If you look at our matchday revenue (assuming it is around 50k @ an average of £25 per seat) that's 23750000 per season (assuming only 19 home games and not allowing for match day sales like catering etc). Now, we have to pay about 5 mill per year for the stadium, so we're down to just under 19 million mills. We have debts to the banks for players so take off maybe another 3 mills and we are on about 15 million. Take off wages and Christ knows what we are down to. With 36000 per home game at an average of 19 home games, out revenue would be 17100000. And we wouldn't be carrying a debt that requires a payment of about 5 mills per year. Yeah, take off wages etc, but it seems to me that financially we are almost no better off with the new ground. And to add injury to insult, Bobby claims that it is one of the reasons we are struggling at home (ie. Other sides come and think it's a Cup final, blah blah). If attendances go below about 42k, we would be up shit creek in terms of repaying our debts. Is this a comfortable position to be in?

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Answers

ps. I know my figures are not exact but the proportions have to be the same.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

If we don't get into Europe this season we will be up shit creak, as well as the lost revenue, many on the upper tiers WONT renew there season tickets.The board have to have a re think and get a loan for the needed centre back and striker, or our season is over.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

You may be right but just ask Rik and boy whether he would rather we were stil at 36000 without him able to get in. Demonstrably we can get 50,000 in.

As you say no difference in money terms but 14,000+ people able to go to the games, rather than it being a private members club.

There was no choice but to build the ground, it is unfair to not let people in, football matters on Tyneside it is a social responsibility of the clubs to have the capacity to accommodate the people. The financial situation is down to appalling managerial transfer trading by Dalglish and Gullit.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

It's a good question Dougal but I don't think your financial analysis addresses it. For example you mention wages but they would be the same regardless of the old or the new SJP, likewise debts for player purchases. You also use our total revenue from the gate. What is more important is the EXTRA cash generated from the increased stadium (what the extra 15000 pay + the income from the conference suites and the like) versus the total cost of the extension including interest on capital etc.

I won't attempt to guess any numbers, but I'm sure those are the figures you need to be looking at. On the risk front, you are right to point out that it may well be that we cannot fill 51000 every season, if form doesn't recover, and then the debt would become a massive millstone.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Cheaper tickets would be nice.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Yes, the increased capacity is necessary but we should have moved, SJP is a but lop sided.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Maybe that's why we have a problem playing down the left - the ball must just keep rolling out of play!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

MacBeth, I used to agree with you but having begged people to take a couple of spares FREE this season and failed, I'm not sure that there is this desperate demand for cheap tickets. I take your point, though.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Now why would anyone think going to SJP is like a Cup Final?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

macbeth says: "The financial situation is down to appalling managerial transfer trading by Dalglish and Gullit".

Sadly we can also add Robson to that list unless we see wonders from his aquisitions between now and May.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Second biggest ground in PL, nice crowd, stimulates opposition. Why else, LR?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

It's like a Cup Final because NUFC roll over and die to the disbelief of their fans.....that was the answer you were fishing for wasn't it Lancy?:-)

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

It'll do Softy :-)

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Or how's about the fact that the main stand is mostly filled with neutrals who are only there on a freebie and can't tell their arses from their elbows (but know their canapes from their vol-au-vents) and nearly all the atmosphere comes from the ends, about as far away from the action as you can get?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

I seem to recall FF saying the projected increase in revenue from the extension was ca. £15 million pa, and the debt repayment £7 million - thereby netting an extra £8 million of gross profit, for player acquisition, increased Director's divdends (!) etc. ;-{)

This assumes a high take up of the additional seating, of course.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

assuming $30 a ticket and $7 million in mortgage payments, you'd need about 11,000 of the extra seats filled to break even on a short term cash basis. long term it looks v. good if we can fill the ground/raise tix prices analysis doesn't include any other revenue from beer, pop and crisps.

project won't look so good if the team isn't competitive in the next 2 seasons,(i.e rick starts watching all the games on the telly) which implies that the board are committed to doing something for the team when the transfer thing is resolved.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

George,

I believe the revenue from the corporate areas if substantially higher than £30 per. Again going from memory, I think the split of the £15 million is about £9 million from the prawn sandwich brigade, and £6 million from the regular punters. So, the key to breaking even is skewed towards the PSB, and their loyalty to the team. Oh sh*t!

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000