P/L - If you spend £100/150m [ best available estimate ] on something and you get less back - you end up with a deficit . That helps the team how?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Daniel Levy - Chairman
- Thread starter Howard Webb
- Start date
P/L - If you spend £100/150m [ best available estimate ] on something and you get less back - you end up with a deficit . That helps the team how?
Gazza
Frederic Kanoute
It depends on the future value of the initial investment. However any deficit can be offset for a tax advantage spread over a "reasonable" time.
Just too simple to say one way or another. However you don't become a man like levy, Lewis and co if you don't know the financial game inside out.
Gazza
Frederic Kanoute
Don't be so quick to judge ... he just may be simple in the mind believing an idea as a fact, without the foundation of knowledge to stand by the ignorance.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Why will we get less back?
150m cost (guesstimate)
10 year agreement with NFL
So we need to make an extra 15m a season through being linked to the NFL for it to pay for itself over ten years? I think that's probably achievable through additional sponsorship alone, then you have to factor in the increase in exposure that such a link will bring to the club - and a whole host of other revenue streams that will open up through having a stadium with such a facility, from my armchair I'd say the potential upside far exceeds the potential downside
Last edited:
Gazza
Frederic Kanoute
Good point, but i try very hard not to judge.
Is it because your memory fades in between the initial thought and conclusion ....
"In my day the world was in black and white, the word colour didn't exist i love cheesecake on Sundays"
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
milo
Jack L. Jones
I think that it is safe to assume that we know nothing more than the bare minimum about the club's plans for secondary uses for the new stadium.
I think that it is wrong to say that an NFL franchise is a long shot. There will undoubtedly be an NFL team in London within the next decade. We will be competing with Wembley to host them but our facilities will be significantly better suited to the sport. What we also have no idea of is what has been discussed in negotiations for the deal that is public.
Why will we get less back?
150m cost (guesstimate)
10 year agreement with NFL
So we need to make an extra 15m a season through being linked to the NFL for it to pay for itself over ten years? I think that's probably achievable through additional sponsorship alone, then you have to factor in the increase in exposure that such a link will bring to the club - and a whole host of other revenue bodies of running water that will open up through having a stadium with such a facility, from my armchair I'd say the potential upside far exceeds the potential downside
All in theory possible, but all a long shot. The best way to increase our sponsorship value: Is success on the pitch.
atm this just looks like a Levy vanity project.
It's a gamble at the least.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Must be something in it when even the dead are supporting the move. Sorry, I know what you mean and couldn't resist it. Good post, though.
It does seem out of character for Levy to go ahead with the dual use stadium when the finances require gambling on the NFL establishing a franchise in London. In fact it is so out of character that I'm convinced that is not a gamble he is making. Either he has an assurance from the NFL or other plans. I very much doubt the NFL would give that assurance, they will make that move if and when it suits them, so the only explanation is that there will be other uses of the stadium. The guaranteed NFL games for a decade will help the financing, but there is no reliance on the franchise.
The retractable pitch and the lower surface is a game changer. It means events can be held without damaging the pitch and therefore that we can hold more and more varied events. The lower surface also means it is possible to install special surfaces or dirt based arenas for events in the summer. We have been linked with the people at AEG enough times to suggest that Levy has had advice on the event market in London, for a flexible venue intermediate in size between Wembley and the O2 Arena. That said I haven't had this advice so can only widely speculate, but I suspect we will see something not in the following list.
1. Concerts.
2. Boxing or other fighting events. The recent Wembley boxing fight was a big success. NWHL will be nicely placed between Wembley and the O2 arena for capacity.
3. Dirt track bike or monster truck events.
4. Show jumping. Unlikely even with the gentrification of Tottenham but I add this to illustrate the possibility of out of the box thinking.
5. Sevens rugby or other day long tournament. Perhaps Twickenham will make this difficult for sevens, but the additional NFL changing rooms does make the stadium a good choice for multi-team events. Both rugby union and rugby league have tried double headers at larger stadia than the clubs own.
One other factor. The overall plan for the North Tottenham development suggests the stadium will be the focus of a sports hub. We have the climbing wall planned so perhaps other extreme sports are envisaged.
Last edited:
The best way to bring long term success on the pitch is to close the gap financially with the five clubs who have more money than us - an NFL deal is one area where we can make money that our rivals won't - this will serve us better long term than any summer spending spree of equivalent outlay.
There's no theory about it, you've estimated the cost at 150m top end, we have a ten year deal agreed with the NFL which will bring in additional money in sponsorship and match day revenue and it will open up other revenue streams and it will increase our exposure - the only gamble is on whether we increase on the existing 2 game a year 10 year deal, but i doubt very much the cost of the project will not be banked on increasing that initial 10 year deal. If it doesn't going beyond the initial 2 game/10 year deal then we won't be left out of pocket and if it increases we will reap the benefits
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
I think @lovely rita is only getting some takers as its a slow international week........
role on our Spurs being back and im sure we will treat our lovely rita somewhat in the manner that Jack Duckworth treated his rita..........with contempt.
Baleforce
Martin Peters
they'll probably be back at school this week
How much are we likely to clear from an NFL game? Not more than £1m a game and that is pushing it. Can you really see 15/20 NFL games a year, starting from year 1 ?
How many concerts and high profile boxing matches are we likely to get ? London is not short of venues.
That really only leaves a franchise and increased sponsorship, but the increased sponsorship will only happen if we get the franchise or lots of games.
The naming rights and sponsorship are not increased in value because of a retractable pitch in itself.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Do you actually believe Daniel Levy has invested millions in adapting the stadium plans to accommodate NFL games on a punt?
Baleforce
Martin Peters
which NFL teams have 15/20 home games in any year?
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
Where are you getting the figures from of the cost of the pitch
milo
Jack L. Jones
It's based on the £80 - £100m cost of the retractable court on Centre Court at Wimbledon that Rita referenced here
A very different site/build though and retracted for different reasons and to a different location.
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
As in the retractable roof at centre court that wasn't put into an existing building which needed reinforcing, strengthening and rebuilding?