2014/15 Premier League

[Game_Breaker]

Land Value, Yeah.

Fulham far exceeds Wembley.

Yeah, probably
But that's like saying a random football field in Vaucluse or Mosman is worth more than Suncorp or ANZ Stadium. What's on the land counts as well and Wembley cost over a billion to re-build, or close to it at least.

A bit more than Stamford Bridge.

 

[saint.nick]

So as a package deal (stadium + land) Stamford Bridge is the most valuable because of it's land?

I won't deny the fact, but it just doesn't seem right. Doesn't seem right that it can be the most valuable just because it's in a rich suburb. It's a stadium, not a residency...

 

[Twizzle]

The Values Of real estate in London, this is gripping stuff

 

[ggmu]

And Chelsea win the "we are based in a rich part of London so the land below our stadium is worth the most" trophy.

 

[Haffa]

Add it to the others.

 

[Craig Johnston]

except that stadium doesn't belong to them, it's worth squat nada

 

[Haffa]

Doesn't belong to who? Who owns it? Enlighten me.

I own the pitch got my share in 1999, but the club owns the stadium. It's a ceremonial thing. They're not real shares.

 

[Craig Johnston]

Doesn't belong to who? Who owns it? Enlighten me.

I own the pitch got my share in 1999, but the club owns the stadium. It's a ceremonial thing. They're not real shares.

except roman got told to f**k off when he tried to buy the freehold coz the fans don't trust him enough to completely sell out their soul.

so either roman lumps it or moves to a new stadium no longer to be known as chelski fc.

 

[Haffa]

That's only half the story. You completely misundertsand and misrepresent CPO's role.

I voted no too btw but only because they couldn't present a plan at the time. Which is what they're working on at the moment. The move to Battersea or Earls Court would have been good if they'd come off. But I'd prefer to stay at the bridge, it's the only ground we've played at and haven't sold our soul and jumped like other clubs over the years.

The plan to redevelop SB is shaping up well. But if an alternate site with a good plan is presented I expect that to go ahead too.

 

[Craig Johnston]

That's only half the story. You completely misundertsand and misrepresent CPO's role.

I voted no too btw but only because they couldn't present a plan at the time. Which is what they're working on at the moment. The move to Battersea or Earls Court would have been good if they'd come off. But I'd prefer to stay at the bridge, it's the only ground we've played at and haven't sold our soul and jumped like other clubs over the years.

The plan to redevelop SB is shaping up well. But if an alternate site with a good plan is presented I expect that to go ahead too.

what's there to misunderstand, at the end of the day......they don't own it.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

I don't think the stadium means much in the grand context of things, match day revenues are dwarfed by general sponsorship, it's more the cherry on top rather than a crowning centrepiece.

 

[Haffa]

what's there to misunderstand, at the end of the day......they don't own it.

CPO own the pitch not the stadium. The stadium was sold with the club by Uncle Ken to Roman. So yeah they do own it.

 

[Craig Johnston]

I don't think the stadium means much in the grand context of things, match day revenues are dwarfed by general sponsorship, it's more the cherry on top rather than a crowning centrepiece.

it's helps to sustain consistent income regardless of performance, eg newcastle.

 

[Craig Johnston]

CPO own the pitch not the stadium. The stadium was sold with the club by Uncle Ken to Roman. So yeah they do own it.

but you claimed the land is worth more than the stadium?

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

it's helps to sustain consistent income regardless of performance, eg newcastle.

yes and no

we both agree that if a team is not performing well on the pitch they are likely to receive reduced sponsorship deals, which yes having a large and club owned stadium that packs out every game would help plug these gaps in revenue.

that doesn't take into account the fact that all clubs have bandwagon fans, and the likelihood of a stadium packing out each week regardless of onfield performance is slim to nil.

 

[Craig Johnston]

yes and no

we both agree that if a team is not performing well on the pitch they are likely to receive reduced sponsorship deals, which yes having a large and club owned stadium that packs out every game would help plug these gaps in revenue.

that doesn't take into account the fact that all clubs have bandwagon fans, and the likelihood of a stadium packing out each week regardless of onfield performance is slim to nil.

except newcastle were still close to selling out st james even in div 1. their fanbase is hardcore, you have to give clubs like that alot of credit

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

i did say slim to nil and not completely impossible lol, but you're right on occasion it does happen and absolutely full credit to those guys that do stick it out.

but in saying all that, the stadium isn't the big fish in regards to revenue, it's sponsorship and tv deals, it's nice to say we pack 60k in every week or whatever but it doesn't contribute to the bottom line anywhere near what people think.

further to that, when you get stadium expansion, you are often inviting the plastics of each club to join the party - i know for a fact that a large part of the anfield expansion is to bring in the corporate clients - the ones that have no real interest/affiliation with the club, but want to be seen amongst the average joes (albeit in a glass cage with a buffet and staff member waiting on them hand and foot).

 

[Haffa]

but you claimed the land is worth more than the stadium?

You've misunderstood what owning the 'pitch' means. It's not like CPO can sell the ground. But thanks for the education on my Share.

Roman can still sell the place when we turn into Blackburn in a few years. Hopefully a past his best JT is still there then.

 

[Craig Johnston]

i did say slim to nil and not completely impossible lol, but you're right on occasion it does happen and absolutely full credit to those guys that do stick it out.

but in saying all that, the stadium isn't the big fish in regards to revenue, it's sponsorship and tv deals, it's nice to say we pack 60k in every week or whatever but it doesn't contribute to the bottom line anywhere near what people think.

further to that, when you get stadium expansion, you are often inviting the plastics of each club to join the party - i know for a fact that a large part of the anfield expansion is to bring in the corporate clients - the ones that have no real interest/affiliation with the club, but want to be seen amongst the average joes (albeit in a glass cage with a buffet and staff member waiting on them hand and foot).

http://www.forbes.com/teams/newcastle-united/
Match Day
$63 M
Broadcasting
$189 M
Commercial
$55 M

vs say west ham another club without european fixtures;

Match Day
$39 M
Broadcasting
$152 M
Commercial
$36 M

that's worth a mint to most mid table clubs

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

Right - if we're comparing midtable or below clubs it's huge, but Liverpool and Chelsea aren't midtable clubs (at least not yet as far as Liverpool is concerned).

Having an extra 13k seats to bring it upto 58k (I think?) will help yes, but the amount it will earn the club will be dwarfed by one additional sponsorship deal - that was my original point about the importance of stadia and attendances, at least at the top level.