St James' Park

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

A reminder that getting rid of SJP based on the argument of not getting left behind very much means still being left behind in reality. If you want to get in and others to be able to get in, fair enough like, but these arguments about PSR, matchday income, tickets being available to those who can't afford it etc are all either pretty baseless or result in negligible benefits vs what's lost in the process. 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that the graph is misleading - a stadium’a revenue isn’t simply matchday revenue.  The likes of Arsenal and Spurs have significant proportions of their commercial income linked to the stadium (sponsorship, corporate, merchandise).  These revenues are not included in ‘matchday revenue’.  

[Slim]

2 hours ago, Joelinton7 said:

Don’t know how being in a league cup semi, 2-0 up in the second leg is “getting further and further away from a trophy”. 

Mike Ashley and Alan Pardew...

[Strawberry]

PIF should just make a decision and tell the fans to get on with it. 

[Kid Icarus]

36 minutes ago, OverThere said:

"Isn't a silver bullet". Hmmm ok. I thought that killed vampires but I digress. Explain how it doesn't move the needle at all to bring your revenues in line with Liverpool, Arsenal etc?

 

Also means a simple single solution to a complex problem

 

If you look at that graph again you can see why. Matchday could double and our overall revenue would barely budge in comparison to the big 6 purely because of their commercial income. 

[Kid Icarus]

14 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The problem is that the graph is misleading - a stadium’a revenue isn’t simply matchday revenue.  The likes of Arsenal and Spurs have significant proportions of their commercial income linked to the stadium (sponsorship, corporate, merchandise).  These revenues are not included in ‘matchday revenue’.  

 

Crucially, they're also not exclusively linked to whether you build a new stadium or not at all. 

[Wallsendmag]

6 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

PIF should just make a decision and tell the fans to get on with it. 

 

Even if that decision was to build a new stadium at Gosforth Park or out towards the airport?

 

Nah not for me like.

[Big River]

3 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

Even if that decision was to build a new stadium at Gosforth Park or out towards the airport?

 

Nah not for me like.

 

aye that sounds like a terrible idea. at least let The Stack vote on it.

[Wallsendmag]

Just now, Big River said:

 

aye that sounds like a terrible idea. at least let The Stack vote on it.

 

And the fans advisory board. That American lass who used to support Man Utd but switched over to us in October 2021 needs to have a say.

[Keegans Export]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

A reminder that getting rid of SJP based on the argument of not getting left behind very much means still being left behind in reality. If you want to get in and others to be able to get in, fair enough like, but these arguments about PSR, matchday income, tickets being available to those who can't afford it etc are all either pretty baseless or result in negligible benefits vs what's lost in the process. 

 

 

Let's just take Man City as the target, that's +£34m. Perhaps there could be a stadium sponsorship available, could we add another £10m to that?

 

Obviously that's not going to fill that £100m+ commercial revenue gap, but it's a start isn't it? What could we have done with that extra £40m in the summer?

 

The only way we're going to get close to catching up in the PSR/FMV world is consistently crashing the top 4/5/6, justifying those larger sponsorship deals, bringing in more PL and UEFA prize money etc. and the best way to do that is to be able to invest in the squad and the increased matchday income can help us do that.

[Kid Icarus]

47 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Just going off your own figures you should have yours answers.

 

Look at the match day of us Vs Spurs who shall we agree for arguments sake a club in the big six bracket of similar success to ourselves albeit a couple of more ECL campaigns. It’s £118m v £48m. Their new stadium is around 20% bigger than current SJP (62k v 52k) yet our new one you’d assume be 50% bigger than SJP (75-80k).

 

Then you’ve got the commercial income of £228m v £47m which is intrinsically linked to the stadium and what it can be used for none match days and the fact they are paying £25m interest payments for the loans for the stadium we wouldn’t.

 

If £346m (£371m)v £95m is not moving the dial I’m not sure what is. Try and find Spurs figures for last year at WHL. That would be interesting to see.

 

As for broadcast money that will increase with success which is hopefully improve by the other two figures combined.

 

Look at Man Utd’s match day figures with a similar non multipurpose built stadium not based in London like ours with the only advantage is it’s capacity (74k) and corporate areas it allows which would be similar to what we are looking to build at a minimum. £136m v £38m. They are looking at a new multi purpose stadium heading towards 85-100k.

 

Those figures go up vs our existing figures, obviously.

 

When the context is that we're competing with 6 other clubs in terms of players we can attract, wages and fees we can pay, their commericial incomes outstrip ours by around 600%, and make up nearly 50% of their overall revenue, I'm not sure why the first port of call is to get rid of one of the best and most unique things about the club, essentially ask for the club we support to charge us even more, make up a matchday revenue gap of 250% at best, and that will still keep us in a position where commercial revenue remains unaffected and way behind. We're selling a lie to ourselves AFAIC.  

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Kid Icarus

[Wallsendmag]

Senior people at the club have already said a new stadium could double our revenue. That would clearly make a huge difference to what we can and can't do.

[Superior Acuña]

I'm undecided but people seem to be missing KI's point, which seems a good one. Of course all going up helps the club spend, but from that graph - we could have the largest matchday revenue in the league and wouldn't even go up one place in that ranking. Commercial seems to be the game changer, the overall ranking for the top 6 mirrors the commerical ranking  - and looking at Liverpool and Chelsea that doesn't seem to hinge on a modern stadium.

 

(Btw do any of us want a stadium with a thick band of corporate seats/boxes around 3/4 of the stadium like at Spurs? I certainly don't).

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Superior Acuña

[Ben]

Just now, Superior Acuña said:

I'm undecided but people seem to be missing KI's point, which seems a good one. Of course all going up helps the club spend, but from that graph - we could have the largest matchday revenue in the league and wouldn't even go up one place in that ranking. Commercial seems to be the game changer  - and looking at Liverpool and Chelsea that doesn't seem to hinge on a modern stadium.

 

Cracking point, Chelsea's stadium is smaller than ours.

[Wallsendmag]

1 minute ago, Ben said:

 

Cracking point, Chelsea's stadium is smaller than ours.

 

You want our fans to pay what Chelsea fans do to watch their team?

 

The club have said a new stadium could double revenue. For arguments sake let's say our current turnover is £250m a year. Doubleling that is a game changer for us, regardless of what any graph says.

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Superior Acuña said:

I'm undecided but people seem to be missing KI's point, which seems a good one. Of course all going up helps the club spend, but from that graph - we could have the largest matchday revenue in the league and wouldn't even go up one place in that ranking. Commercial seems to be the game changer, the overall ranking for the top 6 mirrors the commerical ranking  - and looking at Liverpool and Chelsea that doesn't seem to hinge on a modern stadium.

 

(Btw do any of us want a stadium with a thick band of corporate seats/boxes around 3/4 of the stadium like at Spurs? I certainly don't).

 

I'd like to think I'm not missing the point - it seems to be that a new stadium alone won't close the gap? Obviously that is correct but what is the alternative? If we can't close the gap then just leave everything as it is and just hope for marginal increases in sponsorship revenue every so often?

 

The point about Chelsea and Liverpool is an interesting one and I don't know the details of how those stadiums compare to ours in terms of corporate but what I do know is that Chelsea is in London (£££) and Liverpool have multiple Champions League games most seasons which I assume is part of the story.

[Ben]

1 minute ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

You want our fans to pay what Chelsea fans do to watch their team?

 

The club have said a new stadium could double revenue. For arguments sake let's say our current turnover is £250m a year. Doubleling that is a game changer for us, regardless of what any graph says.

 

Certainly not, I was thinking that we should be making more money from commercial deals 

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

Senior people at the club have already said a new stadium could double our revenue. That would clearly make a huge difference to what we can and can't do.

 

I get that they're saying it, but I'm not sure what evidence that's based on. If it doubled our total revenue we'd be on par with Spurs, which seems a bit unrealistic. 

[Ikon]

Not sure who said it, might have been that Borson guy or someone similar.

 

Think he said that Spurs new stadium costs them an extra 25m/year, but the new stadium itself and all the commercial deals and such resulted in their revenue going up by a 100m/year because of it. 

[Wallsendmag]

Just now, Ben said:

 

Certainly not, I was thinking that we should be making more money from commercial deals 

 

We already are making considerably more money from commercial deals than we were 3 years ago and that will continue on a upward trajectory, especially if we qualify for Europe again this year.

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I get that they're saying it, but I'm not sure what evidence that's based on. If it doubled our total revenue we'd be on par with Spurs, which seems a bit unrealistic. 

I assume they meant doubling match day revenue rather than overall revenue 

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Keegans Export said:

I assume they meant doubling match day revenue rather than overall revenue 

 

Yeah I did think that but I'll wait to see what WM says. 

[Wallsendmag]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I get that they're saying it, but I'm not sure what evidence that's based on. If it doubled our total revenue we'd be on par with Spurs, which seems a bit unrealistic. 

 

Can only take them on face value as they'll know far more than me or you. I mean they could be lying because they want to build a new stadium and it's one way to get fans onside more with the promise of having a much increased transfer kitty but they've barely put a foot wrong since they arrived so I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

If it was Mike Ashley, a proven liar, telling me this, that may not be the case!

[bobbydazzla]

11 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Can only take them on face value as they'll know far more than me or you. I mean they could be lying because they want to build a new stadium and it's one way to get fans onside more with the promise of having a much increased transfer kitty but they've barely put a foot wrong since they arrived so I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

If it was Mike Ashley, a proven liar, telling me this, that may not be the case!

 

 

If it was Ashley involved in a new stadium decision he'd have us playing in the car park of Shirebrook with Slazenger jumpers for goalposts

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by bobbydazzla

[PauloGeordio]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

 

If it was Ashley involved in a new stadium decision he'd have us playing in the car park of Shirebrook with Slazenger jumpers for goalposts

 

 

 

 

 

Marvellous! 

[Kid Icarus]

28 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Can only take them on face value as they'll know far more than me or you. I mean they could be lying because they want to build a new stadium and it's one way to get fans onside more with the promise of having a much increased transfer kitty but they've barely put a foot wrong since they arrived so I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

If it was Mike Ashley, a proven liar, telling me this, that may not be the case!

And it def wasn't that they were talking about doubling matchday revenue, as opposed to total revenue?