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).
 

[RBshorty]

It was always a land grab for Sullivan. Owning West Ham was the cost too getting the stadium. Now that ain’t going to happen. We have become a cost hindrance to him. Nobody is buying into a Premiership club which only real value is it’s league status.(Especially more so. When the richest owners on the planet can’t even invest into its squad. Without being told how much it can spend.?) Regardless of what you hear. We are in a World Wide Economic Depression. And even multi billionaire have to tighten their belts. And even the most ardent fan wouldn’t buy the Gold shares. Just too let Sullivan spunk away the money.

Owning the Stadium is important to the club and Sullivan. And the only people now who will buy us. Will only do so when we hit rock bottom. And the next few seasons will be rough. But it’s the medicine we going to have too stomach. To see the back of this ownership.

COYI.

[Fauxstralian]

I know it’s old history but we were told the Chicken Run stand couldn’t be redeveloped to enclose the stadium into something like 50,000 capacity because of the bus station behind 
Which then magically disappeared 
If that couldn’t have happened we could have done like Tottenham and moved the footprint given the space between the stadium and Green St
We were done like a kipper by Sullivan & he should never be forgiven 

[nychammer]

To get the seats next to the pitch, the playing surface would need lowering in order to add additional seats at a similar rake as the existing lower tiers.  Be interesting to know how many metres the pitch would need to be lowered and how many additional seats would need adding to achieve this.

yes I heard that may be possible, but also that its built on a toxic dump so digging down may also present a problem

[nychammer]

If we weren’t allowed to own the stadium … due to Tottenhams interference… we should have turned it down and forced the governments hand 
Tottenham never wanted it and obviously feigned interest to get concessions from Haringey about paying for infrastructure around their rebuild & obviously a pub team like Orient were never getting it
Levy played a blinder & Sullivan was obsessed with selling UP (twice) & not giving a shit about it’s suitability for football 
Sullivan was the one who said he didn’t care about an intimidating end of pitch stand as everyone preferred to sit on the halfway line

 

 

Yep I recall (could be wrong) UP was mortgaged to the hilt and a bit of a financial millstone hence Sullivan wanted rid, which I can kind of understand financially, but in retrospect and from a fan perspective It was the terrible move we all feared it would be. We'd have been better off staying put and redeveloping the east stand and we'd be the envy of many a team, but that would have entailed our owners spending real  money in the face of the cheap shiny option dangling in front of them

[northbankfrank]

The poxy athletics track that we can't get rid is a reason we need to own the stadium.

how does that make a difference - event if we own the place we literally need to knock down and rebuild, at least partially

To get the seats next to the pitch, the playing surface would need lowering in order to add additional seats at a similar rake as the existing lower tiers.  Be interesting to know how many metres the pitch would need to be lowered and how many additional seats would need adding to achieve this.

[nychammer]

The poxy athletics track that we can't get rid is a reason we need to own the stadium.

how does that make a difference - event if we own the place we literally need to knock down and rebuild, at least partially

[Fat, Bald n 50]

The poxy athletics track that we can't get rid is a reason we need to own the stadium.

[Fauxstralian]

If we weren’t allowed to own the stadium … due to Tottenhams interference… we should have turned it down and forced the governments hand 
Tottenham never wanted it and obviously feigned interest to get concessions from Haringey about paying for infrastructure around their rebuild & obviously a pub team like Orient were never getting it
Levy played a blinder & Sullivan was obsessed with selling UP (twice) & not giving a shit about it’s suitability for football 
Sullivan was the one who said he didn’t care about an intimidating end of pitch stand as everyone preferred to sit on the halfway line

[John Drake]

Newcastle and Manchester City do not own their stadiums. But their deals provide exclusive use which allows them naming rights and to generate income from other events.

The West Ham problem (aside from its not purpose built for football) is that it is meant to be multi-use including athletics

[Russ of the BML]

For me. Not that important. I just want a decent matchday experience. Which, right now, we don't really get. 

For the club, it depends on objectives. I mean, financially owning the stadium adds value to the club. It Also gives the club another borrowing stream if required. If you want to develop long term then its important. That's not Sullivan's view so the cheap rent is perfect for him. 

[threesixty]

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

 

But why? Financially speaking.

I imagine they make a tidy sum from staging NFL games for starters.
Then there are other sports such as boxing, concerts etc.

 

 

But are they doing that just to pay the mortgage / debt? If you didnt have to borrow 800m to build the thing would you need to put on other stuff? (Plus you wreck the pitch doing it so you have to manage all that as well).

[goose]

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

 

But why? Financially speaking.

Revenue streams.
Spurs as an example do very well through corporate tickets, matchday income (food etc) and 'other events' like NFL and concerts. They also have the opportunity to make money through naming rights, advertising etc etc.

[zebthecat]

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

 

But why? Financially speaking.

I imagine they make a tidy sum from staging NFL games for starters.
Then there are other sports such as boxing, concerts etc.

[threesixty]

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

 

 

But why? Financially speaking.

[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.