FFP

[Concrete Tom]

One day, United, City and Liverpool will realise that they will never achieve the same "events revenue" as Spurs and start proposing rule changes.

Tottenham have managed to create a lasting revenue advantage over everybody else within the league. Credit to them. But it's an unfair advantage if nobody else is able to create the same conditions.

Other than Chelsea, there is no club where I can foresee anybody being able to catch up to their "events revenue" due to their favourable geographical situation.

When Utd eventually build their new stadium, they will increase amount of events, but they will still be behind Spurs as Manchester is less attractive to promoters than London.

Chelsea, if they get their act together and build a new stadium are the only ones who could challenge - with their more central London location.

Spurs have been lording it up over everyone recently with their revenue arguments, "we can spend now because we suffered for decades to increase revenue". However, when (not if) Spurs get back into the Top 6 positions in the league, they STILL will not have the revenue to compete with the massive legacy fanbases of Liverpool/Utd - bet they won't be so happy with the SCR rules then!

[VILLA MOLE]

How can they add this to their Revenue stream .  It is nothing to do with the football side of the  club ?

[Dante Lavelli]

When Utd eventually build their new stadium, they will increase amount of events, but they will still be behind Spurs as Manchester is less attractive to promoters than London.

I'm not convinced that Spurs' location is that much of a barrier.  In London you have Wembley, Arsenal, Twickenham and the O2, and the Olympic Stadium that are direct competition and prepared to undercut Tottenham.  Harry Syles has just donr something like 14-days straight at Wembley for example.

That's why I think Villa Park can compete.  It doesn't need to be better, just the best within a 100-miles so we can host 10-20 events a year.

[Smithy]

How can they add this to their Revenue stream .  It is nothing to do with the football side of the  club ?

I've often wondered about this.  What's to stop any successful business saying "We're also a football team now".  They could buy a club, that becomes "the business".  For example, what in the rules prevents Nike from buying a club, absorbing it into their business and their P&L, and then using those figures to fudge their FFP position?

And if there ARE rules to prevent something like that, how does it allow Spurs to make millions as an events promoter?

[LeeS]

How can they add this to their Revenue stream .  It is nothing to do with the football side of the  club ?

I've often wondered about this.  What's to stop any successful business saying "We're also a football team now".  They could buy a club, that becomes "the business".  For example, what in the rules prevents Nike from buying a club, absorbing it into their business and their P&L, and then using those figures to fudge their FFP position?

And if there ARE rules to prevent something like that, how does it allow Spurs to make millions as an events promoter?

I asked the same question a few days back. Apparently, the answer is that using your stadium to make cash is explicitly permitted. Bolting on earnings from elsewhere is explicitly excluded.

[rougegorge]

When Utd eventually build their new stadium, they will increase amount of events, but they will still be behind Spurs as Manchester is less attractive to promoters than London.

I'm not convinced that Spurs' location is that much of a barrier.  In London you have Wembley, Arsenal, Twickenham and the O2, and the Olympic Stadium that are direct competition and prepared to undercut Tottenham.  Harry Syles has just donr something like 14-days straight at Wembley for example.

That's why I think Villa Park can compete.  It doesn't need to be better, just the best within a 100-miles so we can host 10-20 events a year.

I am not sure that VP can truly compete. London will always hold sway, and given the help Manchester and Liverpool have already had up to now, those places will doubtless have an advantage once Burnham becomes PM.

London is always attractive to investors and customers alike. Transport is better and it's where a lot of people like to go.  Look how Palace, Brentford and Fulham have managed to become established PL clubs. Their location alone gives them a helping hand.

The area and facilities around Tottenham's stadium may not be top notch, but they have improved a lot over the past few years. I can't see Aston or Witton getting to that level in the near future.

I do think if we moved to somewhere more central,  our possibilities and potential would increase, but obviously there's no sign of that happening.

[Dante Lavelli]

Sorry to bang on about this, but at the moment do people choose to travel from Stoke/Leicester/Coventry/Birmingham to London to watch these events, or do they not bother going?

[VILLA MOLE]

I take it if we cant get comcast or whoever has an interest in us  to rent out the Villa warehouse at £1 million a week for extra revenue  ?

[Tayls_7]

Sorry to bang on about this, but at the moment do people choose to travel from Stoke/Leicester/Coventry/Birmingham to London to watch these events, or do they not bother going?

I've always imagined people from Stoke go to London largely for Tommy Robinson marches.

[Crown Hill]

Sorry to bang on about this, but at the moment do people choose to travel from Stoke/Leicester/Coventry/Birmingham to London to watch these events, or do they not bother going?

I think a London travel for concerts, NFL and boxing.

In addition Coventry currently hosts Take That, Stone Roses, Guns n Roses, Spice Girls rot stuff that I think would come to us if we really wanted to push it!

[Somniloquism]

Didn't we have G&R last year before the Ozzy gig. And Take That about 10 years before

[Dogtanian]

Yes, and Pink in 2023.

[Smithy]

As others have said, there is a whole journey to be had between where we are, and where Spurs are in terms revenue from events/gigs and so on.  It's not a binary thing, we can get some of the way there with our existing infrastructure, and I'm sure the club are exploring that. 

Christ, if Coventry can host the likes of the Rolling Stones and Coldplay, we sure as hell can.  We don't have to be having events all the time, but surely we can add another £20-£30m simply by being more open to these types of opportunities?

[Percy McCarthy]

I take it if we cant get comcast or whoever has an interest in us  to rent out the Villa warehouse at £1 million a week for extra revenue  ?

We’ve sold it so I don’t think the club would get the revenue.

[Concrete Tom]

When Utd eventually build their new stadium, they will increase amount of events, but they will still be behind Spurs as Manchester is less attractive to promoters than London.

I'm not convinced that Spurs' location is that much of a barrier.  In London you have Wembley, Arsenal, Twickenham and the O2, and the Olympic Stadium that are direct competition and prepared to undercut Tottenham.  Harry Syles has just donr something like 14-days straight at Wembley for example.

That's why I think Villa Park can compete.  It doesn't need to be better, just the best within a 100-miles so we can host 10-20 events a year.

There is plentiful demand in London that does not exist in the Midlands. Logistically, it's easier for fans to travel to London than it is the events to travel to Brum.

Harry Styles did not play ANY other UK city than London on the Together, Together tour.

Even if we could attract 10-20 events per year (and I'm not sure Villa Park will ever get there), that would still be behind the 30 that Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is licensed to hold.