On 14/12/2024 at 20:47, Simplymo said:

My head, logic, business mind, etc. says Earls Court is the way to go, no question, but my heart cries for the bridge.

Based on what evidence, though? Stadium revenue as a percentage of total club revenue is declining, year on year, in favour of commercial and transfer revenue. Win things and sell players if you want a club to make money. 

We are at a stage where we seriously risk overcapitalising by investing in a brand new stadium.

49 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Based on what evidence, though? Stadium revenue as a percentage of total club revenue is declining, year on year, in favour of commercial and transfer revenue. Win things and sell players if you want a club to make money. 

We are at a stage where we seriously risk overcapitalising by investing in a brand new stadium.

Commercial revenue and stadium revenue are not separate but linked. 

Tottenham make more commercial revenue than us now. 

12 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Commercial revenue and stadium revenue are not separate but linked. 

Tottenham make more commercial revenue than us now. 

They do, but only about 40m more or so - which is more than offset by the costs of a billion-pound stadium debt. That graph is also from 2022/23 season, which was one of our worst, most dis-engaged seasons in the club's history.

Spending an extra 1 billion pounds to increase our revenue by 40m seems like financial suicide.

Whatever happens, something is a must, the gate smashing must stay

 

37 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

They do, but only about 40m more or so - which is more than offset by the costs of a billion-pound stadium debt. That graph is also from 2022/23 season, which was one of our worst, most dis-engaged seasons in the club's history.

Spending an extra 1 billion pounds to increase our revenue by 40m seems like financial suicide.

You aren't doing numbers well here

Tottenham weren't level with us before. They were miles off. 

Their commercial revenue has gone up by 100m+, their match day revenue has gone up by 70m+

I think not spending a billion on a stadium to increase revenue by probably 200m a year is financial suicide. 

3 hours ago, bisright1 said:

You aren't doing numbers well here

Tottenham weren't level with us before. They were miles off. 

Their commercial revenue has gone up by 100m+, their match day revenue has gone up by 70m+

I think not spending a billion on a stadium to increase revenue by probably 200m a year is financial suicide. 

They were doing worse numbers because, surprisingly, they were sh*t.

Now they are in Europe and competing for top 4, they are doing well. We have had some of our worst years in the Premier League era. As long as that stadium debt hangs around, however, Tottenham are a bee's dick away from collapse. Barcelona had twice the total revenue and still couldn't manage a smaller debt once things went south.

West Ham have a nice, shiny and large stadium, with loads of extra-football events. They're nowhere near us.

We're finally back to where we were. Past 4 years have been the absolute worst, club getting sanctioned with the threat of liquidation by the govt, managerial merry go rounds, chopping and changing of structure at the top, all Roman's VIPs leaving on the same day, new owner mishaps, the millions wasted on expensive old players, the turgid and boring football

Even tho now we had to travel to Almaty thousands of miles away and an Irish team next, it's at least we can finally have fun supporting the team and manager

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

They were doing worse numbers because, surprisingly, they were sh*t.

Now they are in Europe and competing for top 4, they are doing well. We have had some of our worst years in the Premier League era. As long as that stadium debt hangs around, however, Tottenham are a bee's dick away from collapse. Barcelona had twice the total revenue and still couldn't manage a smaller debt once things went south.

West Ham have a nice, shiny and large stadium, with loads of extra-football events. They're nowhere near us.

From a basic accounting angle it would make absolutely no sense investing circa £1 billion either re building SB or possibly the cheaper option of a new build . 

In the day when Arsenal for instance built their  new stadium the dominant income stream was match day but that in terms of pecking is not even in the top two. 

Trying to compare other clubs financial models isn’t a precise science. The ideal I would imagine is to benefit from not actually owning the stadium and there are a couple of examples of that in WHU and Man City but just like home ownership in the UK we seem wedded to the notion whereas in many countries the local council is the owner.

If we are to move to Earls Court that would for me provide a real opportunity to “ sweat the asset “ by that I mean the location would become the go to place in terms of concerts, in terms of a visitor experience and above all the matchday attendees will almost certainly be drawn into on site drinking and eating opportunities both located inside and outside the facility but unlike now profit from those facilities will be the clubs.

Anyone ever attending Cardiff will perhaps have memories of the two Jumping Jacks locations that were stadium owned and provided a safe and excellent facility for match day supporters separate for both home and away. 
 

Focusing just for a second in Spurs they borrowed  vast sums from various sources including HM Government they consolidated all their borrowing into a very favourable facility paying  circa £25 million Pa fixed I think for 25+ years by which time inflation and growth in income will to a degree have minimised the impact.

Moving back to Arsenal their owners again have consolidated their borrowings into one loan which many mistakenly believe is an interest free loan from their owners again, which it isn’t.

Like our owners they, KSE,  have access to US markets .Arsenal by consolidating were able to reduce interest  charges by over 50% those American markets meant that for FFP/PSR purposes Arsenal have had to in effect add a sum to their calculations because the rates are so beneficial but and here is the but KSE are looking to invest even further in Arsenals stadium to increase capacity and facilities and in so doing the club are in all probability going to sell the stadium to the ownership group who will it seems lease the stadium and all its facilities to the Club  on a renew and repair agreement 

That Arsenal model is I believe where we will end up. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that BlueCo already have sold or acquired land or buildings on the SB site . 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 20241 yr by terraloon

 

10 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Based on what evidence, though? Stadium revenue as a percentage of total club revenue is declining, year on year, in favour of commercial and transfer revenue. Win things and sell players if you want a club to make money. 

We are at a stage where we seriously risk overcapitalising by investing in a brand new stadium.

 

+1 to the below replies mate.

9 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Commercial revenue and stadium revenue are not separate but linked. 

Tottenham make more commercial revenue than us now. 

 

8 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Their commercial revenue has gone up by 100m+, their match day revenue has gone up by 70m+

I think not spending a billion on a stadium to increase revenue by probably 200m a year is financial suicide. 

 

Also, Sydney have you seen the ideas or plans for the village at the earls court site?

Google/youtube some of them...I've seen a few vids, most are probably rubbish (no idea if true) but something they have in common is the enormous amount of extra space and the insane potential of that space.

As well as the, bigger everything, stadium, cfc offices, hotels (short term apartments) and spas (not an annex/divide on the side of the office/commercial sales bldg type spa either), etc... There's tons of space for a small "commercial village" like the ones you see a lot of abroad. Like a small "bicester village" with retail and pop ups. The potential is insane not just on matchdays either. 

Short to medium leases for some of the bigger commercial spaces, pop up licences for the smaller and outdoor spots, and cafes/restaurants/bars with seating outdoors in the summer...all in a car free zone around "one end" of the proposed property development.

With our owners and their commercial/PR reach we've seen so far, it's on a massively different scale compared to the spuds. With CFC IP licences issued to a Starbucks, for example, for a special cfc coffee sold exclusively in the "village" to various IP licences given to American style hotdogs stands or whatever; I may have dreamed of a special Stamford or slightly smaller Bridgette size hotdogs with a cfc logo on the bun! (Yes, I was in the mood for a proper American style hotdog the other day, lol)

After all that above, add on the actual location...

In the heart of London, when it comes to public transport, nearby tourist locations/hotels/accommodation, nearby HQ's of some of the world's biggest companies and corporations and also to some extent on the route to Londons biggest and busiest international airport.

(Left ar the lights for the M4 & Heathrow, straight at the same lights for Westfield shopping centre and the M40, or a right at the lights to head into central).

Tbh, I don't think you need maths or to use numbers to compare the "basic" difference between spurs revenue and what ours could potentially be...completely different league/scenario. It's not close enough to need numbers to see if there's a difference.

Edited December 16, 20241 yr by Simplymo

7 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

They were doing worse numbers because, surprisingly, they were sh*t.

Now they are in Europe and competing for top 4, they are doing well. We have had some of our worst years in the Premier League era. As long as that stadium debt hangs around, however, Tottenham are a bee's dick away from collapse. Barcelona had twice the total revenue and still couldn't manage a smaller debt once things went south.

West Ham have a nice, shiny and large stadium, with loads of extra-football events. They're nowhere near us.

Tottenham were in the champions league in 2016 and 2017. They reached the final in 2019. They weren't exactly mid table before they moved in.

As long as they have the insane revenue that the best stadium in the UK brings in, they'll be secure.

We are the team who are one bad owner away from collapse because we have no financial foundations. 

Also West Ham don't have a shiny new stadium. They rent one. They don't benefit from the extra events.

This whole conversation is numbing my brain. 

this whole Earls Court thing is done and dusted and gone, we didn't buy the land and others did who have planning permission to develop it. Unless that planning fails and the site becomes available to purchase... Then its 6 Billion for that and potentially another 1 billion to build a ground. the club has just been saddled with a 1 billion pound debt as far as Im concerned. Whats another 7 billion... Its just numbers on a piece of paper, the money doesnt exist, its not real and neither will our football club be at the end of the move. 

https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/developers-submit-planning-application-for-6bn-earls-court-redevelopment/5131609.article

What we do have is a ground our American owners would love to sell given the Earls court site is worth 6 billion. Right now, that is all you need to understand. 

It's either redevelop Stamford bridge or dont bother as the alternative sites are west London beyond Heathrow, and that isnt and wont be Chelsea. 

 

Edited December 21, 20241 yr by bluetrooper

46 minutes ago, bluetrooper said:

this whole Earls Court thing is done and dusted and gone, we didn't buy the land and others did who have planning permission to develop it. Unless that planning fails and the site becomes available to purchase... Then its 6 Billion for that and potentially another 1 billion to build a ground. the club has just been saddled with a 1 billion pound debt as far as Im concerned. Whats another 7 billion... Its just numbers on a piece of paper, the money doesnt exist, its not real and neither will our football club be at the end of the move. 

https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/developers-submit-planning-application-for-6bn-earls-court-redevelopment/5131609.article

What we do have is a ground our American owners would love to sell given the Earls court site is worth 6 billion. Right now, that is all you need to understand. 

It's either redevelop Stamford bridge or dont bother as the alternative sites are west London beyond Heathrow, and that isnt and wont be Chelsea. 

 

I wonder how we'd feel if we moved to kingsmeadow. Is there enough land there to build the stadium 

We could change the club name and call ourselves Wimbeldon FC and the crazy gang... 

Sounds like a sh*t compromise moving south of the river allowing the Yankw**k owners to capitalise on Stamford bridge land value. No thanks. I'd like the club to remain in Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. Newcastle have a larger stadium than us, as do united, Spuds, Arsenal all have a bigger ground but doesnt make them more successful than us. Bournmouth have a 13K seater or something, they're pretty competitive in the league. 

My point is simple, misnomer to think stadium revenue determines club success. 

https://x.com/cfcnewsreport/status/1870425186819825946?s=46&t=IADWMMDWtMYMPFeimX1NoQ

27 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

https://x.com/cfcnewsreport/status/1870425186819825946?s=46&t=IADWMMDWtMYMPFeimX1NoQ

I didn't know Riyadh were a brand new airline funded by the Saudi PIF ! Commencing operations in 2025 apparently ... 

Amanda Staveley probably joining our board if this goes ahead LOL

Why can’t I post twitter links and have them embedded? 
 

New youth policy to prevent the club from being strongheld by players and agents. 
 

https://x.com/bluecoxtra/status/1870171481134506450?s=46&t=IADWMMDWtMYMPFeimX1NoQ

2 hours ago, bluetrooper said:

We could change the club name and call ourselves Wimbeldon FC and the crazy gang... 

Sounds like a sh*t compromise moving south of the river allowing the Yankw**k owners to capitalise on Stamford bridge land value. No thanks. I'd like the club to remain in Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. Newcastle have a larger stadium than us, as do united, Spuds, Arsenal all have a bigger ground but doesnt make them more successful than us. Bournmouth have a 13K seater or something, they're pretty competitive in the league. 

My point is simple, misnomer to think stadium revenue determines club success. 

Yeah I personally think in 10-15 years time Tottenham will be more successful than a Chelsea at the existing Stamford bridge. Our success now is built on manipulating the existing rules, but our lack of commercial revenue will catch up on us. 

Id be against moving out of London, or moving north or east London. But Kingston feels fine to me. And it would mean we don't have to play at Wembley. 

54 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Why can’t I post twitter links and have them embedded? 
 

New youth policy to prevent the club from being strongheld by players and agents. 
 

https://x.com/bluecoxtra/status/1870171481134506450?s=46&t=IADWMMDWtMYMPFeimX1NoQ

Not really a youth policy but this ruthless side would mean we don't lose money(much) and the players(mostly agents) can't strongarm us anymore for Free transfers

56 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Why can’t I post twitter links and have them embedded? 

https://x.com/bluecoxtra/status/1870171481134506450?s=46&t=IADWMMDWtMYMPFeimX1NoQ

It is based on how much @Modand @lozlike you. 

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Why can’t I post twitter links and have them embedded?

It seems to be a recent issue, which may have something to do with the X name change, but the next version of the forum should sort that out!

21 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Yeah I personally think in 10-15 years time Tottenham will be more successful than a Chelsea at the existing Stamford bridge. Our success now is built on manipulating the existing rules, but our lack of commercial revenue will catch up on us. 

Id be against moving out of London, or moving north or east London. But Kingston feels fine to me. And it would mean we don't have to play at Wembley. 

I appreciate the response but imo, financial modelling is inherently fraught with problems. Yes, spurs and clubs with larger grounds may well have more money being generated, but that off-field success just doesn't guarantee on-field success. Using the club's current model, they would only have to sell a couple of youth team players to championship clubs and make up the revenue lost via turnstile. 

Arsenal completed the Emirates Stadium in 2006. 

Arsenal have won the FA cup four times in twenty years since the stadium was built. After a rebuild under arteta, we're above them on the ladder this season. 

Spurs, still paying off the stadium and won nothing nor look likely too under Apostacoglu. 

United built Old Trafford decades ago, since Fergusson left, they've not been close to anything despite the commercial success of the club. 

Newcastle, have had a larger stadium for decades than us, won nothing. 

Manchester city are imploding now they cant spend cash. Have financially doped the league and won everything. 

Liverpool, pretty successful with a ground slightly larger than CFC. 

If as our owners suggest that the game is still growing in the world, then it wont be stadium revenue that generates the most money. 

Bournmouth somehow defy all logic and are fairly stable in the premier league with a capacity under 12K seats. 

Im not dismissing the extra revenue the club could use with a stadium, but i think it wont dictate what happens on the field and it imo definitely doesnt translate to trophies. 

1 hour ago, bluetrooper said:

I appreciate the response but imo, financial modelling is inherently fraught with problems. Yes, spurs and clubs with larger grounds may well have more money being generated, but that off-field success just doesn't guarantee on-field success. Using the club's current model, they would only have to sell a couple of youth team players to championship clubs and make up the revenue lost via turnstile. 

Arsenal completed the Emirates Stadium in 2006. 

Arsenal have won the FA cup four times in twenty years since the stadium was built. After a rebuild under arteta, we're above them on the ladder this season. 

Spurs, still paying off the stadium and won nothing nor look likely too under Apostacoglu. 

United built Old Trafford decades ago, since Fergusson left, they've not been close to anything despite the commercial success of the club. 

Newcastle, have had a larger stadium for decades than us, won nothing. 

Manchester city are imploding now they cant spend cash. Have financially doped the league and won everything. 

Liverpool, pretty successful with a ground slightly larger than CFC. 

If as our owners suggest that the game is still growing in the world, then it wont be stadium revenue that generates the most money. 

Bournmouth somehow defy all logic and are fairly stable in the premier league with a capacity under 12K seats. 

Im not dismissing the extra revenue the club could use with a stadium, but i think it wont dictate what happens on the field and it imo definitely doesnt translate to trophies. 

The thing is, the PL is by far the wealthiest league in the world. And yet it seems that it's not enough, and the only option is to borrow billions (ClearLake are not a charity) and build bigger stadiums!

It's absolutely ridiculous, if we ever build a new stadium, we will have to repay the cost with interest, and no doubt it'll be round about that time when the embargo on paying dividends is lifted.

Meanwhile subsidising coach travel for fans is "unsustainable"  

I agree, extra stadium revenue isn't a blueprint for on field success , there's never been as much money in the game , just manage the finances properly FFS!

 

 

We need a bigger stadium to accommodate more supporters and season tickets, not more corporate and tourists, so, imo, a 55k Stamford Bridge would be ideal. Also, I don’t like the idea of moving to Kingsmedow, it’s f**king miles away from anywhere relevant in London, more difficult to get there than to any other ground in London (maybe an exception is Selhurst Park).

32 minutes ago, RMH said:

We need a bigger stadium to accommodate more supporters and season tickets, not more corporate and tourists, so, imo, a 55k Stamford Bridge would be ideal. Also, I don’t like the idea of moving to Kingsmedow, it’s f**king miles away from anywhere relevant in London, more difficult to get there than to any other ground in London (maybe an exception is Selhurst Park).

Ah see I'm biased because it's not that far from me 🤣