• 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

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

billyiddo said:
https://thespursreport.wordpress.co...n-arsenal-new-spurs-stadium-deep-dive-part-1/

Interesting blog post on financing of the stadium
Click to expand...
Interesting, but completely useless. He's comparing apples and oranges. He says Emirates cost 390-440 mill£ and ours, including the development to the south, between 675-750 mill£. In what value of the currency? There is a HUGE difference if the numbers for Emirates are in 2005 £ and ours i 2015 £,
and our total scheme is A LOT bigger than the Emirates, and will yield a lot more income from rent. So to compare these to projects is just not possible, or indeed relevant in any case.
Edit:
Also the development to the south of the stadium is not key or necessary to the viability of the STADIUM. They are really two separate schemes, and the funding of them are not reliant upon each other.
 
Last edited:
A few interesting things that I have taken from the KPMG documentation….

The club anticipate grossing an extra £70 million per annum from the new stadium. This is comprised of:
  • £30 million extra per annum from commercial and sponsorship deals (one would assume primarily stadium naming rights, but perhaps this also includes monies received from the NFL games and conferences/concerts, etc) From this I would imagine that the club are anticipating receiving close to £20 million a year in naming rights.
  • £23 million extra from corporate revenues. £36 million from 8,000 premium seats (= £4,500 per year for each premium seat) compared to £13 million from 3,000 premium seats currently (= £4,333 per year for each premium seat). On first glance this seems a high amount, but assuming only 20 games a year it is only £225 per seat per game and assuming 25 games that goes down to £180 per game (with the 10 year NFL link up I think they will have little problem shifting these).
  • £17 million additional review from 'ordinary' ticket sales. The sums here are based on 47,000 'ordinary' seats sold compared to 33,000 sold now. So they are anticipating the average revenue per extra supporter to be £17M / 14,000 = £1,200 per seat (a likely indication of the average season ticket cost at the new stadium perhaps?)
The KPMG numbers assume that we would continue to operate a wage bill at 45% of our turnover. On £70 million of additional turnover this would mean a potential amount of £31.5 million extra being allocated to the wage bill. This is equivalent to four new £150,000 a week players. Of course the club may instead look to use that money to pay down the debt more quickly.

KPMG estimate that the operating costs of the new stadium will be an additional £200,000 per game than at WHL currently. So if we assume 30 games/events per season that equates to an additional annual cost of £6 million. I wonder whether this might have implications for the deal that West Ham have done on the Olympic stadium? I am not sure what the cost of staging a game at WHL is currently, but if we assume that it is half this amount then we can estimate that it will cost a total amount of £300,000 to stage each game. If one assumes that the cost of hosting a game at the Olympic stadium is similar then it really does show the advantageous terms that West Ham have got there in paying a yearly rent of only £3 million and not having to cover operational costs.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Interesting, but completely useless. He's comparing apples and oranges. He says Emirates cost 390-440 mill£ and ours, including the development to the south, between 675-750 mill£. In what value of the currency? There is a HUGE difference if the numbers for Emirates are in 2005 £ and ours i 2015 £,

and our total scheme is A LOT bigger than the Emirates, and will yield a lot more income from rent. So to compare these to projects is just not possible, or indeed relevant in any case.

Edit:

Also the development to the south of the stadium is not key or necessary to the viability of the STADIUM. They are really two separate schemes, and the funding of them are not reliant upon each other.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that the estimated costs have jumped from £500 million a couple of years ago to £675 to £750 million (especially considering the bottom falling out of the steel market). I know the new stadium plans are more ambitious than the old ones, but have they really added 175 to £250 million pounds worth of costs to the project? I would love to see a full breakdown of the numbers, alas I doubt we'll ever get them.

I think that there is information out there that The Emirates stadium alone cost only £250 million to build. I'm not sure where the £390 to £440 million the author quotes comes from?.... Perhaps that was the total cost of Arsenal's project and not just the stadium build? Based on the £250 million figure for the Emirates I would've thought it unlikely that our new stadium would cost more than £350 - £400 million to develop. Labour costs have of course increased since Arsenal built the Emirates but steel costs have reduced significantly since then. Our internal finish will be a higher spec than Arsenal's and our build is of course complicated by the sliding pitch, but a budget 50% higher than Arsenal's Emirates cost would seem both sensible and achievable.

Personally I am rather skeptical of some of the numbers quoted in the documentation. If considering the development costs using £ per square metre of developed space, then the numbers are at the very top end of the scale, on par with very high spec, 5* developments.

Typically when developing land for residential use a rough way to calculate numbers is to assume one third to buy the land, one third to develop the land and one third profit (assuming zero financing costs). If we ignore the hotel, extreme sports centre, stadium, public space and concentrate solely on the 585 residential units alone I would've assumed:

An average sale price on the completed units of £300,000 = £175 million. Using this number you can then work back to get an expected cost of approx £58 million to acquire the land and total development costs of another £58 million (£100k per unit would seem reasonably standard to me for a development of the proposed scale).

Of course the land is already owned by us, so theoretically we should only be looking at having to find £58 million to build the properties to eventually bring in £175 million of revenue when sold. I think there would be a number of house builders prepared to complete the build at zero cost for (say) 50% of the sale price of the units (especially in a rising market). We then avoid having to finance the building of the residential units.

In theory the hotel and extreme sports centre could probably also simply be sold off plan as development sites to ensure we don't have to tie up any funds in developing these. Assuming this and us using a build partner to develop the residential properties I would've thought that we would only be looking at having to finance around £350 million to get this stadium delivered. That £350 million would be funded by a mixture of naming rights, long term corporate deals, multiple year up-front season ticket sales, debenture seats and perhaps a retail bond, with anything outstanding either being funded by bank loans and/or equity funding.

The £350 million bridging loan facility that the club have arranged via funding from 3 banks would seem to back this viewpoint up. It would seem to secure just about all of the funding required to build the stadium (without which we would seriously struggle to find a contractor willing to build it). How much of this we would need to draw down/when we could pay it back then depends on the size of the naming rights deal, etc.

The southern development is supposed to be an enabling one (i.e. contribute towards the cost of the stadium). However the KPMG report suggests it is anything but. I doubt that THFC are embarking upon the project on a leap of faith that house prices continue to rise at the same levels they have for the past few years. I can only therefore suspect that something strange is afoot in terms of the way that the costs are being allocated? I wonder for example whether some of the groundwork and the public realm costs are being attributed to the Southern development instead of the stadium?
 
Jordinho said:
The North stand holds 10k, depending on where you draw the lines I guess. There will be a serious shortage of tickets for that final half a season. Quite a few ST holders will miss out.
Click to expand...

Thats how I read it. Cant see how they possibly do it, 36k capacity less the 10k/ We have to provide a certain amount of seats for away fans, so no members would be able to get tickets, which would make perfection of having being charged a members fee, plus there would not be enough seats for all the ST's.
There would be uproar
 
paxtonwolf said:
Thats how I read it. Cant see how they possibly do it, 36k capacity less the 10k/ We have to provide a certain amount of seats for away fans, so no members would be able to get tickets, which would make perfection of having being charged a members fee, plus there would not be enough seats for all the ST's.
There would be uproar
Click to expand...
I think it is possible to get permission to have less/no away fans if developing the stadium. I think I can remember that happening at Highbury when Arsenal were developing the North Bank for example.

We have approx. 22,000 season ticket holders so in theory it would be feasible to close the North stand. However in practice I think it would be just about impossible due to there being a number of ST holders in that stand.
 
Any comparison with the Woolwich garden shed should start with the fact that there was nothing of import there before.


Or after.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Interesting, but completely useless. He's comparing apples and oranges. He says Emirates cost 390-440 mill£ and ours, including the development to the south, between 675-750 mill£. In what value of the currency? There is a HUGE difference if the numbers for Emirates are in 2005 £ and ours i 2015 £,
and our total scheme is A LOT bigger than the Emirates, and will yield a lot more income from rent. So to compare these to projects is just not possible, or indeed relevant in any case.
Edit:
Also the development to the south of the stadium is not key or necessary to the viability of the STADIUM. They are really two separate schemes, and the funding of them are not reliant upon each other.
Click to expand...

10.2 The Applicant is eager to bring forward the development of the SDL following construction of the stadium and associated works. The funding strategy for the stadium site is predicated on the basis of the SDL generating a receipt which will assist with an identified funding gap and this principle has been established by way of the extant consent and also as a robust viability methodology on other sites.
 
Bullet said:
Come on man, haven't you been watching this millennium? Fans are expendable, they'll put up with anything. Spurs could replace the seats with buckets of sick and they'd still attend.
Click to expand...

DanielLevy460.jpg
 
JerusalemMan said:
10.2 The Applicant is eager to bring forward the development of the SDL following construction of the stadium and associated works. The funding strategy for the stadium site is predicated on the basis of the SDL generating a receipt which will assist with an identified funding gap and this principle has been established by way of the extant consent and also as a robust viability methodology on other sites.
Click to expand...
Plus Levy made the redevelopment of the surrounding area a key condition for staying in Tottenham.
(That gentrification will also yield higher income from rents is just, ahem, a happy coincidence. ;))
 
Gutter Boy said:
AVB, Poch and Dembele have all complained about our small pitch.

Pitches have to be within a range. The allowed parameters are:
Length 100 to 130 yards
Width - 50 to 100 yards

Ours is the smallest in the league (110 x 73 yards), whilst City's is the biggest (116 x 75).
Click to expand...

Here it is metric

football-pitch-dimensions.jpg


with our fitness levels I say we should go for 120m X 90 m lol
 
We have been an innovative team from being the first to put ribbons on a cup to the first club to have undersoil heating ....


I think we make an electronic pitch that opens to max size permitted when we are on the attack and then quickly retracts to the smallest size permitted if in defence.
 
Bullet said:
I like that Gazza.

Maybe we could have a trapezoid pitch which is narrow at our end and wide at theirs, that flips at half time.
Click to expand...

..... and a mechanism to tilt the pitch in any direction to aid ball staying in or going out as required. And in invisible layer of glass, lightly tinted in rose ..... to enable the rest of us to admire every Eriksen performance as excellent.

Oops ... thread drift alert !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back