i have a feeling things won't change much whichever way the transfer stuff goes

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Answers

I think you're right Swift, we're skint, the cost of the rebuild has crippled us and the club isn't as marketable without the entertaining football.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Not sure about the being skint bit. NUFC had a bad set of finantial figures last year but since then there are 14,000 more season ticket holders putting money into the kitty, along with very popular black shirt. There has also been a cut in players wages . This year there might have been no money spent using the excuse of the uncertain transfer market. But I think which ever way things go we'll be in a stronger position at the end of the finantial year and will either be able to go for some big name summer signings.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

We're in debt but I wouldn't say we won't have the capabilities to pay the big wages which will be required when transfer fees get abolished.

No transfer fees above the age of 23. We develop our own young players and 'buy' quality older players on big wages. Big wages players i.e. £40,000 a week will cost just over £2 million apart from signing on fees and bonuses.

Young players developed from within and a few quality experienced players sounds like the correct way to do things.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

The thing is, the debt is supposed to be serviced from the stadium exopansion so we should have as much money as we ever had in terms of transfers. The truth is that we aren't selling anywhere the merchandise we were and we don't get that much telly money any more.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Your overlooking one thing, DB - the players will hose up the money which won't now be spent on transfer fees in bigger salaries.
Just watch how quickly this happens, and the Clubs wont have the business sense to act in a concerted way to prevent it.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

When does the new Sky tv money windfall arrive? Every club will get the money it's just how they spend it.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Surely it'll all settle down to a case of the clubs that can, will and the clubs that can't, won't. Much the same as today if you get my drift

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Wasn't the loan for the building work spread over a long period, say 15-20 years? More or less like a mortgage really. So if the building work cost approx £60m and add on say another £20m interest we've got £80m to pay off.

Last season after away fans and corporates we have about 32000 season tickets holders. We now have about 41000 taking off 3000 away fans, 2500 match by match sales and about 5500 corportates. Thats 9000 extra NORMAL season ticket holders from last season paying on average £400 giving an extra annual income of £3.6m. Doesn't look much but you've then the income from up to 2000 extra away fans AND up to 2500 match by match sales, estimate about 3500 of these 4500 seats sold across the season that will give an income of about £1.5m. And most importantly the 3500 of the controversial Sports Bar/Bar 1892 tickets that were sold at an average of £1250 each that adds up to approx £3.75m.

So going by that I'd say we're making roughly an extra £8.85m per season on gate revenue. If we put that aside to pay off the loan we should be clear in 10 years, 8 or 9 if you take into account the inevitable prices hikes in the next few years. The revenue from the 36000 seats we had before the extension was built shouldn't really be affected.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

BM,

I posted projected figures on the stadium extension on here a few months ago. Going purely from memory - FS or FF claimed the projected incremental revenue from the extension would be ca. £15 million pa. I believe this included revenue from the catering facilities etc. Right now, I would suspect your figure of £9 million will be closer to reality.

The Bond used to secure the long-term debt for the extension is to be repaid over something like 16 yrs, and bears annual interest/principal repayments of something like £6-7 million pa.

As you can see, while occupancy remains at a high level (very important) it pays for itself and generates a bit extra, but not a whole lot.

I wouldn't even care to speculate on what would happen if occupancy dropped below the breakeven point, which will be quite high.
I would suspect breakeven requires total SJP attendances of perhaps 44,000 (ie. the customary 36,000 plus the extension half full).

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001