Farhad Moshiri

[Jcr1878]

The stadium can be expanded to 62k if it’s all safe standing right?

 

[mistuhp]

BM is 52,888 capacity. Whether the capacity is too small or not is another question altogether. Would we sell out a 65k week in, week out, and how much more would it cost for that capacity?

So the additional amount of seats is less than I'd had stuck in my head? Either way, my main issue with the capacity is that you could literally get to that capacity at other sites for significantly less investment, with the exact same benefits to the club. I don't see how it's worth it to move sites entirely for a capacity less than 60,000, and at sites where you don't have to spend weeks filling in a river before you can start putting anything up, it probably would be cheaper to build to 55,000 that's expandable at those places than 52,888 non-expandable on the water.

If we say those two things alone bring in an extra 20 million, before we account for the uplift in prices for the rest of the 38k, more people spending money at the stadium due to the better facilities. Presumably giving up the Everton one store and the extra maintenance expenses for an aging stadium. It also doesn't account for cup games and the non matchday revenue, where tours, concerts and other events, alongside the bars and the restaurant/cafe/museum are going to generate previously unimaginable amounts compares to Goodison.

These elements may get you to £10-15M a year, if everything works out well, and the additional capacity would get between £15-20M a year, given an increase in capacity of about 13,500 and a ticket price of £60 per seat.

Our alternative could be as low as 7m but could easily be 10 to 15m if our marketing people do their job.

Arsenal, a club in a much bigger city with a much, much higher international profile, effectively make no more than £10M annually from stadium naming rights (Emirates pays £60M for that plus the shirt sponsorship, and shirt sponsorships for those clubs are going for over £50M these days). I would be beyond shocked if any non related party would pay even near £10M annually for naming rights on Bramley Moore.

The potential is there with a few home cup ties and some large summer concerts to push around 50-60 million in income.

The question then comes down to how much the final debt figure we will have to cover. Obviously at the moment it is covered by several lenders at astronomical interest rates. The first and most important job of any new owner is to consolidate this and turn it into a fixed long term mortgage. If they can do this for less than say 40m pa repayment then we start to make money compared to remaining where we are.

I genuinely think £60M is a very optimistic projection and we're looking at realistically closer to £35-45M in increased revenues off the stadium. Here's the thing: We're seeing reports that the interest rates the club is getting from lenders are around 12.5%. Unless another billionaire bought everything out to use the club as a plaything, I don't see how consolidation on a finished building would bring the interest rates on finance down to even 5%. If the final debts related to the stadium are around £500M, which I believe to be realistic (if optimistic), amortization over 20-30 years would be between £32-40M annually, and once you start getting into more realistic interest rates we cross into the £42-50M+ range really quickly, even going with longer amortizations.

A lot of what I'm saying is based upon simple assumptions of the markets, so I'm open to my assumptions being wrong, but a lot of the stuff in favor of this particular project and how it's being executed is based upon some assumptions that just seem to be bordering on the fanciful. And beyond that, even with optimistic projections of £60M of increased revenues with £35M of financing costs, £25M is not really a big reward relative to the risks involved, in terms of moving the club forwards. Realistically the club may potentially be £10M better off, but probably will be closer to breaking even on the deal even in the best of circumstances. Keep in mind that finishing 5 places higher in the league increases your revenues by over £10M.

Inflation over time will eat away at the real values of what the club pays, and the longer the amortization goes on, obviously the less annually will need to get paid, but there is no escaping that the amount that will have to get paid for this stadium will have an impact on the club for as long as the club has to pay for the thing, and there's no guarantee that the club will even break even on the thing over the next 10-15 years.

 

[jazzy]

So the additional amount of seats is less than I'd had stuck in my head? Either way, my main issue with the capacity is that you could literally get to that capacity at other sites for significantly less investment, with the exact same benefits to the club. I don't see how it's worth it to move sites entirely for a capacity less than 60,000, and at sites where you don't have to spend weeks filling in a river before you can start putting anything up, it probably would be cheaper to build to 55,000 that's expandable at those places than 52,888 non-expandable on the water.


These elements may get you to £10-15M a year, if everything works out well, and the additional capacity would get between £15-20M a year, given an increase in capacity of about 13,500 and a ticket price of £60 per seat.


Arsenal, a club in a much bigger city with a much, much higher international profile, effectively make no more than £10M annually from stadium naming rights (Emirates pays £60M for that plus the shirt sponsorship, and shirt sponsorships for those clubs are going for over £50M these days). I would be beyond shocked if any non related party would pay even near £10M annually for naming rights on Bramley Moore.


I genuinely think £60M is a very optimistic projection and we're looking at realistically closer to £35-45M in increased revenues off the stadium. Here's the thing: We're seeing reports that the interest rates the club is getting from lenders are around 12.5%. Unless another billionaire bought everything out to use the club as a plaything, I don't see how consolidation on a finished building would bring the interest rates on finance down to even 5%. If the final debts related to the stadium are around £500M, which I believe to be realistic (if optimistic), amortization over 20-30 years would be between £32-40M annually, and once you start getting into more realistic interest rates we cross into the £42-50M+ range really quickly, even going with longer amortizations.

A lot of what I'm saying is based upon simple assumptions of the markets, so I'm open to my assumptions being wrong, but a lot of the stuff in favor of this particular project and how it's being executed is based upon some assumptions that just seem to be bordering on the fanciful. And beyond that, even with optimistic projections of £60M of increased revenues with £35M of financing costs, £25M is not really a big reward relative to the risks involved, in terms of moving the club forwards. Realistically the club may potentially be £10M better off, but probably will be closer to breaking even on the deal even in the best of circumstances. Keep in mind that finishing 5 places higher in the league increases your revenues by over £10M.

Inflation over time will eat away at the real values of what the club pays, and the longer the amortization goes on, obviously the less annually will need to get paid, but there is no escaping that the amount that will have to get paid for this stadium will have an impact on the club for as long as the club has to pay for the thing, and there's no guarantee that the club will even break even on the thing over the next 10-15 years.

Absolutely correct. I've never understood the argument that the stadium is an answer to all our financial problems.

In fact in the short to medium term it's just the opposite.

 

[mistuhp]

And beyond that, even with optimistic projections of £60M of increased revenues with £35M of financing costs, £25M is not really a big reward relative to the risks involved, in terms of moving the club forwards. Realistically the club may potentially be £10M better off, but probably will be closer to breaking even on the deal even in the best of circumstances. Keep in mind that finishing 5 places higher in the league increases your revenues by over £10M.

Was thinking about this a bit more, and since it's specifically on the topic of Farhad Moshiri, wanted to add:

As much as I think other alternative projects could have been far superior for the club than this one, I was OK with it as long as Moshimanov just plunked down the cash for it. Anybody feel free to correct me on this, but one key part of the PSR charge is that instead of taking out external financing for the stadium specifically, the club has been doing it for operations even though on the operational side of things costs should have come significantly down over recent years, meaning that the method of financing things in general may result in the stadium's costs actually counting against us for FFP/PSR, when even by the strictest interpretations of those rules, they were not intended to do that.

If the financing doesn't count as an expense in the long run under FFP/PSR, the stadium sort of helps with compliance (as in, all that revenue increase can be invested in the squad). Unfortunately, unless there's cash flow backing up both the new financing and further squad investment, the squad investment that maximizes capabilities under the rules would require operational financing, which while having a ton of stadium debt would probably come with increased interest, which then would count against FFP/PSR in future years.

And all of that is specifically because Farhad Moshiri did not just fund things the way he said (or at least very strongly implied) he would.

 

[The binman chronicles]

my main issue with the capacity is that you could literally get to that capacity at other sites for significantly less investment, with the exact same benefits to the club.

They could have built on a brown site a cheaper, bigger stadium. Would that have captured the fan base's imagination? Would it yield the sponsorship benefits, concerts and so on being in the centre of town. Or at least what will become once the LW development expands out to BM.

These elements may get you to £10-15M a year, if everything works out well, and the additional capacity would get between £15-20M a year, given an increase in capacity of about 13,500 and a ticket price of £60 per seat.

For my calc I did 9k at £40, bear in mind that some tickets are at kid type prices, but I also wanted to go for lower than higher projected values. A standard GA ticket would probably be 65-70 at BM.

You can't calculate the full 13k at those values as that doesn't account for the increased capacity of the premium seating areas. There are 5 and a bit thousand of those at BM, compared to just over a thousand at Goodison. We know some of those tickets are 9k a season, most in the 3k to 5k That's £263 a game for a mid level price. The club have already come out and said they will make what they get from Goodison with just those 5k seats alone. So no 15-20, it will be 20 minimum, probably a lot more given my low projections and not counting the uplift.

Arsenal, a club in a much bigger city with a much, much higher international profile, effectively make no more than £10M annually from stadium naming rights (Emirates pays £60M for that plus the shirt sponsorship, and shirt sponsorships for those clubs are going for over £50M these days). I would be beyond shocked if any non related party would pay even near £10M annually for naming rights on Bramley Moore.

Arsenal were locked into a long term deal they signed in 2006. At the time that 10 million per year was good, very good. Now they probably have come out of that contract a while back, but like you say they renegotiate as a whole. Question is could Arsenal get a better whole package? The 2nd naming partner is never going to pay a lot more than the first as it's been known as the Emirates for nearly 20 years. Can they be hassled with changing everything all probably comes into play too.

The benefit we have over Arsenal is the our stadium is front and centre of the city, all the pictures of the iconic waterfront, all the tourists. The fact it has a bit of a different look for a football stadium along with it being a first naming partner should see us get 10. I will hold up my hands and say I was wrong if we don't.

Realistically the club may potentially be £10M better off, but probably will be closer to breaking even on the deal even in the best of circumstances. Keep in mind that finishing 5 places higher in the league increases your revenues by over £10M.

Even if it were 10, 10 million pounds is still 10 million pounds. That would probably see us avoid this 2nd PSR charge at least. Although it is true the stadium is the root cause of it, so that's the pain we are having to go through to get where we need to.

Performance wise that could mean perhaps instead of having 6 players on 70k pw, we can go and get 6 better players at 100k. Then we have a better footing to go on and get that 5 places further up the table to get 10 more million and so on.

It also gives us a faint hope that a wealthy individual or country might go you know what this is worth our investment. They aren't allowed to spend more than x amount on the pitch due to PSR, however they can use their cash to pay off the stadium debt/sponsor the stadium to boost income generated to enable us to spend more that way to get better. Now that may not happen, but it sure as hell wasn’t happening at Goodison.

 

[BullensRoad]

Rights and media have Green linked to them on many occasions. Anyway, does it matter? The financing of the stadium has been an absolute shambles and at the moment it is a millstone around our necks, the stadium should be a huge plus, but, because of Moshiri's fiscal incompetence, it has the potential to be the thing that puts us into administration or liquidation.

I’ll agree on that, but I think the benefits will outweigh the debts. Wether that’s the huge income from hospitality and catering, naming rights, multi seasonal use (it has like 6 changing rooms or something - not sure if it’s for concerts or some sports tournaments).

On a side note I’m also being a bit too optimistic that it will attract a serious investor due to its location and the potential for the surrounding area in between the stadium build and the city, but see what happens.

 

[BullensRoad]

Yeah I agree. We just need to look at Casement Park for an example. Was originally quoted as £77 million is now possibly as much as 300. That's for a 32k using the typical materials you would see in a cheaper build such as St Mary's and alike.

Not sure about the facts on this but materials such as steel would have definitely gone up due to the war. Hoping we had fixed costs (maybe with some manoeuvre with force Majuer).

 

[Yarrgh]

Don't let the door on your way out Farhad.

 

[trueblue84]

So the additional amount of seats is less than I'd had stuck in my head? Either way, my main issue with the capacity is that you could literally get to that capacity at other sites for significantly less investment, with the exact same benefits to the club. I don't see how it's worth it to move sites entirely for a capacity less than 60,000, and at sites where you don't have to spend weeks filling in a river before you can start putting anything up, it probably would be cheaper to build to 55,000 that's expandable at those places than 52,888 non-expandable on the water.


These elements may get you to £10-15M a year, if everything works out well, and the additional capacity would get between £15-20M a year, given an increase in capacity of about 13,500 and a ticket price of £60 per seat.


Arsenal, a club in a much bigger city with a much, much higher international profile, effectively make no more than £10M annually from stadium naming rights (Emirates pays £60M for that plus the shirt sponsorship, and shirt sponsorships for those clubs are going for over £50M these days). I would be beyond shocked if any non related party would pay even near £10M annually for naming rights on Bramley Moore.


I genuinely think £60M is a very optimistic projection and we're looking at realistically closer to £35-45M in increased revenues off the stadium. Here's the thing: We're seeing reports that the interest rates the club is getting from lenders are around 12.5%. Unless another billionaire bought everything out to use the club as a plaything, I don't see how consolidation on a finished building would bring the interest rates on finance down to even 5%. If the final debts related to the stadium are around £500M, which I believe to be realistic (if optimistic), amortization over 20-30 years would be between £32-40M annually, and once you start getting into more realistic interest rates we cross into the £42-50M+ range really quickly, even going with longer amortizations.

A lot of what I'm saying is based upon simple assumptions of the markets, so I'm open to my assumptions being wrong, but a lot of the stuff in favor of this particular project and how it's being executed is based upon some assumptions that just seem to be bordering on the fanciful. And beyond that, even with optimistic projections of £60M of increased revenues with £35M of financing costs, £25M is not really a big reward relative to the risks involved, in terms of moving the club forwards. Realistically the club may potentially be £10M better off, but probably will be closer to breaking even on the deal even in the best of circumstances. Keep in mind that finishing 5 places higher in the league increases your revenues by over £10M.

Inflation over time will eat away at the real values of what the club pays, and the longer the amortization goes on, obviously the less annually will need to get paid, but there is no escaping that the amount that will have to get paid for this stadium will have an impact on the club for as long as the club has to pay for the thing, and there's no guarantee that the club will even break even on the thing over the next 10-15 years.

Absolutely correct. I've never understood the argument that the stadium is an answer to all our financial problems.

In fact in the short to medium term it's just the opposite.

When did Emirates sign the naming rights deal? If it hasn't been renegotiated since the original deal, it will be way less than they could get now. I do agree that we are probably looking at 20-30m for total deal.

However, you have to factor in that we now have actual corporate hospitality, which has sold out for the next 3 years. Add in a definite ticket price hike (I reckon about 75 quid increase per season ticket) over a bigger capacity as well as potential non-footballing revenue (concerts etc). The stadium won't make us rich, but it will massively increase revenue and hopefully make us more attractive for commercial deals, and financial restructuring.

 

[Cork Evertonian]

Three successive relegation battles in a row. Outside circumstances were behind this season's relegation battle, but little did we know back in 2016 that this fella would lead us into the bleakest and most miserable period of our entire history. How depressing!

 

[maccavennie]

Ebening Jiim we got 4 points back and James McCarthy is still family

 

[matty1878]

Don't let the door on your way out Farhad.

the door that leads to the empty office

 

[Cork Evertonian]

Looking at hurling and gaelic football, the main GAA stadium in Cork Pairc Ui Chaoimh was demolished and redeveloped a few years ago.

The costs involved in the project went way overbudget. There wasn't competent planning put into the project with regards to the projected costs.

Despite having Munster rugby matches and Ed Sheeran concerts there, the stadium debt is still way over 30 million euros!

That debt is going to take at least a generation to pay off, and that debt is hurting Corks chances of competing for success, when our main financial resources are being diverted towards paying off the stadium debt.

I fear that the new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock will be a similar financial burden on Everton.

Having a nice and shiny new stadium is all well and good, but if this thing ends up being a financial burden and millstone on the club, then this is a poisoned chalice that we could very much do without imo.

 

[Dublin blue 75]

Looking at hurling and gaelic football, the main GAA stadium in Cork Pairc Ui Chaoimh was demolished and redeveloped a few years ago.

The costs involved in the project went way overbudget. There wasn't competent planning put into the project with regards to the projected costs.

Despite having Munster rugby matches and Ed Sheeran concerts there, the stadium debt is still way over 30 million euros!

That debt is going to take at least a generation to pay off, and that debt is hurting Corks chances of competing for success, when our main financial resources are being diverted towards paying off the stadium debt.

I fear that the new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock will be a similar financial burden on Everton.

Having a nice and shiny new stadium is all well and good, but if this thing ends up being a financial burden and millstone on the club, then this is a poisoned chalice that we could very much do without imo.

Is the problem there not more to do with the very inconvenient location and zero transport links or any other facilities around it? Might a rebuild more centrally have made more sense?

 

[EFC_FRANCIS]

Is the problem there not more to do with the very inconvenient location and zero transport links or any other facilities around it? Might a rebuild more centrally have made more sense?

Wait till you hear about the location of BMD lol