Scum thread


#1827

I guess it’s the upheaval Spurs will face when they do eventually move stadium. And perhaps the lack of signings will affect them, they might already have a good team, but it’s still important to add reinforcement. If you’re standing still you’re moving backwards in football. Also, the hope is we can get significantly more points on the road than we managed last season (shouldn’t be too difficult!)

Basically it’s all clutching and blind optimism :smile:


#1828

Lots on this forum in the pre season prediction thread coupled with a couple of Arsenal related groups on social media, I get it’s probably more just the hatred for spurs that’s talking rather than looking at it from a non biased stand point.


#1829

Yeah I get that they haven’t made any signings, but I just don’t think Torriera and Emery will make up the 12 points difference or whatever it ended up being last season.


#1830

They will have one more good season at best.
Investment will depend on outgoing and same issues that we faced with Emirates.
Good thing for them is given the transfer inflation, They don’t have to wait 7 years to recoup their stadium investment.
If they sell off 4-5 players, they would be sorted; and back to regular business.


#1831

London prices of labour perhaps.


#1832

I highly doubt a 400-500 million pound investment is recouped/paid off in a seven year period. I’m sure Arsenal are still doing stadium payments.


#1833

I don’t know how their finances around the stadium is structured but ours had two components. We do still make periodic payments but due to our transfer activity betwee 06-13, we have facilitated payment of the large chunk of investment and now are left with 25m per year payment I believe.


#1834

Any prove/sources for that? Because it rather seems that commercial deals came to an end and we had the chance to renew having more for investment in the squad.


#1835

12 years hindsight, they haven’t even moved in yet so this sort of statement is far too early.


#1836

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2016/10/04/tracking-the-impact-of-arsenals-move-to-emirates-stadium-ten-years-on-was-it-worth-it/#5bd055ab537e

Commercial renegotiations relaxed the situation for sure but that happened in 2014.
Between 2006-2013, most of our profits came from property & players sales.

An overall profit has been generated but only on account of the profit from redevelopment of the Highbury site and selling players – both constituted a gamble that could have gone awry.

The net profit through the Emirate years has helped to partially pay down the direct stadium debt. The gross debt peaked at over $530M in 2008 and is now down to $303M. A significant reduction but a long way still to go until the stadium is debt free.


#1837

Interesting article


#1838

It was reported that Puma money was partially used to sign Ozil.

A significant reduction is different that a ‘large chunk of the investment’ being recouped.


#1839

Still seems an outrageous difference though.


#1840

Yes please :grin:


#1841

As hilarious as it is, Clubs should ban transfers out as well beyond the deadline day.
Else this whole thing will not work


#1842

They don’t have the power to do that. A club can take a stance but the PL can’t ban outgoing transfers.


#1843

They will have to strengthen in january for sure now.


#1844

They should really sell him for that money


#1845

Rip off Britain.


#1846

My frame of reference are the new modern stadiums in the U.S. I’m assuming that the new Sp*rs stadium will have 60k+ capacity. Throw in the modern video boards (especially ones that are a few stories tall or in length), updated infrastructure for wifi, quality eating/drinking places inside the stadium, etc. and it can get close to a billion quickly.

Atlanta’s new stadium was $1.6 billion, but it also has a retractable roof:

Even accounting for currency exchange vis-a-vi the pound to dollar, their new stadium can easily be $1 billion, but would need to see what amenities they’ve added.