The “Complexities” of Financing a Stadium Build

Perhaps there is a lender in the mix who wants to provide all the finance but on less favourable terms (higher interest rate) than the LCC.

Put simply, a difference of 1% interest on a 𧷐m loan over 25 years might cost something in the order of another 㿏m in interest repayments – big numbers!

As I have posted elsewhere, I share Laurie's (above) suspicion that the 'complexity' may have to do with a secondary financing entity.

After all, if a financial muppet like Kenwright can realise 㾶s of millions after 20 years of mundanity, why shouldn't a billionaire maestro seek 𧴜's of millions by utilising the same sort of smoke-and-mirrors (and highly dubious indeed) financial shenanigans?

Both of these have been in London, the only place with the added leverage of vast swathes of corporate take-up to help fund it.

We also have to ask how/why the cost is 𧺬m, when Meis's other current stadium project in Rome is half that, on an equally sensitive site for roughly the same capacity and quality.

Check out Colin Chong's article on the official website:

Colin Chong – New Stadium And Goodison Legacy

The Bank of England boss has suggested property value could drop by 35%. If that's close or if it became 5%, it's huge numbers, when talking 100s of millions of pounds. To caveat such potential loss is an interesting problem.

Sod's law, but bloody typical of the times and like a bad smell always seem to stink with matters of EFC ground development schemes the last 25 years.

I hope via the Usmanov and Moshiri network that this can be resolved solely or in partnership with LCC.

nb: Thanks, Paul The Esk, great write up and read. Times Econimists couldn't pitch it better.

I would like to understand why Roma's stadium is 𧸖m for a comparable capacity. Why is ours costing 𧵎m more?

There seems to be no comment or explanation on something that is so significant.

On the projected stadium costs, I understand two elements make the figure as high as it is. The ground preparation costs (given the nature and heritage related sensitivity) of around 𧴰 million, and the design includes an asymmetrical roof which adds substantially to the overall cost.

Despite my concern over the length of time it's taking to announce the finance package is in place, I'm somewhat reassured that at least we have the right people in senior positions to give us the best possible chance of the project coming to fruition.

Sadly, the current remit was way way beyond the old regime of Kenwright, Woods and Elstone etc. The last 12 months has seen a new momentum from within the club with the new senior management set up, and I am quietly optimistic at last over the long-term future of the club.

Being an Evertonian for over 50 years, without the introduction of Moshiri and the wholesale changes taking place, we would I'm sure, have seen a slow but steady decline in the club's fortunes, at a ground which is now in a pretty poor state, despite the annual attempts at 'freshening' it up.

Now, some success on the pitch please would help, whilst we wait for our new home on the waterfront.

It seems to me that being a lender to a football club is a pretty risky business. The principle source of revenue from broadcasting is high, and I would be concerned it may drop during the period of the loan. The team could be relegated, a European league could be formed which Everton would be unlikely to join, or football could simply fall out of favour with the public.

In the event of default in loan re-payments, how valuable would the asset be? Who would use it? Then to be offered only second dibs on it after the City Council hardly sets the lending juices flowing.

These are very challenging days indeed for our club. I personally think that a move to the docks is essential, but at the same time it is probably the biggest gamble, and decision, in Everton's history. It will also be a huge gamble for those lending the money to bring it about, so it is no wonder that it is taking time to bring it about.

Firstly, London is not Liverpool... and Spurs have a capability of charging and generating much more cash than Everton given the area we are in.

Secondly, Spurs have advanced on the field way past us now. A number of years ago, we were in a similar position to Spurs (on the pitch) – both clubs on the tails of the elites. We appointed Koeman, which was a waste and put us back years, and damaged our reputation also.

So all Evertonians have to look realistically at the situation: we are in a Nothern city with another big club and limited capability to generate more revenue from the city on match day. If we can get this over the line, it could change things (for the future) but, for now, to quote Koeman "It's difficult..."

𧺬m still seems very high to me. An asymmetrical roof shouldn't cost anything like that... in fact, I would expect a full closing roof and moveable pitch, as at Lille, for that much (built in 2012, capacity: 50k, <𧶲m). Indeed, I would've thought this was highly desirable if the stadium was ever to become a multi-use venue but Meis has snuffed that out in previous comments.

Contrary to popular belief, the actual stadium build costs for the new White Hart Lane is only about 𧹈m, that also has an asymmetric roof and a very expensive moveable pitch too, with 10,000 more seats too and a far bigger corporate capacity, so our stadium would need to be pretty special to come in at 㾶k per seat.

For me, it's a figure plucked from thin air, and would have to include various ancillaries and surrounding development. a bit like when Kenwright called destination Kirkby a 𧹈m project, when in fact the stadium build was <𧴜m. So, there still needs to be some clarity on this fundamental issue. Otherwise, any analysis is akin to trying to knit fog.

It's not my business (construction nor design) and I'll happily concede to those with specific expertise, but given my sources for the costings, I believe them to be accurate.

The club could help enormously by sharing more information. Whilst I appreciate the argument that it's a private business therefore why should they, the club can't play the community and Citywide association angle and not accept it has a wider and greater duty of disclosure because of that relationship.

The '70 Champion team won just that alone. To me at the time and since our owners eviscerated the team by first buying nobody of note to push on, and then selling 26-year-old Alan Ball, to Arsenal, who'd just won the double. Sigh!

Most of us agree that events beyond our control or responsibility did for sustained success from the mid '80s team but then the Premier League was formed with us very much at the forefront but, given the, erm, leadership of those in charge (blokes like Carter, Kenwright, Johnson) we're the only one of those at the forefront to have been last throughout the many seasons since.

And that's before we come to the new-ground debacles of the King's Dock and Kirby. Or Green and the Virgin Islands (allegedly!), so no, words emanating from Kenwight's gob, presumably with Moshiri's support, don't thrill me at all. In fact, I consider that arse-wipe Jim White on Talk-Shite to have way more integrity than Kenwright.

Despite playing to the max the "Yes, but aren't we good to the community folks!" card for years I'm of the same opinion as Paul the Esk in that I am bewildered why we let them, the owners, get away, time and again whilst Kenwright's been involved at all, with effectively keeping the fans and supporters in a dark, cold fog of non-disclosure, disappointment to all, or most, being the eventual outcome.

It's so complex that there are reports on the BBC(?) That MacDonalds may fund the WHOLE Napoli new stadium.

The other funding may be needed for the rest plus transport upgrades or what not.

It may even be for the whole thing if the Council thing falls through.

Seems a lot hangs on the Council thing.

From that team, there were 4 members who also played in the '70 league side. West, Tommy Wright, Labone and Sandy Brown, while Johnny Morrissey who played in the '63 season also played in 1970.

Given the 7 years between 1963 and 1970 it is hardly surprising that through age and injuries plus loss of form, there were few who played in both teams. But we took the opportunity to improve the side and few will disagree that the 1970 side was better than the 1966 version.

It is surely entirely pertinent to question headline numbers, that are waved at us with little or no point of reference. Especially when they seem inflated in comparison to similar projects elsewhere. In essence we're being told that we're getting a £500m stadium, when the design is supposedly not finalised, and when the initial outline schemes did not seem to suggest that level of expense.

To be honest, when I first heard that figure, I could only think that it was the prelude to the announcement of yet another failed scheme. I'm not a "financial/accounting" type, but I was surprised at the new-found level of ambition and intent. A few years ago I was in meetings with Elstone where mentions of mere tens of millions to redevelop one section at a time was baulked at as financially unviable. I just sat back as he went into a fit about "ROI", and lack of "enabling-leveraged-finance" etc and here we are just a few years later, looking at a half a billion pound project, with seemingly little or no regard for such foibles.

We need to have a better idea of the breakdown of the costs if we are to ever be able to judge what we're getting ourselves into here.

The only thing I would say is Farhad Moshiri and his team are now running the show now. The stadium is, for me, his acid test.

Paul and Tom - I think the estimated costs are a "budget only" so that the finance can be set up. You wouldn't want to run out of money three quarters of the way through the build.

I will say this though; the "designs" produced so far are underwhelming in my opinion. I reckon I could have done better myself.

There is a thought Lyndon - why not set up a competition for Toffee Webbers to produce a stadium design. Plans, elevations, sections and 3D views. No cogging and no "build it like so and so's".

Then have an online TW poll to establish the winning design to be submitted to Dan Meis.

Now that would be fan input and a bit of fun and I'll bet many would be surprised at the quality of the responses.

Lyndon I unreservedly retract my suggestion.

Come to think of it Lyndon I seem to remember I suggested this once before and you didn't think it was a good idea.

Will I never learn.

As for a loan, the chances of a loan for a club sponsored by a Russian Oligarch and friend of the owner, with hints of already having a possible financial involvement, has as much chance of getting a Government loan signed off as Putin.