New Everton Stadium

[joey_macmo]

10-12 years is if we managed to triple the match day income and spent every penny of that amount on paying down the debt.

And?

We aren’t looking to pay it off for at least 25 years

 

[Dabluez]

And?

We aren’t looking to pay it off for at least 25 years

The longer the period to pay it off the more interest the Club would have to fund. Even if you look at us tripling our match day income which would mean a full Stadium at higher prices then even without interest a £500m Stadium would cost £25m a season over 20 years.

Meaning a matchday income after debt repayments of around £25m a season which is what we were earning in 2015 from Goodison.

To put that into perspective United and Arsenal earn around £100m a season from match day but have no Stadium debt to pay off.

 

[roydo]

The longer the period to pay it off the more interest the Club would have to fund. Even if you look at us tripling our match day income which would mean a full Stadium at higher prices then even without interest a £500m Stadium would cost £25m a season over 20 years.

Meaning a matchday income after debt repayments of around £25m a season which is what we were earning in 2015 from Goodison.

To put that into perspective United and Arsenal earn around £100m a season from match day but have no Stadium debt to pay off.

Not sure where to start.

Longer repayment term means lower annual payments. Arsenal have been in the Emirates for 10 years. United are still leveraged to their eyeballs, and havnt actually bought a new ground.

 

[Dr Baxter]

For 16/17 we had an average attendance of 39,310 that gave us a matchday income of just £14.5m. That constituted of the 19 Home League games, 1 FA Cup game and 2 League Cup games. That works out at around 650k per game which is just over £16 a seat.

Those kind of prices simply cannot pay for a £5-600m Stadium. It is pie in the Sky. Even if you trebled the match day revenue and spent the entire lot on paying off the Stadium it would still take 10-12 years to pay off the Stadium.

The only way it makes sense is to hugely increase the revenue per seat. That means a far bigger concentration of Corporate facilities combined with much higher ticket prices. I agree that cheap tickets especially for junior blues is a fantastic thing but the figures simply don't add up.

So I think it is more sensible to have a smaller initial Stadium that requires much less funding and for us to grow as the age of the fan base matures. The financial numbers simply don't add up for a 60-65k Stadium. Surely a 50k Stadium which generates enhanced revenues through corporates and higher ticket prices is better than a 65k pipe dream that will be canned because the numbers don't add up.

You've completely ignored the massive increase in spend by the average supporter. I'd calculculate I spend a total of less than a fiver a season inside Goodison. I would comfortably spend £25 pre, during and post match on beer alone if I could get served quickly a decent pint in a comfortable environment. I'd spend a few quid more on food as well. I suspect that what is planned will allow me and 50,000 other average Evertonians to spend freely inside and outside the ground. The corporate money is not even half the story when it comes to how revenue will be increased.

 

[blueblue]

The longer the period to pay it off the more interest the Club would have to fund. Even if you look at us tripling our match day income which would mean a full Stadium at higher prices then even without interest a £500m Stadium would cost £25m a season over 20 years.

Meaning a matchday income after debt repayments of around £25m a season which is what we were earning in 2015 from Goodison.

To put that into perspective United and Arsenal earn around £100m a season from match day but have no Stadium debt to pay off.

Inflation reduces the actual cost of the repayment over time.

Building a stadium now that in a short few years will not be large enough to meet the demand for tickets would be absolute lunacy.

A 60,000 iconic stadium on the waterfront will be something seen all over the world. I don't think people realise how big a deal this is. This can be a once in a century game changer, it is as important as that.

 

[Dabluez]

Not sure where to start.

Longer repayment term means lower annual payments. Arsenal have been in the Emirates for 10 years. United are still leveraged to their eyeballs, and havnt actually bought a new ground.

The issue is that over 25 years even the £280m council loan will cost us around £18m a season to service. Even that portion of the cost is more than our current match day income.

For me we need to look at hitting the sweet spot that maximises our revenue whilst minimising the cost of the Stadium. The whole point about the Stadium has to be allowing us to generate as much revenue as we can so we can compete on the pitch. It can't be a vanity project that looks to usurp the RS or incorporates seats that simply don't make economic sense.

If you look at Arsenal they went from the invincibles to also rans whilst funding the Emirates. That was a London Club charging London prices and generating a £100m+ match day income whilst banking the Champions League money year in year out.

 

[Barrowjohn]

Keep going back to the Friends Arena Stockholm. Multi purpose stadium with 50k football capacity, has a retractable roof and is a 65k concert venue making it an all year round venue. The middle and top tiers can be screened off for smaller events right down to 11k. Exterior has a transulscent skin and quite a distinctive Leitch style crisscross appearance.
Only change Id make is one end being steeply banked as a single tier home end and try and squeeze that capacity up to 55k

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

Keep going back to the Friends Arena Stockholm. Multi purpose stadium with 50k football capacity, has a retractable roof and is a 65k concert venue making it an all year round venue. The middle and top tiers can be screened off for smaller events right down to 11k. Exterior has a transulscent skin and quite a distinctive Leitch style crisscross appearance.
Only change Id make is one end being steeply banked as a single tier home end and try and squeeze that capacity up to 55k

This is one of the important aspects that is being largely overlooked in the current debate on here, the aim of nearly all the new grounds being built is to maximise not just match day revenue but year round revenue.
This won’t just be wedding or birthday events, but high end functions , conferences, seminars, examinations and any event that would pay to hire an iconic waterfront venue. The more impressive the venue the more people and businesses you attract and the more money you accrue.
If you can cater for music or other sports events such as boxing then that would go even further towards having a profitable constantly working building as opposed to one that’s effectively only open once every two weeks apart from the odd wedding.
Being able to do this is looking increasingly vital to clubs as TVmoney is finite and may already be reaching its high water mark. TV companies pay large sums because football brings in large numbers of viewers which in turn brings in the advertisers. But this is changing with streaming. Mainstream advertisers now freely advertise on the streams illegal or otherwise and consequently have less of their budget to spend on the traditional television companies.

 

[Jacko93]

They are consultants. In my mind the drawings have come through Meis been fed into BH, Who then can try and spot any problems with the movement of people/flooding etc.

Meis will design it. BH basically make it work. They've been involved with it from the very beginning. They're doing Structural, infrastructure and MEP design. Maybe a bit more than that as well.

 

[Jacko93]

For 16/17 we had an average attendance of 39,310 that gave us a matchday income of just £14.5m. That constituted of the 19 Home League games, 1 FA Cup game and 2 League Cup games. That works out at around 650k per game which is just over £16 a seat.

Those kind of prices simply cannot pay for a £5-600m Stadium. It is pie in the Sky. Even if you trebled the match day revenue and spent the entire lot on paying off the Stadium it would still take 10-12 years to pay off the Stadium.

The only way it makes sense is to hugely increase the revenue per seat. That means a far bigger concentration of Corporate facilities combined with much higher ticket prices. I agree that cheap tickets especially for junior blues is a fantastic thing but the figures simply don't add up.

So I think it is more sensible to have a smaller initial Stadium that requires much less funding and for us to grow as the age of the fan base matures. The financial numbers simply don't add up for a 60-65k Stadium. Surely a 50k Stadium which generates enhanced revenues through corporates and higher ticket prices is better than a 65k pipe dream that will be canned because the numbers don't add up.

Or they could look at making the stadium a 24/7 operation, own the surroingmding land and have additional incomes from corporate rent etc. No idea on what numbers that will generate, but surely possibility.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

This is one of the important aspects that is being largely overlooked in the current debate on here, the aim of nearly all the new grounds being built is to maximise not just match day revenue but year round revenue.
This won’t just be wedding or birthday events, but high end functions , conferences, seminars, examinations and any event that would pay to hire an iconic waterfront venue. The more impressive the venue the more people and businesses you attract and the more money you accrue.
If you can cater for music or other sports events such as boxing then that would go even further towards having a profitable constantly working building as opposed to one that’s effectively only open once every two weeks apart from the odd wedding.
Being able to do this is looking increasingly vital to clubs as TVmoney is finite and may already be reaching its high water mark. TV companies pay large sums because football brings in large numbers of viewers which in turn brings in the advertisers. But this is changing with streaming. Mainstream advertisers now freely advertise on the streams illegal or otherwise and consequently have less of their budget to spend on the traditional television companies.

This ^

The new facility on the river bank would be in constant use for corporate and private functions, it’s how modern well placed football grounds work these days. It’ll be a complete contrast to what we have now in that regard. That’s before we factor in the increase in matchday corporate / prawn sandwich brigade. The key to its success will be in no small part down to its location and hopefully iconic design. Exciting times, I wish they’d hurry up and put the plans out now.

 

[Yarrgh]

"Fan first" was the terminology on funding. lol

Before Christmas LFC said it would be built and they were weighing up a variety of funding options, though. I'd expect it to go ahead.

FSG hold the debt on the Main Stand and it's theirs to pay off rather than the club (no doubt something easily covered if/when LFC get sold for a billion and a half or whatever).

Big difference between that, though, and "here's your £600M bill".

Do you have to pay tax if you take the money out as a loan payment?

 

[davek]

Do you have to pay tax if you take the money out as a loan payment?

No idea.

In the case of FSG's loan: LFC pay the interest on it but FSG, not LFC, are the holders of the debt.

Compare and contrast with Moshiri's proposed confidence trick.

 

[indieman1]

No idea.

In the case of FSG's loan: LFC pay the interest on it but FSG, not LFC, are the holders of the debt.

Compare and contrast with Moshiri's proposed confidence trick.

I think, in the case of the RS, FSG provided an interest free loan to cover the whole cost but have required full repayment within five years? Might be remembering that wrong. Either way they ponied up the cash to get the thing built, saving the lucky gits the public period of uncertainty we are currently enduring.

There has been surprisingly little mention of the revised forward rate guidance issued by the bank of England (and similar in the States) but it has potentially huge implications for this project. Keep dragging our heels and we may find we miss our window of opportunity. The rate the council can obtain loan finance at is significantly influenced by Bank of England base rates. Delay by another twelve months and the base rate could easily be twice its current level. That won't be good news. Even the expectation that they will be rising soon won't help us.

 

[davek]

I think, in the case of the RS, FSG provided an interest free loan to cover the whole cost but have required full repayment within five years? Might be remembering that wrong. Either way they ponied up the cash to get the thing built, saving the lucky gits the public period of uncertainty we are currently enduring.

There has been surprisingly little mention of the revised forward rate guidance issued by the bank of England (and similar in the States) but it has potentially huge implications for this project. Keep dragging our heels and we may find we miss our window of opportunity. The rate the council can obtain loan finance at is significantly influenced by Bank of England base rates. Delay by another twelve months and the base rate could easily be twice its current level. That won't be good news. Even the expectation that they will be rising soon won't help us.

I have no doubt this scheme will be binned. Whether it's by pretext or not. You can add another £200M onto the £500M thus far quoted for it too.

Pure fantasy this.