- Jun 4, 2004
- 60,381
- 130,344
- Staff
- #24,361
New time lapse to week ending 15th
Every once in a while it just hits ya. White Hart Lane is gone
New time lapse to week ending 15th
This week was probably one of the least spectacular if anything, but they are doing a lot of the groundwork for the new south stand, and what I think might be some of the workings for the retractable pitch (but what do I know!).Thanks for sharing, that was so fucking cool, they did that all in a week right? It's got me buzzing, that stadium will be of epic proportions
We will still have the memories, they can't take that away from us, and at least we are still on the old site, so it will always be WHL to me, no matter what they end up calling it.Every once in a while it just hits ya. White Hart Lane is gone
Every once in a while it just hits ya. White Hart Lane is gone
Am I the only one that thinks "fuck this stupid fucking stadium?" By all accounts, it is going to cost 800 million pounds. As far as I can tell, the difference in match day revenue between us and Arsenal (the highest) is 60 million pounds. So, being kind and ignoring the time value of money, it will take at least 13 years to pay off with the additional revenue. Then, even after it is paid off, there is no competitive advantage gained. Liverpool, our closest competitor financially, still generates 100 million pounds more a year. So we aren't in a better competitive position after the stadium is paid off. Meanwhile, we sit here and cry poor while having the best team we have seen in at least 30 years. Just my .02.
Am I the only one that thinks "fuck this stupid fucking stadium?" By all accounts, it is going to cost 800 million pounds. As far as I can tell, the difference in match day revenue between us and Arsenal (the highest) is 60 million pounds. So, being kind and ignoring the time value of money, it will take at least 13 years to pay off with the additional revenue. Then, even after it is paid off, there is no competitive advantage gained. Liverpool, our closest competitor financially, still generates 100 million pounds more a year. So we aren't in a better competitive position after the stadium is paid off. Meanwhile, we sit here and cry poor while having the best team we have seen in at least 30 years. Just my .02.
Am I the only one that thinks "fuck this stupid fucking stadium?" By all accounts, it is going to cost 800 million pounds. As far as I can tell, the difference in match day revenue between us and Arsenal (the highest) is 60 million pounds. So, being kind and ignoring the time value of money, it will take at least 13 years to pay off with the additional revenue. Then, even after it is paid off, there is no competitive advantage gained. Liverpool, our closest competitor financially, still generates 100 million pounds more a year. So we aren't in a better competitive position after the stadium is paid off. Meanwhile, we sit here and cry poor while having the best team we have seen in at least 30 years. Just my .02.
Am I the only one that thinks "fuck this stupid fucking stadium?" By all accounts, it is going to cost 800 million pounds. As far as I can tell, the difference in match day revenue between us and Arsenal (the highest) is 60 million pounds. So, being kind and ignoring the time value of money, it will take at least 13 years to pay off with the additional revenue. Then, even after it is paid off, there is no competitive advantage gained. Liverpool, our closest competitor financially, still generates 100 million pounds more a year. So we aren't in a better competitive position after the stadium is paid off. Meanwhile, we sit here and cry poor while having the best team we have seen in at least 30 years. Just my .02.
But isn't our product the football? Isn't our revenue largely generated by having a successful product? Isn't our club refusing to invest in the actual product in order to build this stadium? All of the clubs above us in earnings (save Arsenal) generate roughly the same from gate receipts. Their increased revenue is a direct or indirect result of being actually successful. Why would an investment of 800 million (or 100 million for that matter) not be better spent on the actual football? The answer seems simple:risk. There is less risk in the stadium. Building it gives ENIC a larger profit when they sell off. But as far as I can tell, using Arsenal as the closest example, there is no real competitive advantage gained. Arsenal's trophy haul is significantly diminished following their move to the Emirates. Arsenal Wenger admits that they spent the last ten years (roughly) paying it off. But their owners made a killing, so there is that.In most respects football is no different from any other industry you care to mention: If you stand still and refuse to invest in the future, not only will you stagnate you will pretty rapidly fall into decline.
Is that what you want for our club?
But isn't our product the football? Isn't our revenue largely generated by having a successful product? Isn't our club refusing to invest in the actual product in order to build this stadium? All of the clubs above us in earnings (save Arsenal) generate roughly the same from gate receipts. Their increased revenue is a direct or indirect result of being actually successful. Why would an investment of 800 million (or 100 million for that matter) not be better spent on the actual football? The answer seems simple:risk. There is less risk in the stadium. Building it gives ENIC a larger profit when they sell off. But as far as I can tell, using Arsenal as the closest example, there is no real competitive advantage gained. Arsenal's trophy haul is significantly diminished following their move to the Emirates. Arsenal Wenger admits that they spent the last ten years (roughly) paying it off. But their owners made a killing, so there is that.
But isn't our product the football? Isn't our revenue largely generated by having a successful product? Isn't our club refusing to invest in the actual product in order to build this stadium? All of the clubs above us in earnings (save Arsenal) generate roughly the same from gate receipts. Their increased revenue is a direct or indirect result of being actually successful. Why would an investment of 800 million (or 100 million for that matter) not be better spent on the actual football? The answer seems simple:risk. There is less risk in the stadium. Building it gives ENIC a larger profit when they sell off. But as far as I can tell, using Arsenal as the closest example, there is no real competitive advantage gained. Arsenal's trophy haul is significantly diminished following their move to the Emirates. Arsenal Wenger admits that they spent the last ten years (roughly) paying it off. But their owners made a killing, so there is that.
Are you forgetting the improvements to Tottenham as an area?Am I the only one that thinks "fuck this stupid fucking stadium?" By all accounts, it is going to cost 800 million pounds. As far as I can tell, the difference in match day revenue between us and Arsenal (the highest) is 60 million pounds. So, being kind and ignoring the time value of money, it will take at least 13 years to pay off with the additional revenue. Then, even after it is paid off, there is no competitive advantage gained. Liverpool, our closest competitor financially, still generates 100 million pounds more a year. So we aren't in a better competitive position after the stadium is paid off. Meanwhile, we sit here and cry poor while having the best team we have seen in at least 30 years. Just my .02.
I am not saying that there should be no investment in capital infrastructure. But in my mind, the training ground and the stadium are different kettles of fish. The training ground is designed to improve players and facilitate recruitment. There is no line item on the balance sheet that will determine the ROI. Instead, the returns are visible on the pitch. An endevour designed to improve the product (football). The stadium, on the other hand, has no affect on player improvement or recruitment. It is all balance sheet. And will be a large outflow of cash for the better part of at least a decade. But is ultimately an endevour entered into to improve the bank accounts of our ownership group.Tbh @SpurinChicago
In the long term no. We have already seen the benefits of the investment in the academy/training ground. The new stadium will bring in extra revenue that can be invested in the playing staff regardless of success (e.g. Cl football).