AC Milan are hoping to purchase San Siro, alongside Inter, and a deal could be wrapped up in the next few weeks, it seems.
There has been a lot said about the San Siro situation this summer already, and a deal will hopefully be agreed upon in the next few weeks. However, as is nothing new by this point, there is a lot that needs to be unpacked.
Read SempreMilan ad-free and get access to exclusive news. Click here for a free trial!
Recently, there have been a few suggestions that people within the Municipality are not 100% happy about the idea of selling San Siro to the clubs, especially not with a discount, and now it seems the stakes are rising internally.
Messy internally
Gazzetta dello Sport first relays words from Beppe Sala, who has been in favour of the sale to the clubs.
“Resign if the sale of San Siro isn’t voted on? Absolutely not. I think a mayor should resign if there’s a decision that undermines the administration’s functioning, for example, if the budget isn’t approved, but not in the face of something like this.”
His statements are then followed by a reference to an earlier meeting today, where it is believed that Sala attempted to lessen the pressure surrounding him and the stadium by turning things into a vote of confidence against himself.
Words from Carlo Monguzzi, who is a councillor for Europa Verde, and is openly against the deal to sell to the clubs, then follow.
“The right will vote for the sale of San Siro. Now that the mayor has made the vote in the chamber dependent on his resignation, the vote on San Siro will only concern San Siro and its surroundings, no longer a vote of confidence in the council. Therefore, the centre-right councillors, who have always been strongly in favour of the sale to the teams, will be able to calmly vote in favour, even if they shout to the contrary.”
The article ends with a few words, ‘this story still has a lot to say’. It was never going to be simple to get a deal done, but this is now nothing new for either club.
Who wants to bet this is still the story 6 months from now.
Bureaucrats going to Bureaucrat.
Is there anybody who still believes that this sale will be completed??? We all know how bureaucracy and politics work in Italy. This is why only a tiny minority of Italian clubs own their own stadiums, unlike the common situation in most other big European leagues.
Currently in Serie A, only Juve, Udinese, Sassuolo and Atalanta own their stadiums (and the latter, only very recently when they completed the purchase of theirs). It means only 20% of the clubs in Serie A own their stadiums.
If we look at current Serie B clubs, it’s even worse. Only one: Frosinone. We might talk about a second one, Cremonese, because they have a 99-year lease and have expressed the desire to purchase their stadium outright. So, 5% to 10% (the latter figure, only if Cremonese actually do it).
In Serie C with its 60 clubs, it’s microscopic. Only one, AlbinoLeffe, own their small stadium.
So the bottom line is: of the 100 professional Italian clubs, there are 6 who currently own their stadium, and a 7th one that potentially will own theirs (and unlikely but maybe, 9% if Inter and Milan complete the San Siro purchase). That’s a pitiful figure, as compared to other top European countries (except for France).
Here is the data for the Top 5 in Europe:
English EPL = 80%
Spain La Liga = 75%
German Bundesliga = 64%
Italian Serie A = currently 20%
French Ligue 1 = 10%
Only France is worse than Italy.
This San Siro sale will still be stalled months from now until it becomes inviable. Then, I doubt that Gerry Cardinale actually wants to build on our own a stadium in San Donato that will cost 1.2 billion Euros.
20 years from now, Milan and Inter will still not own a stadium. That’s Italy for you. Whoever believes that this will actually be solved should wake up of their daydreaming, and that includes Mayor Sala.
I ran a comprehensive estimate of the benefits for Milan and Inter of owning San Siro, and also compared this situation to Juve’s, Atalanta’s, Sassuolo’s and Udinese’s revenue growth from the fact that they became owners of their stadiums.
I found some surprising data. For the small towns like Sassuolo and Udine, the impact was huge, between 100% and 300% of income growth, although that’s not as impressive as it looks because it is a big percentage, but applied to a small base.
However this was not as big for the bigger cities like the Bergamo area (not a huge city but the fan base does extend beyond city limits) and Torino. The main thing for Juve was actually not simply the property title, but actually the fact that Juve redeveloped their property into a modern stadium with advanced VIP facilities, naming rights and the such.
So, we need to think of how much Inter and Milan would earn from owning San Siro in two situations: keeping it as is, or redeveloping it into a major modern stadium.
Keeping San Siro as is, the impact would be minimum. Stop paying rent: half of 9.1 M Euro for each team (4.5 to 5 M). Other non-matchday revenue would add only 2 to 5 M per club. Naming rights would be tricky because of the historical nature of the San Siro name which corporations might not want to mess with and attract the ire of fans (their customers), but if done, it would add up to 5 M per club, but we would need to go from zero (not done) to a maximum of 5 M. So the total ownership upside for each club would be only 6 to 15 M more per club per season. That’s not negligible but it is not a budget revolution either, especially considering that under the current deal, the clubs are earning about 70 M Euro each per season. This is mostly from ticket sales, VIP lounges and subscriptions. The revenue from concerts, bars, and museums/tours is actually negligible, because while big on paper, 36.2 M in total (not by club but in total), actually dwindles to only 1.3 M profit after operational expenses.
Now, if Inter and Milan successfully rebuilt the stadium to modern specifications, then revenue would indeed grow by an additional 25 to 45 M Euro per club per year. The range is so high because it depends on whether or not the teams qualify for UEFA tournaments, the number of concerts booked, and the ability to sell out the expensive VIP lounge seats to corporations and wealthy individuals, which varies (and while Inter has been consistently in the UCL, we have not).
So, yes, owning would be ultimately financially beneficial but we also need to realize that it would be a very long term project because initially the clubs would spend a lot more than they would earn, with both the purchase of San Siro (currently listed at 200 M) and with the huge costs of redeveloping the site (at least around 1 billion Euro, half for each club). So, let’s say, 100 M for each club to purchase it, and 500 to 600 M to redevelop the site. That’s 600 to 700 M, and only several years later with everything completed, the clubs would start profiting an additional 25 M to 45 M per year. Also, if the old San Siro is demolished, Inter and Milan would actually LOSE their current 70 M per year revenue and would have to rent other venues in the region for their games (such as Atalanta’s and Monza’s stadiums) until the new San Siro got finished.
So, the benefits are actually not as huge and as transformative as I expected. Of course, in the long term, yes, it would be great to own a modern stadium, but improving the clubs’ coffers from this would take a LONG time and the amortization of the huge costs over a few years would also delay even more the actual net profits.
I clarify that I am pretty confident regarding the above estimates; they were done through a GPT-5 inquiry and the A.I.’s reply was pretty comprehensive and detailed; I just posted a summary which is already long; to post the full analysis by the A.I. which is fascinating, it would be even longer. People will already think TLDR for the above posts; even fewer people would read the full analysis.
WOW!!! A.I. now ran an estimate of the payback time, and the conclusion is sobering. It would take roughly 25 years to start actually profiting from a new stadium, and that’s not even considering financial costs to service the debt, and taxes.
In summary, each club would spend a capex of about 700 million and lose for at least 3 years the current income level of 70 M from the existing San Siro while it is demolished and rebuilt. That’s 910 million. So, with a project increased revenue of 37 M per year per club on top of the 70 M (that is, going from 70 to 107 M), it means 910 M divided by 37 M = 24.6 years. Sure, during those 3 years the clubs would still earn ticket sales from their matches in Bergamo or Monza but those are smaller stadiums, so we can forget about that, considering that any profits from that would merely disappear in terms of the financial costs and taxes and inflation, that are not even being considered in this calculation.
Also, the AI warned us that the 600 M per club cost to redevelop the area could actually run into cost overruns.
Suddenly this whole thing is looking much less attractive!
I now asked the AI to look at the San Donato project, alone without Inter so more upfront costs, but also benefitting from building a shopping center, new headquarters, and a hotel.
The conclusion is that Milan would be better off in San Donato. The payback period would shrink to 17 years (for one thing, we wouldn’t lose the current 70 M per year while building in San Donato as we’d continue to be at San Siro until ready to move to San Donato), and the additional income by not splitting stuff with Inter and getting more revenue sources like the hotel and shopping center and stop renting Casa Milan, would grow to about 120 Million in new revenue (which is also why the profits start sooner, 17 years instead of almost 25, but going solo).
WOW!!! So, it is actually better to go solo in San Donato??? Why are we then still involved with San Siro???
“Why are we then still involved with San Siro???”
Emotions. History. But it is funny that the banker isn’t driving for the San Donato option as he should have “a nose for money”… 🤷♂️
This is the final A.I. conclusion:
“Building from scratch at San Donato—solo and without sharing—positions AC Milan to unlock full revenue potential. It avoids the mid-construction revenue hit of demolishing San Siro, and gives Milan full control of gate and commercial income. Provided the club secures cost-effective financing and executes efficiently, the long-term upside greatly outweighs staying in the current rental model or purchasing and redeveloping San Siro with Inter.”
LOL, doesn’t Gerry Cardinale consult AI?
I now find it weird that the San Donato project seems to be less favored.
Unless, like some have speculated, all that Gerry wants is to get the ball going, potentially just spending 100 M now to purchase San Siro with Inter, so that he can say to prospective buyers of his AC Milan interest in the near future: “and look, we now own half of our stadium and have plans to develop it, so in the future, if you buy AC Milan from us now, you will have advanced sources of new revenue and a great return to your investment; buy cheap now, continue to redevelop, and you will later sell the club for much more!”
That is actually not a farfetched way to look into this situation.
1. Wow!
2. We wont move to bergamo, new san siro will be built in the current parking lot, near the existing stadium.
3. Dont trust everything gpt says
4. Wow!
2. That’s good, so scratch the 210 M Euros lost revenue part. It’s still a long pay back and a long project to start getting the benefits. The fact that ChatGPT included this, is because I asked it to. I was under the impression that we’d have to tear San Siro down and rebuild. If we can build the new one in the parking lot and keep playing in the existing structure until the new one is completed, that’s better.
3. Most of what GPT said, was stuff I had read elsewhere and looks accurate. ChatGPT just gets a very efficient way to put it all together. You shouldn’t despise GPT just because sometimes the info is inaccurate. Most of the time it is accurate. That’s similar to how some people resisted Wikipedia at first, quoting that anybody could edit it so it wasn’t accurate. It turns out that studies show that Wikipedia is actually more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. ChatGPT most of the time offers good answers. Rarely it is is mistaken. While indeed we shouldn’t trust EVERYTHING that ChatGPT says, we generally can trust MOST of what it says.
“You shouldn’t despise GPT just because sometimes the info is inaccurate.”
AI is wrong too often but even then sounds VERY convincing with its lies. It is hard to trust it. Even after you correct it and it acknowledges the mistake, it still often keeps on lying.
From ehat I am reading then Arsenal and Tottenham should have stayed at their stadiums as it does not pay off.
Guys forget AI, this is going to be sponsored by Bank of America same as Tottenham, and no matter what we are better of, owners have money, now that we owe club we can make money from naming the stadium that i did not see anywhere, our value increases, there are many other hodden wins
San Siro as much as I love has to go. Ideally we would rebuild it but I hear it is not possible
It pays off, but it takes a while to pay off. That’s all that the A.I. was saying. Of course it increases revenue like I already demonstrated. But given that Milan’s current deal at San Siro isn’t horrible and still allows the team to earn 70 M per season, the increase in revenue is not as big as we might think, and you also have to factor in the payback of loans to finance the new stadium, over the years of amortization. Maybe Arsenal and Tottenham deals weren’t as good in their original locations, then they got revenue increase faster.
Because see, Milan spends only 4.5 M Euros per year renting San Siro, and earns 70 M per year. That’s not so bad. San Siro is old but does have lounges and VIP seats and a large seat capacity, so, it is harder to improve on this in huge ways. Revenue will go up maybe by 60% but it won’t triple. So one has to get this into account when considering the advantages, and one should know that due to the cost of building the new stadium, it will be a while for the team to actually be in the black again. For several years it will be more expenses than revenue. That is quite obvious, no?
And what, do you think that Bank of America is in the charity business? If they finance the new stadium, they will want the funds to be paid back with interest. It’s a bank, not a charity. It’s not free money.
Also, Italy is not England. Over here, there is more likelihood of cost overruns, corruption, political obstacles, bureaucracy, delays… Don’t automatically extrapolate Arsenal’s and Tottenham’s experience in London to Milano.
Luigi, I get all that but we have to evolve. I am afraid the pricing in new stadium will also increase, and this has to happen if we were to get our Milan back at the top. Personally i would not be opposed to renovating San Siro like Barca and Real did but staying current course is no longer an option. Both Arsenal and Liverpool had their own stadiums just needed bigger and better.
Ah and do not kid yourself with England with cost overrun, it is as bad. Tottenham sradium is a orime examole.
Either way, i think this will get resolved, I am optumistic about it.
Everything I was interested in knowing, I found in the article. We read in this article that a certain Carlo Monguzzi, advisor for “Green Europe”…
Ahhh…Green Europe…so I was right to believe that these neo-Marxist crooks, this ideological current that has appeared for several years and that uses, among other things, environmentalism as a tool for obtaining power and financial blackmail, always oppose any project for the development of society, whether it is an urban project or a hydroelectric power plant, anything that means developing the standard of living. Indeed…I can’t stand this “progressive” neo-Marxist current, aggressive, naughty and oriented against anything that would bring something good to society. I don’t know where the hell these individuals who hate humanity, comfort, real progress and the pleasure of man to live beautifully and prosperously in modern society came from. They want to take us back to the Middle Ages.
You’re already in Middle Age with that dangerous obscurantism, denying the work of economists and scholars demonstrating that infinite growth is a myth and the work of scientists warning that climate change is making the very planet we live on more and more unsuitable for mankind. So much for comfort and modernism…
What economists and what scholars ? Those paid by corporations owned by eugenicist families like the Rothschilds or Rockefellers? Do you really believe all these lies about climate change? Get your head out of the official propaganda, it has poisoned your mind enough that you can no longer think freely and with your own mind .
So it’s either I trust NASA, GIEC, Smithsonian and every scientific and academic publication in the world backed by scientific data and empirical facts or I trust some dude behind his keyboard obsessed with comfort and with conspiracies? Tough decision really.
Smithsonian is exactly Rothschild 😆😆. I told you…I know your type sooooo well. You think about yourself , you are sooo progressive and sooo smart…you trust the science…right…. What science ? A lady from World Economic Forum once in one of their meetings used formula : our science, we own the science. So they own the science because scientists are for sale in all universities. For right amount of money they sign over whatever “scientific” article is needed for the Agenda. You livin in a dream world where you think you are smart but in reality Lenin has a sintagma about you and all kind of you ..useful id..ts… Not my words, Lenin words about communist/progressive mobs.
I don’t want to put you down with bad words , I speak in this way, maybe…maybe…you reflect a little bit to things you know from a different perspective. Maybe…but I have really little hopes 😆😆
Yeah right I believe in propaganda and can’t think freely with my own mind. Meanwhile I’m sure you spent your whole life investigating on the field about all of your theories backed by nobody but uneducated spoiled idiots on the Internet. Thanks for the enlightenment man.
You are fully vaxxed , right ? Two shots with boosters , all ? Good boy… 😆😆😆
Owning a stadium also makes a club more attractive to potential buyers. That’s why I think RedBird will get it down, eventually. They won’t see a return on their investment otherwise (as it stands, they’re not going to see any returns).