Chris Heck - President of Business Operations

[Smithy]

What's frustrating is looking at the revenue of Spurs, considering they've won the sum total of fuck all in this period;

2013	147m
2014	180m
2015	196m
2016	209m
2017	306m
2018	380m
2019	460m
2020	402m
2021	361m
2022	444m
2023	549m

 

It's almost like having a massive new stadium has inflated their income forever.

Nah Risso. Spurs are idiots. Didn't they hear? Expanding your capacity is a 'bad idea'. Paying for something over a 17 year period? Thankfully we have the man with the plan!

Broadly speaking all of the sky 6 have seen similar levels of growth to that

That's a big figure, but Spurs match receipts were £117.6m.  They didn't jump £200m a year off the back of a new stadium, they did it with better commercial revenue (£230m) and £50m from their last Champions League campaign in 2022-23 (for getting to last 16).  Reuters did a good write-up on the figures when they were released a few months ago.

[Dogtanian]

Yes, there are undoubtedly many aspects to that revenue, not just the stadium, but I don't think it's so easy to separate it out.

Okay, so £50m may come from the CL campaign, but if the stadium is helping them spend on better quality players and pay higher wages, then it's a factor in that success.

The same with commercial deals. Would they be getting the same deals they are now if they were operating out of a southern Bescott?

The stadium definitely elevates the profile of the club and makes them more attractive, which helps in getting people to want to work with them and do deals.

[Risso]

That's a big figure, but Spurs match receipts were £117.6m.  They didn't jump £200m a year off the back of a new stadium, they did it with better commercial revenue (£230m) and £50m from their last Champions League campaign in 2022-23 (for getting to last 16).  Reuters did a good write-up on the figures when they were released a few months ago.

In 2017, match receipts were £40m, so they've still nearly tripled.

[Smithy]

Yes, there are undoubtedly many aspects to that revenue, not just the stadium, but I don't think it's so easy to separate it out.

Okay, so £50m may come from the CL campaign, but if the stadium is helping them spend on better quality players and pay higher wages, then it's a factor in that success.

The same with commercial deals. Would they be getting the same deals they are now if they were operating out of a southern Bescott?

The stadium definitely elevates the profile of the club and makes them more attractive, which helps in getting people to want to work with them and do deals.

To be clear, I'm not in the "we don't need a bigger stadium camp".  I'm 100% open to the idea of a stadium move, if it's good for the club and the fans. I just don't like to see fans pointing to clubs with new stadiums and saying "THAT's why they make so much money".  Yes, a new, big, high-profile stadium has plenty of other (sometimes intangible) benefits - and the actual match-day revenue and bums on seats definitely improve the finances, but in the modern game, the other off-field activities FAR outweigh them, financially speaking.

Chelsea also turned over half a billion in their last figures, and their stadium is smaller than ours.

[Risso]

But the new Spurs stadium HAS massively increased their turnover. It's not all of their turnover, obviously, but it has made a huge difference to their finances.

[pablo_picasso]

Chelsea also turned over half a billion in their last figures, and their stadium is smaller than ours.

But their profits are over-inflated for a club their size, with a stadium their size, by the fact that they were allowed to spend billions of pounds in transfer fees, which created success on the pitch, which then allowed them to command high sponsorship deals & to cattle together some of the best young talent in the world so they could make high profits on them via their youth academy farm.

Without that initial spending, they are basically Norwich.

And with that loophole now closed, it doesn't matter what size their stadium is because they already have the over-inflated profits that make it almost impossible for newcomers to catch them from a commercial standpoint...

[Smithy]

But the new Spurs stadium HAS massively increased their turnover. It's not all of their turnover, obviously, but it has made a huge difference to their finances.

The only thing I've seen is the increase in match day revenue (which is still only 20% of their total revenue, in the bigger stadium), and a report which says they make about £5m from each non-sporting event they host (though I can't get a good number for how many of those there are).

Again, I'm not denying it's made a difference, or that a big new stadium would play an important part of the club's growth. I just dispute how big that difference has been for Spurs, or how big a difference it would make for us.  If Spurs are making another £100m+ a year from hosting events at their 'multipurpose stadium', then so be it - I'm happy to be proven wrong.  But I haven't seen anything definitive on that? 

However, even if we build our own similar multi-purpose stadium, we're unlikely to get the same sort of revenue because we're not in London. In much the same way we don't charge Spurs prices for our season tickets.

[Smithy]

Chelsea also turned over half a billion in their last figures, and their stadium is smaller than ours.

But their profits are over-inflated for a club their size, with a stadium their size, by the fact that they were allowed to spend billions of pounds in transfer fees, which created success on the pitch, which then allowed them to command high sponsorship deals & to cattle together some of the best young talent in the world so they could make high profits on them via their youth academy farm.

Without that initial spending, they are basically Norwich.

And with that loophole now closed, it doesn't matter what size their stadium is because they already have the over-inflated profits that make it almost impossible for newcomers to catch them from a commercial standpoint...

Of course, I agree completely with your assessment of how Chelsea have got here. 

However, I disagree that they can't be caught -  commercially speaking.  It will take a while, but with consistent(ish) success on the pitch, I'd be surprised if our commercial revenues didn't get close to theirs in the next four or five years - maybe sooner if the on-pitch success really takes off. 

Yes, a new/bigger stadium will make a difference, but not a decisive one.  We don't close that gap on teams like Chelsea and Spurs by having a 50k+ state of the art stadium.  That's simply not how it works.  If size of stadium was a major determining factor in commercial success, then Sunderland wouldn't have spent four of the last six seasons in League One.

[Risso]

2017 - £40m gate receipts
2023 - £117m gate receipts PLUS ANOTHER £55m - staging non-football stuff like NFL

Now there are in inconsistencies in there depending on what European competition was involved, but still, that's an extra £132m income. Even if you knock off (a complete guess) of £25m for Champions League gate receipts compared to Europa League, it's still well over £100m.

Of course all of that includes a London premium as well, but still, the decision to effectively do nothing at Villa is extremely short termist.

[Drummond]

I feel like we will gain quickly because we have a bunch of likeable people around, both on and off the pitch. That will have more people wanting to associate with us and make selling shirts and hospitality far easier too (in comparison with others like City, Newcastle, Chelsea).

[ChicagoLion]

Chelsea being in West London is a big deal.

[Smithy]

2017 - £40m gate receipts
2023 - £117m gate receipts PLUS ANOTHER £55m - staging non-football stuff like NFL

Now there are in inconsistencies in there depending on what European competition was involved, but still, that's an extra £132m income. Even if you knock off (a complete guess) of £25m for Champions League gate receipts compared to Europa League, it's still well over £100m.

Of course all of that includes a London premium as well, but still, the decision to effectively do nothing at Villa is extremely short termist.

Yep, those are big numbers, and would be hugely valuable to us if we could get them too.  That's about £1,800 in revenue per seat during the season for the Spurs.  We're at about £450 per seat (roughly).  So even with a bigger capacity, we're all going to have to start paying Spurs prices if we want that sort of revenue from our stadium.

But even if we COULD get another £130m a year from our own stadium (which would be lovely, but I very much doubt we could), we're STILL over TWO HUNDRED million behind them on other revenue, mainly on the commercial side.  That's the bit I think we need to focus on first, especially given our current resurgence and the profile we'll have this coming season.  We need to make a serious dent on the commercial side.

Again, for the record, I'm in favour of a new all-singing all-dancing stadium that allows us to have 50K+ fans at all home games. I just don't see it as a major factor in us being able to compete financially, certainly not in the next three or four years, anyway.

[algy]

2017 - £40m gate receipts
2023 - £117m gate receipts PLUS ANOTHER £55m - staging non-football stuff like NFL

Now there are in inconsistencies in there depending on what European competition was involved, but still, that's an extra £132m income. Even if you knock off (a complete guess) of £25m for Champions League gate receipts compared to Europa League, it's still well over £100m.

Of course all of that includes a London premium as well, but still, the decision to effectively do nothing at Villa is extremely short termist.

My hope is that the decision to hold off with the North Stand redevelopment is a short-term one rather than a long-term one.  I don't think there's anything wrong with going for a short-term strategy right now.  Mainly because we've just had Atairos come on board, and they may well be able to inform us of how to make the most of any new North Stand.  In which case delaying for a year or two loses some potential revenue in the short term, but might mean that over those 17 years or whatever it is more financially productive for the club.

In my mind we do either need to expand Villa Park or move if we're to keep up, and all the noises have been for staying put.  In which case, I think it's absolutely a good idea to make sure we get what we're doing right.

[Risso]

Again, for the record, I'm in favour of a new all-singing all-dancing stadium that allows us to have 50K+ fans at all home games. I just don't see it as a major factor in us being able to compete financially, certainly not in the next three or four years, anyway.

Well, obviously it wouldn't be in the years it takes to build, but then every year afterwards, it IS a major factor in being able to compete financially.

[ChicagoLion]

I wonder if it is possible to reduce the amount of ground closure whilst the new stand is being constructed.