West Ham & Spurs could overtake us

Just looking at the plans for the new Spurs stadium and it dawned on me that in the next few years, not only will we see Arse, Chelsea, Man U & C above us in terms of financial clout, but Spurs and West Ham could also overtake us.

The reasons are :
New 55k Olympic stadium for West Ham, virtually free of charge and Spurs building a new 60k stadium. Both London clubs and therefore can charge a fortune for season tickets, new TV revenue monies. This will give both these clubs much greater financial clout in buying better players.

There is also the London factor that attracts the better player. Look how we missed out on Sanchez and look at all those players we tried to buy before they went to Chelsea - Salah etc . In the past even Spurs beat us to a number of players we were after such as Dempsey.

Once these two London giants get the revenue from their new grounds, I'm really afraid to say we're going to drop down the peckering order of English football even further.

 

bollox my first attempt at a thread and I cant even spell West in the f'ing title box

 

You realise we are also expanding to 60k? And gate receipts are not a huge proportion of revenue compared to TV and commercial income tbh. 5 more years without CL though, that's what will hurt us. Not West Ham moving grounds.

 

Spurs are having to pay for thiers

West ham yes they are getting it free but it may not be all sweetness and roses. their owners are doing it to sell. they've been doing it since they first bought in and have had both eyes on the big sale since.

I agree our ground development is being done a certain way but it will be more sustainable. We will hit 55k and then hopefully will trigger the anfield road end.

but in reality to get to 75k we need counicl help with planning and a rail link for crowds.

However if you look at it 4 "big" clubs in london = too much competition. Cheslea are building a new ground but have thier global fan base only from massive success. they two won't just be able to build a fan base as they won't take trophies.

the reality is the money is there for all of them due to prem league tv money... stoke and southampton can catch us too.

The only way to not slip down the order is to spend very wisely.

 

Wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't drawn attention to it

.... and WH and Spurs will never overtake us in anything .... ever ...

please log in to view this image

 

I'm not so sure we'll get to 60k, but even so, our season tickets are £800.00 ish and Arsenals cheapest are £1,014.00.
I agree TV monies is more important but, once those clubs have more pulling power, based in London, in their new stadia, then they'll be shown on TV more and get more revenue and better players, etc etc
Also Spurs have just signed a 10year deal in their unbuilt new stadium for American NFL games to be played. This will be a huge revenue stream and give Spurs massive coverage in the states.
I've followed the reds since the early 80's and never dreamed that Chelsea and City would not only be our rivals but overtake us.
We shouldn't, musn't be complacent. They are a risk to our position.

 

Don't fret. 'Wets' is much better

 

Who's the flange in your avatar?

 

Dont look at the final league table...

 

Fixed the title for you.

 

true but I did mean status wise

 

Overtake? We're already ahead, you mean to ask whether we'll lap you surely?

Whether we have more financial clout than you, or not, it doesn't matter if you keep wasting the money. Think it's a big risk giving Rodgers charge of this summer's dealings, when you're spending large amounts you want to be giving it to a manager that is building something for the long term, not one that's under pressure. We made that mistake with AVB, although to be fair he had just come off the back of a good first season.

I wouldn't worry about West Ham though, they've just got rid of the best manager they've had for years and given the new manager a tougher set of targets. There revenue boost won't mean much they're already selling tickets for a quid at their current stadium, an extra £20,000 a week isn't going to make a big difference.

 

What do you think of your NFL deal, Yid V? Will the added revenue compensate for what will be a choppy pitch at best?

 

there can't be that many games a year TBH. it is a nice earner i'm sure but i would say sharing with a rugby team would cost more.

 

Some professional diver/soldier called Dagi.

 

Thanks, look less like a noob.

 

We're having a retractable artificial pitch installed in the new stadium which will be used for NFL games and potentially concerts or whatever else we fancy hosting. Looks like a good deal to me, potentially very lucrative and with no downsides from what I can see.

 

Hullo Doll

 

The downside will be when Spurs games come in between the music and the Yankee rugby.

 

West Ham stadium will be disastrous because there will be a huge running track around it (fans far away from players, not intimidating for away teams) and it probably won't be filled every week which as we've seen with clubs like Wigan, Blackburn etc. kills the atmosphere and usually results in lacklustre performances.

As for Spurs it might be a good plan but that would be if we decided to pretend most of the extra £££ made out of the stadium won't be going into Levy's pocket and it will be going toward strengthening the team & squad.