Financial position

[Shadydan]

How was he inept?

What decisions did he make?

As far as I can remember he didn't drastically alter the formation or personnel that season.

I do remember we lost Ledley King to injury around the time we started to falter in the league,

I think that was part of the problem.

 

[jambreck]

Man City may have an extra 10,000 capacity on us, but uur ticket prices are higher than theirs - our most expensive season tickets are over twice the cost of theirs, whilst their match day tickets range from £26 - £58 compared with £32 - £81 for ours.

Their match day income of £40m against a capacity of 47,805 works out as £837 per seat for the season. Our £33m from a capacity of 36,284 works out as £910 per seat. Extrapolate that against the supposed capacity increase of the new stadium of 56,000 and our match day income would be up to around £51m.

Fully agreed in principle.

But the biggest difference for Spurs will be in doubling both the quantity and the quality of the corporate / club seating at the new stadium. So you can probably add another £15-20m to your calculations.

 

[nightgoat]

Fully agreed in principle.

But the biggest difference for Spurs will be in doubling both the quantity and the quality of the corporate / club seating at the new stadium. So you can probably add another £15-20m to your calculations.

Yeah, I suspect that's the main reason for Chelsea's match day income being so much higher.

 

[ItsBoris]

Man City may have an extra 10,000 capacity on us, but uur ticket prices are higher than theirs - our most expensive season tickets are over twice the cost of theirs, whilst their match day tickets range from £26 - £58 compared with £32 - £81 for ours.

Their match day income of £40m against a capacity of 47,805 works out as £837 per seat for the season. Our £33m from a capacity of 36,284 works out as £910 per seat. Extrapolate that against the supposed capacity increase of the new stadium of 56,000 and our match day income would be up to around £51m.

It would be quite a bit higher actually, since the main point of building the new stadium is not just to increase the number of seats but also to increase the number of corporate seats (boxes), which are of course the most expensive ones. The new stadium will generate more income per seat than we currently get.

 

[Lilbaz]

I believe that the emirates gets more from it's corporate than the whole of highbury generated. Even taking into account the increased prices.

 

[OmarsComing]

City are bankrolled, their commercial revenue is from an airline owned by sheik Mansur's family, it is a way for them to avoid ffp rules. We can't catch Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Utd, but the stadium will help level the playing field somewhat.

One interesting snippet is that despite our season tickets being around a third more expensive than Chelsea's, and our standard tickets more expensive too they make double what we make on a match day. That's 35m more than us a season. A partial explanation is that they get 100k more through the gate each season, but that will only explain a very small amount of it. The fact is they make almost as much as Arsenal, despite their yearly attendance being dwarfed by Arsenal's, and Arsenal having the most expensive tickets on the block. What's going on?

Hotel and I read their boxes in the new stand are 300k per season.

 

[sloth]

I think the stadium will help but it does seem we are behind on commercial revenue with the top clubs and I don't know why that is.

The club's with higher commercial revenue than us all benefited, over the last decade or so, from greater success on the field, meaning far larger global fan bases, plus in the case of City they achieved favourable deals from related parties paying over the going rate. In some cases, Arsenal, Liverpool, Utd, they were already very big clubs, which are a far bigger draw than we can hope to achieve in the near term.

The better comparison would be with the likes of Everton, Newcastle and Villa. They are club's who have the same claim to historic size as we do, they have suffered the same lack of success as we have during the PL era and they enjoy the same kind of global exposure we do. If we take a look though:

Everton: £13m commercial
Villa: £16m
Newcastle: £17m
Spurs: £57m

Basically we make more than our three rivals combined.

What is the reason for this do you think?

 

[wallyjakeman]

Cortese at Southampton and Gazidis at Arsenal were the highest paid.

Levy earns (from Spurs) probably less than a third what our best paid player earns.

And probably does three times as much work on the club's behalf.

Can he play left back?

 

[jambreck]

The club's with higher commercial revenue than us all benefited, over the last decade or so, from greater success on the field, meaning far larger global fan bases, plus in the case of City they achieved favourable deals from related parties paying over the going rate. In some cases, Arsenal, Liverpool, Utd, they were already very big clubs, which are a far bigger draw than we can hope to achieve in the near term.

The better comparison would be with the likes of Everton, Newcastle and Villa. They are club's who have the same claim to historic size as we do, they have suffered the same lack of success as we have during the PL era and they enjoy the same kind of global exposure we do. If we take a look though:

Everton: £13m commercial
Villa: £16m
Newcastle: £17m
Spurs: £57m

Basically we make more than our three rivals combined.

What is the reason for this do you think?

We clearly do earn far more commercial income than those three or any other PL clubs outside of the Sky 4 and Man City. Partly, that's because we do enjoy a greater global profile, having consistently outperformed those clubs over the past 8 years and having had some genuinely world class players in our ranks. And partly it's because Daniel Levy is a master of squeezing the very maximum out of our commercial value.

But, as I said earlier, I have a suspicion that Spurs include corporate hospitality sales under Commercial Activities rather than under Match Day income. That probably adds something like £15m to our commercial income. So a truer comparison would see our commercial income at £40-45m. Still far ahead of the others, mind.