New Stadium

[VoiceOfThePoshSeats]

I was simply talking increased revenue from our current situation. All our competitors are getting the same tv and CL money, so we're only keeping pace in that regard. The CL is only worth £40M if you win it, a realistic figure would be £20M which puts us that bit closer to LFC and Arse...but probably still a shade behind and all a lot behind the top 3.

Fair enough, others will keep pace. But CL tv rights is worth more now due to the new BT deal and the fact we finished 2nd so we will have a bigger share of the martket pool. It may even be worth more.

edit....english market pool worth 143m euros. We are entitled to 30% for finishing second. then add wembley 3m a game, plus prize money of say 20m

 

[MemphisWill]

Fair enough, others will keep pace. But CL tv rights is worth more now due to the new BT deal and the fact we finished 2nd so we will have a bigger share of the martket pool. It may even be worth more.

edit....english market pool worth 143m euros. We are entitled to 30% for finishing second. then add wembley 3m a game, plus prize money of say 20m

Minus rent for Wembley, overhead of staffing and operations of matches, extra wages for CL matches. Not being dick, in reality this subject can be as complicated as one wants to make it - the end result is we'll still be well off chavs, citeh, and manure. And with the status quo it doesn't seem we're really beaten on players or having our players unsettled by the goons or dippers...so while the extra cash will be nice, I'm just beginning to feel like the new stadium isn't going to be the watershed moment it's sometimes made out to be. It will remain more difficult for Spurs to win trophies than our rivals.

Not to say it shouldn't be built - it was an absolute necessity for survival as a club in and around the top. And it still gives me an engineering erection.

 

[Aberdeenshire yid]

Can I ask with all these numbers being banded about and in time everything in place if we have player on say 65k a week now what can Tottenham pay in equivalent wages in two seasons two seasons time?

 

[MemphisWill]

Can I ask with all these numbers being banded about and in time everything in place if we have player on say 65k a week now what can Tottenham pay in equivalent wages in two seasons two seasons time?

Purely keeping the wage structure intact? £65k × 150% (turnover increase from £200M to £300M) means we can pay £97.5k p/w in two seasons time. Our highest earners Kane, Alli, Toby, Rose could be on £150k-ish.

Money enough to hold onto players who want to be here with Poch, still not enough to fight off the dirty manc's/chavs if a player is truly concerned about the finances.

Edit: and even those estimates are probably generous as our turnover is increasing but so will expenditures: O&M of the new stadium will be higher, staff across the board get annual rises, energy costs always trend upward, transfers are getting more expensive, debt will need servicing, etc., etc. Just the reality of all businesses. More realistically a £65k p/w player may be renewed on the order of £85k p/w.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

 

[Bri]

Premier League finances: the full club-by-club breakdown and verdict

Old article I just came across so apologies if this horse has already been kicked. But we often talk about what the club will be capable of "after the increased stadium revenue" when we have better "financial parity" and glancing over the accounts it just feels like we're being a bit optimistic.

Figure in optimistically:

£20M Nike raise
£10M in improved terms for AIA
£50M in additional matchday income (very optimistic as it'd put us just behind United in this regard)
£10M in stadium sponsorship (in the neighborhood of what new stadiums globally are being named for)

Additional turnover: £90M
Total turnover: £300M

That puts us level with the dippers in 5th BEFORE you factor in their new stand. Likely to remain £50M+ behind them and woolwich, a gap that can be closed with some silverware and the fact we actually make money via the academy. But Chavs and City will continue to dope, and the commercial monster that is United isn't relenting any time soon.

All of this to say - we really ought to look at holding Poch's family hostage for about 20 years.

What about the extra 16 events were likely to hold each year? No idea how much it will generate and wether it will be used simply to help with debt or not

 

[Jayc1]

Premier League finances: the full club-by-club breakdown and verdict

Old article I just came across so apologies if this horse has already been kicked. But we often talk about what the club will be capable of "after the increased stadium revenue" when we have better "financial parity" and glancing over the accounts it just feels like we're being a bit optimistic.

Figure in optimistically:

£20M Nike raise
£10M in improved terms for AIA
£50M in additional matchday income (very optimistic as it'd put us just behind United in this regard)
£10M in stadium sponsorship (in the neighborhood of what new stadiums globally are being named for)

Additional turnover: £90M
Total turnover: £300M

That puts us level with the dippers in 5th BEFORE you factor in their new stand. Likely to remain £50M+ behind them and woolwich, a gap that can be closed with some silverware and the fact we actually make money via the academy. But Chavs and City will continue to dope, and the commercial monster that is United isn't relenting any time soon.

All of this to say - we really ought to look at holding Poch's family hostage for about 20 years.

You've missed out quite a few things - NFL games, concerts and events being hosted at the stadium, the community projects like the climbing wall that will generate the club constant money even without football games, advertising within the stadium. On top of that the stadium has knock on effects - Shirt sponsors will pay more, the club will gain more from TV rights and so on.

As for "£50 match day is very optimistic", I disagree. I think we already get £45 mil, we're almost doubling the stadium, being able to offer the rich better facilities (Hence the famous cheese room), more corporate seats and then a huge pre-match area outside which will generate money.

I also think you've under-sold the naming rights. Woolwich get £15mil a year for naming rights alone - we'll probably be looking at £20 since it will be bring in huge publicity seeing as it's a new stadium that can host many events.

As for the last statement about not being able to compete:
City Revenue - £391mil. This includes the ridiculous state funded "sponsorship" deals they get. Being only £60-70 mil behind City is actually very impressive once you consider that they cheat their account books.

Chelsea Revenue - £329mil. We would be be almost toe to toe in terms of revenue and as we've seen lately,
we're a more attractive outfit for players. A large portion of this revenue is down to the fact that they "farm" players too, buying and loaning out players for ridiculously long periods of time. Once Eufea introduce rules about this, their revenue will drop.

United Revenue - £570mil. This is simply impossible to match. We can't hope to financially compete against this, so it's irrelevant.

The new turn over will allow us to actually compete. Will we be able to go out and spend £90mil on a player? No, of course not. However, it allows us far more freedom with wages and transfer fees. At the moment we're a minnow that is punching well above out weight in terms of finances, the new stadium will elevate us to actually being competitive.

£90 million allows us to pay an extra £1.7mil a week in wages on what they already get - this is more than enough to keep our top players around. You couldn't say that about us in the past.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

Hmmm "invisible and undetectable joins" if ever I need a syrup....

Speak to Joe Clash if you do

 

[Jayc1]

Speak to Joe Clash if you do

Shit comment.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

Shit comment.

But true, so really its a shit true comment, but whatever

 

[Jayc1]

But true, so really its a shit true comment, but whatever

He isn't here to defend himself (Closed account) and it's a bitchy unnecessary comment which you've brought up for no reason. No one has even mentioned him, other than you randomly insulting him.

Bit of a cunt thing to do.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Purely keeping the wage structure intact? £65k × 150% (turnover increase from £200M to £300M) means we can pay £97.5k p/w in two seasons time. Our highest earners Kane, Alli, Toby, Rose could be on £150k-ish.

Money enough to hold onto players who want to be here with Poch, still not enough to fight off the dirty manc's/chavs if a player is truly concerned about the finances.

Edit: and even those estimates are probably generous as our turnover is increasing but so will expenditures: O&M of the new stadium will be higher, staff across the board get annual rises, energy costs always trend upward, transfers are getting more expensive, debt will need servicing, etc., etc. Just the reality of all businesses. More realistically a £65k p/w player may be renewed on the order of £85k p/w.

Its Wage to Turnover that's staying roughly at 50-55% not Wages to Profit, this appears to be the goal. Those costs should be taken out of the 45% not spent on wages.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

He isn't here to defend himself (Closed account) and it's a bitchy unnecessary comment which you've brought up for no reason. No one has even mentioned him, other than you randomly insulting him.

Bit of a cunt thing to do.

Sorry pal i know him from my younger days, already explained in earlier posts so bore off.

And closed account usually means he's having another hair transplant. so wahey !

 

[SouthCoastSpur]

He isn't here to defend himself (Closed account) and it's a bitchy unnecessary comment which you've brought up for no reason. No one has even mentioned him, other than you randomly insulting him.

Bit of a cunt thing to do.

I hadn't realised Joe had closed his account. Sad to hear that, always liked his posts.

 

[Jayc1]

I hadn't realised Joe had closed his account. Sad to hear that, always liked his posts.

He closes it several times a year imo. Will be back within a month or two.

 

[vadimivich]

At the moment we're a minnow that is punching well above out weight in terms of finances, the new stadium will elevate us to actually being competitive.

We're not a minnow. In 2014-2015 we were the 12th highest revenue club in the entire world, and that was without the Nike deal and Champions League football. We paid roughly the 11th or 12th highest wage bill in world football as well, right in line with our revenue. We are a very, very, very, very rich football club who is about to get richer.

The new stadium should allow us to pass Dortmund and Juventus and climb into the top 10 in global revenue, and also thusly into the top 10 in wages. That should be plenty of funds to allow to compete domestically and in Europe on a consistent basis.

Spurs are a very big, rich club already. Much bigger and richer than most Spurs fans seem to realize. All this does is further push us higher up the list of monied elite.

 

[Jayc1]

We're not a minnow.

If we want to compete for the league or the CL then financially, yes, we are a minnow.

League - City, Woolwich, Chelsea, Liverpool, United all earn at least 50% more than we do.

CL - United earn almost 300% as much as do we, as do Madrid, Barca and Bayern.

We're closer to having the revenue of West Ham and Leicester than we are of City. Are you gong to say these are "world power houses of modern football" too? No, they're minnows.

We may be 12th but this doesn't reflect how far behind we are. I could be 5th in a Marathon, which sounds great, until you realise I was 10 hours behind the guy who finished first.

It isn't the positioning that's important, it's the revenue numbers themselves. And in this regard we are currently a financial minnow who can be pushed around by Chelsea or City in terms of wages - we've seen this with Willian. They have the ability to beat our wages by £50k without batting an eye.

 

[MemphisWill]

You've missed out quite a few things - NFL games, concerts and events being hosted at the stadium, the community projects like the climbing wall that will generate the club constant money even without football games, advertising within the stadium. On top of that the stadium has knock on effects - Shirt sponsors will pay more, the club will gain more from TV rights and so on.

As for "£50 match day is very optimistic", I disagree. I think we already get £45 mil, we're almost doubling the stadium, being able to offer the rich better facilities (Hence the famous cheese room), more corporate seats and then a huge pre-match area outside which will generate money.

I also think you've under-sold the naming rights. Woolwich get £15mil a year for naming rights alone - we'll probably be looking at £20 since it will be bring in huge publicity seeing as it's a new stadium that can host many events.

As for the last statement about not being able to compete:
City Revenue - £391mil. This includes the ridiculous state funded "sponsorship" deals they get. Being only £60-70 mil behind City is actually very impressive once you consider that they cheat their account books.

Chelsea Revenue - £329mil. We would be be almost toe to toe in terms of revenue and as we've seen lately,
we're a more attractive outfit for players. A large portion of this revenue is down to the fact that they "farm" players too, buying and loaning out players for ridiculously long periods of time. Once Eufea introduce rules about this, their revenue will drop.

United Revenue - £570mil. This is simply impossible to match. We can't hope to financially compete against this, so it's irrelevant.

The new turn over will allow us to actually compete. Will we be able to go out and spend £90mil on a player? No, of course not. However, it allows us far more freedom with wages and transfer fees. At the moment we're a minnow that is punching well above out weight in terms of finances, the new stadium will elevate us to actually being competitive.

£90 million allows us to pay an extra £1.7mil a week in wages on what they already get - this is more than enough to keep our top players around. You couldn't say that about us in the past.

I think the key to the way I'm looking at the situation is that Chelsea and City will continue to dope, they'll find this new way or that to inject dirty cash into their coffers if they feel we're sneaking up on them. So while even with your figures we're on much more level terms with LFC and woolwich, the blue cunts will cheat their way to keeping significant distance between us and like you say - there's just no competing with United financially.

Really not being doom and gloom here, because we aren't screwed - just that we'll always have to be smarter and more forward thinking, we'll always need the right manager and will probably continue to require bringing in younger players to make their name at Spurs. I won't cry over that, though, because its really that ethos of the club that's so attractive to most those who support it.

 

[Steve71]

Looking at the work being done on the Stadium in relation to the partnership with the NFL,the NFL games could be played on the international breaks in October/November thus meaning the grass surface would have been ideal for two games.The money spent on the artificial pitch for the NFL experience suggest to me Tottenham is getting a NFL Team on a permanent basis in the next couple of years.This will bring in extra revenue and in turn open up the States for the naming rights for our Stadium .

 

[CousinEddie]

He closes it several times a year imo. Will be back within a month or two.

I think he just changed his status message to 'Closed Account'. I don't think he actually closed it.
What it looks like anyway, I could be wrong.
Sounds like something that sneaky little devil would do.

Admin , can I get a ruling on this.....