ENIC

[Lilbaz]

It would be interesting to see the costs of building that stadium in the different time periods. If we go back as far as 2012 we know that Levy was heavily engaged in getting the Olympic Stadium bid. There was then a window to May 2017 when we finally moved out of WHL and started the build. As you say there would have been no build in 2020 as we were all locked down. I'm thinking that if we were building right now those raw material costs that we've seen across the globe would have probably sucked up an incremental 25-50% cost to the club.

I have no clue whether we did everything right in the first half of this millennium and could have got going much earlier but we got there in the end. What we need to be careful of is what happened to Old Trafford and Stade de France and many other stadia where they get old and tired and don't have the continual investment.

Interest rates are a lot higher now aswell.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

There is an argument for saying it actually timed out 'in the nick of...' because had we entered covid having not actually got too far on the build, it would've become one of the worst investments and potential disasters of all-time. And imagine trying to build something like that now. I've seen single stand renovations quoted at over half the cost of our entire stadium! It's quite something...

In terms of having it built before, absolutely, but losing two years stadium revenue straight of the bat was a killer. Club was losing 1m a day because of wages and that lack of revenue, not that we were the only one, but having such a stadium our "potential" was hurt more than most. No doubt things are worse now, not sure anyone would be getting a 30 year bank mortgage like we did either

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

There is an argument for saying it actually timed out 'in the nick of...' because had we entered covid having not actually got too far on the build, it would've become one of the worst investments and potential disasters of all-time. And imagine trying to build something like that now. I've seen single stand renovations quoted at over half the cost of our entire stadium! It's quite something...

That's what I've always said.
To miss out on revenue so close to opening is nothing compared to being in the middle of the build and shutting down with no idea/timeline of when and how it can get going again. Combined with material supply shortages and a massive spike in the cost of those materials..

Also not forgetting the knock on effect of a delay to get completed would datewise put us in a whole different world of interest rates for the main tranche of after project refinancing.
Sneaking in on the last moments of historically low interest rates is something that has probably been saving us £30-40m a year.

Finally....Good luck to any club that has ambitions to do what we did....££££££££££££££££

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

In terms of having it built before, absolutely, but losing two years stadium revenue straight of the bat was a killer. Club was losing 1m a day because of wages and that lack of revenue, not that we were the only one, but having such a stadium our "potential" was hurt more than most. No doubt things are worse now, not sure anyone would be getting a 30 year bank mortgage like we did either

It's a known future calculable cost though. You can have some certainty around it week to week. The only unknown is how long COVID was going to go on for.
Plus having the stadium complete and up and running we could stretch out our borrowing to see us over the hump. Initially borrowing off the government and then converting that into £250m more debt. It's interesting to note, that before adding the £250m, the stadium debt was probably just over £600m at this point, which given reports the stadium cost north of £1bn is a pretty good LTV if you look at it through a mortgage lense...giving us some wriggle room and helping us secure the other 250m.

For a black swan event it could have been a lot worse

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

It's a known future calculable cost though. You can have some certainty around it week to week. The only unknown is how long COVID was going to go on for.
Plus having the stadium complete and up and running we could stretch out our borrowing to see us over the hump. Initially borrowing off the government and then converting that into £250m more debt. It's interesting to note, that before adding the £250m, the stadium debt was probably just over £600m at this point, which given reports the stadium cost north of £1bn is a pretty good LTV if you look at it through a mortgage lense...giving us some wriggle room and helping us secure the other 250m.

For a black swan event it could have been a lot worse

Of course, it could have been alot worse, but it was still an impact.

We had to take the loan because we were losing £1m a day during covid. One plus is my job during covid literally came about because of the PL need to get the game back up and running, will always be thankful for that, silver linings and all that

 

[johnaliola]

It would be interesting to see the costs of building that stadium in the different time periods. If we go back as far as 2012 we know that Levy was heavily engaged in getting the Olympic Stadium bid. There was then a window to May 2017 when we finally moved out of WHL and started the build. As you say there would have been no build in 2020 as we were all locked down. I'm thinking that if we were building right now those raw material costs that we've seen across the globe would have probably sucked up an incremental 25-50% cost to the club.

I have no clue whether we did everything right in the first half of this millennium and could have got going much earlier but we got there in the end. What we need to be careful of is what happened to Old Trafford and Stade de France and many other stadia where they get old and tired and don't have the continual investment.

Also money was extremely cheap at that time and we were able to secure really cheap long term financing.
The timing was incredible looking back, with covid then a huge glut of cost inflation.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

This post in a now defunct threat in 2021 from the always very good @Surfless

A very relevant post in what is now a very relevant period given the news this week and hits so many great points on the club where it was and in fact shows how impacted then and how it was acknowledged The point bolded is particularly important because not only is it a true statement then, it also more relevant today as we would have competed alot more with out peers had clubs not been cheating.

Right side of history with that post there about being a sustainable and successful club,



I think its a bit crass to say there is no ambition at the top of the club. Ambition is not binary, it is not on, or indeed off. There's levels of ambition, and what is ambitious to one club (Yeovil Town being promoted to the Championship for example) is a step down for others. You cannot say that we are unambitious because we have one of the most expensive and desirable stadia in the world, we have the best training facilities in the country, and whether you care to agree or not, we've regularly competed for honours for the past 15 years, compared to 90% of our peer group. That we have not won something is the difference of a turn of a dice, the flip of a coin, a handball from Sissoko one fateful night.

That we are currently in a transition situation is to be expected - not so long ago Man Utd were in this situation, Arsenal are there now, and we may be headed there. These things happen in football. We did it when we sold Bale. We did it when we sold Gazza. We even did it when we sold Waddle.

So to come back to the original point - we're ambitious, but we're ambitious in a different way to those clubs above us. We've spent years telling people we are not oil funded, years citing the fact that City, Utd, Chelski and Liverpool's owners have a different financial perspective to ours, but what we don't mention when referring to that is the fact that we are generally more ambitious than 14 other clubs in our league. Our record signing spend stands 6th in our league. This signing was made at a time when we were funding a £1bn stadium and subsequently despite the pandemic shutting the stadium we've continued to buy players - yes its slowed, but how would you do without your main source of income for 15 months - would you be ordering the most expensive meal on the menu?

Another way of looking at ambition outside of trophies is to look at how the board have increased the value of the club. And before you say "its not about money its about trophies", don't, as the top five clubs in the land at the moment have got to where they are based on money spent - so in order to compete at the top table we need to be as big in revenue terms as the top five clubs.

In 2012 THFC was worth $564m. 9 years later, we are worth $2.3bn. Our club has quadrupled in value in 9 years. By comparison the gooners were worth $1.3bn in 2012 and now are worth $2.8bn. Barely doubled. Chelsea have trebled in value, to give another comparison. So we are now way closer to the big teams in terms of revenue, which means we are better placed to compete financially.

Whether you like it or not football is a business, and a decade ago we were a long way behind the most successful businesses in our industry. We are now far closer in terms of revenues and profits, and with that in time will come the potential to buy trophies like our competition. Sadly Covid has delayed this, but mark my words, in another 10 years there will be 6 or 7 clubs that will have any hope of competing for silverware, and I am willing to bet we will be one of them. Its the way that things are going, and is why we were at the table with the Super League clubs.

 

[Surfless]

This post in a now defunct threat in 2021 from the always very good @Surfless

A very relevant post in what is now a very relevant period given the news this week and hits so many great points on the club where it was and in fact shows how impacted then and how it was acknowledged The point bolded is particularly important because not only is it a true statement then, it also more relevant today as we would have competed alot more with out peers had clubs not been cheating.

Right side of history with that post there about being a sustainable and successful club,



I think its a bit crass to say there is no ambition at the top of the club. Ambition is not binary, it is not on, or indeed off. There's levels of ambition, and what is ambitious to one club (Yeovil Town being promoted to the Championship for example) is a step down for others. You cannot say that we are unambitious because we have one of the most expensive and desirable stadia in the world, we have the best training facilities in the country, and whether you care to agree or not, we've regularly competed for honours for the past 15 years, compared to 90% of our peer group. That we have not won something is the difference of a turn of a dice, the flip of a coin, a handball from Sissoko one fateful night.

That we are currently in a transition situation is to be expected - not so long ago Man Utd were in this situation, Arsenal are there now, and we may be headed there. These things happen in football. We did it when we sold Bale. We did it when we sold Gazza. We even did it when we sold Waddle.

So to come back to the original point - we're ambitious, but we're ambitious in a different way to those clubs above us. We've spent years telling people we are not oil funded, years citing the fact that City, Utd, Chelski and Liverpool's owners have a different financial perspective to ours, but what we don't mention when referring to that is the fact that we are generally more ambitious than 14 other clubs in our league. Our record signing spend stands 6th in our league. This signing was made at a time when we were funding a £1bn stadium and subsequently despite the pandemic shutting the stadium we've continued to buy players - yes its slowed, but how would you do without your main source of income for 15 months - would you be ordering the most expensive meal on the menu?

Another way of looking at ambition outside of trophies is to look at how the board have increased the value of the club. And before you say "its not about money its about trophies", don't, as the top five clubs in the land at the moment have got to where they are based on money spent - so in order to compete at the top table we need to be as big in revenue terms as the top five clubs.

In 2012 THFC was worth $564m. 9 years later, we are worth $2.3bn. Our club has quadrupled in value in 9 years. By comparison the gooners were worth $1.3bn in 2012 and now are worth $2.8bn. Barely doubled. Chelsea have trebled in value, to give another comparison. So we are now way closer to the big teams in terms of revenue, which means we are better placed to compete financially.

Whether you like it or not football is a business, and a decade ago we were a long way behind the most successful businesses in our industry. We are now far closer in terms of revenues and profits, and with that in time will come the potential to buy trophies like our competition. Sadly Covid has delayed this, but mark my words, in another 10 years there will be 6 or 7 clubs that will have any hope of competing for silverware, and I am willing to bet we will be one of them. Its the way that things are going, and is why we were at the table with the Super League clubs.

Very flattering that you went back and found that sir, and you are right that this could be written in the context of now - the difference being that the part I didn't acknowledge at the time I wrote the original piece is that we consistently underspent on wages in a way that had nothing to do with sustainable growth and to do with ideology on the part of our chairman.

Levy was fantastic in many, many ways for this club, but he consistently shopped at the second or third table where player wages were concerned - the deals for Grealish and Fernandes that he walked away from were examples of when he bailed out when the weekly cost got too high - neither would have broken the bank on the transfer fee.

We're one of the most successful clubs in the league since football began, when measured across the 92 clubs that make up the English game. It's only when you do a like for like with City, Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and the Goons that we are found wanting. Oh and Villa who have won 20 to our 18 major honours.

Even if City were stripped of their achievement during the cheating spell they would be above us.

 

[Baleforce]

Very flattering that you went back and found that sir, and you are right that this could be written in the context of now - the difference being that the part I didn't acknowledge at the time I wrote the original piece is that we consistently underspent on wages in a way that had nothing to do with sustainable growth and to do with ideology on the part of our chairman.

Levy was fantastic in many, many ways for this club, but he consistently shopped at the second or third table where player wages were concerned - the deals for Grealish and Fernandes that he walked away from were examples of when he bailed out when the weekly cost got too high - neither would have broken the bank on the transfer fee.

We're one of the most successful clubs in the league since football began, when measured across the 92 clubs that make up the English game. It's only when you do a like for like with City, Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and the Goons that we are found wanting. Oh and Villa who have won 20 to our 18 major honours.

Even if City were stripped of their achievement during the cheating spell they would be above us.

I think on Grealish and Fernandes he has been proved right.

They have both been luxury players* whose stats on the defensive side are poor.

*Grealish had one exceptional season at City it must be said, but for 100m, that's nowhere near enough.

 

[Bishop]

Something I always wondered with AVB was whether his football was equally as boring at Porto or whether the Porto fans just accepted it if it meant winning.

I really liked AVB and wanted him to succeed. But I could never quite figure out whether it was just that his football hadn’t ‘clicked’ yet or whether that was the intended end state. We also seemed to play much more pleasing football away from home. And in small spells, like we could turn it on when we wanted.

Clearly at Chelsea he was trying to do something different, and so maybe that experience made him more pragmatic by the time he got to Spurs.

His Porto side has some very good players and dominated the league. I saw them a bit and they weren't exceptionally exciting or groundbreaking from what I remember but they weren't boring either but that tends to be the case when you have the best players and they did have some very good midfielders and attackers at the time (Hulk, Falcao, Belluschi, Gauarin, Merireles, Moutinho).

 

[Bishop]

I think on Grealish and Fernandes he has been proved right.

They have both been luxury players* whose stats on the defensive side are poor.

*Grealish had one exceptional season at City it must be said, but for 100m, that's nowhere near enough.

As much as I think Bruno has tons of downsides, he would have been a massive boost to us at the time we had lost Eriksen. No need fail to completely change our play style, as he would have easily slid into the role and performed the same actions. Add that we were actually a much better side than the Man Utd side he didn't eventually move to, he would have had to do less heavy lifting here and would have had better players to play with. Imagine Bruno's Hollywood passes to an in his prime Son or Kane...he would have been a difference maker. Our trajectory over the last 7 years would likely be entirely different.

 

[Baleforce]

As much as I think Bruno has tons of downsides, he would have been a massive boost to us at the time we had lost Eriksen. No need fail to completely change our play style, as he would have easily slid into the role and performed the same actions. Add that we were actually a much better side than the Man Utd side he didn't eventually move to, he would have had to do less heavy lifting here and would have had better players to play with. Imagine Bruno's Hollywood passes to an in his prime Son or Kane...he would have been a difference maker. Our trajectory over the last 7 years would likely be entirely different.

I get what you are saying but I don't agree, Eriksen did a shift defensively (most of the time) too.

I think he would have got in Kane's way and spent most of his time stropping.

I know he has a fudge tonne of assists, but what have United actually achieved from them, I consider it a bullet dodged.

 

[Bishop]

I get what you are saying but I don't agree, Eriksen did a shift defensively (most of the time) too.

I think he would have got in Kane's way and spent most of his time stropping.

I know he has a fudge tonne of assists, but what have United actually achieved from them, I consider it a bullet dodged.

Eriksen fake pressed, if he ever actually reached the played he never tried to get the ball off them.

United were brick when he joined and whilst they are still brick, he has helped them mask that to some extent. By no means do I think he would have been a resounding success, but he would have been stepping in to a better team, surrounded by better players and most importantly he wouldn't have been our "best player" which would have kept his ego in check more and I just think he would have worked better in our side at the time than the United one he went into. Since hes been there they've pretty much finished ahead of us every season and hes been a big contributor to that.