comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 36 minutes ago
How do you fix a problem like Lukaku?
I read he was on £350k a weekNo one across Europe bar a few PL teams, PSG & Real can afford that but no one will be willing to pay it. Same problem we have with NDombele. £200k a week and not worth half that.
The financial situation Chelsea find themselves in will impact on how much can be invested. A teams Profit/loss which is what FFP uses to assess compliance includes "profit on player trading". That is basically the players value (say £100m) written off over the period of his contract (say 5 years), so after 1 year his 'book value' is £80m. If you sold Lukaku for £80m, for the purposes of your financial reporting you do not make a loss. Sell him for less and thats a negative on player trading. Chelsea rely heavily on "profit on player trading" to offset the high transfer spending....so you cannot just give him away. You will have to get some serious money, but who is going to pay that and match his wages.
CFC fans confident the new owners will back them, but the ability to do so is very different to being FFP compliant. CFC lost a lot of revenues last season over the sanctions so it becomes even harder to be compliant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those costs were on the club in its old owner status, I expect they are covered in the sale. I know you will not agree and argue it but that is what tends to happen during sales. I point this out only because if this is the case and you and Sandy start throwing your toys out that you can't say you wasn't warned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, i dont agree! as you are confusing losses with debt. The new owner may clear the debts but for financial reporting/FFP you still may have made a loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it’s done over the last few years. We got 40 million from hazard sale just this year fromcmadrid winning la liga and ucl. We sold tomori, guehi, Abraham and others basically offsetting lukaku sale already. We have been basically around the 0 mark for ffp for years now
Net spend which ffp look at, over last 5 years:
# club
Expenditure
Income
Balance
1 Arsenal FC £485.31m £114.75m £-370.56m
2 Manchester United £487.17m £145.74m £-341.43m
3 Liverpool FC £403.24m £125.57m £-277.67m
4 Aston Villa £417.84m £149.78m £-268.07m
5 Manchester City £544.42m £276.80m £-267.62m
6 West Ham United £346.41m £107.00m £-239.41m
7 Tottenham Hotspur £345.69m £111.84m £-233.85m
8 Newcastle United £288.59m £78.27m £-210.32m
9 Wolverhampton Wanderers £334.40m £151.56m £-182.84m
10 Chelsea FC £557.10m £375.85m £-181.25m
Spurs worse off than chelsea.
That’s actually cracked me up Devon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 28 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The holding company just bailed out Spurs over its 150m losses
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 28 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The holding company just bailed out Spurs over its 150m losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not allowed according to Devon
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not leaving, just changing roles. I think he dies a great job at the club and is greatly underappreciated and undervalued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beg to differ.
This is the same Buck was part of the board that incepted and spearheaded the ghastly Super League. Put the club at risk.
Once offered crisps to traveling fans as some sort of compensation. Made an farcical request to the FA for our matches to be played behind closed doors, when we were under sanctions.
He's greatly out of touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a big mistake and no one is perfect yet it was quickly recognised. Maybe we needed a group of people in charge of the club like that back in 1955 when we were pressured into not entering the newly born competition that isniw the Champions League.
All that asside he has done so much more for the club and was a season ticket holder prior to Romans reign. He has been a fan, albeit a very rich fan for many years now and knows the club well offering continuity that cannot be matched by many. People like him are easy targets though when people want to lay blame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Buck being a fan of the club since the 80s is the more reason why he shouldn't have firstly conspired to overrule / outdo the CPO shares and voting about the potential ground move, then later the Super League situation...catastrophically wrong, in my eyes.
He hid throughout the whole sanctions turmoil, leaving Tuchel to answer the tough questions in front of media every press conference (which is bizarre as a Chairman).
Could have gone someway toward diffusing the situation, instead of Tuchel being in the firing line (latter understandably became frustrated and eventually snapped).
Boehly strikes me as a real people' person (nothing underhand), which will stand him in good stead going forward and hopefully have the clubs best interest at heart as Chairman.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 28 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The holding company just bailed out Spurs over its 150m losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not allowed according to Devon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP does not look at debt. It looks at profit and loss. Doesn't matter if your owners cover your debt or pocket all the profit themselves, it is that profit or loss that the accounts record and are assessed by FFP. If owners throw in money to pay off debt them that is owner investment which is limited by FFP to 35m a season.
I know Chelseas debt was cleared but that doesn't mean you won't necessarily make a loss for the financial year. You may make a profit, but your revenues took a hit from sanctions.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be confusing yourself now, you claim we are reliant on player sales then go on to claim the reason we have bettered others is through commercial deals and success. All true proving that we do not reliant on any single factor but many. Our business model is diverse. You seem to be pinning your hopes on your stadium being used for other events. A quick glance at your events website shows 4 between now and October, how much revenue will these events generate compared to match day revenues, how many do you need to make a difference, will other local venues up there game, do you really need to be a multipurpose stadium to compete for such events, all questions that need to be considered. That aside, we are not the only club that generates more revenue than yourselves currently and none of the others have multi purpose stadiums either.
Apparently we make the most from our supporters, our stadium is undoubtedly smaller but it punches hard in the revenues space. We also have the ability to improve that without building a multi purpose stadium, and we have the capital set aside to build a new stadium or at least develop the bridge to improve capacity and remain focused on football alone.
Carry on seriously underestimating us. I understand your pride in your stadium, it reminds me once again of the Arsenal fans back in the day, things just don't always work out as you hope.
This link gives a bit t more detail on matchday revenues as they stand, or stood last year but bear in mind you have played your cards, we have yet to so we aren't dead yet, not by a long shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10234693/Chelsea-Liverpool-City-Man-Uniteds-matchday-income-revealed-does-club-make.html
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 3 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not leaving, just changing roles. I think he dies a great job at the club and is greatly underappreciated and undervalued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beg to differ.
This is the same Buck was part of the board that incepted and spearheaded the ghastly Super League. Put the club at risk.
Once offered crisps to traveling fans as some sort of compensation. Made an farcical request to the FA for our matches to be played behind closed doors, when we were under sanctions.
He's greatly out of touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a big mistake and no one is perfect yet it was quickly recognised. Maybe we needed a group of people in charge of the club like that back in 1955 when we were pressured into not entering the newly born competition that isniw the Champions League.
All that asside he has done so much more for the club and was a season ticket holder prior to Romans reign. He has been a fan, albeit a very rich fan for many years now and knows the club well offering continuity that cannot be matched by many. People like him are easy targets though when people want to lay blame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Buck being a fan of the club since the 80s is the more reason why he shouldn't have firstly conspired to overrule / outdo the CPO shares and voting about the potential ground move, then later the Super League situation...catastrophically wrong, in my eyes.
He hid throughout the whole sanctions turmoil, leaving Tuchel to answer the tough questions in front of media every press conference (which is bizarre as a Chairman).
Could have gone someway toward diffusing the situation, instead of Tuchel being in the firing line (latter understandably became frustrated and eventually snapped).
Boehly strikes me as a real people' person (nothing underhand), which will stand him in good stead going forward and hopefully have the clubs best interest at heart as Chairman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe he was a fan in the 80s, I don't think he even lived in England then but I expect he knows our history and what happened back in the mid fifities which would have played a part in my thinking for a decision if I was a custodian of the club and not just a fan. I do not believe fir one second that he alone was responsible for the decision not that it was an easy or straight forward one.
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be confusing yourself now, you claim we are reliant on player sales then go on to claim the reason we have bettered others is through commercial deals and success. All true proving that we do not reliant on any single factor but many. Our business model is diverse. You seem to be pinning your hopes on your stadium being used for other events. A quick glance at your events website shows 4 between now and October, how much revenue will these events generate compared to match day revenues, how many do you need to make a difference, will other local venues up there game, do you really need to be a multipurpose stadium to compete for such events, all questions that need to be considered. That aside, we are not the only club that generates more revenue than yourselves currently and none of the others have multi purpose stadiums either.
Apparently we make the most from our supporters, our stadium is undoubtedly smaller but it punches hard in the revenues space. We also have the ability to improve that without building a multi purpose stadium, and we have the capital set aside to build a new stadium or at least develop the bridge to improve capacity and remain focused on football alone.
Carry on seriously underestimating us. I understand your pride in your stadium, it reminds me once again of the Arsenal fans back in the day, things just don't always work out as you hope.
This link gives a bit t more detail on matchday revenues as they stand, or stood last year but bear in mind you have played your cards, we have yet to so we aren't dead yet, not by a long shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10234693/Chelsea-Liverpool-City-Man-Uniteds-matchday-income-revealed-does-club-make.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenal's matchday revenue is about £100m compared to Chelsea's £70m, so in that respect they're winning. You may have a higher average spend but they have 20k more fans in the ground.
Its the other bits of their club that they have failed and commercial is the stand out one. About £80m in Chelseas favour. Arsenal's sponsorship deals are not the strongest and of course your success helps you drive yours upwards.
If Spurs or Arsenal or Newcastle want to match you financially, then its the commercial revenues that we must target. NUFC probably can by making up inflated sponsorship deals likes City did. Spurs have potential to do so with the use of their stadium for other uses, stadium sponsorship etc....but fundamentally we need to be more successful to generate the greater 'brand quality' that will see us competing with you for top sponsorship deals. That's far from certain because we are Spurs afterall, but financially the foundations are now really there and very strong.
Yes, in terms of sponsorship deals Spurs need to win league titles and European cups to get to Chelsea’s level.
A lot of ifs there
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be confusing yourself now, you claim we are reliant on player sales then go on to claim the reason we have bettered others is through commercial deals and success. All true proving that we do not reliant on any single factor but many. Our business model is diverse. You seem to be pinning your hopes on your stadium being used for other events. A quick glance at your events website shows 4 between now and October, how much revenue will these events generate compared to match day revenues, how many do you need to make a difference, will other local venues up there game, do you really need to be a multipurpose stadium to compete for such events, all questions that need to be considered. That aside, we are not the only club that generates more revenue than yourselves currently and none of the others have multi purpose stadiums either.
Apparently we make the most from our supporters, our stadium is undoubtedly smaller but it punches hard in the revenues space. We also have the ability to improve that without building a multi purpose stadium, and we have the capital set aside to build a new stadium or at least develop the bridge to improve capacity and remain focused on football alone.
Carry on seriously underestimating us. I understand your pride in your stadium, it reminds me once again of the Arsenal fans back in the day, things just don't always work out as you hope.
This link gives a bit t more detail on matchday revenues as they stand, or stood last year but bear in mind you have played your cards, we have yet to so we aren't dead yet, not by a long shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10234693/Chelsea-Liverpool-City-Man-Uniteds-matchday-income-revealed-does-club-make.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenal's matchday revenue is about £100m compared to Chelsea's £70m, so in that respect they're winning. You may have a higher average spend but they have 20k more fans in the ground.
Its the other bits of their club that they have failed and commercial is the stand out one. About £80m in Chelseas favour. Arsenal's sponsorship deals are not the strongest and of course your success helps you drive yours upwards.
If Spurs or Arsenal or Newcastle want to match you financially, then its the commercial revenues that we must target. NUFC probably can by making up inflated sponsorship deals likes City did. Spurs have potential to do so with the use of their stadium for other uses, stadium sponsorship etc....but fundamentally we need to be more successful to generate the greater 'brand quality' that will see us competing with you for top sponsorship deals. That's far from certain because we are Spurs afterall, but financially the foundations are now really there and very strong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about strong, you have improved them for sure but there are challenged, your events page shows 4 events between now and October and that includes the two superbowl games. There is competition for gigs and events in many areas around you
Sorry hit send early there, not great with typing on phones.
Your expectations are high and good for you on that, I admire an optimist but you may be blindsided by all you choose to ignore, a bit like the Arsenal fans were.
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 25 minutes ago
Yes, in terms of sponsorship deals Spurs need to win league titles and European cups to get to Chelsea’s level.
A lot of ifs there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if CFC want to match Spurs matchday revenue then they'll need to spend £1bn on a stadium....big IF
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 16 minutes ago
Sorry hit send early there, not great with typing on phones.
Your expectations are high and good for you on that, I admire an optimist but you may be blindsided by all you choose to ignore, a bit like the Arsenal fans were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its already bearing fruit.
At the end of the 2020 season, which saw us lock down, our reported matchday revenue was £95m and yours £53m. SO its about 80% bigger. If you applied that over a full season then yours is £70m and ours £125m. Last year at WHL matchday was £52m.
That's just matchday. Not gigs and boxing and NFL rugby etc SO these additional elements will boost our commercial revenues, even if they remain as 6-8 events a year.
Since leaving WHL (2017) our commercial revenues have doubled from 85m Euro to 170m Euro, all helped by the new stadium, increased ability for sponsorship & diversification of revenue from other uses.
My expectations are realistic i believe. I know that by simply having this great stadium, being exposed on a global level across multiple sports it will generate big amounts of cash and we are now very well placed to secure a decent sponsorship. CFC will not like it but we will sell out more often than not next season.
Whether we are able to tap into other commercial revenues will depend on success on the pitch, and this isnt certain for any club, even Chelsea, but we are now at least able to compete to attract the quality of player that gives us a better chance to make these next steps.
Arsenal have missed a trick, both with their stadium and some of the deals they have done. Spurs revenues already surpass theirs and they have a stadium sponsor, and if you add UCL revenue to that this season, both Spurs & Chelsea blow them away. You cannot rely on Arsenal's poor running as example of the route we will follow because we have already overtaken them & we've barely got going!
There is another factor here that is not being talked about but I believe is another reason (apart from our consistent and ongoing success) why Chelsea will always be able to command bigger deals than Spurs or Arsenal for that matter.
Part of what makes up our global "Brand" and how we are perceived around the various parts of the UK and the wider world when attracting sponsors (or even new owners for that matter in their hundreds!!) is our location. Arsenal and Spurs, big Club's as they are, have never been able to replicate that in their areas, and won't I believe, at any time in future. As any estate agent will tell you it's all about location, location, location and our Club is situated amongst some of the most expensive real estate in the entire Country.
The North London Club's and particularly Tottenham are not situated in particularly nice or sought-after (and thus more valuable) areas, especially when it is directly compared to our part of London. Even the name of our Club is named after arguably the most glamourous and sexy part of London.
It is alleged that the reason that Abramovich turned down Spurs even before he even knew about Chelsea was not because of the state of their ground, (even though it wasn't anywhere near as nice then as it is now) but he apparently was aghast at the state of the surrounding locations around the ground which he allegedly described as "Worse than parts of Siberia!!" So Spurs clearly missed out on getting the best owner any Football Club could wish to have, purely because of their location.
Spurs fans love to tell everyone how their new ground has increased the value of their Club, (to as high as £8 million according to some!!) and while that is obviously a laughable claim it cannot be denied that it has definitely increased the brand value of their Club. However I know for a fact that if you were to carefully dismantle their ground brick by brick and then carefully rebuild it again on the site of Stamford Bridge (impossible I know because of a lack of space and due to the shape of the site) it would be worth a lot more than it is now because of where it would be situated. Those I am afraid are the harsh realities of life that Spurs fans will just have to accept.
Its defo a factor. You have a desirable post code but this really doesnt matter to the average fan.
This is a global market we are in and it is success that adds value to sponsorship & other commercial activity.....Christ, have you been to Manchester & Liverpool, large parts 'aint pretty' and it rains a lot but this has not limited their commercial success, because they have been successsful on the pitch.
We have NFL, the stadium is sold out and has a massive US audience...so what if its N17 or SW6, makes little difference to those viewing or those deciding whether to sponsor the event.
Most fans and viewers will not step into their club's stadium, they'll watch on TV.
And most sponsors will be aiming their product at the TV audience which will be much much bigger than those attending the game
I doubt NFL fans care where the games are, Wembley or spurs. I doubt that has any impact on anything at all.
HOw much you reckon Chelsea will spend this summer and on what positions?
I really like Havertz but in your system it seems like he almost has to play as the striker, because he's probably a more natural no.10 but that doesnt really suit your system. Could he play from wide?
What will happen with Lukaku & Werner?
We have NFL, the stadium is sold out and has a massive US audience...so what if its N17 or SW6, makes little difference to those viewing or those deciding whether to sponsor the event.
--------------------------------------
No, but it still does matter to the people that want to buy and sell Football Club's and as we all know Abramovich (and presumably others like him) doesn't mind pushing the envelope and will pay through the nose to get what he wants, IF he thinks that the investment is worth it.
The value of something is only what someone else is willing to pay for it and I know that some on the Spurs board couldn't understand why Chelsea fetched as much as it did and had so many interested parties at the price it was going for, with the Stadium as it is currently is, but it came as no surprise to me. Stadiums, Houses or Flats can be overhauled or upgraded but locations can't. SW6 and N17 are two vastly different propositions to these people when they are being asked to part with their money.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 25 minutes ago
Yes, in terms of sponsorship deals Spurs need to win league titles and European cups to get to Chelsea’s level.
A lot of ifs there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if CFC want to match Spurs matchday revenue then they'll need to spend £1bn on a stadium....big IF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the point, we don't really give a fluff for your stadium revenue. We will likely match or exceed it at some point if or when we develop the bridge, the bottom line is more important amongst other things like success.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Buck stops here...
Page 2 of 4
posted on 20/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 36 minutes ago
How do you fix a problem like Lukaku?
I read he was on £350k a weekNo one across Europe bar a few PL teams, PSG & Real can afford that but no one will be willing to pay it. Same problem we have with NDombele. £200k a week and not worth half that.
The financial situation Chelsea find themselves in will impact on how much can be invested. A teams Profit/loss which is what FFP uses to assess compliance includes "profit on player trading". That is basically the players value (say £100m) written off over the period of his contract (say 5 years), so after 1 year his 'book value' is £80m. If you sold Lukaku for £80m, for the purposes of your financial reporting you do not make a loss. Sell him for less and thats a negative on player trading. Chelsea rely heavily on "profit on player trading" to offset the high transfer spending....so you cannot just give him away. You will have to get some serious money, but who is going to pay that and match his wages.
CFC fans confident the new owners will back them, but the ability to do so is very different to being FFP compliant. CFC lost a lot of revenues last season over the sanctions so it becomes even harder to be compliant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those costs were on the club in its old owner status, I expect they are covered in the sale. I know you will not agree and argue it but that is what tends to happen during sales. I point this out only because if this is the case and you and Sandy start throwing your toys out that you can't say you wasn't warned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, i dont agree! as you are confusing losses with debt. The new owner may clear the debts but for financial reporting/FFP you still may have made a loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it’s done over the last few years. We got 40 million from hazard sale just this year fromcmadrid winning la liga and ucl. We sold tomori, guehi, Abraham and others basically offsetting lukaku sale already. We have been basically around the 0 mark for ffp for years now
posted on 20/6/22
Net spend which ffp look at, over last 5 years:
# club
Expenditure
Income
Balance
1 Arsenal FC £485.31m £114.75m £-370.56m
2 Manchester United £487.17m £145.74m £-341.43m
3 Liverpool FC £403.24m £125.57m £-277.67m
4 Aston Villa £417.84m £149.78m £-268.07m
5 Manchester City £544.42m £276.80m £-267.62m
6 West Ham United £346.41m £107.00m £-239.41m
7 Tottenham Hotspur £345.69m £111.84m £-233.85m
8 Newcastle United £288.59m £78.27m £-210.32m
9 Wolverhampton Wanderers £334.40m £151.56m £-182.84m
10 Chelsea FC £557.10m £375.85m £-181.25m
Spurs worse off than chelsea.
posted on 20/6/22
That’s actually cracked me up Devon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
posted on 20/6/22
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
posted on 20/6/22
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 28 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The holding company just bailed out Spurs over its 150m losses
posted on 20/6/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 28 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The holding company just bailed out Spurs over its 150m losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not allowed according to Devon
posted on 21/6/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not leaving, just changing roles. I think he dies a great job at the club and is greatly underappreciated and undervalued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beg to differ.
This is the same Buck was part of the board that incepted and spearheaded the ghastly Super League. Put the club at risk.
Once offered crisps to traveling fans as some sort of compensation. Made an farcical request to the FA for our matches to be played behind closed doors, when we were under sanctions.
He's greatly out of touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a big mistake and no one is perfect yet it was quickly recognised. Maybe we needed a group of people in charge of the club like that back in 1955 when we were pressured into not entering the newly born competition that isniw the Champions League.
All that asside he has done so much more for the club and was a season ticket holder prior to Romans reign. He has been a fan, albeit a very rich fan for many years now and knows the club well offering continuity that cannot be matched by many. People like him are easy targets though when people want to lay blame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Buck being a fan of the club since the 80s is the more reason why he shouldn't have firstly conspired to overrule / outdo the CPO shares and voting about the potential ground move, then later the Super League situation...catastrophically wrong, in my eyes.
He hid throughout the whole sanctions turmoil, leaving Tuchel to answer the tough questions in front of media every press conference (which is bizarre as a Chairman).
Could have gone someway toward diffusing the situation, instead of Tuchel being in the firing line (latter understandably became frustrated and eventually snapped).
Boehly strikes me as a real people' person (nothing underhand), which will stand him in good stead going forward and hopefully have the clubs best interest at heart as Chairman.
posted on 21/6/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 28 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The holding company just bailed out Spurs over its 150m losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not allowed according to Devon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP does not look at debt. It looks at profit and loss. Doesn't matter if your owners cover your debt or pocket all the profit themselves, it is that profit or loss that the accounts record and are assessed by FFP. If owners throw in money to pay off debt them that is owner investment which is limited by FFP to 35m a season.
I know Chelseas debt was cleared but that doesn't mean you won't necessarily make a loss for the financial year. You may make a profit, but your revenues took a hit from sanctions.
posted on 21/6/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
posted on 21/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be confusing yourself now, you claim we are reliant on player sales then go on to claim the reason we have bettered others is through commercial deals and success. All true proving that we do not reliant on any single factor but many. Our business model is diverse. You seem to be pinning your hopes on your stadium being used for other events. A quick glance at your events website shows 4 between now and October, how much revenue will these events generate compared to match day revenues, how many do you need to make a difference, will other local venues up there game, do you really need to be a multipurpose stadium to compete for such events, all questions that need to be considered. That aside, we are not the only club that generates more revenue than yourselves currently and none of the others have multi purpose stadiums either.
Apparently we make the most from our supporters, our stadium is undoubtedly smaller but it punches hard in the revenues space. We also have the ability to improve that without building a multi purpose stadium, and we have the capital set aside to build a new stadium or at least develop the bridge to improve capacity and remain focused on football alone.
Carry on seriously underestimating us. I understand your pride in your stadium, it reminds me once again of the Arsenal fans back in the day, things just don't always work out as you hope.
This link gives a bit t more detail on matchday revenues as they stand, or stood last year but bear in mind you have played your cards, we have yet to so we aren't dead yet, not by a long shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10234693/Chelsea-Liverpool-City-Man-Uniteds-matchday-income-revealed-does-club-make.html
posted on 21/6/22
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 3 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
comment by JFDI (U1657)
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not leaving, just changing roles. I think he dies a great job at the club and is greatly underappreciated and undervalued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beg to differ.
This is the same Buck was part of the board that incepted and spearheaded the ghastly Super League. Put the club at risk.
Once offered crisps to traveling fans as some sort of compensation. Made an farcical request to the FA for our matches to be played behind closed doors, when we were under sanctions.
He's greatly out of touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a big mistake and no one is perfect yet it was quickly recognised. Maybe we needed a group of people in charge of the club like that back in 1955 when we were pressured into not entering the newly born competition that isniw the Champions League.
All that asside he has done so much more for the club and was a season ticket holder prior to Romans reign. He has been a fan, albeit a very rich fan for many years now and knows the club well offering continuity that cannot be matched by many. People like him are easy targets though when people want to lay blame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Buck being a fan of the club since the 80s is the more reason why he shouldn't have firstly conspired to overrule / outdo the CPO shares and voting about the potential ground move, then later the Super League situation...catastrophically wrong, in my eyes.
He hid throughout the whole sanctions turmoil, leaving Tuchel to answer the tough questions in front of media every press conference (which is bizarre as a Chairman).
Could have gone someway toward diffusing the situation, instead of Tuchel being in the firing line (latter understandably became frustrated and eventually snapped).
Boehly strikes me as a real people' person (nothing underhand), which will stand him in good stead going forward and hopefully have the clubs best interest at heart as Chairman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe he was a fan in the 80s, I don't think he even lived in England then but I expect he knows our history and what happened back in the mid fifities which would have played a part in my thinking for a decision if I was a custodian of the club and not just a fan. I do not believe fir one second that he alone was responsible for the decision not that it was an easy or straight forward one.
posted on 21/6/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be confusing yourself now, you claim we are reliant on player sales then go on to claim the reason we have bettered others is through commercial deals and success. All true proving that we do not reliant on any single factor but many. Our business model is diverse. You seem to be pinning your hopes on your stadium being used for other events. A quick glance at your events website shows 4 between now and October, how much revenue will these events generate compared to match day revenues, how many do you need to make a difference, will other local venues up there game, do you really need to be a multipurpose stadium to compete for such events, all questions that need to be considered. That aside, we are not the only club that generates more revenue than yourselves currently and none of the others have multi purpose stadiums either.
Apparently we make the most from our supporters, our stadium is undoubtedly smaller but it punches hard in the revenues space. We also have the ability to improve that without building a multi purpose stadium, and we have the capital set aside to build a new stadium or at least develop the bridge to improve capacity and remain focused on football alone.
Carry on seriously underestimating us. I understand your pride in your stadium, it reminds me once again of the Arsenal fans back in the day, things just don't always work out as you hope.
This link gives a bit t more detail on matchday revenues as they stand, or stood last year but bear in mind you have played your cards, we have yet to so we aren't dead yet, not by a long shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10234693/Chelsea-Liverpool-City-Man-Uniteds-matchday-income-revealed-does-club-make.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenal's matchday revenue is about £100m compared to Chelsea's £70m, so in that respect they're winning. You may have a higher average spend but they have 20k more fans in the ground.
Its the other bits of their club that they have failed and commercial is the stand out one. About £80m in Chelseas favour. Arsenal's sponsorship deals are not the strongest and of course your success helps you drive yours upwards.
If Spurs or Arsenal or Newcastle want to match you financially, then its the commercial revenues that we must target. NUFC probably can by making up inflated sponsorship deals likes City did. Spurs have potential to do so with the use of their stadium for other uses, stadium sponsorship etc....but fundamentally we need to be more successful to generate the greater 'brand quality' that will see us competing with you for top sponsorship deals. That's far from certain because we are Spurs afterall, but financially the foundations are now really there and very strong.
posted on 21/6/22
Yes, in terms of sponsorship deals Spurs need to win league titles and European cups to get to Chelsea’s level.
A lot of ifs there
posted on 21/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 7 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 24 minutes ago
That’s actually cracked me upDevon worrying about our spending and being ffp compliant when by his own metrics, spurs are worse off than us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, in for a rude awakening and will cry foul from the rooftops despite all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
net spend isn't a measure of FFP. it is.just one element of cost/income on a profit/loss account. And for accounting/FFP purposes its measured differently from just taking away salea from purchases.
Having said that Chelsea are reliant on making strong player sales (lots of academy player mostly) to balance the books.
JFDI questions the strength of matchday revenue but I would say that these revenues are more stable and secure than relying on sales. I would also say there is a huge difference between Spurs and Arsenal's stadium as ours is genuinely multi purpose. Chelsea have bettered them because you have capitalised more on commercial revenue, and Arsenal have been without UCL for yeas now. Arsenal's matchday revenues still exceed chelseas.
Finally, that net spend table is hardly anything for Chelsea to brag about because although Spurs may have spent more in that time we have alao posted massive profits....so even though we've spent more NET, we still make profit. This demonstrates the undealing operating strength of Spurs...very big operating profits before taking account of player trading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be confusing yourself now, you claim we are reliant on player sales then go on to claim the reason we have bettered others is through commercial deals and success. All true proving that we do not reliant on any single factor but many. Our business model is diverse. You seem to be pinning your hopes on your stadium being used for other events. A quick glance at your events website shows 4 between now and October, how much revenue will these events generate compared to match day revenues, how many do you need to make a difference, will other local venues up there game, do you really need to be a multipurpose stadium to compete for such events, all questions that need to be considered. That aside, we are not the only club that generates more revenue than yourselves currently and none of the others have multi purpose stadiums either.
Apparently we make the most from our supporters, our stadium is undoubtedly smaller but it punches hard in the revenues space. We also have the ability to improve that without building a multi purpose stadium, and we have the capital set aside to build a new stadium or at least develop the bridge to improve capacity and remain focused on football alone.
Carry on seriously underestimating us. I understand your pride in your stadium, it reminds me once again of the Arsenal fans back in the day, things just don't always work out as you hope.
This link gives a bit t more detail on matchday revenues as they stand, or stood last year but bear in mind you have played your cards, we have yet to so we aren't dead yet, not by a long shot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10234693/Chelsea-Liverpool-City-Man-Uniteds-matchday-income-revealed-does-club-make.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenal's matchday revenue is about £100m compared to Chelsea's £70m, so in that respect they're winning. You may have a higher average spend but they have 20k more fans in the ground.
Its the other bits of their club that they have failed and commercial is the stand out one. About £80m in Chelseas favour. Arsenal's sponsorship deals are not the strongest and of course your success helps you drive yours upwards.
If Spurs or Arsenal or Newcastle want to match you financially, then its the commercial revenues that we must target. NUFC probably can by making up inflated sponsorship deals likes City did. Spurs have potential to do so with the use of their stadium for other uses, stadium sponsorship etc....but fundamentally we need to be more successful to generate the greater 'brand quality' that will see us competing with you for top sponsorship deals. That's far from certain because we are Spurs afterall, but financially the foundations are now really there and very strong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about strong, you have improved them for sure but there are challenged, your events page shows 4 events between now and October and that includes the two superbowl games. There is competition for gigs and events in many areas around you
posted on 21/6/22
Sorry hit send early there, not great with typing on phones.
Your expectations are high and good for you on that, I admire an optimist but you may be blindsided by all you choose to ignore, a bit like the Arsenal fans were.
posted on 21/6/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 25 minutes ago
Yes, in terms of sponsorship deals Spurs need to win league titles and European cups to get to Chelsea’s level.
A lot of ifs there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if CFC want to match Spurs matchday revenue then they'll need to spend £1bn on a stadium....big IF
posted on 21/6/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 16 minutes ago
Sorry hit send early there, not great with typing on phones.
Your expectations are high and good for you on that, I admire an optimist but you may be blindsided by all you choose to ignore, a bit like the Arsenal fans were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its already bearing fruit.
At the end of the 2020 season, which saw us lock down, our reported matchday revenue was £95m and yours £53m. SO its about 80% bigger. If you applied that over a full season then yours is £70m and ours £125m. Last year at WHL matchday was £52m.
That's just matchday. Not gigs and boxing and NFL rugby etc SO these additional elements will boost our commercial revenues, even if they remain as 6-8 events a year.
Since leaving WHL (2017) our commercial revenues have doubled from 85m Euro to 170m Euro, all helped by the new stadium, increased ability for sponsorship & diversification of revenue from other uses.
My expectations are realistic i believe. I know that by simply having this great stadium, being exposed on a global level across multiple sports it will generate big amounts of cash and we are now very well placed to secure a decent sponsorship. CFC will not like it but we will sell out more often than not next season.
Whether we are able to tap into other commercial revenues will depend on success on the pitch, and this isnt certain for any club, even Chelsea, but we are now at least able to compete to attract the quality of player that gives us a better chance to make these next steps.
Arsenal have missed a trick, both with their stadium and some of the deals they have done. Spurs revenues already surpass theirs and they have a stadium sponsor, and if you add UCL revenue to that this season, both Spurs & Chelsea blow them away. You cannot rely on Arsenal's poor running as example of the route we will follow because we have already overtaken them & we've barely got going!
posted on 21/6/22
There is another factor here that is not being talked about but I believe is another reason (apart from our consistent and ongoing success) why Chelsea will always be able to command bigger deals than Spurs or Arsenal for that matter.
Part of what makes up our global "Brand" and how we are perceived around the various parts of the UK and the wider world when attracting sponsors (or even new owners for that matter in their hundreds!!) is our location. Arsenal and Spurs, big Club's as they are, have never been able to replicate that in their areas, and won't I believe, at any time in future. As any estate agent will tell you it's all about location, location, location and our Club is situated amongst some of the most expensive real estate in the entire Country.
The North London Club's and particularly Tottenham are not situated in particularly nice or sought-after (and thus more valuable) areas, especially when it is directly compared to our part of London. Even the name of our Club is named after arguably the most glamourous and sexy part of London.
It is alleged that the reason that Abramovich turned down Spurs even before he even knew about Chelsea was not because of the state of their ground, (even though it wasn't anywhere near as nice then as it is now) but he apparently was aghast at the state of the surrounding locations around the ground which he allegedly described as "Worse than parts of Siberia!!" So Spurs clearly missed out on getting the best owner any Football Club could wish to have, purely because of their location.
Spurs fans love to tell everyone how their new ground has increased the value of their Club, (to as high as £8 million according to some!!) and while that is obviously a laughable claim it cannot be denied that it has definitely increased the brand value of their Club. However I know for a fact that if you were to carefully dismantle their ground brick by brick and then carefully rebuild it again on the site of Stamford Bridge (impossible I know because of a lack of space and due to the shape of the site) it would be worth a lot more than it is now because of where it would be situated. Those I am afraid are the harsh realities of life that Spurs fans will just have to accept.
posted on 21/6/22
*billion
a typo
posted on 21/6/22
Its defo a factor. You have a desirable post code but this really doesnt matter to the average fan.
This is a global market we are in and it is success that adds value to sponsorship & other commercial activity.....Christ, have you been to Manchester & Liverpool, large parts 'aint pretty' and it rains a lot but this has not limited their commercial success, because they have been successsful on the pitch.
We have NFL, the stadium is sold out and has a massive US audience...so what if its N17 or SW6, makes little difference to those viewing or those deciding whether to sponsor the event.
posted on 21/6/22
Most fans and viewers will not step into their club's stadium, they'll watch on TV.
And most sponsors will be aiming their product at the TV audience which will be much much bigger than those attending the game
posted on 21/6/22
I doubt NFL fans care where the games are, Wembley or spurs. I doubt that has any impact on anything at all.
posted on 21/6/22
HOw much you reckon Chelsea will spend this summer and on what positions?
I really like Havertz but in your system it seems like he almost has to play as the striker, because he's probably a more natural no.10 but that doesnt really suit your system. Could he play from wide?
What will happen with Lukaku & Werner?
posted on 21/6/22
We have NFL, the stadium is sold out and has a massive US audience...so what if its N17 or SW6, makes little difference to those viewing or those deciding whether to sponsor the event.
--------------------------------------
No, but it still does matter to the people that want to buy and sell Football Club's and as we all know Abramovich (and presumably others like him) doesn't mind pushing the envelope and will pay through the nose to get what he wants, IF he thinks that the investment is worth it.
The value of something is only what someone else is willing to pay for it and I know that some on the Spurs board couldn't understand why Chelsea fetched as much as it did and had so many interested parties at the price it was going for, with the Stadium as it is currently is, but it came as no surprise to me. Stadiums, Houses or Flats can be overhauled or upgraded but locations can't. SW6 and N17 are two vastly different propositions to these people when they are being asked to part with their money.
posted on 21/6/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 25 minutes ago
Yes, in terms of sponsorship deals Spurs need to win league titles and European cups to get to Chelsea’s level.
A lot of ifs there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if CFC want to match Spurs matchday revenue then they'll need to spend £1bn on a stadium....big IF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the point, we don't really give a fluff for your stadium revenue. We will likely match or exceed it at some point if or when we develop the bridge, the bottom line is more important amongst other things like success.
Page 2 of 4