Wembley cost more than that to build, if you include inflation. Wasn't the FA's money though, so why should they keep the proceeds of any sale?
In 2015-16 Wembley had an income of £370m. Add in the money from renting it to Chelsea and it's being given away. Why not swap it for some magic beans?
So the obvious question is why and the obvious way to find the answer is to follow the money. Who's really benefiting from this and by how much?
First things first, if I were a pro wrestler I would totally pick the name Action News Jax. What's telling is that the biggest question after this presentation was about Khan's previous pledge to redevelop a different part of Jacksonville and have the Jaguars at the heart of it, which obviously don't fit in with these plans - and when the response is to try and claim these plans are part of those plans, that's when it starts sounding iffy. Khan's statement to Fulham fans hardly helps matters, either, specifically this part... As you likely know, in addition to the privilege of serving as Chairman of Fulham Football Club, I am also owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars of the National Football League in the U.S. The Jaguars have played regular season home games at Wembley Stadium in each of the past five NFL seasons and will continue to do so at least through the 2020 season. The games the Jaguars play at Wembley are essential to the financial stability of the Jaguars in Jacksonville, which is one of the smallest markets in the NFL. If my ownership interests were to include Wembley Stadium, it would protect the Jaguars’ position in London at a time when other NFL teams are understandably becoming more interested in this great city. And the stronger the Jaguars are in London, the more stable and promising the Jaguars’ future will be in Jacksonville. While there is a possibility that he's using it to try and strongarm Jacksonville authorities into giving him what he wants (sort of like how Levy submitted a bid for the White Elephant the day before Haringey Council made their final decision on whether we could build our new stadium) the obvious question is why pick Wembley when he could just as easily say Orlando which is... a.) A hell of a lot closer to Jacksonville than London is b.) Already has a stadium that can handle NFL games, as the 65,000 capacity Camping World Stadium has hosted the Pro Bowl c.) Home to NBA and MLS franchises, while Jacksonville only has the Jaguars d.) A hotspot for college football, which is the exact same sport but matches take five times as long due to so many ****ing ad breaks e.) A potential advantage in the Draft, as Florida A&M and Bethune-Cookman play at the Camping World Stadium every season f.) A much bigger media market than Jacksonville is True there's a couple of obvious counter arguments, starting with Orlando having a quarter the population that Jacksonville does, and the franchise would be moving from being 199m from Tampa to 80m (although Tampa suck, so that might not be such an issue...) but considering the NFL's history of moving teams hither and thither I just picked Orland as it;s an obvious geographical example.
Unbelievable pic from @E14photographer. The best image of the whole thing so far... please log in to view this image
From today's Telegraph... Tottenham Hotspur are optimistic that Shahid Khan’s bid to buy Wembley could enhance their own agreement to host NFL games at their new stadium. Rather than fearing Khan’s Wembley bid could be bad for their own aspirations to tap into the NFL market, Tottenham hope it could enhance them. Two London venues could raise the profile of the NFL in this country and prompt more interest from America in games staged in England even further. It also opens up the possibility of a number of NFL teams coming over to England at once and playing a number of games between Wembley and Tottenham’s stadium – something that would be attractive to sponsors. Is it the truth or spin from the club to stave off Khan's push to stitch up the London market for NFL or protect the 'Jaguars turf' over here? It's impossible to tell. Thus far, the investment in NWHL is from the NFL collectively, whereas Khan is trying to buy Wembley himself. He's a bit of a strange duck, having bought Fulham and invested a lot of money and time in it, which is unlikely to earn him a great financial return and will always be behind 5 other London clubs, at least. If the sale goes through, the whole thing will take years to play out and I would think it very possible that Tottenham will have new owners/co-owners by then that bring a fresh dynamic to the whole thing and that probably from the US and it could very well be with an existing NFL owner.
So Fulham to play at Wembley and rent their cottage to the noisey chavs from dahn the road. Sounds a deal to me.
Looking very impressive now but the worrying thing is that latest reports reckon we are 2 months behind schedule whether that's true or not your guess is as good as mine.
As mentioned in Hack Watch, the Grauniad is the latest paper to repeat the "WHL2 has doubled the original budget" lie At this rate there isn't going to be a single paper being given press credentials next season...
On talk ****e this morning ray parlour said we were 3 months behind schedule, what the feck does he know .
Did they ever give a starting date for when the Library was going to allow them to compete with the likes of Bayern Munich etc ??
Even if the income is a bit less than that, nobody in their right mind sells off an asset that recovers even 20% of it's build cost each year - for about the same it cost to build (maybe less!)
Government comms overnight... 'The Government believes that all-seater stadia are currently the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at designated football matches in England and Wales, while continuing to work closely with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and football authorities to consider advances in technology and data that may enhance the existing policy. A debate in Parliament on this issue has been tabled for 25 June, when the nuances and complexities of sports ground safety will be covered in more detail.' Or in other words..... 'We've pushed this into the long grass and there'll be a totally meaningless debate when everyone's attention is elsewhere and Parliament is wound down for the Summer holidays. You're not getting safe standing on our watch in England and Wales and we'll wgnore the anomaly with Scotland. Now feck off you nasty little Plebs, with your nasty little game......'
It's very unfortunate that, on this occasion, safe standing is unlikely to get a fair hearing and will be likely to be turned down flat. One might have hoped that such an export success as the PL would have the ear of the Minister of DCMS and that would be an avenue but this government is so piss poor that there's no chance whatsoever. On another front it may work in our favour. It seems that due to the contribution of public monies, protective covenants were put on any sale of Wembley and that it can't be freely sold without the approval of those that contributed monies. I expect fear of public disapproval to kill the mooted sale, which can only be good for our purposes.
Expect to hear the phrase "The Taylor Report says..." an awful lot, even though the Taylor Report did not say all stadiums should be all-seater until the end of time - it merely recommended that, in order to meet the deadline the Report set for changes in stadium safety, rather than lengthy consultations with local authorities about safe standing and the costs that could entail the quickest and easiest approach would be to go all-seater. The real problem is twofold: any politician suggesting safe standing runs the risk of being shouted down by people bawling "Hillsborough" at them regardless of the facts that it's long been established (not least by the Taylor Report...funny how this keeps coming up, eh?) that it was a combination of overcrowding, police incompetence and poor stadium design that caused the disaster, and also because the second somebody gets so much as a skinned knee in a safe standing area they know that certain areas of the press will blow it out of all proportion and they'll be hounded out of office. There's one suggestion I have that could work, but I'm sure a lot of people aren't going to like it: Qatar should offer safe standing at their World Cup, because not only would that literally show the world that safe standing is feasible at the biggest tournament in international football, but it would go a hell of a long way to improving the PR of them holding the tournament in the first place.
