Stadium revenue isn't that much these days compared to TV-deals and all other stuff is it? I mean, yes it would change a bit, but the difference in FFP-spending from 85k to 100k from matchday revenue, would it really move more than 1% of our ability to spend? Hopefully a decent blogger like swissramble or so, could outlay what it really means in terms of spending.
I’ll do some basic maths.
We turned over £170m in 2023 from Matchday Revenue supposedly.
If we played let’s say 30 matches that’s 5.6m per game in revenue. If we increase capacity from 75k to 100k and we ratio out the spend per head as the same, that would jump to 7.5m per game. If with the new infrastructure we can encourage fans to come earlier and stay later at games increase matchday spend by a conservative 10% per fan, we’re looking at 8.2m per game. That’s an extra 2.6m a game which over 30 games is 78m.
If we were then to say of that 78m we keep 20m for extra transfers per year (probably not how we’d distribute the new revenue but what the heck), leaving 58m per year to pay off the stadium. It would take 34.5 years to pay off 2bn.
This is a highly simplistic view and does exclude a few things which would move the needle either but less directly impacted by it being 100k instead of say 85k capacity:
- Interest on the financed loan / mortgage
- Not all the 2bn being financed / needing repayment (eg. £300m being funded by Jim)
- Extra revenue from other new avenues (eg. Concerts, NFL, boxing, etc) increasing the number of matchdays / events
- Stadium naming rights (Barca’s Spotify deal is estimated to be €70m a year for 4 years)
All in all, I think overtime the stadium will pay for itself. We could easily manage 100k capacity week in week out and the status we’d have for it would be worth it alone. If INEOS wanted too they could sponsor the stadium and shirts for the next 10 years for probably 1bn anyway, so it’s a no-brainer.