You're financially illiterate.
We have to pay back 25m per year on the stadium debt. No point refering to it as a 1bn investment as if that matters.
So yes we can spend 25m less than we otherwise could potentially on players. That's the sum total of the impact. So we can't buy a Chris Wood or an Emerson each year. It's no excuse for no business.
It goes even further that that actually. We are talking about cashflow movements and increased income has to be factored in as well.
I don't have the numbers, so I explain in principle -
- Old WHL capacity was 36 300 ppl
- New WHL capacity is 62 850 ppl
That means difference of 26 550.
If your quoted number is correct then it means that every additional seat has to generate only 941 EUR to earn this extra 25 mil. And it surely does. Furthermore, this is extremely simplistic view that only includes seating. But all the lounges and additional facilities for well-off people... let's just say that from this source the impact could be as big as from increased capacity.
That means that on net terms the additional income per year exceeds loan servicing amounts. And this means our "free cash flow" increases even while we pay off debt.
But that of course would require some normality in the world. That stadium can operate at full capacity. And that it would sell out. Which most likely has not been the case up to now.
So to conclude - since the stadium opened (construction time, reduced capacity, playing on Wembley - these are whole different topic), it should not hinder but boost our cashflows on net level. And that means that stadium construction has not been the reason of squad rotting. It has been totally inadequate scouting ability and player management.