I disagree with you. The CL windfall was eaten up due to the fact that many of our players and management staff had clauses in their contracts that netted them large bonuses in the event of qualifying for the Champions League, something that isn't going to happen this year. If the TV contract is worth an extra £20 million per season then I can see at least half of that being used as a transfer budget. It's also worth noting that 'profit from normal operations excluding football trading and depreciation" for 1st July 2012 to 31st June 2013 was £23.4 million.
While we have indeed been frugal over the last 5 years or so, this has been during a period where we were buying land, drawing up plans and carrying out development for both the training ground and stadium site. The recent publication of the financial results indicate that having realised profits from divesting the phase 1 NDP development along with ancilary buildings to the West of the high road to ENIC we are now largely debt free, "negligible net debt" I think was the term used.
Levy has always stated that the new stadium project will be financed entirely separately from the football side of the operation and for once I actually believe him. If we cannot make the stadium pay for itself (as a minimum!) then there is absolutely no point at all in building it. We are at a stage now where we are apparently debt free and probably only require another £250 million to complete the stadium project. If I take a worst case scenario with low estimates on valuations and high estimates on borrowing costs then:
£100 million naming rights deal would leave £150 million to find.
£25 million income from selling the phase 3 site to a developer leaves £125 million to be borrowed.
Borrowing at a punitive rate of 7% would equate to £8.75M interest per annum.
The lower end estimates on the additional income our stadium would generate us each year is £25M.
That would mean completely paying the stadium off in around 5 to 10 years without impacting our existing football budget in any way.
Arsenal's stadium building significantly handicapped them financially for a good decade.
It didn't at all.... Take a look at Arsenal's wage bill since they left Highbury and you'll see that their new stadium had the complete opposite effect. Arsenal's huge amount of surplus cash in the bank also demonstrates this. They could've spent some or all of that cash in bank at any point over the last few years but had a board/manager that chose not to....
Perhaps they did this because they wanted to pay off the stadium completely instead of continuing to 'waste' money on interest on their loans? But to say that they hampered themselves financially isn't true at all. Do you think they would've been able to sustain a £150 million yearly wage bill while playing at Highbury?