Spurs new stadium | Loses NFL for 2020 but gains appearance in Gangs of London £££

dove said:
Sounds about right.
Click to expand...

50,00 - 60,000 people per event, all buying tickets, plus food, drink and merchandise, not to mention corporate boxes … and all Spurs get is max. of £625k per event?

60,000 people, base on your suggested income figure, works out to only £10.41p maximum per customer.

Dream on.
 
GlastonSpur said:
50,00 - 60,000 people per event, all buying tickets, plus food, drink and merchandise, not to mention corporate boxes … and all Spurs get is max. of £625k per event? That works out to £10.41p maximum per customer.

Dream on.
Click to expand...
Not sure what formula do you use here, do you think all money from tickets will go to Spurs?
 
GlastonSpur said:
I agree that £100m extra income means nothing on it's own. And nor have I said that net profit isn't important - that's your invention.

But for the nth time, we were actually discussing income and not profit. If you now want to switch ground onto profits - and then predict dire times ahead for Spurs on this front, then good luck to you.

As for e-sports events - Google itself yourself if you like. You'll discover that they are big and likely to get even bigger.

As I've said before, some people don't realise how ground-breaking and unique our new stadium is going to be as far as club football stadiums in the UK are concerned. And so some people have not yet twigged what a game-changer it's going to be for Spurs financially.
Click to expand...
You were discussing how Spurs will pay for the stadium and cited this fictional £100m as how it would be paid for. Spurs won’t have that £100m to pay for the stadium though as to gather that income there are expenses. So even if the projections are true there still won’t be an extra £100m sitting in the bank to pay loans so citing that figure is pointless. It’s just an empty, headline figure plucked from thin air.
 
dove said:
Not sure what formula do you use here, do you think all money from tickets will go to Spurs?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But we're certainly going to get more than £10.41 per attendee.

Do you think that Spurs will provide their stadium free of hire charges? Do you think that all the people selling food, drink and merchandise - those not employed by Spurs - get to do so for free? Do you think we won't get a cut of ticket sales?
 
Ticket sales and match day income is such a tiny amount now, clubs can quite easily play Infront of an empty stadium and run at a profit.
 
acnumber9 said:
You were discussing how Spurs will pay for the stadium and cited this fictional £100m as how it would be paid for. Spurs won’t have that £100m to pay for the stadium though as to gather that income there are expenses. So even if the projections are true there still won’t be an extra £100m sitting in the bank to pay loans so citing that figure is pointless. It’s just an empty, headline figure plucked from thin air.
Click to expand...

The figure of £100m is not fictional - it's backed by up by the evidence I've given.

Nor have I cited the £100m as to how the loan will be paid for. It's simply additional income that will be added to our current income, and the loan will be financed out of the total income.

I get what you want to believe - I really do. You want to think that Spurs will be in difficult financial circumstances and that - somehow - our new stadium will be a liability.

But really, we've spent so little in net terms for years now on player signings, and have had to pump so much club income into construction costs, that it's not difficult to see that, even with loan repayments figured into the equation, our new stadium will provide more spare income than we've had for a long time past.

It really is wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I've already given some figures.

As for the rest, they would if they could, but they can't, because it'd go far beyond mere 'renovation'. The other stadiums are simply not designed to be multi-use and multi-purpose.
Click to expand...

The article you posted says £3m per event which would assume it's completely full of people paying £50 per ticket and assumes 100% of receipts would be taken by the owners of the venue... Total pie in the sky stuff.

Even if the gross benefits were exaggerated at say £1m per event, the costs associated with hosting would be greater than any profit (I know we're talking about revenue growth but that's vanity compared with the sanity of profit).

Like the rest of the stadium endeavor you're hugely overplaying the benefits. It'll be as important for Spurs as the Emirates is and was for Arsenal... No better and no worse.
 
Last edited:
GlastonSpur said:
The figure of £100m is not fictional - it's backed by up by the evidence I've given.

Nor have I cited the £100m as to how the loan will be paid for. It's simply additional income that will be added to our current income, and the loan will be financed out of the total income.

I get what you want to believe - I really do. You want to think that Spurs will be in difficult financial circumstances and that - somehow - our new stadium will be a liability.

But really, we've spent so little in net terms for years now on player signings, and have had to pump so much club income into construction costs, that it's not difficult to see that, even with loan repayments figured into the equation, our new stadium will provide more spare income than we've had for a long time past.

It really is wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
You have provided conjecture. Based on an article in the Daily Mail. Evidence will only be from financial figures that you can’t provide.

You can deflect with your fantasies all you want. Reality is that Spurs won’t have an extra £100m to spend on anything. Be that players or loans. It was wishful thinking to believe that Spurs would spend lots of money on signings this summer and it’s wishful thinking that Spurs are going to have large amounts of cash flow for the foreseeable future.
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, of course not. But we're certainly going to get more than £10.41 per attendee.

Do you think that Spurs will provide their stadium free of hire charges? Do you think that all the people selling food, drink and merchandise - those not employed by Spurs - get to do so for free? Do you think we won't get a cut of ticket sales?
Click to expand...
How many venues do you know off that get a cut from ticket sales? Any examples?
 
acnumber9 said:
How many venues do you know off that get a cut from ticket sales? Any examples?
Click to expand...

This will likely depend on the nature of the event - and be subject to negotiations between Spurs and the event's main organisers - but it's hardly an uncommon practice. In any case, it's simply an example of one possible type of arrangement.
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, of course not. But we're certainly going to get more than £10.41 per attendee.

Do you think that Spurs will provide their stadium free of hire charges? Do you think that all the people selling food, drink and merchandise - those not employed by Spurs - get to do so for free? Do you think we won't get a cut of ticket sales?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting that the NFL or any top music promotor will cut Spurs in from the ticket fees? You outdid yourself there. Well done.
 
finneh said:
The article you posted says £3m per event which would assume it's completely full of people paying £50 per ticket and assumes 100% of receipts would be taken by the owners of the venue... Total pie in the sky stuff.

Even if the gross benefits were exaggerated at say £1m per event, the costs associated with hosting would be greater than any profit (I know we're talking about revenue growth but that's vanity compared with the sanity of profit).

Like the rest of the stadium endeavor you're hugely overplaying the benefits. It'll be as important for Spurs as the Emirates is and was for Arsenal... No better and no worse.
Click to expand...

The article cited doesn't say £3m per event. It says "up to £3m". Nor does this assume that we take 100% of ticket receipts, or even any necessarily any percentage of ticket receipts.

You are completely ignoring any possibility of income from the sales of food, drink and merchandising, not to mention event sponsors (for advertising rights and facilities) or broadcasting rights, or corporate boxes etc etc.

And yes, it will be a better situation than pertains to the Emirates, for the simple reason that that our stadium is multi-purpose, multi-use and designed to be a 'whole day' experience. And that's not to mention the NFL side of things, including the possibility of a future permanent franchise.
 
Johan07 said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the NFL or any top music promotor will cut Spurs in from the ticket fees? You outdid yourself there. Well done.
Click to expand...

We already have an agreed deal with the NFL. Whether that does include anything to do with ticket sales I've no more idea than you do.

Why wouldn't a music promoter possibly agree to a ticketing deal in return for a lower fee for stadium use? Not that it matters much either way, because those possible income streams are just one type out of many for such events.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The article cited doesn't say £3m per event. It says "up to £3m". Nor does this assume that we take 100% of ticket receipts, or even any necessarily any percentage of ticket receipts.

You are completely ignoring any possibility of income from the sales of food, drink and merchandising, not to mention event sponsors (for advertising rights and facilities) or broadcasting rights, or corporate boxes etc etc.

And yes, it will be a better situation than pertains to the Emirates, for the simple reason that that our stadium is multi-purpose, multi-use and designed to be a 'whole day' experience. And that's not to mention the NFL side of things, including the possibility of a future permanent franchise.
Click to expand...
And you are completely assuming (it seems) that Spurs will employ all of the staff of the stadium on a permanent basis at every event and collect the income from sales, food and merchandising (really? you think Spurs will get a percentage of every Bruce Springsteen T-shirt sold?)

I would hazard a guess that if its not already in place there will be a separate management company engaged to manage the stadium and all of the events. Including Spurs games. A football club itself does not have the know-how to manage a stadium.

Look: the revenue of owning a football stadium and leasing it out for other events is severely overrated. There are a lot of examples of this around the globe. I will not go deeper into this because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
 
GlastonSpur said:
We already have an agreed deal with the NFL. Whether that does include anything to do with ticket sales I've no more idea than you do.

Why wouldn't a music promoter possibly agree to a ticketing deal in return for a lower fee for stadium use? Not that it matters much either way, because those possible income streams are just one type out of many for such events.
Click to expand...
I think I do. This ends my participation in this thread and trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
 
Johan07 said:
And you are completely assuming (it seems) that Spurs will employ all of the staff of the stadium on a permanent basis at every event and collect the income from sales, food and merchandising (really? you think Spurs will get a percentage of every Bruce Springsteen T-shirt sold?)

I would hazard a guess that if its not already in place there will be a separate management company engaged to manage the stadium and all of the events. Including Spurs games. A football club itself does not have the know-how to manage a stadium.

Look: the revenue of owning a football stadium and leasing it out for other events is severely overrated. There are a lot of examples of this around the globe. I will not go deeper into this because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming any such thing.

I'm simply saying that 50k - 60k people buying tickets for an event and spending many hours inside the stadium complex will spend a lot of money in total, on tickets, food, drink, merchandise, going to our extreme sports centre, or doing the sky-walk and so on.

One way or another Spurs will get some of that money … a lot more than just the £10.41p per person put forward by one poster.

And on top this, for some events, there will be broadcasting rights, advertising rights, corporate box hospitality and more. And again, Spurs will earn some money from this.
 
Johan07 said:
I think I do. This ends my participation in this thread and trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
Click to expand...

So you are privy to the contractual details of Spurs NFL deal? I reckon not.

But any case, this currently concerns only 2 of the 16 possible annual events. And any ticketing income - whether zero or not - from these 2 events pales into insignificance compared to the associated exposure of Spurs to the massive NFL audience in the USA and elsewhere and the potential commercial future implications thereof.
 
Johan07 said:
And you are completely assuming (it seems) that Spurs will employ all of the staff of the stadium on a permanent basis at every event and collect the income from sales, food and merchandising (really? you think Spurs will get a percentage of every Bruce Springsteen T-shirt sold?)
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
GlastonSpur said:
This will likely depend on the nature of the event - and be subject to negotiations between Spurs and the event's main organisers - but it's hardly an uncommon practice. In any case, it's simply an example of one possible type of arrangement.
Click to expand...
One example will do.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The article cited doesn't say £3m per event. It says "up to £3m". Nor does this assume that we take 100% of ticket receipts, or even any necessarily any percentage of ticket receipts.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what the article does. It bases its figures on 100% tickets sales.

You said £2m was a conservative estimate. What do you base that on?
 
Will the Spurs stadium be finished before the end of the year?

Hopefully it will be, and Poch gets to play at least 6-7 home games there....before he leaves :)
 
GlastonSpur said:
The article cited doesn't say £3m per event. It says "up to £3m". Nor does this assume that we take 100% of ticket receipts, or even any necessarily any percentage of ticket receipts.

You are completely ignoring any possibility of income from the sales of food, drink and merchandising, not to mention event sponsors (for advertising rights and facilities) or broadcasting rights, or corporate boxes etc etc.

And yes, it will be a better situation than pertains to the Emirates, for the simple reason that that our stadium is multi-purpose, multi-use and designed to be a 'whole day' experience. And that's not to mention the NFL side of things, including the possibility of a future permanent franchise.
Click to expand...

How about you just post your turnover prediction for 2019 so we all have something concrete to point to when these fantasy figures fail to come to fruition?
 
Glaston´s ramblings aside: Does anyone have any insight in how their new stadium is going to be operated de facto?

Normally the stadium owner outsources the whole of the management and the operations of the stadium to a separate entity/company.

Of which said Management Company the owner of the stadium (Spurs) might be a smaller, larger or even the only shareholder.

The alternative is to outsource the management/operation completely by selling the shares in the MC to a professional player like AEG or Lagardére. I would guess that this is the alternative that is the normal practice around Europe without having deeper insight than in and around Scandinavia. Would be interested to know what is the common practice in the UK.

The income for Spurs itself yearly (in both cases) would essentially be the rent that the MC agrees to contractually. Spurs income will in either case have little to do with how many people that buys Springsteen T-shirts or micro brew at their home games. Or yeah, in the first case if they remain a large shareholder it will do so indirectly I guess.

Anyone ITK that could shine a light on this?
 
GlastonSpur said:
50,00 - 60,000 people per event, all buying tickets, plus food, drink and merchandise, not to mention corporate boxes … and all Spurs get is max. of £625k per event?

60,000 people, base on your suggested income figure, works out to only £10.41p maximum per customer.

Dream on.
Click to expand...

Maybe that’s Spurs’ cut?

After Artists, performers, caterers, promoters, security, taxes and other expenses are taken out of the equation?
 
acnumber9 said:
One example will do.
Click to expand...

And so the thread degenerates into unimportant trivia, as posters get increasingly desperate to point-score on any minutae.

But if you insist (as if there aren't thousands of venues that offer box-office/ticket income sharing deals):Battersea Arts Centre, Cambridge Arts Theatre, Bread & Roses Theatre.
.
Google is your friend ...
 
GlastonSpur said:
And so the thread degenerates into unimportant trivia, as posters get increasingly desperate to point-score on any minutae.

But if you insist (as if there aren't thousands of venues that offer box-office/ticket income sharing deals):Battersea Arts Centre, Cambridge Arts Theatre, Bread & Roses Theatre.
.
Google is your friend ...
Click to expand...
The real big players.

Since you say Google is your friend I did a quick search. This is what Cambridge Arts Theatre had to say:

“All tickets for the Arts Theatre include a £3 per-ticket booking fee. The booking fee is essential direct income for the Theatre. Because ticket revenue is divided between many different parties, an increase in ticket prices would not necessarily benefit the Theatre. By charging a booking fee we can ensure that every penny goes directly to the Theatre to help us protect its growth and longevity.”

https://www.cambridgeartstheatre.com/index.php/visit-us/how-to-book

Doesn’t look to me as if the venue is getting too much of a cut of the ticket price. Maybe you and Google should become better friends.
 
acnumber9 said:
The real big players.

Since you say Google is your friend I did a quick search. This is what Cambridge Arts Theatre had to say:

“All tickets for the Arts Theatre include a £3 per-ticket booking fee. The booking fee is essential direct income for the Theatre. Because ticket revenue is divided between many different parties, an increase in ticket prices would not necessarily benefit the Theatre. By charging a booking fee we can ensure that every penny goes directly to the Theatre to help us protect its growth and longevity.”

https://www.cambridgeartstheatre.com/index.php/visit-us/how-to-book

Doesn’t look to me as if the venue is getting too much of a cut of the ticket price. Maybe you and Google should become better friends.
Click to expand...

While I don’t pretend to know what the revenue streams are I don’t think comparing an arts theatre that holds 666 people to an Arena holding 60,000. From what I can see they only hold small productions, when you consider the price of an Arena Tour ticket costs anything from around £40-50 to well over £100 I’m pretty sure. The venue will get more than £3. We are definite scraping the bottom of the disscussion barrel here as no one really has a clue.
 
InLevyITrust said:
While I don’t pretend to know what the revenue streams are I don’t think comparing an arts theatre that holds 666 people to an Arena holding 60,000. From what I can see they only hold small productions, when you consider the price of an Arena Tour ticket costs anything from around £40-50 to well over £100 I’m pretty sure. The venue will get more than £3.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t me that brought them into the conversation. Tickets for arena tours do cost more for the customer. They also cost more to stage so the performer and promoter are wanting their profits. The venues are not the big winners. I’m sure they’ll get more than £3 but the article Glaston is pinning his facts on seems to think Spurs get 100%.
 
acnumber9 said:
That’s exactly what the article does. It bases its figures on 100% tickets sales.

You said £2m was a conservative estimate. What do you base that on?
Click to expand...

The article may be based on that, but any e-sports events at the new Spurs stadium don't have to be organised by Spurs - they could be organised by a specialist e-sports company, with or without a ticket-sharing split as part of the deal.

£2m per event is a conservative figure because 60k people (8k of them in VIP facilities) spending many hours inside the stadium complex will spend a lot of money in total, on tickets, food, drink, merchandise, going to our extreme sports centre, or club shop, or doing the sky-walk and so on.

To reach £2m, 60k people only have to spend an average of just over £33 each in money that comes to Spurs.

And that's not even counting money, for some events, that will come from broadcasting/streaming rights and/or advertising rights and/or corporate box hospitality and more.
 
Last edited:
acnumber9 said:
The real big players.

Since you say Google is your friend I did a quick search. This is what Cambridge Arts Theatre had to say:

“All tickets for the Arts Theatre include a £3 per-ticket booking fee. The booking fee is essential direct income for the Theatre. Because ticket revenue is divided between many different parties, an increase in ticket prices would not necessarily benefit the Theatre. By charging a booking fee we can ensure that every penny goes directly to the Theatre to help us protect its growth and longevity.”

https://www.cambridgeartstheatre.com/index.php/visit-us/how-to-book

Doesn’t look to me as if the venue is getting too much of a cut of the ticket price. Maybe you and Google should become better friends.
Click to expand...

As I've already said, the thread descends into unimportant trivia ...
 
GlastonSpur said:
The article may be based on that, but any e-sports events at the new Spurs stadium don't have to be organised by Spurs - they could be organised by a specialist e-sports company, with or without a ticket-sharing split as part of the deal.

£2m per event is a conservative event because 60k people (8k of them in VIP facilities) spending many hours inside the stadium complex will spend a lot of money in total, on tickets, food, drink, merchandise, going to our extreme sports centre, or doing the sky-walk and so on.

To reach £2m, 60k people only have to spend an average of just over £33 each in money that comes to Spurs.

And that's not even counting money, for some events, that will come from broadcasting/streaming rights and/or advertising rights and/or corporate box hospitality and more.
Click to expand...
The tickets and merchandise will not be going to Spurs though. It goes to the performers or promoters. Food and drink probably go to Spurs. Maybe they can make £2m income from that. Profit? Much less. The fact still remains you are basing your figures on a Daily Mail article that is clearly badly sourced because they’re basing the figures on ticket sales.

When did 50k become 60k? Broadcasting or streaming rights won’t go to the owner of the venue unless they own the content. You’re plucking things out of thin air.
 
Nobody going to a concert, or an e-sports event is going to visit the extreme sports centre.
 
acnumber9 said:
It wasn’t me that brought them into the conversation. Tickets for arena tours do cost more for the customer. They also cost more to stage so the performer and promoter are wanting their profits. The venues are not the big winners. I’m sure they’ll get more than £3 but the article Glaston is pinning his facts on seems to think Spurs get 100%.
Click to expand...

We will get a a percentage but honestly I have no idea how much but will probably stay round the same figure. The venue will probably also get a cut of any merchandise sold and also don’t for get they also make money out of the most expensive thing at a concert, food and drink. I still think it’s a silly argument as we have no idea. It’s certainly not going to lose the club any money.
 
InLevyITrust said:
We will get a a percentage but honestly I have no idea how much but will probably stay round the same figure. The venue will probably also get a cut of any merchandise sold and also don’t for get they also make money out of the most expensive thing at a concert, food and drink. I still think it’s a silly argument as we have no idea. It’s certainly not going to lose the club any money.
Click to expand...
It won’t necessarily be a percentage. Somebody keeps mentioning a figure as if it is fact so I’m just asking where it comes from. It’s a mix between fantasy and a poorly thought out Daily Mail article.
 
acnumber9 said:
It wasn’t me that brought them into the conversation. Tickets for arena tours do cost more for the customer. They also cost more to stage so the performer and promoter are wanting their profits. The venues are not the big winners. I’m sure they’ll get more than £3 but the article Glaston is pinning his facts on seems to think Spurs get 100%.
Click to expand...

I haven't said this at all. There can be a variety of deals, ranging from no ticket-splits to partial ticket-splits ... and even events organised completely by Spurs alone where we get all of the ticket money.

It doesn't matter. The point is that 60k people will spend a lot of money - and some events bring with them additional revenue streams - and one way or another some of this money will come to Spurs.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I haven't said this at all. There can be a variety of deals, ranging from no ticket-splits to partial ticket-splits ... and even events organised completely by Spurs alone where we get all of the ticket money.

It doesn't matter. The point is that 60k people will spend a lot of money - and some events bring with them additional revenue streams - and one way or another some of this money will come to Spurs.
Click to expand...
I asked where you got your conservative estimates from and you linked me to a Daily Mail article with figures based on Spurs getting 100% of the ticket income. Like I said, it’s fantasy at the moment.
 
Let's be honest... If stadium events were raking in anything close to £3m a time anyone with a decent plot of land would be building them... Rather than the reality that stadiums are only even slightly viable with football playing their every fortnight.

In reality these events will be lucky to cover the wage of Harry Winks from a cash flow point of view. It's completely irrelevant in terms of Spurs as a football club.

It's like United fans bragging about the change in the value of the dollar these last 3 months has increased the Chevrolet deal by £2m
 
Dec9003 said:
Nobody going to a concert, or an e-sports event is going to visit the extreme sports centre.
Click to expand...

Why not? The stadium can be open all day before the concert. And if not the extreme sports centre, then maybe the club shop, or the sky-walk, or eating and drinking at one of the sixty outlets, or visiting the interactive museum etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.