Fulham Owner trying to buy Wembley

Agent Coulson

Shahid Khan has put in a bid to buy Wembley so he can move his NFL club Jacksonville Jaguars to London.


He has offered £500m for it.

Shahid Khan - owner of Fulham FC and the Jacksonville Jaguars NFL team - is understood to have struck an outline agreement with FA boss Martin Glenn to transfer the “home of English football” to foreign ownership for the first time.

The extraordinary proposal, which will send shockwaves through the sport, was being put before the full board of the domestic game’s governing body today.

If the takeover gets the go ahead more American football games are likely to be played at Wembley and it could even pave the way for an NFL franchise to be permanently based in London.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/wembley-for-sale-shahid-khan-wants-to-buy-stadium-as-fulham-us-billionaire-owner-makes-sensational-a3824171.html

citytillidie

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43906272

£800M according to the beeb

Agent Coulson

The BBC are reporting a bid of £800m.

Wembley: Football Association offered £800m to sell national football stadium

The Football Association has confirmed it has received an offer, thought to be worth £800m, to sell Wembley.

It is understood the approach includes £500m for the stadium and £300m for the FA to keep the Club Wembley debenture and hospitality business.

The matter was discussed at a board meeting on Thursday.

It has been reported that Shahid Khan, the owner of Fulham and NFL team Jacksonville Jaguars, is a prospective buyer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43906272

Mitch Connor

It is 500million, but that the FA would retain the rites to Club Wembley stuff which is valued at 300million - putting the value at a theoretical 800million, but SK would only be paying 500million of that, if it was accepted.

citytillidie

Crafty Fulham owner buy Wembley move Fulham in and Chelsea are stuck for stadium redevlopment

Mitch Connor

citytillidie wrote: »

Crafty Fulham owner buy Wembley move Fulham in and Chelsea are stuck for stadium redevlopment

Wouldn't imagine he would move Fulham in (they don't have the fanbase to fill it) - would just be looking to use the stadium as the NFL stadium for the Jags for their 8(+) games.

Would mean there could be an issue with Chelsea playing there between August and February on differing weeks.

Tom Mann Centuria

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Wouldn't imagine he would move Fulham in (they don't have the fanbase to fill it) - would just be looking to use the stadium as the NFL stadium for the Jags for their 8(+) games.

Would mean there could be an issue with Chelsea playing there between August and February on differing weeks.

Wouldn't do the middle of the pitch any favours either.

LuckyLloyd

Why would this send "shockwaves" through the sport? Why would it matter? Seems like good business.

GavRedKing

The FA are still paying off the stadium are they?

It could be a blow for us if we have nowhere to move in while the Bridge is being sorted.

titan18

Mitch Connor wrote:

Would mean there could be an issue with Chelsea playing there between August and February on differing weeks.

It'd probably be more than that as can't imagine Jaguars doing a week home/away schedule with it. Most likely the schedule would be done so that Jags were home for 4 weeks, away for 4 weeks sort of thing. Be easier on the players if they did it like that.

ERG89

Agent Coulson wrote:

Shahid Khan has put in a bid to buy Wembley so he can move his NFL club Jacksonville Jaguars to London.

Must be rolling in it for that much of a bid. God knows what a team would cost on top of that.
Do Fulham still have that bizarre Michael Jackson statue?

GavRedKing

I remember seeing recently that Fulham were planning or had submitted plans for an expanded new main stand on the Thames side of the Cottage to bring the capacity up.

Here it is :https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fulhams-new-80m-stand-will-increase-craven-cottage-capacity-to-29600-a3795481.html

Assuming they start the work soon, theyre likely to need a new stadium to move too also for some time, why rent, when you can buy Wembley. .

Zebra3

I can’t see how any of this deal would effect Chelsea moving in for 3 years or so.

Jags play 8 regular home games a season and 1 or 2 are contracted to be at Spurs new ground.

Mr. Guappa

Zebra3 wrote: »

I can’t see how any of this deal would effect Chelsea moving in for 3 years or so.

Jags play 8 regular home games a season and 1 or 2 are contracted to be at Spurs new ground.

Spurs' deal is with the NFL for 2 random NFL games per year. It won't necessarily be Jaguar games.

rob316

Didn't it cost like 1 Billion to build?

GavRedKing

Zebra3 wrote: »

I can’t see how any of this deal would effect Chelsea moving in for 3 years or so.

Jags play 8 regular home games a season and 1 or 2 are contracted to be at Spurs new ground.

I think its more the fact you'd be dealing with a new private owner who could potentially name his price on the rental of the stadium.

The FA would at least be accommodating in renting out the stadium.

I think the NFL games at Spurs stadium would be a different issue anyway, if Jags own Wembley, that would be their home, you could potentially see any other franchises then play at Spurs.

GavRedKing

rob316 wrote: »

Didn't it cost like 1 Billion to build?

Wembley Stadium opened in 2007 at a cost of £757m after work began to demolition the old ground in 2002.

Funding for the new stadium came from the FA which secured huge loans for the project as well as from Lottery-funded Sport England which paid £120m; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport which put up £20m with a further £21m coming from the London Development Agency.

In January the FA said it would finally finish paying for Wembley by the end of 2024, 17 years after it opened.

A debt of £142m reportedly remains.

Above

Jimbob1977

This might be the first step in an NFL expansion.

London could support a new franchise.

I wonder if he can own two NFL clubs at the same time, thougg

Chardee MacDennis

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

This might be the first step in an NFL expansion.

London could support a new franchise.

I wonder if he can own two NFL clubs at the same time, thougg

There wont be an expansion, an existing club will move (the Jags)

Fr Tod Umptious

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

This might be the first step in an NFL expansion.

London could support a new franchise.

I wonder if he can own two NFL clubs at the same time, thougg

A NFL franchise in London is a flight of fancy that has been mentioned for years.

It's a million miles from ever happening for a host of reasons.

Harry Palmr

NFL, indeed American franchise stand-alone leagues are just bull**** but it's a big offer and the FA are greedy feckers. If the so called football doesn't work out there are any number of other event opportunities to exploit esp live music and secret cinema. - they could show Two Minute Warning or Black Sunday

Beasty

It's the price of 2 and a half Neymars. Given how much they paid for it and the additional costs of years of disruption when they closed the place down I would expect them to be looking for a lot more than that. Either that or rebuild a national stadium somewhere more accessible to more fans (and a hell of a lot cheaper to build)

I realise cup finals and England matches would stay there. What happens if this whole NFL thing goes belly-up? Maybe we will see the musical "We will Rock You" being played out :pac:

Moves football down the pecking order and I think there could be issues of clashes and the like as the NFL expands geographically and also possibly their season.

And they had better leave that "Beasty was here" plaque next to the one celebrating the 1966 WC victory!!

Harry Palmr

Anfield 54,074 (NW)
Emirates Stadium 60,432 (london)
Etihad Stadium 55.097 (NW)
London Stadium 60,000 (london)
Old Trafford 75,643 (NW)
St James' Park 52,407 (NE)
St Mary's 32,000 (south coast)
Stamford Bridge v2 60,000 (london)
Villa Park 42,000 (midlands)
White Hart Lane v 2 60,000 (london)


Who needs a national stadium?

Agent Coulson

ERG89 wrote: »

Must be rolling in it for that much of a bid. God knows what a team would cost on top of that.
Do Fulham still have that bizarre Michael Jackson statue?

He is worth about 9 billion.

ERG89

Agent Coulson wrote: »

He is worth about 9 billion.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2017/09/18/the-dallas-cowboys-head-the-nfls-most-valuable-teams-at-4-8-billion/amp/

He'll need that. Valuations are mad. Cowboys haven't won anything in what feels like forever too.

Minderbinder

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Anfield 54,074 (NW)
Emirates Stadium 60,432 (london)
Etihad Stadium 55.097 (NW)
London Stadium 60,000 (london)
Old Trafford 75,643 (NW)
St James' Park 52,407 (NE)
St Mary's 32,000 (south coast)
Stamford Bridge v2 60,000 (london)
Villa Park 42,000 (midlands)
White Hart Lane v 2 60,000 (london)


Who needs a national stadium?

Agree with you and England games were a lot better to watch and more atmospheric at club grounds. But there is no doubt that Wembley is more than just a stadium to English football. It is a symbol of history and strength. The FA and English football would lose a lot of face if they sold their home, and even more so if they rented it back.

Trigger

Minderbinder wrote: »

Agree with you and England games were a lot better to watch and more atmospheric at club grounds. But there is no doubt that Wembley is more than just a stadium to English football. It is a symbol of history and strength. The FA and English football would lose a lot of face if they sold their home, and even more so if they rented it back.

Didn’t the FA. only take ownership of the new stadium when it was built recently though? I’m not certain but I thought the old stadium was owned by a company for decades.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A NFL franchise in London is a flight of fancy that has been mentioned for years.

It's a million miles from ever happening for a host of reasons.

Yeah, certainly their division rivals like the Houston Texans might object to spending half a day on a plane. Plus there is a danger that a team like the Jags attract no fans once the novelty wears off.

Cookiemunster

astradave wrote: »

Didn’t the FA. only take ownership of the new stadium when it was built recently though? I’m not certain but I thought the old stadium was owned by a company for centuries.

Yeah. I saw a tweet from former FA head Adrian Bevington this morning saying that they only took ownership of the stadium in 2000. Was always owned by a private company before that.

Lukker-

Not a great deal considering the amount of money they paid for + the value of the land. The millennium stadium cost less than the land Wembley is on. The F.A put close to £1.5b into it..

Richard Hillman

You'd be pretty pissed if you were a British tax payer or lotto player if all that money that was given to them to build the stadium and then they just sold it 10 years later to be used by a foreign franchise.

loyatemu

Minderbinder wrote: »

Agree with you and England games were a lot better to watch and more atmospheric at club grounds. But there is no doubt that Wembley is more than just a stadium to English football. It is a symbol of history and strength. The FA and English football would lose a lot of face if they sold their home, and even more so if they rented it back.

Spain & Germany don't have national stadiums, doesn't seem to do them any harm.

titan18

ERG89 wrote:

He'll need that. Valuations are mad. Cowboys haven't won anything in what feels like forever too.

Winning doesn't mean as much for US sports team valuations due to how the leagues are run there. Hard to be consistently successful there, so the media market and franchise popularity is more important

purplepanda

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You'd be pretty pissed if you were a British tax payer or lotto player if all that money that was given to them to build the stadium and then they just sold it 10 years later to be used by a foreign franchise.

£160 million Wembley funding from taxpayers & lottery, plus they'll be a "Boris bung" London's version of a brown envelope, involved to clinch the deal! :rolleyes:

Skylinehead

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You'd be pretty pissed if you were a British tax payer or lotto player if all that money that was given to them to build the stadium and then they just sold it 10 years later to be used by a foreign franchise.

Pretty sure that all the FA got from the government for Wembley was loans. The taxpayer isn't losing out.

Lukker-

Can't wait for it to be renamed the Doritos Thunderdome

Pauliedragon

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You'd be pretty pissed if you were a British tax payer or lotto player if all that money that was given to them to build the stadium and then they just sold it 10 years later to be used by a foreign franchise.

If they use the money to build all weather pitches and cut fees for kids which has been suggested it might be a good deal for taxpayers.

Zaph

Khan reckons the deal could be done and dusted within 8-12 weeks. Personally I can't see it happening at all, the tabloids have already started stoking the public outrage so it's only a matter of time before the politicians get involved.

Minderbinder

loyatemu wrote: »

Minderbinder wrote: »

Agree with you and England games were a lot better to watch and more atmospheric at club grounds. But there is no doubt that Wembley is more than just a stadium to English football. It is a symbol of history and strength. The FA and English football would lose a lot of face if they sold their home, and even more so if they rented it back.

Spain & Germany don't have national stadiums, doesn't seem to do them any harm.

True. But there’s a difference between not having a national stadium and having one, selling it and renting it out from the new landlord.

Cookiemunster

Minderbinder wrote: »

True. But there’s a difference between not having a national stadium and having one, selling it and renting it out from the new landlord.

But the FA didn't own any stadium for the first 137 years of their existence. They always rented Wembley and only bought the old stadium in 2000 to demolish it.

Minderbinder

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Minderbinder wrote: »

True. But there’s a difference between not having a national stadium and having one, selling it and renting it out from the new landlord.

But the FA didn't own any stadium for the first 137 years of their existence. They always rented Wembley and only bought the old stadium in 2000 to demolish it.

That doesn’t change my point since they own the stadium I’m talking about. They were all very proud (and rightly so) about the new Wembley and they made a big song and dance about it for years leading up to it and years after it opened.

The sale would be a loss of face without question. Not just for football but for England in general, regardless of how much sense it might make to sell it.

Stephen15

Building Wembley seems to me like a complete waste of money on the FA's behalf. Considering there are so many large stadiums in England they could play matches in Old Trafford, The Emirates, Anfield, St.James, The Etihad and The Olympic Stadium.

LuckyLloyd

"Lose face"
"Tabloids stoking public outrage"
"symbol of history and strength"

English society truly is in a pitiful place. It's a mere brick and mortar asset, worth a lot of money, on which a great business deal can be made, and within which the national team can still play. To not do the deal because of juvenile nationalism is silly beyond belief.

Rekop dog

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

"Lose face"
"Tabloids stoking public outrage"
"symbol of history and strength"

English society truly is in a pitiful place. It's a mere brick and mortar asset, worth a lot of money, on which a great business deal can be made, and within which the national team can still play. To not do the deal because of juvenile nationalism is silly beyond belief.

If Roman Avrmmovic bought Croke Park to move Chelsea in there for the 9 months the stadium is dormant would you cry juvenile nationalism at the people opposing it?

lassykk

Rekop dog wrote: »

If Roman Avrmmovic bought Croke Park to move Chelsea in there for the 9 months the stadium is dormant would you cry juvenile nationalism at the people opposing it?

I think the historic nature of Croke Park and what happened there means it is of far greater significance to Ireland than just a sporting venue.

I don't think it is comparable with Wembley in the slightest in that regard.

If someone came in and wanted the Aviva I'd bite their hand off if it meant more funding for grass roots football (as is proposed in the UK). I don't know what the ownership structure of the Aviva is I was just picking it as a more appropriate example.

Rekop dog

lassykk wrote: »

I think the historic nature of Croke Park and what happened there means it is of far greater significance to Ireland than just a sporting venue.

I don't think it is comparable with Wembley in the slightest in that regard.

.

But it's all open to perception though. People attach their own significance to things. If you think holding a 100 year grudge is a valid reason for not allowing the hypothetical example of a English side move to Croker I believe you're being as hateful as those nationalist opposing the Wembley sale. Most extreme nationalist fronts at their core are racist/sectarianist/xenophobic.

LuckyLloyd

Rekop dog wrote: »

If Roman Avrmmovic bought Croke Park to move Chelsea in there for the 9 months the stadium is dormant would you cry juvenile nationalism at the people opposing it?

Croke Park is used for concerts, football matches, rugby matches. The debate around how proper all of that additional use was is similar: it was a juvenile conversation.

Croke Park is a historic landmark dating back to 1880 that has only ever been renovated - it was never rebuilt from scratch. It was the scene of a landmark historic event fundamental to the foundation of the state. I believe the conversation would be slightly different in that regard, and justifiably so.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Wembley would be regarded as a far greater historic landmark than Croker. Just removing the twin towers caused plenty of upset. It's hosted Olympics, European Cup finals, and they won their World Cup there. We may attached our significance to Croke Park, but plenty of people in England would be have those feelings towards Wembley.

For the FA, being so close to paying it off, I don't see the benefit of selling it.

Trigger

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Wembley would be regarded as a far greater historic landmark than Croker. Just removing the twin towers caused plenty of upset. It's hosted Olympics, European Cup finals, and they won their World Cup there. We may attached our significance to Croke Park, but plenty of people in England would be have those feelings towards Wembley.

For the FA, being so close to paying it off, I don't see the benefit of selling it.

All of these happened, bar the cup final in 2011, while the stadium was under private ownership though which is one of the points of the thread.

LuckyLloyd

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Wembley would be regarded as a far greater historic landmark than Croker. Just removing the twin towers caused plenty of upset. It's hosted Olympics, European Cup finals, and they won their World Cup there. We may attached our significance to Croke Park, but plenty of people in England would be have those feelings towards Wembley.

For the FA, being so close to paying it off, I don't see the benefit of selling it.

But they did. And here we are.

And, as Astradave notes above, the FA's ownership of the stadium has never been part of whatever historic legacy the stadium retains.

j8wk2feszrnpao

astradave wrote: »

All of these happened, bar the cup final in 2011, while the stadium was under private ownership though which is one of the points of the thread.

Under private UK ownership. This would be different (in the mindset at least). Plus, I doubt that many knew it was under private ownership, it still represented something to them. Croker is owned by the GAA, not Ireland; very much private it's own way.