Oh yea, absolutely mate. In the grand scheme of things, the money we make from hosting concerts, especially in the early years before the rest of the infrastructure is implemented, will be small scale, but, much longer term, it'll be a nice earner.
It's all about sweating your assets. Most of the overheads in running the stadium will be fixed, so anything else you can do with it which turns a profit is a nice bonus.
If you don't think it's worthwhile doing at all, then why are so many other clubs doing it ? If you're right, and it's not worth doing, then there's a lot of clubs being run by knobheads who know nothing about running businesses.
Look at the Etihad, admittedly owned by the council ( I think ? ), but rather than leave the place empty most of last summer, they decided to make a few extra quid by using the stadium to host gigs for Metallica, Muse, The Spice Girls, Foo Fighters, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran.
Well, it includes interest payments, off-hand, without delving into the accounts, I don't know how much of their debt ( if they have any ) they're chipping away at. On the off chance that you're actually interested, you ( and Bozo Barry ) can have a look at the accounts, they're publicly available at
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05204033
Most of these sorts of companies have an operating margin of 10 to 20% ( Academy Group who own the various Apollos and Academies are another example ). Given our business model will effectively be using spare capacity, I'd expect our operating margin for large events to be at the top of that range, so if we grow that fairly quickly to 5 to 10 million then it does two things :-
- Gives us a profit of 1 to 2 million a year, that we wouldn't otherwise have, to go towards paying the interest on the stadium and
- Increases our revenue, so gives us a bit more wriggle room on sponsorship from related parties ( ie USM ) under UEFA FFP rules.
But the financial wizards Charlie and Bozo on grandoldteam know better, so we might as well not bother.