH and Shed would be extended and of course a total upgrade of concourse etc the West  Stand is not far from fit for purpose and has undergone significant upgrades in respect of hospitality already which is going to be a major feature going forward.

 

This would only require two years away from SB.

Bohley it seems wants to build a new stadium at Earl’s Court or a complete rebuild of SB  both these options will cost far more , create far more regulatory issues and require the site to be off limits for a minimum of 5 years.

I have always thought an upgrade would make more sense and indeed the four stand feel of a ground is I believe far more football friendly compared to the souless bowls that the likes of WHU, Arsenal and Spurs play in.

 

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by terraloon

8 hours ago, terraloon said:

There seems to be a developing story about the stadium plans.

Clearlake it seems are wanting to conduct an upgrade rather than a total rebuild upgrading to 55k which centres  around a total rebuild of the East Stand ( they said west in the report but the fact that this element requires decking over the railway suggests it has to be the East. ) I would also imagine the MH and Shed would be extended and of course a total upgrade of concourse etc the West  Stand is not far from fit for purpose and has undergone significant upgrades in respect of hospitality already which is going to be a major feature going forward.

 

This would only require two years away from SB.

Bohley it seems wants to build a new stadium at Earl’s Court or a complete rebuild of SB  both these options will cost far more , create far more regulatory issues and require the site to be off limits for a minimum of 5 years.

I have always thought an upgrade would make more sense and indeed the four stand feel of a ground is I believe far more football friendly compared to the souless bowls that the likes of WHU, Arsenal and Spurs play in.

 

The East stand is enormous, i can't see how the capacity can be increased very much by a rebuild.

Bates had a problem with it in respect of it's lack of corporate opportunities, despite its size. Perhaps the rebuild is to cater for that ? Many many years ago when a stadium rebuild was mooted, there were concerns about building over the railway line there because trains carrying nuclear waste ( from Japan!) for processing at a Nuclear plant somewhere use that line. 

Interesting information mate , thanks 

 

 

8 hours ago, terraloon said:

There seems to be a developing story about the stadium plans.

Clearlake it seems are wanting to conduct an upgrade rather than a total rebuild upgrading to 55k which centres  around a total rebuild of the East Stand ( they said west in the report but the fact that this element requires decking over the railway suggests it has to be the East. ) I would also imagine the MH and Shed would be extended and of course a total upgrade of concourse etc the West  Stand is not far from fit for purpose and has undergone significant upgrades in respect of hospitality already which is going to be a major feature going forward.

 

This would only require two years away from SB.

Bohley it seems wants to build a new stadium at Earl’s Court or a complete rebuild of SB  both these options will cost far more , create far more regulatory issues and require the site to be off limits for a minimum of 5 years.

I have always thought an upgrade would make more sense and indeed the four stand feel of a ground is I believe far more football friendly compared to the souless bowls that the likes of WHU, Arsenal and Spurs play in.

 

For me personally only going upto 55k would be a waste of time and money, imho.

If the stadium situation is finally going to be addressed then building something that will last for years and years would be my preference, minimum of 65k, preferably the 80k seater that has been mentioned.

The 2017 plans (complete rebuild on current site) iirc could accommodate 60k+, surely tech and building techniques have evolved since then. But just adding here and there to the shed, east and MH and the expenses needed just seems like a temporary patch job and we will be here again in 10 yrs asking for more space.

I'm on that side of, if you're going to do it then do it once, do it properly and do something that will last.

 

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by Simplymo

20 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

The East stand is enormous, i can't see how the capacity can be increased very much by a rebuild.

Bates had a problem with it in respect of it's lack of corporate opportunities, despite its size. Perhaps the rebuild is to cater for that ? Many many years ago when a stadium rebuild was mooted, there were concerns about building over the railway line there because trains carrying nuclear waste ( from Japan!) for processing at a Nuclear plant somewhere use that line. 

Interesting information mate , thanks 

 

 

The East Stand currently  only has a capacity of  circa 11 k  it’s actually only a couple hundred more than the MH stand.

 

30 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

For me personally only going upto 55k would be a waste of time and money, imho.

If the stadium situation is finally going to be addressed then building something that will last for years and years would be my preference, minimum of 65k, preferably the 80k seater that has been mentioned.

The 2017 plans (rebuild) iirc could accommodate 60k+, surely tech and building techniques have evolved since then. But just adding here and there to the shed, east and MH and the expenses needed just seems like a temporary patch job and we will be here again in 10 yrs asking for more space.

I'm on that side of, if you're going to do it then do it once, do it properly and do something that will last.

 

WHU have massive capacity but like many clubs that have huge capacity they have to offer significant discounts to attract close to capacity. 
 

You have to ask from an income perspective first where is there demand and yes of course their needs to be more general tickets but the real income and the real money comes in from hospitality and sadly that’s the name of the game.

The costs that would be involved in a total rebuild would almost certainly have grown to such a huge number as to render the type of plans that were put forward under RAs ownership close to impossible . My guess is that the Oswald land is a game changer but the issue is and will continue to be the constraints re egress 
 

 
 

12 hours ago, terraloon said:

There seems to be a developing story about the stadium plans.

Clearlake it seems are wanting to conduct an upgrade rather than a total rebuild upgrading to 55k which centres  around a total rebuild of the East Stand ( they said west in the report but the fact that this element requires decking over the railway suggests it has to be the East. ) I would also imagine the MH and Shed would be extended and of course a total upgrade of concourse etc the West  Stand is not far from fit for purpose and has undergone significant upgrades in respect of hospitality already which is going to be a major feature going forward.

 

This would only require two years away from SB.

Bohley it seems wants to build a new stadium at Earl’s Court or a complete rebuild of SB  both these options will cost far more , create far more regulatory issues and require the site to be off limits for a minimum of 5 years.

I have always thought an upgrade would make more sense and indeed the four stand feel of a ground is I believe far more football friendly compared to the souless bowls that the likes of WHU, Arsenal and Spurs play in.

 

Happy to say I am 100% with Clearlake on this one. Modern stadiums become white elephants, tributes to man's hubris and excess and they are just a prop to drive commercial and broadcast income. Tottenham's costs ballooned to nearly 1bn GBP for the whole precinct development meaning it is ultimately only commercially viable if it becomes a 'multifunction' venue i.e soulless bowl.

The other thing is that stadium/match-day revenue is less profitable due to increased costs, meaning it is a lot of money to spend for very little long-term revenue improvement. This article shows that Arsenal and Tottenham have only increased their matchday revenue fractionally, despite the huge sums spent on their stadium.

An upgrade would hopefully allow for cheaper seating, safe standing and other quality-of-life improvements, but it is not going to fundamentally change our revenue basis in a meaningful way. 

Edited October 13, 20241 yr by SydneyChelsea

3 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Happy to say I am 100% with Clearlake on this one. Modern stadiums become white elephants, tributes to man's hubris and excess and they are just a prop to drive commercial and broadcast income. Tottenham's costs ballooned to nearly 1bn GBP for the whole precinct development meaning it is ultimately only commercially viable if it becomes a 'multifunction' venue i.e soulless bowl.

The other thing is that stadium/match-day revenue is less profitable due to increased costs, meaning it is a lot of money to spend for very little long-term revenue improvement. This article shows that Arsenal and Tottenham have only increased their matchday revenue fractionally, despite the huge sums spent on their stadium.

An upgrade would hopefully allow for cheaper seating, safe standing and other quality-of-life improvements, but it is not going to fundamentally change our revenue basis in a meaningful way. 

I thought it was reported that the spurs stadium brings in 100mil per year. 

Our location alone is 100 times better. I don't think it will be hard to fill an 80k stadium for an event in Chelsea and especially by our owners.

They have to work out the numbers and see what's best but I hope they plan for the future and not just the 10 yrs of minimum ownership.

6 hours ago, Simplymo said:

I thought it was reported that the spurs stadium brings in 100mil per year. 

Our location alone is 100 times better. I don't think it will be hard to fill an 80k stadium for an event in Chelsea and especially by our owners.

They have to work out the numbers and see what's best but I hope they plan for the future and not just the 10 yrs of minimum ownership.

Any stadium rebuild or indeed upgrade will almost certainly lead to greater revenue but to  that you have to look at cost v benefit.

By that let’s look at Spurs. There stadium debt is circa £1 billion they have negotiated an incredible loan facility at circa 2.6% Pa or £26 million a year. So if we say are getting £60 million Pa the gap from the numbers you say is reported is now what £40 million less the £26 million interest that’s what £14 million difference.

But that’s not the end of it. From memory they pay circa £3 million a year more in business rates, have to provide around 30% more security, there will be significant extra costs in insurance, in water used, in electric when you add all those together then the gap is probably equivalent to a couple of place prize money in the PL but at some point the capital will have to be repaid.

If Chelsea did say build a stadium of say 80k realistically to justify that size you would have to fill it on the majority of occasions not just say once every five or six games.

 

The additional capacity is going to be aimed at a certain type of fan. The everyday fan whos been going for years and just buys a ticket is not the fan the top clubs want anymore, they want the day trippers who buy food, drink spend in the superstore, subscribe to stuff. They want the corporate box buyers, the experience buyers. 

 

11 minutes ago, dkw said:

The additional capacity is going to be aimed at a certain type of fan. The everyday fan whos been going for years and just buys a ticket is not the fan the top clubs want anymore, they want the day trippers who buy food, drink spend in the superstore, subscribe to stuff. They want the corporate box buyers, the experience buyers. 

 

Yup. And season ticket holders are these days seen as a hinderance. Clubs are more and more introducing draconian penalties for season ticket holders who, for example, either lend their ticket to a friend or don't use their ticket on a regular basis. The tourist attendee is the target for the reasons you outline.

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

Any stadium rebuild or indeed upgrade will almost certainly lead to greater revenue but to  that you have to look at cost v benefit.

By that let’s look at Spurs. There stadium debt is circa £1 billion they have negotiated an incredible loan facility at circa 2.6% Pa or £26 million a year. So if we say are getting £60 million Pa the gap from the numbers you say is reported is now what £40 million less the £26 million interest that’s what £14 million difference.

But that’s not the end of it. From memory they pay circa £3 million a year more in business rates, have to provide around 30% more security, there will be significant extra costs in insurance, in water used, in electric when you add all those together then the gap is probably equivalent to a couple of place prize money in the PL but at some point the capital will have to be repaid.

If Chelsea did say build a stadium of say 80k realistically to justify that size you would have to fill it on the majority of occasions not just say once every five or six games.

 

100% agreed its cost vs benefit. But those numbers are just guesstimates (sp?) at best.

 

One thing I do feel relatively sure about is these owners can bring in the corporate gigs (as stated above it's where most of the money is at, without having to fill the 80k bums on seats) to the live events/gigs in the summer (that can easily get those 80k set of bums cheeks on seats). I actually think if planned wisely the 3-4 months of summer gigs could pay for the whole year in rgds to gig revenue, no need to live by the rule of a gig every 5 or 6 games. Also if its a decent build/stadium then I don't see why there can't be a high number of events during the winter either. It's Chelsea, central london (ish), proper prime location.

Btw, I honestly don't know why I feel adamant that our owners have the events/gigs side of things covered. Maybe it's the just the American connection or I get the feeling they are well connected with all that, including the American sports side of things. I don't know...I just get the feeling they got the revenue for a big stadium covered.

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by Simplymo

1 hour ago, dkw said:

The additional capacity is going to be aimed at a certain type of fan. The everyday fan whos been going for years and just buys a ticket is not the fan the top clubs want anymore, they want the day trippers who buy food, drink spend in the superstore, subscribe to stuff. They want the corporate box buyers, the experience buyers. 

 

 

56 minutes ago, dermott said:

Yup. And season ticket holders are these days seen as a hinderance. Clubs are more and more introducing draconian penalties for season ticket holders who, for example, either lend their ticket to a friend or don't use their ticket on a regular basis. The tourist attendee is the target for the reasons you outline.

I agree, unfortunately I don't think that matters tbh. They will still try and aim to get more "walk-ins" and tourists over ST holders. Maybe with a bigger stadium they would be less draconian in their actions or may take longer (after they build it) before pushing harder against ST holders.

1 hour ago, Simplymo said:

100% agreed its cost vs benefit. But those numbers are just guesstimates (sp?) at best.

 

One thing I do feel relatively sure about is these owners can bring in the corporate gigs (as stated above it's where most of the money is at, without having to fill the 80k bums on seats) to the live events/gigs in the summer (that can easily get those 80k set of bums cheeks on seats). I actually think if planned wisely the 3-4 months of summer gigs could pay for the whole year in rgds to gig revenue, no need to live by the rule of a gig every 5 or 6 games. Also if its a decent build/stadium then I don't see why there can't be a high number of events during the winter either. It's Chelsea, central london (ish), proper prime location.

Btw, I honestly don't know why I feel adamant that our owners have the events/gigs side of things covered. Maybe it's the just the American connection or I get the feeling they are well connected with all that, including the American sports side of things. I don't know...I just get the feeling they got the revenue for a big stadium covered.

When RA was granted planning consent there were significant restrictions as to how many times the stadium would be allowed to host concerts etc and it wasn’t that many. If you look at both Spurs stadium and indeed Arsenals they too are restricted but add to that you are competing with the likes of Wembley a much bigger venue 

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

When RA was granted planning consent there were significant restrictions as to how many times the stadium would be allowed to host concerts etc and it wasn’t that many. If you look at both Spurs stadium and indeed Arsenals they too are restricted but add to that you are competing with the likes of Wembley a much bigger venue 

Oh yeah, Wembley is Wembley! Massive and carries a certain "made it tag".

How many bum cheeks can Wembley accommodate? 

Surely there's a market for something smaller than Wembley though but obv bigger than your standard theatre/concert arena.

Yeah, I can imagine the restrictions are sh*te with residential bldgs about.

 

End of the day it's still cost vs benefit, as above. I just hope they do the maths right but more importantly they look towards a long term future plan, past the 10yrs that clearlake has been linked with, and more towards the 30yrs bohely has been linked with instead.

You know, something that can show off the Pride of London...

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by Simplymo

6 hours ago, Simplymo said:

100% agreed its cost vs benefit. But those numbers are just guesstimates (sp?) at best.

 

One thing I do feel relatively sure about is these owners can bring in the corporate gigs (as stated above it's where most of the money is at, without having to fill the 80k bums on seats) to the live events/gigs in the summer (that can easily get those 80k set of bums cheeks on seats). I actually think if planned wisely the 3-4 months of summer gigs could pay for the whole year in rgds to gig revenue, no need to live by the rule of a gig every 5 or 6 games. Also if its a decent build/stadium then I don't see why there can't be a high number of events during the winter either. It's Chelsea, central london (ish), proper prime location.

Btw, I honestly don't know why I feel adamant that our owners have the events/gigs side of things covered. Maybe it's the just the American connection or I get the feeling they are well connected with all that, including the American sports side of things. I don't know...I just get the feeling they got the revenue for a big stadium covered.

There will be restrictions on how many events the stadium can host. And we will be in competition with others for them too.. And don't forget , the artists dont perform for free , they will take a big slice of the income.

The fact that clubs are looking at spending massive amounts on stadiums to generate extra income is all down to PSR rules.

The total cost of the spending is far far larger than the extra income that is generated. It's really nonsensical.

 

22 hours ago, terraloon said:

The East Stand currently  only has a capacity of  circa 11 k  it’s actually only a couple hundred more than the MH stand.

 

WHU have massive capacity but like many clubs that have huge capacity they have to offer significant discounts to attract close to capacity. 
 

You have to ask from an income perspective first where is there demand and yes of course their needs to be more general tickets but the real income and the real money comes in from hospitality and sadly that’s the name of the game.

The costs that would be involved in a total rebuild would almost certainly have grown to such a huge number as to render the type of plans that were put forward under RAs ownership close to impossible . My guess is that the Oswald land is a game changer but the issue is and will continue to be the constraints re egress 
 

 
 

Thanks for your reply.

I had to look up the capacity of the stands because I couldn't believe that the East capacity was only fractionally larger than the MH. But you are correct, the East looks Enormous in comparison to the MH, just goes to show how looks can deceive!

It's only recently that I stopped calling the East stand the " New Stand" !

8 hours ago, dkw said:

The additional capacity is going to be aimed at a certain type of fan. The everyday fan whos been going for years and just buys a ticket is not the fan the top clubs want anymore, they want the day trippers who buy food, drink spend in the superstore, subscribe to stuff. They want the corporate box buyers, the experience buyers. 

 

Roman's new stadium design would have increased the corporate capacity from the present 11% to 26%.  A quarter of the capacity ,including what was described as 6,000 " premium club seats" .

And yes, the target is not loyal, regular fans, but the one's looking for an "experience". 

5 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Surely there's a market for something smaller than Wembley though but obv bigger than your standard theatre/concert arena.

Live sound is my side gig. The cost of staging a stadium-style production only becomes viable if you can sell out a huge arena like Wembley. If an artist is big enough to sell out an arena they will do Wembley/The O2 etc, if they are not they will do smaller shows in made-for-purpose music venues which have much lower overheads. The UK is pretty stacked with good music venues too.

There's not much of a market right now but I do wonder with the decline of festivals around the world, whether this is something that might increase in the near future.

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

There will be restrictions on how many events the stadium can host. And we will be in competition with others for them too.. And don't forget , the artists dont perform for free , they will take a big slice of the income.

Not to mention the absurd cost and effort required to rehabilitate a pitch for a sporting event a few days later. Here in Australia we just barely manage to pull it off in blazing summer sun, I have no idea how it is done in the UK where you have about 3 days of sunshine each year

9 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Not to mention the absurd cost and effort required to rehabilitate a pitch for a sporting event a few days later. Here in Australia we just barely manage to pull it off in blazing summer sun, I have no idea how it is done in the UK where you have about 3 days of sunshine each year

Real Madrid have hosted 11 big concerts (e.g Taylor Swift) and macro events in 2024, to the point that neighbours made a complaint and the club is looking into sound proofing the Bernabeu. They also have got a system to avoid damaging the pitch; they move the lawn to a basement underneath the stadium and put it back for the games. It's a lot of money invested in their stadium and I'm sure that it would not be viable for Stamford Bridge, but it shows that there are new options that can be explored, and cheaper options could be available.

11 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Not to mention the absurd cost and effort required to rehabilitate a pitch for a sporting event a few days later. Here in Australia we just barely manage to pull it off in blazing summer sun, I have no idea how it is done in the UK where you have about 3 days of sunshine each year

In the UK where we have 3 months of sunshine and really pleasant weather, with some rain inbetween. 

7 hours ago, RMH said:

Real Madrid have hosted 11 big concerts (e.g Taylor Swift) and macro events in 2024, to the point that neighbours made a complaint and the club is looking into sound proofing the Bernabeu. They also have got a system to avoid damaging the pitch; they move the lawn to a basement underneath the stadium and put it back for the games. It's a lot of money invested in their stadium and I'm sure that it would not be viable for Stamford Bridge, but it shows that there are new options that can be explored, and cheaper options could be available.

Madrid have had to suspend all concerts until the problem is resolved.

Also, in return for a large loan from an American Investment consortium to rebuild the stadium, (6th Street) the investors take 30% of the income from all non football events ..for the next 20 years.

Edited October 15, 20241 yr by The Rising Sun
Info