New Stadium Details And Discussions

[vicbob]

Oh well, that lasted a long time

 

[Mornstar]

the timing of the new stadium build and opening has to go down as the mother of all spursys (or spursies?) for me

 

[thekneaf]

We'll be super charged when crowds return

 

[Wine Gum]

Spursy would have been the Pandemic occurring during the build or refinancing.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Have just got the book Destination Tottenham , little bit of trivia about the stadium , might have been mentioned before. Those navy blue tiles on the exterior of the stadium are made in Barcelona , a little bit of Barca on High Road Tottenham

 

[shelfboy68]

Does anyone have any links or information regarding the stadium financial situation such as how much is left to pay etc.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Does anyone have any links or information regarding the stadium financial situation such as how much is left to pay etc.

There won't be one figure for "how much is left to pay". It's not been funded by a mortgage. There is a spread of different equity-based and borrowing-based sources of funding and I'm not sure it would be possible to separate out the funding that is secured on the stadium and the funding that has been secured on other assets.

Also, the project isn't finished. There's are hundreds of flats and a hotel still to build and the objective of those is to generate receipts that will be used to reduce the debt.

It's just way too complicated to express in a single figure.

 

[shelfboy68]

There won't be one figure for "how much is left to pay". It's not been funded by a mortgage. There is a spread of different equity-based and borrowing-based sources of funding and I'm not sure it would be possible to separate out the funding that is secured on the stadium and the funding that has been secured on other assets.

Also, the project isn't finished. There's are hundreds of flats and a hotel still to build and the objective of those is to generate receipts that will be used to reduce the debt.

It's just way too complicated to express in a single figure.

Yes I'm aware that there is another phase a project this size will take years to complete.
I was just wondering as I'm trying to counter a west ham fan who is trying to tell me that we are crippled with so much debt we can't buy for 20 years anyone decent.
Of course like a mortgage this re paid over decades, but levy and co would have all this covered apart from covid which has caught everyone out.
I thought we have paid more than half the stadium costs and pretty sure transfer fees are ring fenced so kept separate from the stadium.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Some of the what follows is educated speculation.

Yes I'm aware that there is another phase a project this size will take years to complete.
I was just wondering as I'm trying to counter a west ham fan who is trying to tell me that we are crippled with so much debt we can't buy for 20 years anyone decent.

It's just a stupid, ignorant "banter" kind of comment. The club's balance sheet answers that. We have huge debt, but it is secured debt, offset against huge assets. The club owns land in multiple locations and that includes the potential for large increases in value through residential development. The West Ham fan has no understanding of how indebtedness works for a business of the size of THFC.

Of course like a mortgage this re paid over decades, but levy and co would have all this covered apart from covid which has caught everyone out.

I don't think any of us have any idea how large, in terms of orders of magnitude, the pandemic is as a threat to the future of the club. And I doubt they'll be telling us anytime soon. I doubt they'll even know anytime soon. I reckon the same applies to all 20 EPL cubs, to varying degrees.

I'm guessing a bit here, but I don't think the stadium puts THFC in that much worse a position than most other EPL clubs. I know some of the debt is not the sort that demands periodical cash repayments like a mortgage. I don't know what proportion, but it reduces the vulnerability of the club to insolvency as a result of being unable to service the interest and the repayments.

And as I keep saying, the security for the debt is worth hundreds of millions. If football gets into really deep shit, say if the pandemic cancels next season, the club can start selling land or developed property to raise cash. Or it could engage in an equity-sharing deal for the stadium itself, i.e., selling off a percentage of the Freehold ownership.

I thought we have paid more than half the stadium costs and pretty sure transfer fees are ring fenced so kept separate from the stadium.

I'm not sure it's half, but the headline cost of the stadium is misleading, because non-followers assume it's all borrowed, that it's all debt. It's not. The land acquisition, the design development, the planning consent and the tendering stage comprise a significant minority of the cost and they were all funded from inside the club, before any borrowing for the stadium build began.

There is no direct reason why debt related to the stadium should affect transfer fees (I've been saying this for about eight years). There are two issues: cash to pay the transfer fee and the impact of the fee on the club's I&E account. For accounting purposes, transfer fees are amortised over the length of a player's contract, which dilutes their effect on any given year's accounts, and the capacity of the club to raise cash for player acquisitions is obviously healthy and separate from the stadium debt, which is secured on the stadium development. There are businesses and assets that can be used to raise cash for multiple purposes.

If the pandemic keeps killing off the revenue stream, the club could take a policy decision to refrain from paying large transfer fees, but I think that would be a matter of general caution in an uncertain environment, rather than being compelled by the debt on the stadium development.

 

[shelfboy68]

Some of the what follows is educated speculation.



It's just a stupid, ignorant "banter" kind of comment. The club's balance sheet answers that. We have huge debt, but it is secured debt, offset against huge assets. The club owns land in multiple locations and that includes the potential for large increases in value through residential development. The West Ham fan has no understanding of how indebtedness works for a business of the size of THFC.



I don't think any of us have any idea how large, in terms of orders of magnitude, the pandemic is as a threat to the future of the club. And I doubt they'll be telling us anytime soon. I doubt they'll even know anytime soon. I reckon the same applies to all 20 EPL cubs, to varying degrees.

I'm guessing a bit here, but I don't think the stadium puts THFC in that much worse a position than most other EPL clubs. I know some of the debt is not the sort that demands periodical cash repayments like a mortgage. I don't know what proportion, but it reduces the vulnerability of the club to insolvency as a result of being unable to service the interest and the repayments.

And as I keep saying, the security for the debt is worth hundreds of millions. If football gets into really deep shit, say if the pandemic cancels next season, the club can start selling land or developed property to raise cash. Or it could engage in an equity-sharing deal for the stadium itself, i.e., selling off a percentage of the Freehold ownership.



I'm not sure it's half, but the headline cost of the stadium is misleading, because non-followers assume it's all borrowed, that it's all debt. It's not. The land acquisition, the design development, the planning consent and the tendering stage comprise a significant minority of the cost and they were all funded from inside the club, before any borrowing for the stadium build began.

There is no direct reason why debt related to the stadium should affect transfer fees (I've been saying this for about eight years). There are two issues: cash to pay the transfer fee and the impact of the fee on the club's I&E account. For accounting purposes, transfer fees are amortised over the length of a player's contract, which dilutes their effect on any given year's accounts, and the capacity of the club to raise cash for player acquisitions is obviously healthy and separate from the stadium debt, which is secured on the stadium development. There are businesses and assets that can be used to raise cash for multiple purposes.

If the pandemic keeps killing off the revenue stream, the club could take a policy decision to refrain from paying large transfer fees, but I think that would be a matter of general caution in an uncertain environment, rather than being compelled by the debt on the stadium development.

Thank you sir that has helped a lot thanks for your time.

 

[nailsy]

Yes I'm aware that there is another phase a project this size will take years to complete.
I was just wondering as I'm trying to counter a west ham fan who is trying to tell me that we are crippled with so much debt we can't buy for 20 years anyone decent.
Of course like a mortgage this re paid over decades, but levy and co would have all this covered apart from covid which has caught everyone out.
I thought we have paid more than half the stadium costs and pretty sure transfer fees are ring fenced so kept separate from the stadium.

It's long term debt. I think our repayments were meant to be around £38m a year. Our shirt sponsorship deal with AIA is worth £40m a year so that covers it on its own. Then there's the £30m a year from Nike. Our matchday revenue when fans are in the stadium is over £100m a year. Then there's the extra income from all the non football events. We'll be fine once the covid measures are removed.

 

[shelfboy68]

It's long term debt. I think our repayments were meant to be around £38m a year. Our shirt sponsorship deal with AIA is worth £40m a year so that covers it on its own. Then there's the £30m a year from Nike. Our matchday revenue when fans are in the stadium is over £100m a year. Then there's the extra income from all the non football events. We'll be fine once the covid measures are removed.

That was what I was telling the mate I know but had no firm figures, I think the over excitement of over achieving has got to them because they are only a point off.
The good thing about our club is that whilst levy hasn't always got the playing side right on financials he is king and we have nothing to worry about.

 

[Wine Gum]

There is a thread here https://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/in...al-results-to-year-end-30th-june-2020.143915/

The most in depth analysis of Club Finances is probably by The Swiss Ramble on twitter.



Wet Spam are also covered

 

[SecretLemonadeDrinker]

Yes I'm aware that there is another phase a project this size will take years to complete.
I was just wondering as I'm trying to counter a west ham fan who is trying to tell me that we are crippled with so much debt we can't buy for 20 years anyone decent.
Of course like a mortgage this re paid over decades, but levy and co would have all this covered apart from covid which has caught everyone out.
I thought we have paid more than half the stadium costs and pretty sure transfer fees are ring fenced so kept separate from the stadium.

Below is something that I posted elsewhere, around the time that Spurs' latest financial results were published. It was specifically in answer to how much more the club can earn from the new stadium by comparison to the old. So it isn't entirely pertinent as a response to your West Ham friend but it should help to shut him up.

The club’s latest financial results show debt at £604.6m and a weighted average interest rate of 2.67%. So unless I’m mistaken, that means that the club is paying just over £16m per annum in interest.

It’s hard to say exactly what Spurs earned on match days from old WHL because I think corporate sales used to be lumped in with commercial income. At a guess, I’d have said that general admission and corporate sales, along with catering sales and revenues from other events held at the old WHL, would have totalled £50m per annum at most.

At the new stadium, at £5.85m per game, match day income from a full Premier League season would total £111m. Add to that a further 8, say, European and domestic cup games at a much reduced income per game to take into account cheaper prices for some domestic cup games. Say a conservative £3m per game. That would take total Spurs match day income to £135m per annum.

Since the new stadium is a far more desirable destination with far better and far more facilities than old WHL, it will earn far more from major non football events. I have no idea how much Spurs could earn from each of these events but £1m doesn’t sound excessive. And if there is a full schedule of permitted major events (16), that would add a further £16m in revenue. Additionally, the new stadium is purpose built to host all manner and any number of corporate events throughout the year. Again, I have no idea how much this could be worth to the club but, for neatness, let’s say £4m - thereby bringing non football income generated by the new stadium up to a conservative estimate of £20m per annum.

Lastly, Spurs have still to agree a naming rights deal for the new stadium but there will be one eventually. Again, £5m per annum is a conservative estimate.

Add it all together, and the new stadium will earn the club some £160m per annum. That’s not including other potential sources of new or increased income such as the Dare Walk, the Tottenham Experience, the vastly bigger and better shop, and the increased demand for stadium tours.

So £160m minus £50m (income generated by old WHL) means a net increase of £110m per annum as a consequence of the new stadium. Take away a further £16m (interest payable per annum) and Spurs are effectively £94m per annum better off.

Of course, that doesn’t take into account repayment of the debt but the average maturity of the bonds is 23 years - so plenty of time for that.

 

[shelfboy68]

Below is something that I posted elsewhere, around the time that Spurs' latest financial results were published. It was specifically in answer to how much more the club can earn from the new stadium by comparison to the old. So it isn't entirely pertinent as a response to your West Ham friend but it should help to shut him up.

The club’s latest financial results show debt at £604.6m and a weighted average interest rate of 2.67%. So unless I’m mistaken, that means that the club is paying just over £16m per annum in interest.

It’s hard to say exactly what Spurs earned on match days from old WHL because I think corporate sales used to be lumped in with commercial income. At a guess, I’d have said that general admission and corporate sales, along with catering sales and revenues from other events held at the old WHL, would have totalled £50m per annum at most.

At the new stadium, at £5.85m per game, match day income from a full Premier League season would total £111m. Add to that a further 8, say, European and domestic cup games at a much reduced income per game to take into account cheaper prices for some domestic cup games. Say a conservative £3m per game. That would take total Spurs match day income to £135m per annum.

Since the new stadium is a far more desirable destination with far better and far more facilities than old WHL, it will earn far more from major non football events. I have no idea how much Spurs could earn from each of these events but £1m doesn’t sound excessive. And if there is a full schedule of permitted major events (16), that would add a further £16m in revenue. Additionally, the new stadium is purpose built to host all manner and any number of corporate events throughout the year. Again, I have no idea how much this could be worth to the club but, for neatness, let’s say £4m - thereby bringing non football income generated by the new stadium up to a conservative estimate of £20m per annum.

Lastly, Spurs have still to agree a naming rights deal for the new stadium but there will be one eventually. Again, £5m per annum is a conservative estimate.

Add it all together, and the new stadium will earn the club some £160m per annum. That’s not including other potential sources of new or increased income such as the Dare Walk, the Tottenham Experience, the vastly bigger and better shop, and the increased demand for stadium tours.

So £160m minus £50m (income generated by old WHL) means a net increase of £110m per annum as a consequence of the new stadium. Take away a further £16m (interest payable per annum) and Spurs are effectively £94m per annum better off.

Of course, that doesn’t take into account repayment of the debt but the average maturity of the bonds is 23 years - so plenty of time for that.

Fantastic it's a moot for them really because they can't match those figures they don't own the stadium so cannot generate those types of sums thanks again.

 

[Yiddo100]

Levy giving Nagelsmann and sibitzer an early look at their future surroundings?

 

[spursfan77]

Levy giving Nagelsmann and sibitzer an early look at their future surroundings?

I hope we are charging them a fucking fortune!

 

[Wine Gum]

Would anyone know the make up of staff emails for tottenham staff (not playing its the property side i want) is it [email protected]

I have used that format for contacting Board Members in the past.

 

[mil1lion]

Stadium can open 17th May, come on Sky make Spurs v Villa a MNF game on the 17th

 

[chrissivad]

I'm guessing it will be a quiet summer for us (and most clubs) with the lack of fans this season.