Skip to main content

The upsides and downsides of a new stadium

Football fans tend to be conservative in their outlook and moving stadium is always a risk.  Indeed, it is in financial terms, not just sentimental ones.  The London Stadium has been a great deal for West Ham financially, but arguably it lacks the atmosphere of Upton Park.   Newcastle fans would prefer to stay at St. James’s Park in the city centre: a poll shows that only 19 per cent want to move despite capacity constraints.

At a time when the historic appeal of English football combines with the global popularity of the Premier League, when clubs are sports and non-sports businesses and commercialism chimes with heritage and architecture to form a must-see destination, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is the model. It is known for its scale, modernity and clear sightlines that have changed how many see football stadiums. It is, to use a phrase, ground-breaking.

Arsenal moved from Highbury in 2006, seven years after the decision to leave was made. One of the main reasons was the club felt it had outgrown Highbury. In seasons 1998-99 and 1999-00, Arsenal staged their Champions League games at Wembley to accommodate both rising ticket demand to see Arsene Wenger’s attractive, winning team and to fulfil UEFA’s corporate criteria.

The latter was also relevant to Arsenal’s finances — selling 60,000 tickets, including thousands of expensive corporate seats, meant a far bigger payday than staying at Highbury, where the capacity for UEFA matches was just over 35,000. Demand far outstripped supply and the economic and ticketing logic of Arsenal moving was clear.

Yet Highbury was ‘home’. In the 17 seasons before Arsenal left, they won four league titles and finished second five times. Highbury’s role in this is unquantifiable, but it certainly was a vivid piece of The Arsenal.

In the 17 seasons since (not including 2023-24), Arsenal have not won a single title. They have finished second twice. A brutal reading of those league standings would say the move from Highbury has not been justified.

But the numbers able to watch Arsenal has soared and, economically, it has been transformative. Arsenal’s turnover in 2005-06, the club’s last financial year at Highbury, was £137m. In 2006-07, the first season at ‘the Emirates’, it was £200m and a season later £223m. Six weeks ago, Arsenal released their figures for the year ending May 2023 with “football revenue for the year” at £464m.

Yet they also suffered from ‘first mover’ disadvantage.  Nigel Phillips from the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust (AST) explains: “Arsenal moved in 2006 but got planning permission in 1999 to a design from the mid-1990s. This makes the Emirates almost a 30-year-old design and is so dated when compared to what Spurs have built.

“Another issue with the Arsenal stadium move is that of the £450m project costs, £260m was borrowed on a long-term basis via project bonds, but the other £190m came from Arsenal commercial revenues. Basically, it was spending money from future revenues and this meant that when those actual seasons rolled by, there was no commercial cash to spend as it had been spent on the stadium build.

“This is what messed with Wenger and the competitiveness of the club for a long period of time.”

A new Old Trafford is likely to be over £1billion, maybe double, and debt is a loaded word at the club. Given Real Madrid said recently they will not pay off the vast restructure of the Bernabeu stadium until 2053, United’s repayments could go on until the 2060s.  The debate aboit what should happen there continues.

 

Comments