chicken: Someone explained to you in the past that a business tenancy is not a negative thing. A lot of big companies rent their premises. Canary Wharf is owned by landlords who rent it out, on long term tenancies, to banks such as Barclays and Citibank.
You are seeing the word 'tenant' (or 'tennant', as you refer to it) and coming up with negative connotations without actually understanding what it means.
myhammers
What is Chicken doing talking about old
Dr Who's?
Not the old but "you won't own it" stuff surely? I guess that means he thinks Spurs will have to remortgage thier new as soon (if at all
) it's completed. Because the ability to borrow against the property itself is about the only bonus free hold ownership brings.
myhammers
I completely understand the word tennant. In short, you can never sell the stadium because it is not yours - in fact, you're not even the tennant.
But even if you do become the tennant, if the stadium is ever sold, whether it be in 300 years time, West Ham do not get a penny.
Do you think if West Ham are given the tennancy, G&S can put it on the market & bank the money from its sale?
Oh & i see my stalker is still following me about & answering all my posts.
Banks don't tend/need to buy property because that is not their core business. And for the properties they occupy, they usually have the capital in abundance to buy them.
Football clubs OTOH, property (specifically stadia) are a big deal. If for every bum on a seat, you are immediately losing x% to the landlord, that is %x you are not able to use yourself.
Tenancy is the only option for clubs like the s. Not because of the financial arguments, but because they do not have the current capital, nor the market power to attract backing, to construct a stadium akin to most of the PL top 3/4 wannabees.
If you have to beg to a poor borough council like Newham for half of a mere 90m, go figure.
The major flaw in giving away free tickets to kids of course is that a full-paying adult will have to accompany them. West Ham struggle to sell out their ground as it is for lesser games and when you take away the kids for a quid deal you are probably only left with 20-25k full paying punters.
At the OS, taking in to account the rent that will have to be paid, the cut of revenue and the repayments of the loan, I can't see how it would work out commercially viable for West Ham. Not to mention the soulless nature of a not-full stadium having a negative effect on the team.
The only way I see that it can work out is if a wealthy benefactor comes along, and that is not only a huge gamble but not even a guarantee if FFP does come in.
Fair points, particular that about rent, but the figure given in the latest articles I've seen is £2m a year, hardly a huge amount in footballing terms. It's for instance less then Kevin Nolan gets paid in the same
ammount
of time.
As for bums on seats, demand for playoffs etc proves the fans are out there, so it's just making the games attractive to them.
2m a year is still 2m a year. What sort of interest would there ve to pay on your loan? Would there also be a levy on every ticket you sell?
I'm trying to wind you up here, despite my earlier jokey comments. I often wonder if it is actually worth Spurs spending so much money on a new stadium when weighed against similar worries. I don't think we will have trouble filling the ground, but our overheads would be a lot higher obviously
"I often wonder if it is actually worth Spurs spending so much money on a new stadium when weighed against similar worries. I don't think we will have trouble filling the ground, but our overheads would be a lot higher obviously"
Two decades of the Sky 4 has distorted access to the CL piggie trough. Only a Sugga Daddy FC can seriously break in.
So in order to buy the talent needed, pay their wages etc, you need a solid revenue stream. Outside of continual success (PL/CL winner etc) , a larger stadium is one such stream.
RBDB - how about the extra revenue being offset against the repayments and interest of the debt?
What is the ballpark figure for the NP redevelopment?
What sort of interest would we be looking to have to back per year and for how long?
How much is the projected increase in match day revenue?
It obviously must make sense to do it, but using very simplistic calculations based on uncertain sums it doesn't look great.
Dramatic,
As for bums on seats, demand for playoffs etc proves the fans are out there, so it's just making the games attractive to them.
=====================
This would be a good point, if you were playing in a playoff final every 2 weeks, opposed to a playoff final every 2 years.
I'm travelling at present so using the mobile. I think before I put it at 400m, paying back over 20yrs at 5% interest. The extra 20k fans bringing in about £25m per season extra.
Like I said, very simplistic! Obviously inflation eats away at the relative worth of the debt, and with the increase in corporate boxes the revenue would more than likely be higher.
I wouldn't mind actually seeing the official projections to be honest, I am more than likely well wide of the mark
HRH
Hopefully the sale of the Boleyn will mean no loan, or only a minimal one will be needed.
No talk of a levy on seat sales, though one source I read mention a percentage of food and drink sales, tbh it's obviously all guess work at present.
The general rationale is spot on.
Probably the specifics would differ (ENIC might have access to cheaper loan capital etc) .
The extra 20k fans bringing in about £25m per season extra.
---
The day Spurs fill 56k stadium week in and week out is the day pigs fly in north London.
Ever heard of police helicopters?
Maf,
Did you have a nice holiday?
Dramatic.............................Also I don't believe the question of potential aid for the new Spurs ground will now not simply go away. If part of the conditions for the new north London ground is to improve local infrastructure then any government grant could be argued to constitute aid to the club.
________________________________________
The difference is that Stratford has been regenerated already, whereas Tottenham has been designated as an area of deprivation by the EEC, therefore regeneration funding is actually overdue and part of this funding involves local infrastructure such as transport, amenities, retail outlets and leisure.
As we are providing the new Sainsbury's, a new Hilton hotel, and a leisure park I think it is safe to say that Haringey's & the Governments contribution will be transport & road improvements.
I thought that Newham were now investing in the OS separately to WHU bid?
Their bid is in relation to jobs for local residents and use of the facilities and some return in terms of revenues. Newham have no say in outcome of tenancy award for Stadium.
The main problem you have in East London re increasing support is the current demographics..................................the vast majority of the population in the area (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Walthamstow, Hackney are of a very mixed ethnic background from areas such as Somalia, Pakistan & other such countries who have little or no background or interest in football. Allied to the very high unemployment amongst this immigrant population, where are you going to draw your extra spectators from if you want to fill the OS?
Go any further afield and you are in the catchment ares of other clubs. Giving away tickets as a long term marketing plan has inherent flaws, it certainly does not create loyalty.................................
Allied to the very high unemployment amongst this immigrant population, where are you going to draw your extra spectators from if you want to fill the OS?
---
If you keep winning the games then people come and see you. Look at Arsenal.
muffinboy..........................................As I posted this on the Hammers board I fully expected your input, even though they are often totally wrong.
Thanks for proving me right, with your latest comment.
Arsenal have always (like Spurs) had a bigger fan base than Highbury could accommodate which if I remember correctly was around 38,000. They also like Spurs do now, had a waiting list for season tickets of around 18,000+ which in turn accounts for regular crowds at The Emirates now of 57-60,000.
I certainly think its fanciful to compare WHU with Arsenal, certainly considering the way Arsenal have played over the past 10-12 years. They have been very consistent in finishing in the top 4, mind you West Ham have been consistent too: Relegation, promotion, relegation promotion........
How can you predict the future of such a volatile game football, based on the last 8 years history? If you do, you could become a richest person on earth.
Where were Man City in the last decade?
Sign in if you want to comment
Reasons behind OS Decision Delay?
Page 3 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 16/10/12
chicken: Someone explained to you in the past that a business tenancy is not a negative thing. A lot of big companies rent their premises. Canary Wharf is owned by landlords who rent it out, on long term tenancies, to banks such as Barclays and Citibank.
You are seeing the word 'tenant' (or 'tennant', as you refer to it) and coming up with negative connotations without actually understanding what it means.
posted on 16/10/12
myhammers
What is Chicken doing talking about old
Dr Who's?
Not the old but "you won't own it" stuff surely? I guess that means he thinks Spurs will have to remortgage thier new as soon (if at all
posted on 16/10/12
) it's completed. Because the ability to borrow against the property itself is about the only bonus free hold ownership brings.
posted on 17/10/12
myhammers
I completely understand the word tennant. In short, you can never sell the stadium because it is not yours - in fact, you're not even the tennant.
But even if you do become the tennant, if the stadium is ever sold, whether it be in 300 years time, West Ham do not get a penny.
Do you think if West Ham are given the tennancy, G&S can put it on the market & bank the money from its sale?
Oh & i see my stalker is still following me about & answering all my posts.
posted on 17/10/12
Banks don't tend/need to buy property because that is not their core business. And for the properties they occupy, they usually have the capital in abundance to buy them.
Football clubs OTOH, property (specifically stadia) are a big deal. If for every bum on a seat, you are immediately losing x% to the landlord, that is %x you are not able to use yourself.
Tenancy is the only option for clubs like the s. Not because of the financial arguments, but because they do not have the current capital, nor the market power to attract backing, to construct a stadium akin to most of the PL top 3/4 wannabees.
If you have to beg to a poor borough council like Newham for half of a mere 90m, go figure.
posted on 17/10/12
The major flaw in giving away free tickets to kids of course is that a full-paying adult will have to accompany them. West Ham struggle to sell out their ground as it is for lesser games and when you take away the kids for a quid deal you are probably only left with 20-25k full paying punters.
At the OS, taking in to account the rent that will have to be paid, the cut of revenue and the repayments of the loan, I can't see how it would work out commercially viable for West Ham. Not to mention the soulless nature of a not-full stadium having a negative effect on the team.
The only way I see that it can work out is if a wealthy benefactor comes along, and that is not only a huge gamble but not even a guarantee if FFP does come in.
posted on 17/10/12
Fair points, particular that about rent, but the figure given in the latest articles I've seen is £2m a year, hardly a huge amount in footballing terms. It's for instance less then Kevin Nolan gets paid in the same
ammount
posted on 17/10/12
of time.
As for bums on seats, demand for playoffs etc proves the fans are out there, so it's just making the games attractive to them.
posted on 17/10/12
2m a year is still 2m a year. What sort of interest would there ve to pay on your loan? Would there also be a levy on every ticket you sell?
I'm trying to wind you up here, despite my earlier jokey comments. I often wonder if it is actually worth Spurs spending so much money on a new stadium when weighed against similar worries. I don't think we will have trouble filling the ground, but our overheads would be a lot higher obviously
posted on 17/10/12
"I often wonder if it is actually worth Spurs spending so much money on a new stadium when weighed against similar worries. I don't think we will have trouble filling the ground, but our overheads would be a lot higher obviously"
Two decades of the Sky 4 has distorted access to the CL piggie trough. Only a Sugga Daddy FC can seriously break in.
So in order to buy the talent needed, pay their wages etc, you need a solid revenue stream. Outside of continual success (PL/CL winner etc) , a larger stadium is one such stream.
posted on 17/10/12
RBDB - how about the extra revenue being offset against the repayments and interest of the debt?
What is the ballpark figure for the NP redevelopment?
What sort of interest would we be looking to have to back per year and for how long?
How much is the projected increase in match day revenue?
It obviously must make sense to do it, but using very simplistic calculations based on uncertain sums it doesn't look great.
posted on 17/10/12
Show your workings.
posted on 17/10/12
Dramatic,
As for bums on seats, demand for playoffs etc proves the fans are out there, so it's just making the games attractive to them.
=====================
This would be a good point, if you were playing in a playoff final every 2 weeks, opposed to a playoff final every 2 years.
posted on 17/10/12
I'm travelling at present so using the mobile. I think before I put it at 400m, paying back over 20yrs at 5% interest. The extra 20k fans bringing in about £25m per season extra.
Like I said, very simplistic! Obviously inflation eats away at the relative worth of the debt, and with the increase in corporate boxes the revenue would more than likely be higher.
I wouldn't mind actually seeing the official projections to be honest, I am more than likely well wide of the mark
posted on 17/10/12
HRH
Hopefully the sale of the Boleyn will mean no loan, or only a minimal one will be needed.
No talk of a levy on seat sales, though one source I read mention a percentage of food and drink sales, tbh it's obviously all guess work at present.
posted on 17/10/12
The general rationale is spot on.
Probably the specifics would differ (ENIC might have access to cheaper loan capital etc) .
posted on 17/10/12
The extra 20k fans bringing in about £25m per season extra.
---
The day Spurs fill 56k stadium week in and week out is the day pigs fly in north London.
posted on 17/10/12
Ever heard of police helicopters?
posted on 17/10/12
Nice joke..
posted on 18/10/12
Maf,
Did you have a nice holiday?
posted on 18/10/12
Hey Maf
posted on 18/10/12
Dramatic.............................Also I don't believe the question of potential aid for the new Spurs ground will now not simply go away. If part of the conditions for the new north London ground is to improve local infrastructure then any government grant could be argued to constitute aid to the club.
________________________________________
The difference is that Stratford has been regenerated already, whereas Tottenham has been designated as an area of deprivation by the EEC, therefore regeneration funding is actually overdue and part of this funding involves local infrastructure such as transport, amenities, retail outlets and leisure.
As we are providing the new Sainsbury's, a new Hilton hotel, and a leisure park I think it is safe to say that Haringey's & the Governments contribution will be transport & road improvements.
I thought that Newham were now investing in the OS separately to WHU bid?
Their bid is in relation to jobs for local residents and use of the facilities and some return in terms of revenues. Newham have no say in outcome of tenancy award for Stadium.
The main problem you have in East London re increasing support is the current demographics..................................the vast majority of the population in the area (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Walthamstow, Hackney are of a very mixed ethnic background from areas such as Somalia, Pakistan & other such countries who have little or no background or interest in football. Allied to the very high unemployment amongst this immigrant population, where are you going to draw your extra spectators from if you want to fill the OS?
Go any further afield and you are in the catchment ares of other clubs. Giving away tickets as a long term marketing plan has inherent flaws, it certainly does not create loyalty.................................
posted on 18/10/12
Allied to the very high unemployment amongst this immigrant population, where are you going to draw your extra spectators from if you want to fill the OS?
---
If you keep winning the games then people come and see you. Look at Arsenal.
posted on 18/10/12
muffinboy..........................................As I posted this on the Hammers board I fully expected your input, even though they are often totally wrong.
Thanks for proving me right, with your latest comment.
Arsenal have always (like Spurs) had a bigger fan base than Highbury could accommodate which if I remember correctly was around 38,000. They also like Spurs do now, had a waiting list for season tickets of around 18,000+ which in turn accounts for regular crowds at The Emirates now of 57-60,000.
I certainly think its fanciful to compare WHU with Arsenal, certainly considering the way Arsenal have played over the past 10-12 years. They have been very consistent in finishing in the top 4, mind you West Ham have been consistent too: Relegation, promotion, relegation promotion........
posted on 18/10/12
How can you predict the future of such a volatile game football, based on the last 8 years history? If you do, you could become a richest person on earth.
Where were Man City in the last decade?
Page 3 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10