who gives a ****......they will always be ****.
Really important stats thread
- Thread starter haslam
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Just think where Poch had you at the time mate, £200M to strengthen the team/squad or pay for an underground pitch (to be used twice a year) and some big posh changing rooms to be used as often.Cry baby ****s
You know i'm right Bro, just give me a thumbs up and no more if you are worried about your bredrens reaction.
The money was specific for the stadium...got nothing to do with transfers. They wouldn’t have happened regardless.
You’re windmilling all over the place with this debate Diego...before it was about the atmosphere and now something else
Go to bed, it’s late
On a serious note regarding football matters and Spurs, the new ground went roughly 100% over budget (not unusual for a big project to go over but 100% is bad).
It cost around £1B to complete at a time when Spurs had a great manager and were flying/competing in the league and Europe. Of that £1B i am prepared to guess (and it is only a guess) that the whole sliding pitch and NFL under pitch (plus additional extended changing rooms) cost around £200M.
That kind of money would have given the manager a good chance to improve the team further and strengthen the sqaud (he was crying out for backing) which could have led to Spurs actually winning something and making a name for themselves in the sport they are supposed to be in.
It would also have probably kept them in CL qualification places which is worth between £30M and £60M per season. Instead they have neglected the team and thrown an extra £500M into a hope that the NFL and concerts will pay the same £60M per season that the CL would.
Business man my arse
The long term borrowing for the stadium (pre COVID) when offset against the incremental revenue still yielded a net positive. I remember @PowerSpurs being across the detail when the subject came up previously. So no, it doesn’t work like that.
The effect of COVID and the complete loss of stadium revenue might cause a short term cash issue for them now, but that’s a separate issue, and effects every club.
Exactly right.
Even on @Diego numbers the stadium makes net revenue from day 1 so it creates cash for transfers rather than reducing it. Money spent on the stadium doesn't count towards ffp but revenue from it does.
Let's assume @Diego is right about the £200m cost of the sliding pitch. That increases interest charges by just over 5m per year and capital repayments are about 6m. So it needs to create £12m of extra income to break even. The two NFL matches pretty much do that by themselves.
That’s if the NFL games are hosted at WHL, if I was to bring my NFL franchise to London I would want the revenue myself, so buying Wembley for £700m would give me that, plus all the income from all the concerts and other events held there
The NFL games don't matter in the general scheme if things. I was just showing that you only need a couple of events per year to break even on the sliding pitch. The extra investment is only about a fifth of the cost incurred in buying Wembley and gets a much better venue. However if the outcome is an extra franchise for London then Tottenham has a huge chance of winning that which will be transformational for the club. Arsenal could have done all this. Instead you are stuck with a mediocre stadium which has barely altered your finances.
Not on a per game basis. Man Utd have that record. Liverpool have just had far more games than anyone else after confirming the title.
