St James' Park

[Scoot]

20 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, but that's a gross misrepresentation like.  £1bn being thrown at it, with £1bn of debt for the club is what Hope put out there in theory, and its the debt part that people are asking questions about.

 

But if the debt comes at a price of a higher value club with a much better PSR position every year which in turn means more success on the pitch, surely its a no brainer?

 

That's not to mention that more people will be able to get access to tickets.

[bobbydazzla]

Organisation who might wish to commission a huge multi billion quid construction project may seek finance to fund the huge multi billion quid construction project

 

THE SHOCK

 

THE HORROR

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[Kid Icarus]

18 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

But if the debt comes at a price of a higher value club with a much better PSR position every year which in turn means more success on the pitch, surely its a no brainer?

 

That's not to mention that more people will be able to get access to tickets.

Neither of those things are only possible through the club going into debt. Like I say though, there's nothing wrong with questioning it.

[Kanj]

Financing a project like this is what 10/10 companies would do. 
 

[Keegans Export]

2 hours ago, Stifler said:

£2bn stadium, yes please.

 

I still think it 10 years time with a new stadium, we could easily become a club worth £10bn. Spurs are currently worth £3bn-£4bn, with an outside chance of being worth £5bn. As soon as the Premier League gos to a die t to consumer TV model, and drops the 3pm blackouts, the Broadcast money will make every Premier League club worth billions.

This is clearly a widely held belief, or assumption. It's why so many investors or investment firms are buying the money pits that are football clubs.

 

Obviously our owners have the financial power to get us further up the list than the likes of Palace or Bournemouth but at the same time we don't need to be Man City for them to potentially make a substantial return on their investment once the situation you describe becomes reality. 

[duo]

2 hours ago, Scoot said:

 

Building a 2 billion pound stadium to take us to the next level and only having to potentially pay half of the bill sits fine with me.

It's quite a debt to saddle on a club. PIF will see the full returns in that investment so don't see the issue personally them paying for it all. £2Billion is nothing to them 

[JT24]

10 minutes ago, duo said:

It's quite a debt to saddle on a club. PIF will see the full returns in that investment so don't see the issue personally them paying for it all. £2Billion is nothing to them 

Don’t forget about those pesky Reuben brothers who are only worth £25bn. 

[HayDen Traces]

We'll never likely be in a position again (in our lifetimes) for an owner willing to put this amount of money in to a new stadium. Just pray we find a way to do it.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, JT24 said:

Selling our soul to be burdened with up to 1bn in debt doesn’t particularly sit well with me. 

 

Consider me un-sportswashed!

Our ‘soul’ was sold long ago - SJP isn’t our ‘soul’. 

[JT24]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Our ‘soul’ was sold long ago - SJP isn’t our ‘soul’. 

Yes, thank you, that is what I meant. 

[TheBrownBottle]

23 minutes ago, JT24 said:

Yes, thank you, that is what I meant. 

Sorry mate I re-read - I see what you were saying.

 

Completely agree - if we’re to be owned by the dredges of humanity, then the trade-off was meant to be that they’d fund it.  But once again, I remain completely unconvinced by the ‘if it wasn’t for PSR they’d have chucked loads at us’.  I don’t think they would have.

 

Faustian pacts are a right twat. 

[Whitley mag]

Let’s be clear here any new stadium is going to cost 2 billion by the time it’s built. If PIF/Reubens are going to contribute even half of that through their own pocket it’s pretty much unprecedented I’d have thought on a project this size.

 

If it’s a 500 million extension to the Gallowgate you could argue why saddle the club with any repayments. However, it’s not going to to be that and we’ve always been told they’ll treat the club as a business.

 

The fact such a huge project is in the offing should be exciting to everyone no matter how they fund it.

 

[TRon]

9 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Sorry mate I re-read - I see what you were saying.

 

Completely agree - if we’re to be owned by the dredges of humanity, then the trade-off was meant to be that they’d fund it.  But once again, I remain completely unconvinced by the ‘if it wasn’t for PSR they’d have chucked loads at us’.  I don’t think they would have.

 

Faustian pacts are a right twat. 

 

 

I think this thinking is part of the problem. While it's disappointing that they aren't funding ALL of it, from their POV it looks like, "Howay, why are you only spending a billion on us you fucking savages? You can do better than that!? " 

 

There's a fair amount of unspoken entitlement there which would not persuade me to part with a lot of money if it was me investing. 

 

The other side of it is, if they are only putting 50% of it in and we don't like them, would we prefer alternative - probably US owners who would probably load 100% debt against the new stadium. Or more realistically just don't build one. 

[Boey_Jarton]

There are a lot of misunderstanding about the relative merits of using either debt or equity to fund an infrastructure project. 

 

Debt acts as leverage for PIF as it frees up their own capital to maximise the required returns for their wealth fund, which are likely to be a lot higher (CPI + 5%) than the cost of a loan. All private equity arms of pension funds and sovereign wealth funds use debt in this way. 

 

There are potential tax benefits from using debt and it avoids any dilution of equity, which is likely to be important given the Reuben brothers are minority shareholders

 

Infrastructure related interest costs are  excluded from PSR so it is neutral from that perspective. 

 

Put simply, using debt alongside share capital is an investment decision by our owners, which they are likely to think is in their best interests. I don't see a problem with that providing it is mutually beneficial for the club. 

 

[Whitley mag]

11 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

There are a lot of misunderstanding about the relative merits of using either debt or equity to fund an infrastructure project. 

 

Debt acts as leverage for PIF as it frees up their own capital to maximise the required returns for their wealth fund, which are likely to be a lot higher (CPI + 5%) than the cost of a loan. All private equity arms of pension funds and sovereign wealth funds use debt in this way. 

 

There are potential tax benefits from using debt and it avoids any dilution of equity, which is likely to be important given the Reuben brothers are minority shareholders

 

Infrastructure related interest costs are  excluded from PSR so it is neutral from that perspective. 

 

Put simply, using debt alongside share capital is an investment decision by our owners, which they are likely to think is in their best interests. I don't see a problem with that providing it is mutually beneficial for the club. 

 

Can’t ask for better explanation than that and it makes absolute sense.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

 

I think this thinking is part of the problem. While it's disappointing that they aren't funding ALL of it, from their POV it looks like, "Howay, why are you only spending a billion on us you fucking savages? You can do better than that!? " 

 

There's a fair amount of unspoken entitlement there which would not persuade me to part with a lot of money if it was me investing. 

 

The other side of it is, if they are only putting 50% of it in and we don't like them, would we prefer alternative - probably US owners who would probably load 100% debt against the new stadium. Or more realistically just don't build one. 

Not for me - we didn’t talk about being ‘no.1’.  Besides, football clubs’ value has went up exponentially with serious investment.

 

I also don’t see why a football stadium built on Leazes Park would cost £2bn in any case - if we were using Saudi subbies I possibly could, but the UK isn’t anything like as bent.  

[TheBrownBottle]

44 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

 

Infrastructure related interest costs are  excluded from PSR so it is neutral from that perspective. 

 

 

 

Infrastructure interest payments aren’t excluded from PSR - and the interest on £1bn is sizeable. 

[TRon]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Not for me - we didn’t talk about being ‘no.1’.  Besides, football clubs’ value has went up exponentially with serious investment.

 

I also don’t see why a football stadium built on Leazes Park would cost £2bn in any case - if we were using Saudi subbies I possibly could, but the UK isn’t anything like as bent.  

 

There are no UK investors who would build a new stadium though. 

[TheBrownBottle]

23 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

There are no UK investors who would build a new stadium though. 

We don’t know that tbf.  Other clubs have managed it. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

Let’s be clear here any new stadium is going to cost 2 billion by the time it’s built.

 

It’s not clear at all.  Why would a stadium built in the cheapest part of the mainland UK to build cost almost double the most expensive stadium in British history?

[TRon]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We don’t know that tbf.  Other clubs have managed it. 

 

 

Did any of them fund 50% from their own money?

 

 

[Boey_Jarton]

30 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Infrastructure interest payments aren’t excluded from PSR - and the interest on £1bn is sizeable. 

Section E page 306 of premier league handbook outlines the methodology for calculating Adjusted Earning Before Tax. 

 

I agree that whilst investment infrastructure is explicitly mentioned, there is no direct reference to interest payments being an add back in the calculation of adjusted earnings.

 

However my reading of the Everton case and reports from leading legal firms on this matter indicates that clubs are highly likely to be successful in justifying an exclusion if the interest is directly attributable to an excluded infrastructure investment. This would follow the 'substance over form' override as there is no interest without the new stadium. 

 

Of course, if it is not excluded, the interest payments could potentially run into the tens of millions each year, and would be eating into PSR headroom, and this would completely change my view on what the best source of financing is for any new stadium. 

[janpawel]

1 minute ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Section E page 306 of premier league handbook outlines the methodology for calculating Adjusted Earning Before Tax. 

 

I agree that whilst investment infrastructure is explicitly mentioned, there is no direct reference to interest payments being an add back in the calculation of adjusted earnings.

 

However my reading of the Everton case and reports from leading legal firms on this matter indicates that clubs are highly likely to be successful in justifying an exclusion if the interest is directly attributable to an excluded infrastructure investment. This would follow the 'substance over form' override as there is no interest without the new stadium. 

 

Of course, if it is not excluded, the interest payments could potentially run into the tens of millions each year, and would be eating into PSR headroom, and this would completely change my view on what the best source of financing is for any new stadium. 

 

Never seen you post before but big fan, very helpful couple of reads in this thread 👍

[TheBrownBottle]

23 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Section E page 306 of premier league handbook outlines the methodology for calculating Adjusted Earning Before Tax. 

 

I agree that whilst investment infrastructure is explicitly mentioned, there is no direct reference to interest payments being an add back in the calculation of adjusted earnings.

 

However my reading of the Everton case and reports from leading legal firms on this matter indicates that clubs are highly likely to be successful in justifying an exclusion if the interest is directly attributable to an excluded infrastructure investment. This would follow the 'substance over form' override as there is no interest without the new stadium. 

 

Of course, if it is not excluded, the interest payments could potentially run into the tens of millions each year, and would be eating into PSR headroom, and this would completely change my view on what the best source of financing is for any new stadium. 

It was one of the rulings post-Man City’s legal case vs the PL that interest on club debts are included in PSR calcs - though if not then this isn’t an issue. 

[Boey_Jarton]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It was one of the rulings post-Man City’s legal case vs the PL that interest on club debts are included in PSR calcs - though if not then this isn’t an issue. 

Yes I agree with that but my understanding is that interest payments directly attributable to an excluded cost (e.g. infrastructure) would not be subject to that ruling. 

 

As ever with the premier League, these things are not crystal clear. The only public information is the premier league handbook which is not particularly detailed and does not reflect any case law / precedents set from previous cases and decisions.