• 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

New Stadium money vs tv money

D

DTA

Clint Dempsey
A lot has been said about the new stadium making us more competitive financially, is that really going to be the case?

How does the additional new stadium money compare to the money from the new tv deal?

Is match day income even that important anymore, Juve have a small stadium but a strong brand and are the richest team in Italy (I believe).

Discuss.
 
its more about the corporate opportunities a new stadium provides

I don't think ticket income is that important in the grand scheme of things for the super clubs, its obviously essential in the lower leagues though
 
All Italian teams are tinkle poor except three. AC Milan have been funded by Berlusconi, Inter by Moratti and Juventus by the Agnelli family. They've obviously cut back now due to FFP.

12%2BTottenham%2BMoney%2BLeague%2B2014.jpg


These are just imagined numbers, but 50K seats at £50 each comes to roughly £50 million over a whole season. If we have as many as 10K VIP seats we only have to charge them £250 to make the same amount. The best boxes goes for a lot more than that per seat.
 
DTA said:
A lot has been said about the new stadium making us more competitive financially, is that really going to be the case?

How does the additional new stadium money compare to the money from the new tv deal?

Is match day income even that important anymore, Juve have a small stadium but a strong brand and are the richest team in Italy (I believe).

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Many drops fill a bucket!
 
I think the new TV deal starting next year will push our overall income above that of Milan, Dortmund and probably even Juventus, placing us 10th in the money league.

The problem then is that the gap between ourselves and Liverpool and Arsenal is greater than the extra ticket revenue we will achieve from our new stadium (I would assume our new stadium would allow our match day revenue to double).

The only way we can continue to bridge the gap is by improving our commercial income. A stadium naming deal will probably add £10 million a year to this revenue stream, but the only way we can alleviate our income further here is by achieving success on the pitch, it is that which brings in the exposure and therefore the sponsors.
 
Interesting responses, does anyone know how the new tv deal breaks down in terms of league position, ie how much do we get if we finish 5th as opposed to how much we get if we finish 10th?
 
Modric THFC said:
Its not the TV money we need to catch up on its commercial income. The likes of United are way ahead in Sponsorship money.
Click to expand...

Unless we can get some dodgy deals like City, we have to earn that sponsorship money through success.

To stand any chance of that we need the stadium to cut down on the gap to those above. It will help us compete with their insane wages.
 
galeforce said:
its more about the corporate opportunities a new stadium provides

I don't think ticket income is that important in the grand scheme of things for the super clubs, its obviously essential in the lower leagues though
Click to expand...

It all adds up .. however the new income lines up

- Additional tv revenue (which increase all the time)
- Corporate boxes & Sponsorship
- Matchday revenue (which will almost 2X even keeping prices same)
- Events at WHL (possible with artificial turf) +NHL revenue

If you look at the chart posted by Jordinho, we could easily get our matchday revenue to 3rd best in PL, our tv revenue will likely be 5th best, commercial we have to work on.

Short answer = yes, the stadium will make a significant difference, both to income and club profile
 
DTA said:
Interesting responses, does anyone know how the new tv deal breaks down in terms of league position, ie how much do we get if we finish 5th as opposed to how much we get if we finish 10th?
Click to expand...

I don't have that breakdown, but in addition to all of the points that have been mentioned I think we have to look at relative money. The bulk of the TV money will be split evenly between all the teams in the EPL. For us to gain on the top 4 we have to close the gap i.e. increase revenue relative as well as absolute.
 
Based on the chart above, Arsenal makes 100 millions (euro or quid?) in match day revenues while we only make 44 millions. Our new stadium will have similar capacity to theirs. We should be able to get at least 90% of Arsenal's revenue (assuming that Europa League ticket prices will be lowered than their CL ticket prices) with the new stadium. 90 millions is double of our current match day revenue. Among many things, we can use the new money pay our top players CL-competitive wages and make it harder for them to leave.
 
I think what the OP was getting at (forgive me if I'm wrong) was... if a new stadium brings us an additional £40m in tickets and £10m in sponsorship that is £50m which is nice... but the key thing is that if the new TV Deal is going to bring in £5m the stadium is massively important, whereas if the new TV Deal brings in £200m it makes the £50m seem less important.

(Likewise if the stadium costs us £400m to build but brings in an extra £50m per year it would pay for itself in 8 years which is fantastic, if it brought in only £20m it would take 20 years to repay itself).

But going back to my first point, if the stadium brings in £45m, how much should the new TV Deal bring in for finishing 6th?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
New stadium: 8,000 corporate seats charged at £4000 per head rakes in £32m per season. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if the club earns £3-4m a game. To put that into context WHL's 36,000 seats and 120 boxes earns the club just over £1m a game.

TV Deal: Can come and go just like the Serie A deal did 10 years ago, that league is now a shadow of it's former self.
 
The other key thing to think about with a new stadium is the amount of sponsorship revenue you can attract, and not just from the naming rights. Our current sponsors include more than just AIA - there's also the likes of Under Armour, Marathon Bet, Carlsberg, Thomas Cook, Stubhub....each get a little exposure in a stadium. And having 61,000 potential customers seeing their logo and branding every week is a far more attractive proposal for them than 36,000 - that in turn boosts the size of the deals we can get from them and their competitors in years to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Thanks ModricTHFC. So the new TV Deal is worth something in the region of £50m.

And the new ground might bring in an extra £50m per season in tickets, corporate and sponsorship.
Could be considerably more or less, but those sorts of ballparks rather than £10m or £100m per year.

So getting the ground sorted is just as important as the new TV Deal in terms of direct money, although since almost everyone in the Prem will get around £50m ish from the TV Deal, the new ground will help us to pull away from Soton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Everton but will not bridge the gap to the top 4 who will just pull further away.

So if we spend £400m on a new stadium it could repay itself in 8 years itself or in 4 years if we include the TV Deal too, which they may or may not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
It'll be interesting to see what happens after the current TV rights deal ends. Sky have lumped the bulk of it on, presumably in the hope the top earners would then be able to start hoovering in the big names to the league so they can then hype it even further, and that hasn't really happened yet. May never do, if there are players with a concept of enough, who are more interested in things like culture and quality of life than they are in adding another Lamborghini to the collection. I wonder whether, if the effect is just to inflate the market for the second-and-third-tier players, there might be less of an appetite for such huge spending on it in future. Watch this space, I suppose.
 
SUIYHA said:
The other key thing to think about with a new stadium is the amount of sponsorship revenue you can attract, and not just from the naming rights. Our current sponsors include more than just AIA - there's also the likes of Under Armour, Marathon Bet, Carlsberg, Thomas Cook, Stubhub....each get a little exposure in a stadium. And having 61,000 potential customers seeing their logo and branding every week is a far more attractive proposal for them than 36,000 - that in turn boosts the size of the deals we can get from them and their competitors in years to come.
Click to expand...
Aren't those companies more interested in the exposure they get from TV coverage of the games around the World?.... 36,000 or 61,000 at the stadium are a tiny minority of those actually seeing the sponsorship via broadcasting.
 
mudshark said:
It'll be interesting to see what happens after the current TV rights deal ends. Sky have lumped the bulk of it on, presumably in the hope the top earners would then be able to start hoovering in the big names to the league so they can then hype it even further, and that hasn't really happened yet. May never do, if there are players with a concept of enough, who are more interested in things like culture and quality of life than they are in adding another Lamborghini to the collection. I wonder whether, if the effect is just to inflate the market for the second-and-third-tier players, there might be less of an appetite for such huge spending on it in future. Watch this space, I suppose.
Click to expand...
The broadcasters are paying large amounts to ensure that they get the coverage. Their only concern is to pay just enough to ensure they win the contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back