So with both Spurs & West Ham due to be moving into 60,000 ish capacity Stadiums soon it's time for a difficult question.
Does it really matter to the club's potential for on pitch success?
The amount made by ticket sales is dwarfed by the amount from T.V money, sponsorship, prize money and merchandise.
Put it this way, Man U could play there next three seasons in front of home crowds of 10,000 and still be the richest club in the country all else being equal.
I can see a club, Fulham potentially, giving up on mass fanbase. Build a luxury 10,000 seat ground. Sell all tickets to rich "viewers" on a game by game basis. They are in London and could still attract top players, if they did well on the pitch, the money would flow in. Just because no real fans were attending thier games wouldn't stop sponsorship if they were in the Prem and Champions league and it wouldn't stop overseas merchandise sales either.
Match day fans are dirty, swear, cause trouble and a club could decide they are better off without them.
Does stadium capacity even matter anymore?
posted on 18/4/16
Billy. The increased revenue Spurs will get by moving might just about pay for Gareth Bales wages should he return to you.
That's not knocking Spurs btw, just an example of how money raised from attendance is becoming irrelevant.
posted on 18/4/16
This was despite negotiating a sponsorship deal of just 100m for 15yrs for the stadium I think....a measly 7m a season, which included shirt sponsorship for a good few years too.
----------------------------
Spurs fans think they'll get more than £10m a season stadium rights. Real Madrid are only going to get £15m a season.
Spurs will not get more than £5m.
posted on 18/4/16
Arsenal were getting 7m a season WITH shirt sponsorship for a few years.
Our current shirt sponsorship is 16m a year alone.
Sooooooo
posted on 18/4/16
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 8 minutes ago
Arsenal were getting 7m a season WITH shirt sponsorship for a few years.
Our current shirt sponsorship is 16m a year alone.
Sooooooo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your stadium naming rights will be worth more than Real Madrids?
posted on 18/4/16
Are you dense? Where did I say that?
Arsenal struck a deal that was worth 7m a year WITH shirt sponsorship for several years.
We already get 16m a year for shirt sponsorship so are 9m a year up on them when they moved without any stadium cash at all.
I've no idea what we will get....we have an NFL tie up looming, which adds value.
Even if we get nothing we are already up by more than double in comparision
posted on 18/4/16
Not sure now but a couple of seasons ago our gate revenue was 25% of our income.
posted on 18/4/16
comment by Sane (U19841)
posted 41 minutes ago
Billy
"The Spanners are having to give a large percentage of their tickets away at ridiculously low prices, just so they can fill the tax payer funded athletics stadium. For them, 60K at Olympic stadium prices = 35K at Upton Park prices and a limited increase in revenue."
----
I dispute that, but the point of this article is that even if true it hardly matters. Revenue from match going fans is such a small percentage of clubs income that it's like arguing over is a certain player earning £80,000 pw or £81,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The easiest way to look at it is that WHU are doubling the size of their ground. No ticket prices are going up, some down, but more corporate will off set that.
You can therefore expect WHU to double their £20m matchday revenue...so it would actually match Spurs current matchday revenue (£41m).
Spurs estimate their rev. will go up by £28m (about 70%), and this is because we are adding a lot of corporate and will be selling tickets at higher prices.
Spurs Matchday revenue in our 2014/15 figures was about 21% of total revenue. That will fall as a % next season as the TV deal kicks in, but will probably be reset at a similar level as now (21%) once the stadium is done.
I would not describe matchday revenue as insignificant. Arsenal for example raised about £100m, about 30% of their total and they could not afford to do without it.
In fact because all teams will benefit from the TV money, it is the stadium and commercial revenues that give clubs an edge over their opposition.
an extra £28m for Spurs is like having UCL money guaranteed.
posted on 18/4/16
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not sure now but a couple of seasons ago our gate revenue was 25% of our income.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2014/15 Utd were £395m total rev, £91m matchday, so about 23% 20-25% is about the norm.
posted on 18/4/16
Obviously stadium capacity matters. What I don't like is the way match day revenue is just a cash cow. It would be nice if the increased money from TV and sponsorship meant lower ticket prices. Personally I think the prices London fans are expected to pay are shocking.
posted on 18/4/16
SouthLondonManc..................................
Thats £15m a year for 20 years, which makes it worth £300m in total.
If we got say Nike to buy the naming rights to our new stadium, I would expect the figure to be in the region of £250m+ for a 20 year deal.
Nike are a massive brand & more importantly we will also have NFL football at the ground.
I only mention Nike because they are also going to be our kit sponsors from 2018 & its a logical step to think they would want their brand on a top PL ground!