SoccerShout.com

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The Guardian report today that Everton require loans totaling £78m in order to fund their new stadium at Kirkby.  With a bit of math and a few assumptions, we can guess that the Toffees will be giving the proceeds from 14,000 paying fans, every game for the next 25 years.

Given that the new stadium will only hold and extra 10,000 fans (if it is completely full), I’m struggling to see the business sense behind the new stadium - especially when you consider the risk the club is exposing itself to.

Let’s get the numbers out of the way.  I have no idea what mortgage rate you get whacked with on a £78m loan, so I’ll peg it at 10%.  The Guardian article mentions the loan is over 25 years.  A bit of Excel magic tells me that Everton need to find  £8.5m a year to pay back the mortgage.

Another assumption: Everton will play five home cup games a year in addition to their 19 Premier League matches.  That gives us an expense of £350,000 per home game.

One more assumption: The average ticket price is £25.  That gives us the figure of 14,000 tickets sales per home game in order to pay back the mortgage.

The remaining 36,000 fans - again, if the stadium is completely full - will have to sholder the cost of maintaining the ground, stewards and other staff, police, etc, etc.  That doesn’t leave much left to, say, pay the wages of Yakubu and company (but I suppose that’s what TV revenue is for).

What makes me nervous for the Blues are all the things that could go wrong over the next 25 years:

• Periods of so-so performances that impact attendance figures.  In the fifteen years from 1992-2006, Everton only finished in the top-10 just three times.
• A back-lash against the distance to the new Kirby site.
• A drop-off in TV revenues means that ticket money is required to pay for things like players’ wages.
• Increased media coverage - i.e. the ability to watch any game live on TV - that undermines ticket prices.

That last one is something I see as very likely - overdue in fact.  The way I see the future playing out is that us fans will be able to watch any game, anywhere, at any time.  People won’t stop going to games in person, but they will stop paying £25 a ticket.  I think £10 is about right to fill the stadium and provide a good atmosphere for the fans at home.  If this happens, the clubs with the biggest fixed-costs will suffer the most.

======

Related: Broadway or Hollywood?

Subscribe to this blog?  By email or by RSS.

I’ve been meaning to write this post for a couple of days, so forgive me if I sound like I’m trying to be smart after the event.  I had a thought at the weekend that makes this whole mess even odder, and I also got an email back from the Premier League.

Quick recap: Thanks to Setanta, Chelsea find themselves playing on both Monday and Thursday night this week.  The Monday game is pushed back from the past weekend, and the Thursday game has been brought forward from next week (with less than 20 days notice).  It’s patently unfair on Chelsea to make them play two games so close together at this late stage of the season - sacrificing sporting balance at the behest of the TV monster.

I noticed a couple of things at the weekend.  First of all, there was no lunchtime kick-off on Saturday.  This is the Setanta timeslot.  Presumably the Chelsea v Wigan game could have been played then and the furore about the Thursday game would have been pretty much non-existent.

The second thing: who the hell actually wants to watch Chelsea v Wigan?  I was genuinely going to predict this was going to be a thoroughly dull 1-0 or 2-0 to Chelsea.  Yes, there was a twist at the end of the game that might have been a fatal wound to Chelsea’s title ambitions, but I don’t think that made up for the preceding 92-minute monotony.  Personally, I would have preferred a relegation-related fixture like Reading v Fulham or Bolton v West Ham.  If this would have drawn a lower audience than the Chelsea game, then shame on us football fans.

I actually wrote to the Premier League to ask them why the Everton v Chelsea fixture had been re-arranged.  I felt like I was being pretty explicit with the question:

My main point of interest is: why re-arrange the fixture at all?

The Premier League statement quoted in the press cited “enormous pressure from international match and European competition dates, as well as the need to balance the important requirements of the police and our broadcasters”.

But there was no pressure on the original weekend date for the fixture.  There are dozens of midweek games that go untelevised throughout the season, so if there’s a quota to be filled there are surely plenty of other candidates.

So why re-arrange a fixture that, as far as I can tell, didn’t need to be re-arranged?

The reply came back after six days:

Thank you for your email concerning the Everton v Chelsea fixture. We appreciate the inconvenience caused when fixtures change at late notice, and we apologise for any problems this has caused for you.

Fixture planning is a complex process and we always try to give at least 4 weeks notice when fixtures move. Premier League fixtures can only be fixed once dates for other competitions have been set, e.g. the UEFA Cup, FA Cup and Champions League, and this can make it difficult to find slots for some games. In addition to this, as you may be aware, the European Commission determined that we must provide 138 matches for live TV coverage; this further limits our ability to schedule fixtures as and when we would want during the season. Also we are committed to ensuring that the ‘closed window’ is preserved - that is, that games are not shown live on television at 3pm on a Saturday - to protect attendances and participation at all levels of the game. Another reason fixtures cannot always be scheduled is to do with the willingness or ability of the police service to cover a certain time. Unfortunately this means some matches have to be moved at late notice through a combination of the factors outlined above and in order for us to meet the requirements of our TV contracts.

Attached is our fixture fact list for your information.

So nice of them to reply, but just one problem - which I put to them in a reply:

I don’t feel it addressed my main question though: Why re-arrange this specific fixture?

No reply in the past 11 days, so I suppose we’ll just have to go with the “what’s more likely” method.  The Police insisted on the change to a prime-time slot?  The European Commission insisted on the change to a prime-time slot?  Or Setanta?

Tricky…tricky…

–

TV company got you down too?  Thumb your nose at them by subscribing to this blog in order to get regular updates. Together we can make football better.  It starts here.  You can receive updates by email or RSS. Both are free and spam-free, and you can back-out at any time.