Football money league (Deloitte)

[beachy]

We've fallen behind Brighton and Crystal Palace

 

[WelshBlue92]

We should've moved or completely redeveloped a generation ago, really - so we're playing a lot of catch-up.

The rest of the footballing world hasn't sat still while we have, so yes we've inched further and further behind.

yeah not getting Kings Dock arguably set us back decades. One of the great what ifs

 

[WelshBlue92]

Everton 27th with revenue of €218m (broadcast, matchday and commercial for 23/24 season).

For example this compares to Man City (€838m) and West Ham (€322m).

Clearly a huge opportunity to close the gap with BMD and associated sponsorships in place.

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/serv.../analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html

Hopefully the additional stadium revenue move us up to around the €300m mark which would make us top 20 in Europe.

 

[14_dollars]

West Ham basically get what they generate for football. They have to pay nothing for the stadium as the subsidy they get for the stewarding cancels out the tiny rent they pay for the stadium. It's the main reason why they will be able to outspend us for the next 30 years until we've paid off our ground.

West Ham is an interesting case.

There has been a huge recent focus on ‘fair market value’ and ‘arms length’ values when it comes to income to ensure that clubs are not receiving inflated sponsorship deals etc.

What about costs?

I would argue that West Ham’s rent at £4m per annum is way below a market level and they don’t pay for any capital expenditure (in the last financial year the tax payer picked up £21m of stadium costs including refurbishment).

I appreciate that this is less distasteful than Chelsea selling assets to themselves to avoid PSR issues but I do think that West Ham’s position gives them an unfair advantage.

 

[hallamblue]

The original plan for the London stadium was for the whole upper tier and roof to be removed to reduce the capacity as it was to be used as an athletics venue after the big event and would not nee the extra capacity. This was the plan when it began construction which was why Spuds wanted to level it and build a totally new ground. West Ham got what seemed a really great deal because they got the ground for a really small rent, but I read somewhere that the whole upper tier will need major work on it in the not so distant future because it was not meant to be there long term. Might affect them financially in the coming years.

If that happens Karen Brady will get Newham Council to pay them £100 million a year compensation!! Also won't happen as the LLDC/Council are skint. It was the only bad thing about the Olympics, Coe had it all worked out, 25,000 capacity athletics stadium and now it's a massive meccano set that looks really cheap but cost the taxpayer nearly a billion pounds. Thanks Boris!

 

[Drico]

We should've moved or completely redeveloped a generation ago, really - so we're playing a lot of catch-up.

The rest of the footballing world hasn't sat still while we have, so yes we've inched further and further behind.

And even now, with our seismic move close, our stadium will still be smaller than those of United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham, and City, and only of the same magnitude of Newcastle's, with Chelsea still to upgrade. Even Leeds will be matching us soon.

We lost 30 years. We better have a plan to expand the new stadium too. No time for resting on laurels. It's an arms race. We have definitely won the race to have the most beautifully-located stadium contest. But beauty can be monetised only so far. All we've done is jumped back ahead of Aston Villa.