FA Considering Selling Wembley

[Bedfordspurs]

Where do you get your numbers from? I used to work there and it cost nothing like £50m. The accounts for the year are online so you can see they have never spent anything like that in capital since the stadium opened.

The business case was simply to create a recess so that the concert stage didn't have to sit on the pitch, and kill the grass. The plan was to hold more concerts in the autumn when the stadium needs to be turned around quicker, and didn't give time for the grass to grow back. Still didn't pay for itself as they've only held one autumn convert since it was installed.

I got it from Norland

They told me in a Sales pitch

Guy was called David Gray

 

[milo]

It's strange it's the right wing press most critical of it, when they otherwise advocate PFIs, privatisation and neo-liberalism. This is exactly the thing they want to happen to the NHS.

Late capitalism

Protectionist nativism has been endemic on the right for a while now

 

[T-C]

I got it from Norland

They told me in a Sales pitch

Guy was called David Gray

Then they should know better, because that number is multiples of the actual amount. As I said, Wembley's Financial Statements are online and show that the stadium hasn't hit £10m total capital spend in any year since it opened.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Protectionist nativism has been endemic on the right for a while now

It's more a reversion to pre-Thatcher conservatism

 

[milo]

It's more a reversion to pre-Thatcher conservatism

I disagree but that it is discussion for another thread

 

[Spur of the moment]

Separating the team from the stadium tends to end in disaster too. Look at the issues it caused for Palace and Portsmouth for example. West Ham and Lincoln have bad experiences moving from landlords to tenants too.

You could also have mentioned Wimbledon, Coventry City and Stockport County. There again Emirates Marketing Project don't own the Etihad, but that's an entirely different kettle of worms.

 

[SpurMeUp]

FA promises £600m Wembley windfall will go to grassroots football


• Money from prospective sale would fund up to 1,500 new pitches
• Fulham owner Khan hopes to complete sale in two to three months

The sale of Wembley Stadium would represent ‘a potential game-changer for football in this country’, according to the FA’s Greg Clarke. Photograph: NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The Football Association has issued a guarantee that all proceeds of the pending £600m sale of Wembley to Shahid Khan will be used to fund grassroots football.

The FA chairman, Greg Clarke, sent a letter to members of the FA Council to reassure them the money would be funnelled back into the sport at participation level, including the purchase of an estimated 1,500 new pitches, improved drainage systems and floodlights. A source close to the FA told the Guardian a public commitment to investing such a massive sum of money in grassroots sport was “unprecedented and a potential game-changer for football in this country”.

Khan told the Guardian he hoped to have the sale completed in two to three months. The Fulham owner has been in serious discussions with the governing body since meeting the FA chief executive, Martin Glenn, at the Superbowl in the United States last year.

As part of the negotiation and due diligence process the FA is seeking assurances from Khan, who also owns the NFL team Jacksonville Jaguars, about his long-term plans for the national stadium and particularly what would happen if he were to sell on in the future. Khan, who amassed a £5.2bn fortune from a car parts business, has been at pains to stress the stadium will remain the home of the England football team. The FA would retain the estimated £300m revenue from the Club Wembley hospitality and debenture business. England would be forced to go on the road for their autumn internationals between September and December but the FA Cup final, the Football League play-off finals and rugby league’s Challenge Cup final would remain at Wembley.

However, the FA is understandably concerned about the potential threat to those agreements if Khan were to sell on to a third party in the future. A source at the FA said: “Those of course are questions that need to be asked at this stage, the selling-on clauses are all part of the negotiation process.”


The governing body is concurrently holding talks with Sport England in an effort to persuade the board to release the £113m debt owed from the redevelopment of the stadium in the early part of the century. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Sport England and the Greater London Authority combined to contribute £161m to the construction of the £757m stadium in north-west London, which reopened in 2006. It is understood that debt cannot be wiped entirely but could be reassigned to developing football at grassroots level.

It is thought Sport England would be amenable to such a deal. Clarke wrote to the FA Council members to outline plans for a trust to manage the proceeds of the potential sale. “Should the board agree to proceed with a sale of Wembley, it is our intention that all proceeds would be placed in trust by the FA with governance approved by football stakeholders, government and Sport England to ensure they are allocated to closing the facilities gap and building community assets up and down England,” Clarke wrote. “The process to evaluate the feasibility of selling Wembley Stadium to fund our national facilities deficit has been developed thoroughly over several months by the executive with the help of a major city adviser.”

Khan, the 217th richest person in the world according to the 2018 Forbes rich list, has stated he intends for only two Jaguars games to be held each season initially and that he considers the Wembley name to be sacrosanct. But the news of his bid was nevertheless viewed suspiciously in some quarters.

The former Chelsea and Leeds owner Ken Bates, a key figure in the stadium’s troubled redevelopment, said he felt the deal was being performed in an underhand manner. “The ground does not belong to the directors of the FA; they are custodians. It belongs to the English fans and their children, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

Among current Premier League managers the reaction to the possible sale of the stadium was largely positive. Everton’s Sam Allardyce, who managed England for one match, welcomed the news providing the stadium could still be used for football. “The FA went through a hugely difficult period to build that stadium, so to lose it and not play there would be a no from me,” he said. “There would have to be a certain contract that makes sure Wembley is still Wembley and cup finals and some international games are still played there. But travelling across the country with England would balance that off very well. With the extra money coming into the FA – spent in the right way on development, grass roots and football in general – that would be a very good thing.”


----

Someone start a petition. £600m seems cheap. Why can't the FA put in place a long term sustainable plan to maximise and use Wembley's revenue to fund grass roots football for decades to come; rather than a short-term splurge?

 

[Bullet]

Some are saying the FA should build loads of high end astroturf pitches for kids.

But whenever I listen to legendary ex-pros talking, they say they learned their skills playing for 5 hours a day with a rolled up bag of brick on a bit of tarmac covered in glass and nails, playing with kids 3 years older than them that kicked crap outta them. Now THAT's what we need to build.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Some are saying the FA should build loads of high end astroturf pitches for kids.

But whenever I listen to legendary ex-pros talking, they say they learned their skills playing for 5 hours a day with a rolled up bag of brick on a bit of tarmac covered in glass and nails, playing with kids 3 years older than them that kicked crap outta them. Now THAT's what we need to build.

Exactly. Building slick pitches won't do anything much for grass roots football. They get vandalised in no time. Spend the minimum on simple basic facilities and a network of cost effective talented coaches. You don't need huge sums to stimulate grass roots sport. Kids love to play. Just look at Cuba. Most kids grow up playing basball on the streets with a ball made of bound up rags. They consistently produce exceptional Baseball players...boxers, ballet dancers etc. in a tiny nation that is broke, doesn't have anything like the resources that the FA has.

The FA needs to sort its house out with the revenue it has. Become lean, efficient and effective as is, not sell out short term to blow a windfall of cash. Shocking the incompetence on display when it comes to our national institutions. Olympic stadium fiasco etc etc. Why can't they run things properly? How do these people get jobs running these failing operations and why can't they turn them around?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Moving the clocks back an hour later in the winter would have a far greater effect on grassroots football.

A quota on English and Welsh players in prem teams would have a bigger impact on the national teams prospects.

 

[T-C]

You could also have mentioned Wimbledon, Coventry City and Stockport County. There again Emirates Marketing Project don't own the Etihad, but that's an entirely different kettle of worms.

But the concept of a national team is very different to club football. When the England teams travel around the country they are always at 'home'.

Germany, Spain, Italy, France.... none have an exclusive home stadium.

If The FA sell the stadium... they take England on road, FA Cup Semi Finals move back to neutral club grounds, they have a long term lease for the FA Cup at Wembley plus ''x' number of internationals per year (as at the old stadium), Community Shield probably starts being played all over the world, the FA's home becomes the national football centre in Burton.

All = more money and focus on supporting the grass roots game, coaching development, and the national teams.

 

[T-C]

Exactly. Building slick pitches won't do anything much for grass roots football. They get vandalised in no time. Spend the minimum on simple basic facilities and a network of cost effective talented coaches. You don't need huge sums to stimulate grass roots sport. Kids love to play. Just look at Cuba. Most kids grow up playing basball on the streets with a ball made of bound up rags. They consistently produce exceptional Baseball players...boxers, ballet dancers etc. in a tiny nation that is broke, doesn't have anything like the resources that the FA has.

The FA needs to sort its house out with the revenue it has. Become lean, efficient and effective as is, not sell out short term to blow a windfall of cash. Shocking the incompetence on display when it comes to our national institutions. Olympic stadium fiasco etc etc. Why can't they run things properly? How do these people get jobs running these failing operations and why can't they turn them around?

1. Building basic facilities shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the FA. This country has suffered from a chronic and ever reducing level of investment from local authorities.

Cuba isn't a great example to be honest, there will always be a talented handful of individuals who rise to the top. Better examples are the number of properly maintained pitches and qualified coaches in Germany, France and Spain.

2. Every new Chief Exec to come into the FA over the past 20 years has restructured, cut costs etc. Where are any facts that show money is being wasted? Old clichés about the 'FA blazers'? Actually, a great way of becoming leaner is to dispose of the stadium.

Why should a football association be spending time on organising concerts, and hosting non football events? Why should money be invested into the ongoing maintenance of a stadium to help it compete with other multi purpose venues, when that money could be spent on facilities and coaching of football.

3. The Olympic Stadium is a publicly owned asset with a commercial model that has been f***ed due to political interventions. The FA and Wembley Stadium are private limited companies, not even charities. Very different.

 

[SpurMeUp]

1. Building basic facilities shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the FA. This country has suffered from a chronic and ever reducing level of investment from local authorities.

Cuba isn't a great example to be honest, there will always be a talented handful of individuals who rise to the top. Better examples are the number of properly maintained pitches and qualified coaches in Germany, France and Spain.

2. Every new Chief Exec to come into the FA over the past 20 years has restructured, cut costs etc. Where are any facts that show money is being wasted? Old clichés about the 'FA blazers'? Actually, a great way of becoming leaner is to dispose of the stadium.

Why should a football association be spending time on organising concerts, and hosting non football events? Why should money be invested into the ongoing maintenance of a stadium to help it compete with other multi purpose venues, when that money could be spent on facilities and coaching of football.

3. The Olympic Stadium is a publicly owned asset with a commercial model that has been f***ed due to political interventions. The FA and Wembley Stadium are private limited companies, not even charities. Very different.

You have been to Cuba and seen the way grass roots talent is developed with very limited resources? The reason I mentioned Ballet is you can't become a lead dancer at the worlds elite Ballet companies dancing on the streets. There is a huge amount of 'coaching' and training involved at a grass roots level to produce these one-off stars. Most nations with a similar population to Cuba don't have as many elite sports people appearing every year. The way you almost arogently dismiss any lesson that could be learnt is symptomatic of a bloated, entitled FA that thinks the answers are to be found in throwing cash at the problem in the short term, rather than innovating. Harsh but probably true. You will have a greater insight than I.

Disposing of the stadium is not leaner, its a poorer FA long term. Why can't the FA organise concerts FFS? The money is going back into grass roots after all. How can Levy do it with WHL, or the arse with the vacuous emerites?

You're clearly loyal to the FA having worked there, and I respect that. There are many many many worse associations! Maybe you could estimate the revenue generated by Wembley per year, and calculate how many years a 600m buy out would take to 'break even'. For example, Wembley this season might have revenue of £50m from NFL, £50m from Spurs, £50m from Internationals, £50m from concerts. The operating costs took 50%, so it generated £100m profit say. That would mean after 6 years the FA would be down on this deal. Now maybe Wembley is run badly, the operating costs are not sufficiently controlled, and they are not attracting enough concerts etc. A true private company would deal with that, and generate profit, why can't the FA?

If the FA is a private limited company it suggests that a few individuals will probably walk away from a £600m windfall with a nice little nest egg for themselves. The premise of 'grass roots' investment is therefore a sham. Going through the motions. I'd suggest you do look at a country like Cuba who have simple but effective grass roots facilities and do it with passion and no money!

I agree its not the FA's job to invest in sport Government needs to be involved, but the FA are trying to justify selling off a nation's asset with 'grass roots investment'.

 

[Rorschach]

Some are saying the FA should build loads of high end astroturf pitches for kids.

But whenever I listen to legendary ex-pros talking, they say they learned their skills playing for 5 hours a day with a rolled up bag of brick on a bit of tarmac covered in glass and nails, playing with kids 3 years older than them that kicked crap outta them. Now THAT's what we need to build.

The complete opposite of grassroots investment, lying bar stewards.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The complete opposite of grassroots investment, lying bar stewards.

Indeed. Middle class over-35s can pay for those £90-an-hour pitches, not working class kids

 

[jts1882]

The plan seems to be to put the money in a trust for spending on grass roots football. This has to be approved by the professional game bodies as there is a deal that FA revenue is split 50-50 between grassroots and professional game. The means the PL clubs and football league clubs have a say. While they would be criticised for greed, they can block it.

If they do use a trust then I assume that means they won't be immediately spending the money and will use income from the trust investments, so it wouldn't be a one-off bonanza. Surely it would be easier to use the income from Wembley directly, once they have paid off the debts. It's the long-term that matters.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Bet the local F.A. associations will be tinkled at not getting free cup final tickets as well.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Bet the local F.A. associations will be tinkled at not getting free cup final tickets as well.

May see a higher % of tickets go to the finalists?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Bet the local F.A. associations will be tinkled at not getting free cup final tickets as well.

May see a higher % of tickets go to the finalists?

FA Cup final will still be an FA event though, regardless of who owns the stadium, and presumably they will still be in charge of ticketing allocation for their own event?

 

[Spur of the moment]

But the concept of a national team is very different to club football. When the England teams travel around the country they are always at 'home'.

Germany, Spain, Italy, France.... none have an exclusive home stadium.

If The FA sell the stadium... they take England on road, FA Cup Semi Finals move back to neutral club grounds, they have a long term lease for the FA Cup at Wembley plus ''x' number of internationals per year (as at the old stadium), Community Shield probably starts being played all over the world, the FA's home becomes the national football centre in Burton.

All = more money and focus on supporting the grass roots game, coaching development, and the national teams.

The danger is if things go wrong further down the line and new owners start putting their own needs ahead of those of the FA for major football events. Then we could have a problem because as Poch says, Wembley is synonymous worldwide with football, the national side and major finals.