How important is owning the stadium?

[threesixty]

I believe the club have a 99yr lease at a few million a year or something silly.
Other clubs have had to take huge loans with massive interest rates that they have to pay to build a new ground. 
I don’t understand how West Ham can have any money problems whatsoever?
Why would we better off owning the stadium as if its land value, well, your using the land to play football so there is no other use for it.
Plus, clubs like Liverpool & Everton own stadiums in cheap areas of the country so it feels like ownership doesn’t really mean much.

Not sure I get it? (Apart from having the right to tear it down and rebuild something better).
 

[threesixty]

Sixty, do yourself a favour, get yourself a ticket and actually go to the stadium. 

If we were leasing a football stadium for 99 years, it wouldn't matter so much, when all said and done. The problem is we are leasing an athletics stadium, that we can't do fuck all with.

The match going experience is the worst in the country for fans, you'llknow what i mean if you do go, and we no longer have home advantage for the players. It's a disaster.

 

 

This was a business question really.
I did mention “apart from the right to tear it down and build something new”. Not asking whether fans love it or not, rather the inherent business value of owning a stadium for a football club.

The San Siro is not owned by AC Milan or Inter Milan for example.
Also I think Roma and Lazio’s stadium has a running track as well. I dont hear there fans moan as much as ours about the distance etc, and I hear the atmosphere is good.

I think the biggest problem has been the shit football regardless of whether we win games or not, its not very exciting to watch your team pinned to their area for a whole game even if they nick a win. Good football makes people excited, whether your down the pub or in a stadium. Atmosphere comes from that I think.

[Bondholder]

Very important. Just ask Daniel Levy, who ironically is the reason we don't own the London Stadium

[Eerie Decent]

Sixty, do yourself a favour, get yourself a ticket and actually go to the stadium. 

If we were leasing a football stadium for 99 years, it wouldn't matter so much, when all said and done. The problem is we are leasing an athletics stadium, that we can't do fuck all with.

The match going experience is the worst in the country for fans, you'llknow what i mean if you do go, and we no longer have home advantage for the players. It's a disaster.

[goose]

I wish we had someone running the club who had half the business acumen of Daniel Levy.

[Bondholder]

Let's not forget, we would own the stadium if it wasn't for Daniel Levy,

[threesixty]

I thought the reason Spurs and other clubs were upset with us getting the Olympic Stadium for peanuts was because they all knew that the big burden for each club competing in the league was the stadium they had to build to actually compete. So they all thought it was an unfair advantage.

Which is why it baffles me how this club can have any money problems whatsoever because I sort of dont see that owning a stadium is a useful asset compared to a 99yr lease for peanuts.
Spurs have to pay back 800m or something crazy over the next god knows how many years.

This club is so mismanaged it’s scary.
 

[frank marker]

I find this an interesting topic. I presume that we have few fixed assets; Rush Green perhaps? The value in the club must be in its turnover, player contracts, TV rights - others can complete the list. But it strikes me that the value of these can plummet with relegation which is why I was against the move to the new stadium. 

On the plus side, it might make the board more vulnerable protests.

[Cerveza Para Mi]

I'm guessing because you can borrow against its value which until now since I've been alive has always been increasing in value above inflation. In my humble opinion. Ready to be corrected if someone knows better.
 

You're not wrong.  Plus of course if you own the gaff you can also carry out alterations, subject to usual planning conditions, which if you're only a tenant you can't.  And as the owner you would have the ability to sell the naming rights and lease out the stadium for other activities such as concerts.  The only downside being that if the bogs get clogged up it's you who has to pay Dyno Rod to sort them out, not the landlord.

[Gank]

It's an asset so the value is added to a sale price for the club.

[goose]

depends what your goals are.
wanna control costs and survive? then the current set up is perfect for you. less risk - less reward.
wanna invest and grow revenue? then you need the asset to create revenue. higher risk but higher reward.

[threesixty]

I'm guessing because you can borrow against its value which until now since I've been alive has always been increasing in value above inflation. In my humble opinion. Ready to be corrected if someone knows better.

 

 

Yeah I would have said that as well. Just that there are so many clubs in poor / cheap areas of the country that their land value cant be much at all. Yet the club value is huge. Liverpool’s ground cant be worth much in terms of value, but the club must be at least £2b?

It feels like the club value is the actual brand, sporting assets (players etc) and the business itself (revenue generation). Land value is only interesting if you are in a wealthy area.

[frank marker]

I'm guessing because you can borrow against its value which until now since I've been alive has always been increasing in value above inflation. In my humble opinion. Ready to be corrected if someone knows better.