England - The Next Episode: Part Deux: Phoenix from the Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Net up...Summer Tour to NZ...and a game v Japan

I don't like it. I completely understand why it was done and seems a good deal but I have no idea if that is going rate for naming rights.

For me home of England rugby is Twickenham, it'lll seem very odd when everyone starts to call it the Allianz Stadium.

doctor_grey wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:Good work by the RFU on the money they got. To get ten times more than the WRU did when selling their naming rights, is insane.

It seems to me to be worth more than a measly £10 million per year.  

And though I don't like it at all, naming rights are becoming part of sporting landscape, part of the revenue stream.

Does it matter? Apart from on TV and the like, when was the last time your heard The Gardens being called "he cinch Stadium at Franklins Gardens", to the fans both Saints and other teams it will always be Franklins Gardens, or The Gardens. Twickenham is the same, it will always be Twickers, Twickenham, HQ or some other derivative, who cares what the pundits call it.

mountain man wrote:I don't like it. I completely understand why it was done and seems a good deal but I have no idea if that is going rate for naming rights.

For me home of England rugby is Twickenham, it'lll seem very odd when everyone starts to call it the Allianz Stadium.

Yeah, it'll be odd. But so what? The feedback is that the RFU have got a better price than most people expected (I've seen a number of Welsh fans comparing it very favourably to what the Principality are paying the WRU).

I suspect both the RFU and Allianz will feel they've played a blinder on the timing: the first match under the new brand will be the Red Roses vs the Black Ferns, which IIRC is basically the trigger for ticket sales for RWC25 opening. Allianz will get a lot of publicity from the match, plus a potential world record for women's rugby attendance, plus all the tournament marketing, plus a major global tournament final to be played there, plus the association with women's sport - and they were clearly happy to pay top dollar for it.

The RFU gets a very good price for the name, and all that publicity will help people adapt to the new name.

I wonder what will happen to the Twickenham app, though. They can't really rename it the Allianz app... but keeping it as Twickenham would undermine the "no. it's just the Allianz stadium like all the other Allianz stadia around the world" messaging.

It's definitely a 1st world problem, ie not really a problem at all but for some of us just doesn't seem right.

Maybe it'll happen everywhere but I'd be surprised if say Eden Park was renamed after a sponsor but I guess could happen.

mountain man wrote:It's definitely a 1st world problem, ie not really a problem at all but for some of us just doesn't seem right.

Maybe it'll happen everywhere but I'd be surprised if say Eden Park was renamed after a sponsor but I guess could happen.

Potential Eden Park Name Sponsor

Simples.

Ah but that's not actually changing the name plus I doubt they'll be playing £10m a year although a good shout.

mountain man wrote:Ah but that's not actually changing the name plus I doubt they'll be playing £10m a year although a good shout.

£10 mil for 10 years.  That's the number being reported in most news sources. Hopefully that's right.

As background the deal the New York Giants agreed with Metropolitan Life Insurance for their stadium rights back in 2011 was $17 mil per year for 25 years. Would be higher if signed today.

Citibank (Citicorp) is paying the NY Mets $20 mil annually. Allianz is sponsoring the Bayern Munich stadium in Munich at $14 mil annually.

doctor_grey wrote:

mountain man wrote:Ah but that's not actually changing the name plus I doubt they'll be playing £10m a year although a good shout.

£10 mil for 10 years.  That's the number being reported in most news sources.  Hopefully that's right.

As background the deal the New York Giants agreed with Metropolitan Life Insurance for their stadium rights back in 2011 was $17 mil per year for 25 years.  Would be higher if signed today.  

Citibank (Citicorp) is paying the NY Mets $20 mil annually.  Allianz is sponsoring the Bayern Munich stadium in Munich at $14 mil annually.  

It's worth remembering that Met Life stadium serves both the Giants and the Jets. Effectively a 2 for 1 deal. It also holds some big concerts (89k for Ed Sheeran).

Citi-field is again multi use with MLS playing their occasionally as well as the Mets.

The Allianz Arena holds both club and international games and is once translated at around £11m per annum so pretty close to what the RFU got.

The issue with sponsoring Twickenham is that it is used fairly infrequently and for a minority sport only. It is also hosted football or cricket or rugby league as well it would have a broader reach and could command more money for naming rights.

doctor_grey wrote:

mountain man wrote:Ah but that's not actually changing the name plus I doubt they'll be playing £10m a year although a good shout.

£10 mil for 10 years.  That's the number being reported in most news sources.  Hopefully that's right.

As background the deal the New York Giants agreed with Metropolitan Life Insurance for their stadium rights back in 2011 was $17 mil per year for 25 years.  Would be higher if signed today.  

Citibank (Citicorp) is paying the NY Mets $20 mil annually.  Allianz is sponsoring the Bayern Munich stadium in Munich at $14 mil annually.  

I think mountain man was joking about my joke suggestion for sponsoring Eden Park.

I assume that in sponsorship terms it's partly about how often the name will be seen. An MLB or league soccer stadium that hosts 20+ games per year is likely to be worth more than a national stadium that hosts 10-12 games per year - though Twickenham's positioning under the Heathrow flight path probably counts for something. I wonder if Quins get a kickback for raising the value by hosting BG/BSKO at the Big Stoop?

I see that Sir Clive Woodward has come out against it, which these days is a pretty good indicator that it's a good idea.

With Twickenham apparently needing £660m in renovations, it's hardly surprising they are doing anything they can to raise funds. That's the elephant in the room though. £100m over 10 years barely puts a dent in fixing Twickers.

All 4 stands apparently need renovations. The roof needs work. Probably most importantly and costly to fix, the transport links are laughably abysmal due to the overreliance on Twickenham station which just can't cope.

This is to save a stadium that has a dreadful atmosphere. Having been to all of the home nations grounds, Twickenham is the worst fan experience by a mile.

I'd have leant towards selling it and moving towards the French model. Buy a stake in Wembley, use it for rugby and football.

king_carlos wrote:With Twickenham apparently needing £660m in renovations, it's hardly surprising they are doing anything they can to raise funds. That's the elephant in the room though. £100m over 10 years barely puts a dent in fixing Twickers.

All 4 stands apparently need renovations. The roof needs work. Probably most importantly and costly to fix, the transport links are laughably abysmal due to the overreliance on Twickenham station which just can't cope.

This is to save a stadium that has a dreadful atmosphere. Having been to all of the home nations grounds, Twickenham is the worst fan experience by a mile.

I'd have leant towards selling it and moving towards the French model. Buy a stake in Wembley, use it for rugby and football.

I don't think the RFU will obtain equal value for a stadium which would likely be turned into residential, if sold off.  Unfortunately Twickenham is hampered by it's location.

doctor_grey wrote:

king_carlos wrote:With Twickenham apparently needing £660m in renovations, it's hardly surprising they are doing anything they can to raise funds. That's the elephant in the room though. £100m over 10 years barely puts a dent in fixing Twickers.

All 4 stands apparently need renovations. The roof needs work. Probably most importantly and costly to fix, the transport links are laughably abysmal due to the overreliance on Twickenham station which just can't cope.

This is to save a stadium that has a dreadful atmosphere. Having been to all of the home nations grounds, Twickenham is the worst fan experience by a mile.

I'd have leant towards selling it and moving towards the French model. Buy a stake in Wembley, use it for rugby and football.

I don't think the RFU will obtain equal value for a stadium which would likely be turned into residential, if sold off.  Unfortunately Twickenham is hampered by it's location.

I also suspect this is being done to fix the immediate hole in the RFU coffers as opposed to fund the stadium redevelopment. Last set of accounts showed the RFU making a £6.3m loss. £10m a year coming in under sponsorship income will help moving forwards.

Is Wembley really any better or would it just be swapping one souless stadium with overly corporate game experience for another KC?

Flats in Battersea Power Station are on the market from £600,000-6m, and the project is valued at £9bn.

The Twickenham site is comparable in size (the stadium is actually bigger than the power station, but there's more surrounding land at Battersea), perhaps in a slightly less valuable location, but I'd have thought the RFU could have raised a decent wedge from selling the site.

It's a bit simplistic to say that there's a "hole" in the RFU finances. Last year, they spent more than they earned and depleted their reserves somewhat; but they did so in order to maintain the level of investment in the Prem, PWR, Championship and grassroots rugby.

That's not uncommon for sporting bodies. Their revenues fluctuate depending on what events they have in a year. World Rugby only makes money in an RWC year (and then only tends to make big money when the RWC is held in a market like the UK or France) and spends the surplus over the other six years.

The issue facing the RFU (which they call out in the annual report) is that last year should have been one of the top years in its cycle, but it wasn't. That's compounded by the impacts of COVID, and of spending the windfall from RWC 2015 on a hospitality suite just as the bottom fell out of the market.

Historically, the RFU has been pretty good at funding development of the stadium - the South Stand was paid for without Government handouts and IIRC was paid for within a year or two of completion, in contrast to Wembley. The Allianz deal will make a difference, as should the scaling up of Red Roses matches and RWC 2025. Whether that will produce enough surplus to support all the investments the game needs remains to be seen, but presumably the long term numbers work out better than groundsharing with Wembley.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Is Wembley really any better or would it just be swapping one souless stadium with overly corporate game experience for another KC?

I've not been to Wembley personally so can't comment on the atmosphere during a match. Fans I know who attend football and rugby are incomparably more positive about the fan experience once you're in the ground though. The boring things like waits getting in and out, toilets, bar service, etc. The stuff that Twickenham is infamously behind the times with. I generally hear much better things about that from Wembley. Murrayfield for instance isn't exactly a leader with that stuff, but god it's better than Twickenham.

Plus it's got the slightly larger capacity. Particularly for the Six Nations where they'll generally sell out.

Most importantly, it has the transport links already. It's served by multiple underground lines and stations, ranging from 10-20 minute walks. Plus Wembley Stadium Station for the over ground. So it can cope with the footfall on matchday.

The nearest underground stations to Twickenham are 40-45 minutes away. So the bulk of folk come via Twickenham Station, which just can't cope. I really don't see how they fix it either. Not without even bigger investment than the huge sum already needed. Improving the transport links to the extent needed is city planning not stadium renovations! They want to improve the car park as part of the £660m renovations. How many folk actually want to drive to a ground in London though? I can't see how the RFU have anywhere near the finances or influence to fix the transport issues. Their consideration of selling Twickenham suggests to me that they realise that too.

Just build a new HQ stadium in the middle of the country so we can ALL go and see the team play!

Whilst I understand that, it does make sense to have big stadiums in capital. Plus then have to factor in transport links, parking all the boring stuff. Could access to Twic..Allianz Stadium be better, absolutely.

Note I don't live in London, in fact as far west as possible to get. Just getting to an airport for a holiday/business is a chore.

Send it to Coventry, that's what I say.

Seriously, it is not a bad place for it, pretty much Central, on the West Coat Main Line, close to Interchange the HS2 stop off point for Birmingham Int and the MEC, M6 and M45 to run in from the M1. Plenty of spare land in the area unlike most cities.

Or;

You could be really bold and build it in Rugby, M1, M6, M45, WCML all serve the town, a real rugby comes home story

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
You could be really bold and build it in Rugby, M1, M6, M45, WCML all serve the town, a real rugby comes home story

Rugby has a train station with links to the north and London as well. Airports in Birmingham and EMA as well. If they were to build a new stadium that would be one of the best bets in terms of location with a combination of the story, transport links and affordability of land.

Plus you'd get the ability to host more big gigs or corporate events (maybe weddings) out that way as there's less competition.

king_carlos wrote:
The nearest underground stations to Twickenham are 40-45 minutes away.

Richmond is a 20-25 minute bus ride away, and Hounslow is 15-20 minutes. Arguably the issue is that not enough people get steered to the shuttle bus services.

The other trick - which the RFU has been working on - is giving people more reasons to stay in the area so that the pressure on transport is spread out

It also has trains to the North East (York) and West Country, Bristol although they may be routed through Birmingham New Street.

Another big advantage Rugby has, is it is only half and hour up the A5 from me.

Great thats that sorted.....so whos drawing up the propsal to the RFU?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It also has trains to the North East (York) and West Country, Bristol although they may be routed through Birmingham New Street.

Another big advantage Rugby has, is it is only half and hour up the A5 from me.

Less than. 40 mins for me. Plenty of rugby territory nearby.

Far too logical and dramatic a step for the RFU to go with though.

Geordie wrote:Just build a new HQ stadium in the middle of the country so we can ALL go and see the team play!

We already have it in the thriving beating heart of the country - Franklin's Gardens

doctor_grey wrote:

Geordie wrote:Just build a new HQ stadium in the middle of the country so we can ALL go and see the team play!

We already have it in the thriving beating heart of the country - Franklin's Gardens

You Mean the The Cinch Stadium at Franklin Gardens?

Geordie wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Geordie wrote:Just build a new HQ stadium in the middle of the country so we can ALL go and see the team play!

We already have it in the thriving beating heart of the country - Franklin's Gardens

You Mean the The Cinch Stadium at Franklin Gardens?

Otherwise known as that small dump in one of the ugliest cities in the Midlands (which is not a high bar).

Northamptonshire roads were also devised by Satan's minions with the awful road surfaces and love of speed cameras.

Only someone that loved Leicester could think that of Wonderful, Wonderful Northampton, home of quality shoe manufacture and bu&&er all else being honest, apart from it's fantastic rugby team.

Someone told me that they are the current English champions, would you believe it.

Poorfour wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
The nearest underground stations to Twickenham are 40-45 minutes away.

Richmond is a 20-25 minute bus ride away, and Hounslow is 15-20 minutes. Arguably the issue is that not enough people get steered to the shuttle bus services.

The other trick - which the RFU has been working on - is giving people more reasons to stay in the area so that the pressure on transport is spread out

I meant by walking with the 40-45 minutes. The numbers for Wembley are on foot as well, as trying to compare like for like with the two options.

When that many folk start getting buses from the underground you run into the same issues as the congestion at Twickenham Station, they can't really keep up. The roads are packed before a matchday. The infrastructure just isn't there at Twickenham. I really can't see that changed with city planning and billions needing spent, as opposed to the already ludicrous £660m they need to find for a bad stadium.

Building a HQ in Rugby is actually a really interesting idea that I've seen floated before. I'm certainly not against the idea of selling Twickenham and using Wembley shorter term whilst looking to build a longer term home outside of London.

With all the main roads closed to traffic or blocked by 80k people crossing roads, how do the busses work on match day?

Walter and Tombleson gone then. He's rattling through some coaches and still we have Harrison and Wigglesworth.

king_carlos wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
The nearest underground stations to Twickenham are 40-45 minutes away.

Richmond is a 20-25 minute bus ride away, and Hounslow is 15-20 minutes. Arguably the issue is that not enough people get steered to the shuttle bus services.

The other trick - which the RFU has been working on - is giving people more reasons to stay in the area so that the pressure on transport is spread out

I meant by walking with the 40-45 minutes. The numbers for Wembley are on foot as well, as trying to compare like for like with the two options.

When that many folk start getting buses from the underground you run into the same issues as the congestion at Twickenham Station, they can't really keep up. The roads are packed before a matchday. The infrastructure just isn't there at Twickenham. I really can't see that changed with city planning and billions needing spent, as opposed to the already ludicrous £660m they need to find for a bad stadium.

Building a HQ in Rugby is actually a really interesting idea that I've seen floated before. I'm certainly not against the idea of selling Twickenham and using Wembley shorter term whilst looking to build a longer term home outside of London.

Why Wembley? Why not use the excellent Stadiums around the country...let fans over the country get the chance to see the team and you may ignite a new fanbase...

Geordie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
The nearest underground stations to Twickenham are 40-45 minutes away.

Richmond is a 20-25 minute bus ride away, and Hounslow is 15-20 minutes. Arguably the issue is that not enough people get steered to the shuttle bus services.

The other trick - which the RFU has been working on - is giving people more reasons to stay in the area so that the pressure on transport is spread out

I meant by walking with the 40-45 minutes. The numbers for Wembley are on foot as well, as trying to compare like for like with the two options.

When that many folk start getting buses from the underground you run into the same issues as the congestion at Twickenham Station, they can't really keep up. The roads are packed before a matchday. The infrastructure just isn't there at Twickenham. I really can't see that changed with city planning and billions needing spent, as opposed to the already ludicrous £660m they need to find for a bad stadium.

Building a HQ in Rugby is actually a really interesting idea that I've seen floated before. I'm certainly not against the idea of selling Twickenham and using Wembley shorter term whilst looking to build a longer term home outside of London.

Why Wembley? Why not use the excellent Stadiums around the country...let fans over the country get the chance to see the team and you may ignite a new fanbase...

Stadiums with the capacity you want are basically in London or Old Trafford. OT has its own issues and Man U are looking to build a replacement, so that may not even be a realistic option. St James' is 52k, which is a massive drop in revenue from 82k at Twickenham or 90k at Wembley. Anfield doesn't host international football due to issues with pitch size, so I'd be astonished if it's long enough for a rugby pitch.

I've long liked the idea of playing the AI fixtures where attendances are generally smaller outside of London. St James being a really good option there. I doubt it could work financially to host Six Nations games in a 52k stadium as opposed to 80-90k though. Tiger have the best week to week attendance in the Prem and Welford Road's capacity is a touch under 26k. So that's more than a Welford Road of lost ticket sales you're looking at. At Six Nations prices, that's a whole lot of revenue.

Aled Walters leaving England for Ireland....thats a big one.

To follow Geordie, here's the Telegraph. His partner is Irish, which is reportedly a factor in his interest in relocating.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2024/08/08/aled-walters-leaves-england-to-join-ireland-rugby-coaching/

"A highly popular figure within the England set-up, Walters is understood to have been keen on a return to Ireland for some time. His partner is Irish and he has enjoyed a stint in the country with Munster between 2012 and 2018, during which time he joined forces with Felix Jones."

Rugby Fan wrote:To follow Geordie, here's the Telegraph. His partner is Irish, which is reportedly a factor in his interest in relocating.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2024/08/08/aled-walters-leaves-england-to-join-ireland-rugby-coaching/

"A highly popular figure within the England set-up, Walters is understood to have been keen on a return to Ireland for some time. His partner is Irish and he has enjoyed a stint in the country with Munster between 2012 and 2018, during which time he joined forces with Felix Jones."

Well that will be a big factor.

Well its a blow...but theres some excellent S&C coaches out there...maybe might lack Walters experience...but im confident SB will find the right replacement.

As long as they stay away from Saints coaching team...................................

Geordie wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Geordie wrote:Just build a new HQ stadium in the middle of the country so we can ALL go and see the team play!

We already have it in the thriving beating heart of the country - Franklin's Gardens

You Mean the The Cinch Stadium at Franklin Gardens?

Grrrrr.

king_carlos wrote:

Geordie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
The nearest underground stations to Twickenham are 40-45 minutes away.

Richmond is a 20-25 minute bus ride away, and Hounslow is 15-20 minutes. Arguably the issue is that not enough people get steered to the shuttle bus services.

The other trick - which the RFU has been working on - is giving people more reasons to stay in the area so that the pressure on transport is spread out

I meant by walking with the 40-45 minutes. The numbers for Wembley are on foot as well, as trying to compare like for like with the two options.

When that many folk start getting buses from the underground you run into the same issues as the congestion at Twickenham Station, they can't really keep up. The roads are packed before a matchday. The infrastructure just isn't there at Twickenham. I really can't see that changed with city planning and billions needing spent, as opposed to the already ludicrous £660m they need to find for a bad stadium.

Building a HQ in Rugby is actually a really interesting idea that I've seen floated before. I'm certainly not against the idea of selling Twickenham and using Wembley shorter term whilst looking to build a longer term home outside of London.

Why Wembley? Why not use the excellent Stadiums around the country...let fans over the country get the chance to see the team and you may ignite a new fanbase...

Stadiums with the capacity you want are basically in London or Old Trafford. OT has its own issues and Man U are looking to build a replacement, so that may not even be a realistic option. St James' is 52k, which is a massive drop in revenue from 82k at Twickenham or 90k at Wembley. Anfield doesn't host international football due to issues with pitch size, so I'd be astonished if it's long enough for a rugby pitch.

I've long liked the idea of playing the AI fixtures where attendances are generally smaller outside of London. St James being a really good option there. I doubt it could work financially to host Six Nations games in a 52k stadium as opposed to 80-90k though. Tiger have the best week to week attendance in the Prem and Welford Road's capacity is a touch under 26k. So that's more than a Welford Road of lost ticket sales you're looking at. At Six Nations prices, that's a whole lot of revenue.

There is usually a significant loss of revenue if one sport team rents another stadium as opposed to one's own building.  Typically revenue from 80K at home is much more than 80K rented somewhere else.

I would also say this about Twickenham.  The core of the stadium is quite old.  It is difficult to keep upgrading an old stadium and keep up with or close to the functionality and amenities of modern stadia, of which Twickenham is not.

Doc, the rumoured plan being considered was to buy a 50% stake in Wembley from the FA. To then make it a national stadium for rugby and football. More akin to the French model with Stade de France. I think it could work really well. It's already an incomparably more modern stadium with the requisite travel links. Investment could then come from both sides to keep the national stadium with the times (or god forbid maybe even ahead of them...). As opposed to the alternative plan of throwing £660m at trying to make Twickenham only slightly behind the times as opposed to decades behind. Especially with the points made above about how awful the transport links are for such a big stadium and how the £660m won't feasibly fix that as it would need larger scale city planning more like the trams in Edinburgh, rather than the RFU improving a car park.

Apparently that idea has been shelved though. If buying 50% of Wembley isn't an option, then I'd much prefer selling Twickenham and building a national rugby stadium outside of London as others suggested above.

Even if they could fix all the other issues around Twickenham like the dreadful atmosphere, catastrophe getting in and out, inadequate facilities such as bars and toilets inside, etc then they'll still just be left with a nearly OK stadium that would likely remain the worst of the home nations rugby venues due to the transport issues.

As folk might have realised, I'm not Twickenham's biggest fan.

For £660m you could build most of a new stadium. Building it in Rugby in the Midlands where the land is a lot cheaper and there's less constraints around building in the middle of the city. So £660m likely to go further than it did for Tottenham who spent £350m before any construction started. ;-)

I'd have particularly liked a plan to use Wembley and build a rugby specific HQ outside of London but slightly smaller than Twickenham. As discussed with Geordie above, maximising revenue through a large capacity is fantastic when the interest will be there. I.e. the Six Nations and visits like NZ during the AIs. There are many other occasions where I often feel a slightly smaller rugby HQ around the capacity of the Aviva would be brilliant. Eden Park is 'only' 60k with the additional seating they add for the big occasions for instance. Ellis Park is just over 60k, Cape Town Stadium is just under 60k.

Last seasons Prem final sold out Twickenham with Quins being London based and Saints being in their first final since their previous win in '13/14. It's not uncommon even for Prem finals not to sell out though.

I often think a slightly smaller, circa 50k, rugby stadium could be absolutely brilliant for a lot of rugby purposes. Even if you get 30-40k in a stadium that size then you can still get a great atmosphere.

Hosting games such as England A vs Portugal at club grounds such as Welford Road can be great but the marketing and sales often end up being very focused on that club.

Whereas, if we had a slightly smaller national rugby stadium outside London with a reputation for good facilities, travel links, atmosphere, etc, I do wonder if they could capitalise on those non marquee events a bit better by bringing fans from around the country together. As much from an engagement perspective as monetising them. Red Roses games outside the massive sellers. England A games. Challenge Cup finals. Age grade. You could even look at hosting non London 'big games' there. The sting has gone out of the Bath vs Tigers rivalry for instance. Could you get 40k+ into a national stadium for what is otherwise just a regular season Prem game if that were properly marketed? Perhaps you even split the London Sevens with day one at a national stadium outside London and day 2 at Wembley?

Then you could still have used Wembley, with said part ownership, to fully capitalise financially on those marquee men's games that the RFU's model does need to use as cash cows. A 90k capacity stadium in London that isn't a bin fire should still do that significantly better than Twickenham will even after an insanely expensive redevelopment of all 4 stands, the roof, the facilities and the car park. None of which will improve the pre and post match travel disaster that results in hundreds of portaloos lining the streets accompanied by a stench of p**s most festival revellers would baulk at.

It's a topic I've discussed a lot with a few other folk who are nerdy about this stuff on other forums. So apologies for an info dump. It's something that's frustrated me for a while. Twickenham seems an unfixable dinosaur, yet the RFU are attached to a funding model that relies on it.

king_carlos wrote:Doc, the rumoured plan being considered was to buy a 50% stake in Wembley from the FA. To then make it a national stadium for rugby and football. More akin to the French model with Stade de France. I think it could work really well. It's already an incomparably more modern stadium with the requisite travel links. Investment could then come from both sides to keep the national stadium with the times (or god forbid maybe even ahead of them...). As opposed to the alternative plan of throwing £660m at trying to make Twickenham only slightly behind the times as opposed to decades behind. Especially with the points made above about how awful the transport links are for such a big stadium and how the £660m won't feasibly fix that as it would need larger scale city planning more like the trams in Edinburgh, rather than the RFU improving a car park.

Apparently that idea has been shelved though. If buying 50% of Wembley isn't an option, then I'd much prefer selling Twickenham and building a national rugby stadium outside of London as others suggested above.

Even if they could fix all the other issues around Twickenham like the dreadful atmosphere, catastrophe getting in and out, inadequate facilities such as bars and toilets inside, etc then they'll still just be left with a nearly OK stadium that would likely remain the worst of the home nations rugby venues due to the transport issues.

As folk might have realised, I'm not Twickenham's biggest fan.

Thanks for sharing.  I saw your post yesterday but couldn't reply.  Now I see the same in the news.  

I agree with you about Twickenham:  
It is an average stadium (being a little kind) in what has become over the years a poor location for a sports stadium.  
The residents of the area generally don't want it - though I wonder how much the area receives either directly or indirectly by having the stadium there, and how would many of those same residents would feel if that was eliminated.  
There are pretty low limits on the number of times the stadium can be used.  How can anyone run a business with one hand tied behind their back?
It is a pain to get to, crowded buses (though they can be quite fun at times), crowded trains, and poor car access.  

If rebuilt, I think it would be a mistake to move it away from London, but it would have to have easier access.  If the post-match wait to get out is as bad as the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, then we will have moved the needle - backwards.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

mountain man wrote:Ah but that's not actually changing the name plus I doubt they'll be playing £10m a year although a good shout.

£10 mil for 10 years.  That's the number being reported in most news sources.  Hopefully that's right.

As background the deal the New York Giants agreed with Metropolitan Life Insurance for their stadium rights back in 2011 was $17 mil per year for 25 years.  Would be higher if signed today.  

Citibank (Citicorp) is paying the NY Mets $20 mil annually.  Allianz is sponsoring the Bayern Munich stadium in Munich at $14 mil annually.  

It's worth remembering that Met Life stadium serves both the Giants and the Jets. Effectively a 2 for 1 deal. It also holds some big concerts (89k for Ed Sheeran).

Citi-field is again multi use with MLS playing their occasionally as well as the Mets.

The Allianz Arena holds both club and international games and is once translated at around £11m per annum so pretty close to what the RFU got.

The issue with sponsoring Twickenham is that it is used fairly infrequently and for a minority sport only. It is also hosted football or cricket or rugby league as well it would have a broader reach and could command more money for naming rights.

Yeah, good point Giants Stadium (aka Met Life) is partially owned by the Jets in addition to the Giants.  With NFL training camps now open I am usually there once per week, though Jets home training base is 20 minutes away, but Giants are right there.  

You are right it also is a huge moneymaker due to concerts - I was at Springsteen's last concert last summer before he took a break due to illness (was easy to see something was wrong).  My wife went to see Elton John, and so on.  Point being these are missed opportunities and in the very remote possibility HQ does move are things which simply cannot be missed.  And I would hope (why do I actually have hope?) if they try to build a new building, the RFU does a better job than Met Life.

doctor_grey wrote:If [Twickenham was] rebuilt, I think it would be a mistake to move it away from London, but it would have to have easier access.  If the post-match wait to get out is as bad as the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, then we will have moved the needle - backwards.

Yeah, yesterday a mate jokingly suggested moving it to somewhere right off the M25 - as if that would help traffic and stadium access!

Where's this Twckenham place you are all referring to? I've heard of the Allianz Stadium though.

doctor_grey wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If [Twickenham was] rebuilt, I think it would be a mistake to move it away from London, but it would have to have easier access.  If the post-match wait to get out is as bad as the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, then we will have moved the needle - backwards.

Yeah, yesterday a mate jokingly suggested moving it to somewhere right off the M25 - as if that would help traffic and stadium access!

If you're moving it out the centre of London then move it somewhere more accessible in general. On the rail links, close to airports and multiple motorway access. Ideally somewhere with cheap land available.

Surely never going to happen due to cost and issues of where and then travel links etc. Unless anyone has heard there are plans for a new stadium?

mountain man wrote:Surely never going to happen due to cost and issues of where and then travel links etc. Unless anyone has heard there are plans for a new stadium?

Cost issues - you could build a very modern 80K seater stadium in the midlands for £650M, what they would get for Twickenham would buy the land and support English rugby for a lot of years

Twickenham has appalling travel links, I live close to a Mainline station with direct trains to London and it still takes me 2-3 hours to get there.

Off peak cost is cheap, but no cheaper than the midlands. People traveling from outside the home counties have to pay extortionate rail fares to get there. It is bad enough for me, a drive, a train (packed), a tube(packed), a train (packed) and a walk, for them it is a lot worse. Twickenham has no mainline station, no motorway feeds, the traffic shuts down on match days it is just awful.

Some where like Rugby (proposed by a person who has actually lived there) would be ideal. Trains direct from the West Country, East Coast Mainline, West Coast Mainline, plus proximity to Birmingham to allow people from The North West, even Scotland to get there. M1, M6, M45 all very close. In terms of location and VFM Twickenham cannot compete.

Will it happen, NO.

If it did happen, we could correctly sing, "Its coming home, its coming home, rugbys coming home"

Exactly as WPI puts it there.

To repeat some my posts, I think the dream situation for rugby would be having part ownership to a massive stadium in London for the marquee events. Hence why I really liked the idea of buying a 50% share in Wembley. For the reasons that WPI lists, Twickenham is a very unattractive venue for other revenue streams like concerts. By putting football, rugby and other shows in a stadium that size I think you could maximise income from it well. That's impossible to do with Twickenham, as even with the history and nostalgia of a rugby fan, it's a rubbish stadium with about as poor transport connections as you can get in London.

Then you build a stadium around the 50k capacity mark outside of London for the non-marquee rugby events. The Red Roses games other than France in the Six Nations. Challenge Cup finals. Potentially even Prem finals given that they don't always sell out Twickenham. England A games.

Realistically, 82k is oversized for a lot of rugby purposes. Many iconic rugby stadiums in NZ and SA are around the 60k mark. Yet, the RFUs model requires access to a stadium that size for a few big days that keep things ticking. Having access to Wembley for the 4-5 days a year a stadium that big in London is necessary, then that Aviva sized stadium outside London for many others.

Rugby is very intriguing for that. It's an obvious PR win with the name. When HS2 opens it's close to Birmingham and hence easy travel from London. It's very close to two of English rugby's best supported clubs in Leicester and Northampton. It's a feasible day trip for folk from further north. Whereas London requires a very long day or hotels, where costs spiral. There's a lot there that makes sense.

If renovations on Twickenham are already at £660m, then could it be feasible to sell Twickenham, buy 50% of Wembley and build a decent sized rugby HQ somewhere cheaper than London for less 'spend'? That's the golden question. If the answer is yes, then it seems insanity to be putting that amount into renovating Twickenham so it's a slightly shinier joke to get to!

Wembley cost around £800m when it was built. Adjusted for inflation that's spiralling towards £1.5bn today (roughly twenty years later). That didn't include land cost. Obviously it will have depreciated slightly in value but still acquiring 50% of the stadium and the relevant commercial rights and revenue would be expensive. The underlying land in London is likely to be worth a fair whack.

Twickenham is sat on 10 and a bit acres of semi prime real estate. That will be worth a chunk though not enough for 50% of Wembley and a new custom built stadium elsewhere in the country I'd have thought.