Arsenal were solvent at the time they built the Emirates. The cost has had a massive impact on their ability to invest in their squad. It is probably only now that they have true spending power.
Spurs were, likewise, solvent. Had the advantage of never spending much money before But has still had a considerable impact. The costs of building a ground are short-term. The benefits long-term
Man Utd are currently £1 Billion in debt. And-to have a team truly capable of matching Arsenal (never mind Liverpool) probably (in today's market) need to spend an extra £1 Billion+ in transfer fees, and the same again in Wages.
I think 2 billion is the entire project man u are paying for the stadium while the infrastructure , houses roads etc is being paid by the private sector and the government , basically the tax payer Of course it's gonna run over budget
The Tottenham Hotspur stadium is regarded as a massive success. But it's budgeted cost was £250 million. and cost £1.2 Billion.
To quote a fan as to why it was a success:-
"It was such a relief to be back home, and properly back home: not moving across the river and bribing to get a club relegated home; not selling out history to rent an athletics track home; but actually a Steffen Freund shanked pass away from our old ground's centre circle home".
It comes at a cost. So-for example-an Arsenal or an Everton could/can continue to play at Highbury/Goodison during development, whereas Spurs had to play at Wembley for 2 years. Where are Man Utd going to play? The Etihad? The Toughsheet Stadium?
And exactly how are they going to be able to build a bigger ground on the same site and still have space for 17,000 homes?
To accomadate most of their fan base, it will be Wembley.....obv
Here's a thought. One to enrage the Citeh fans.
Suppose-just suppose-the result of Man City's FFP fun is that they get relegated to the Champo or League 1. Their immediate problem is that they have the same massive cost base, and the loss of a massive amount of TV money.
They would need a Tenant for a while to remain solvent....
I think 2 billion is the entire project man u are paying for the stadium while the infrastructure , houses roads etc is being paid by the private sector and the government , basically the tax payer Of course it's gonna run over budget
The Tottenham Hotspur stadium is regarded as a massive success. But it's budgeted cost was £250 million. and cost £1.2 Billion.
To quote a fan as to why it was a success:-
"It was such a relief to be back home, and properly back home: not moving across the river and bribing to get a club relegated home; not selling out history to rent an athletics track home; but actually a Steffen Freund shanked pass away from our old ground's centre circle home".
It comes at a cost. So-for example-an Arsenal or an Everton could/can continue to play at Highbury/Goodison during development, whereas Spurs had to play at Wembley for 2 years. Where are Man Utd going to play? The Etihad? The Toughsheet Stadium?
And exactly how are they going to be able to build a bigger ground on the same site and still have space for 17,000 homes?
To accomadate most of their fan base, it will be Wembley.....obv
Here's a thought. One to enrage the Citeh fans.
Suppose-just suppose-the result of Man City's FFP fun is that they get relegated to the Champo or League 1. Their immediate problem is that they have the same massive cost base, and the loss of a massive amount of TV money.
They would need a Tenant for a while to remain solvent....
.....or in an ideal world, both clubs get 'relagated' this season. I feel this 'super league' nonsense will rear its head again before long.
I think 2 billion is the entire project man u are paying for the stadium while the infrastructure , houses roads etc is being paid by the private sector and the government , basically the tax payer Of course it's gonna run over budget
The Tottenham Hotspur stadium is regarded as a massive success. But it's budgeted cost was £250 million. and cost £1.2 Billion.
To quote a fan as to why it was a success:-
"It was such a relief to be back home, and properly back home: not moving across the river and bribing to get a club relegated home; not selling out history to rent an athletics track home; but actually a Steffen Freund shanked pass away from our old ground's centre circle home".
It comes at a cost. So-for example-an Arsenal or an Everton could/can continue to play at Highbury/Goodison during development, whereas Spurs had to play at Wembley for 2 years. Where are Man Utd going to play? The Etihad? The Toughsheet Stadium?
And exactly how are they going to be able to build a bigger ground on the same site and still have space for 17,000 homes?
To accomadate most of their fan base, it will be Wembley.....obv
Here's a thought. One to enrage the Citeh fans.
Suppose-just suppose-the result of Man City's FFP fun is that they get relegated to the Champo or League 1. Their immediate problem is that they have the same massive cost base, and the loss of a massive amount of TV money.
They would need a Tenant for a while to remain solvent....
.....or in an ideal world, both clubs get 'relagated' this season. I feel this 'super league' nonsense will rear its head again before long.
On the subject of the running of the Premier League.
There is a real possibility that City will be relegated this season. And-if they are-there is going to be a massive legal battle. Costing a lot of money. And going to last well beyond the start of next season.
But why are the rules not clear? If it happens, is the Premier League 19 teams next season? Does 18th stay up? Is there an additional play-off? Because Leicester and Ipswich have no idea whatsoever whether they should be striving for 17th or 18th.
Firstly, the only way that Man Utd fill 100,000 seats every game is to
A, Run Tourist weekends with a flights, accomodation and ticket package.
B, Build the new stadium in London so most of the fan base don't have far to travel.
C, Build it in Mumbai or Dheli
Secondly, assuming that this is all preparation for the day when the "Big Clubs" split and form a European Super League, the question is how much will ticket prices be. I'm guessing the most expensive in the world and I'm sure that the ancillary costs will be extortionate too £40 for a pint and a pie anybody.
They have already laid out their stall. They don't want the ordinary fan, they want the big corporate supporters. Imagine say a big mobile phone company/network take 10,000 seats. Maybe a major investment bank takes another 10,000 etc. These are then used as incentives for employees or customers. Then hospitality companies, travel firms, and the beat goes on.
Don't get me wrong Man Utd will still want fans to buy the 3 or 4 shirts each season and subscribe to the streaming service etc. Just don't expect to attend many games.
Likely to be 2 very different teams selected for Albania and Latvia-the former is very much more of a threat.
Strange that he feels the need to select 4 Goalkeepers-when only 1 is in the frame to be selected for Albania.
The Defence looks shaky. A mixture of the very old, the often injured, and the very inexperienced. Spence and Branthwaite should feel hard done by. Presume White still has a sulk on.
The Midfield looks awful. Plenty of decent attacking Midfielders. But the engine room looks bare. Rice-definitely. Jones-maybe. But Henderson? Players such as Gibbs-White, Wharton, Gomes, Gallacher and Nwaneri look hard done by.
The Attack looks weaker than for some time. Watkins being injured and a bunch of Wingers losing form at the same time.
It's looking a lot like a 3-4-2-1. Trying to hide the fact that we have only picked 2 midfielders. And their Dad.
One wonders what Gibbs-White has to do to get in the squad.
Exactly this.
Various injuries-T-A-A, Mainoo etc. With the squad he has picked, someone is going to drop back into Midfield for Albania-probably Bellingham. And bring Henderson on in the 85th minute.
But Latvia?
Where is the ambition? Can understand the risk that is Lewis-Skelly. Who else?
Can get rid of Maguire. But not Walker or Henderson?
Comments
Spurs were, likewise, solvent. Had the advantage of never spending much money before
Man Utd are currently £1 Billion in debt. And-to have a team truly capable of matching Arsenal (never mind Liverpool) probably (in today's market) need to spend an extra £1 Billion+ in transfer fees, and the same again in Wages.
Not a vanity project.
Suppose-just suppose-the result of Man City's FFP fun is that they get relegated to the Champo or League 1. Their immediate problem is that they have the same massive cost base, and the loss of a massive amount of TV money.
They would need a Tenant for a while to remain solvent....
There is a real possibility that City will be relegated this season. And-if they are-there is going to be a massive legal battle. Costing a lot of money. And going to last well beyond the start of next season.
But why are the rules not clear? If it happens, is the Premier League 19 teams next season? Does 18th stay up? Is there an additional play-off? Because Leicester and Ipswich have no idea whatsoever whether they should be striving for 17th or 18th.
Firstly, the only way that Man Utd fill 100,000 seats every game is to
A, Run Tourist weekends with a flights, accomodation and ticket package.
B, Build the new stadium in London so most of the fan base don't have far to travel.
C, Build it in Mumbai or Dheli
Secondly, assuming that this is all preparation for the day when the "Big Clubs" split and form a European Super League, the question is how much will ticket prices be. I'm guessing the most expensive in the world and I'm sure that the ancillary costs will be extortionate too £40 for a pint and a pie anybody.
They have already laid out their stall. They don't want the ordinary fan, they want the big corporate supporters. Imagine say a big mobile phone company/network take 10,000 seats. Maybe a major investment bank takes another 10,000 etc. These are then used as incentives for employees or customers. Then hospitality companies, travel firms, and the beat goes on.
Don't get me wrong Man Utd will still want fans to buy the 3 or 4 shirts each season and subscribe to the streaming service etc. Just don't expect to attend many games.
Likely to be 2 very different teams selected for Albania and Latvia-the former is very much more of a threat.
Strange that he feels the need to select 4 Goalkeepers-when only 1 is in the frame to be selected for Albania.
The Defence looks shaky. A mixture of the very old, the often injured, and the very inexperienced. Spence and Branthwaite should feel hard done by. Presume White still has a sulk on.
The Midfield looks awful. Plenty of decent attacking Midfielders. But the engine room looks bare. Rice-definitely. Jones-maybe. But Henderson? Players such as Gibbs-White, Wharton, Gomes, Gallacher and Nwaneri look hard done by.
The Attack looks weaker than for some time. Watkins being injured and a bunch of Wingers losing form at the same time.
It's looking a lot like a 3-4-2-1. Trying to hide the fact that we have only picked 2 midfielders. And their Dad.
@Essexphil
Looks to me like Tuchel is gearing up for the 2018 World Cup.
That would be Walker and Henderson
To be fair, assuming you mean 2028, I don't think Tuchel can look that far ahead. He has to at least come very close in the World Cup in 2026.
Or he doesn't make it to 2028.
Who is 90% to be in the Team in 2026?
Pickford. Bellingham. Rice. Kane.
That's it. And Pickford isn't great, Rice needs a leader alongside him, and Kane will be getting old.
Ha, no, I did mean 2018....
One wonders what Gibbs-White has to do to get in the squad.
Various injuries-T-A-A, Mainoo etc. With the squad he has picked, someone is going to drop back into Midfield for Albania-probably Bellingham. And bring Henderson on in the 85th minute.
But Latvia?
Where is the ambition? Can understand the risk that is Lewis-Skelly. Who else?
Can get rid of Maguire. But not Walker or Henderson?
He will be 33 in less than 2 months time. He is a year older than Maguire.