New Stadium

[Blanchflower]

Nantynew There are two options for a club like Spurs;

a) Spend heavily on player recruitment and wages and enjoy short term success. It will only be short term as a lot of other teams have far lager turnover's than us, very quickly the resources would run out and FFP has limited the ability to be bailed out by a rich investor.

b) Cut back on spending on player recruitment and wages in the short term, and instead invest in improving the training facilities (to increase the chance of producing youth team players) and invest in the stadium to improve the clubs turnover (and it's ability to pay high transfer fees and wages) in the long term.

It's painful seeing the quality of players decrease at the moment, but ultimately it's the only way to go if we ever want to compete for trophies again.

 

[BBoyEdgy]

Does the NDP include a new Tube Station?

 

[Yorkshire_Spurs]

Does the NDP include a new Tube Station?

I am not even sure if it includes a new Stadium at this point.

 

[ArcspacE]

May be a new Chic-King only

 

[Nantynew]

Nantynew There are two options for a club like Spurs;

a) Spend heavily on player recruitment and wages and enjoy short term success. It will only be short term as a lot of other teams have far lager turnover's than us, very quickly the resources would run out and FFP has limited the ability to be bailed out by a rich investor.

b) Cut back on spending on player recruitment and wages in the short term, and instead invest in improving the training facilities (to increase the chance of producing youth team players) and invest in the stadium to improve the clubs turnover (and it's ability to pay high transfer fees and wages) in the long term.

It's painful seeing the quality of players decrease at the moment, but ultimately it's the only way to go if we ever want to compete for trophies again.

I don't disagree with your points but I don't think it needs to be an either/or.

I remain unconvinced that buying an expensive new stadium is the best option at this time as the increased match day revenue will be needed to help pay back the cost for years. This, ironically, is likely to impact on our ability to develop the team.

I'm also unconvinced that the increased match day revenue from the new stadium alone will be enough to close the gap between us and the mega rich clubs. The Man City and Chelsea's will always find a way around the FFP constraints. Look at what happened when City fell foul of FFP this year - they were fined, which means nothing to them.

There are other ways to invest in and modernise the facilities, that may not look so cool but are lower risk and enable a more balanced approach to financing and running the club as a whole.

 

[Aussie Ardiles]

Does the NDP include a new Tube Station?

No but it does have a Sainsburys!

 

[Tottenham Sean]

No but it does have a Sainsburys!

Instead of the Sainsbury's they should have built a Wetherspoons.Nothing like cheap booze to quell any future protests...

 

[Blanchflower]

There are other ways to invest in and modernise the facilities, that may not look so cool but are lower risk and enable a more balanced approach to financing and running the club as a whole.

If there actually were a lower cost, lower risk way of achieving the same do you not think Levy and Lewis would be all over it?

They aren't known for their lavish spending or vanity projects - if anything they aren't being ambitious enough imo.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

a) I'm not talking about borrowing the same amount of money that would be needed for the new stadium. I'm talking about using the money that we do have and can generate reasonably, to invest in the club rather than a new build stadium.

b) I'm not convinced that WHL is falling down. Sure, it needs some refurb and a bit of modernising and I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in that too, as any sensible business should.

c) Are we really in danger of the ground not meeting the required FIFA/UEFA/FA etc standards? I don't think so.

What I'm really saying in essence is that I'm not convinced fully of the business case for an expensive new stadium over all other options.

I disagree that I've fallen into the trap of the modern fan. Quite the opposite, as I think my view is a more conservative, longer term view.

I don't discount a new stadium longer term but splashing money we don't have on an expensive new stadium at this stage is very risky and could set us back for a long time.

Being deduced by fanciful pictures of a shiny new stadium, packed to the rafters with 60k happy Spurs fans, watching champions league matches is far more the trap of the modern fan.

And by the way, Barca and Madrid are not just the best clubs because of their large stadia. They have benefited from massive, disproportionate TV revenue compared to their competitors, substantial financial support from local authorities and are pretty much the only show in town compared to cities like London.

But what money are you suggesting we use? The idea behind the new stadium is that our current revenues are inadequate to support the wage bill required by competition with the teams above us in the top 4. Your suggestion doens't work because the money you talk of isn't there. We're taking out loans to build the stadium so we can make more money per match than now, and, once the loans are paid off, invest that in a higher average quality of player so that competitiveness can be sustained. With WHL at its current size, we don't have that money to invest which you speak of.

 

[Nantynew]

But what money are you suggesting we use? The idea behind the new stadium is that our current revenues are inadequate to support the wage bill required by competition with the teams above us in the top 4. Your suggestion doens't work because the money you talk of isn't there. We're taking out loans to build the stadium so we can make more money per match than now, and, once the loans are paid off, invest that in a higher average quality of player so that competitiveness can be sustained. With WHL at its current size, we don't have that money to invest which you speak of.

I think people are looking at this in too polarised a fashion. New, expensive stadium or the club dies.

I'm saying that we could maybe modernise, within our means, including player trading, sponsorship deals and reasonable borrowing where needed and plan a less risky , more sustainable, longer term development strategy.

I suggest that there is a disconnect between the holy land of the spanking new stadium's extra revenue for wages and having to pay for it.

To turn your question round, if we're paying back the loans for our new stadium, where's the money going to come from for new players and wages? The money from those extra 20,000 seats is being stretched a very long way.

I'd rather put "competing with the top four" on hold than risk this new stadium project, which looks too costly and disruptive for a club our size.

And as an aside, anyone who thinks the new stadium will be a much sought after venue for concerts etc is deluded. Sadly, Tottenham is just the wrong location to be appealing for those events.

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong about this by the way.

 

[Nantynew]

If there actually were a lower cost, lower risk way of achieving the same do you not think Levy and Lewis would be all over it?

They aren't known for their lavish spending or vanity projects - if anything they aren't being ambitious enough imo.

Not if they won't be around for the longer term outcomes.

I think the new stadium is a bit of a smokescreen. Most of us, including me at first by the way, have fallen for the line that we need it to compete with the top four. But by the time we've finished paying for it, having been unable to buy players or support wages because of the debt, we could have dropped out of the PL and not even be filling it.

In short, I think there are other options that I'd like to have seen explored to limit the longer term risk to the club.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

I think people are looking at this in too polarised a fashion. New, expensive stadium or the club dies.

I'm saying that we could maybe modernise, within our means, including player trading, sponsorship deals and reasonable borrowing where needed and plan a less risky , more sustainable, longer term development strategy.

I suggest that there is a disconnect between the holy land of the spanking new stadium's extra revenue for wages and having to pay for it.

To turn your question round, if we're paying back the loans for our new stadium, where's the money going to come from for new players and wages? The money from those extra 20,000 seats is being stretched a very long way.

I'd rather put "competing with the top four" on hold than risk this new stadium project, which looks too costly and disruptive for a club our size.

And as an aside, anyone who thinks the new stadium will be a much sought after venue for concerts etc is deluded. Sadly, Tottenham is just the wrong location to be appealing for those events.

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong about this by the way.

The money wouldn't come for players until the loans were paid off. That's the reality. But I am not saying it's new stadium or death of the club. I am saying it's new stadium or an end to aspirations of Spurs competing for the top 4. Consistent competitiveness only comes with revenue levels sufficient to cover the wages of a competitive squad. At this point, we don't have that. Unless you fancy another increase in ticket prices (and I sure don't), the only way to get that extra revenue is extra bums in seats.

I would agree that anyone thinking about N17 as a concert destination is out to lunch though.

 

[Nantynew]

The money wouldn't come for players until the loans were paid off. That's the reality. But I am not saying it's new stadium or death of the club. I am saying it's new stadium or an end to aspirations of Spurs competing for the top 4. Consistent competitiveness only comes with revenue levels sufficient to cover the wages of a competitive squad. At this point, we don't have that. Unless you fancy another increase in ticket prices (and I sure don't), the only way to get that extra revenue is extra bums in seats.

I would agree that anyone thinking about N17 as a concert destination is out to lunch though.

But does it have to be a new stadium at that cost and does it have to be now?

And Chelsea's capacity isn't that great but they've been doing okay. I'm not saying I want that sugar daddy model just that there are other ways of competing financially.

I'm worried that we over extend and still end up uncompetitive (whatever that may mean).

And just take a look at those vast swathes of empty seats at the larger Italian grounds. That's no atmosphere and no revenue.

 

[mouse]

Moving into a larger stadium has far from guaranteed success for the scum down the road. Just saying.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

But does it have to be a new stadium at that cost and does it have to be now?

And Chelsea's capacity isn't that great but they've been doing okay. I'm not saying I want that sugar daddy model just that there are other ways of competing financially.

I'm worried that we over extend and still end up uncompetitive (whatever that may mean).

And just take a look at those vast swathes of empty seats at the larger Italian grounds. That's no atmosphere and no revenue.

If not now, then when? The club's revenue base is the biggest barrier to sustainable challenges for the top 4, and ENIC and the board want to compete at that level. There are no other ways to sustainably increase the revenue base beyond that, under FFP. Chelsea do have a smaller stadium, and have been trying to expand for many years, with even less success than we've had. Abramovich's spending has allowed them to compete beyond what their revenue base would normally allow, and that's allowed them to do a bunch of different things, as the glory seekers around the world have now eagerly piled onto their "brand," but that model isn't one ENIC seems willing to follow.
We may over-extend and still remain uncompetitive, but there really aren't any alternatives on the table. The club wants to challenge for the top 4. They aren't willing to subsidize losses to do so. That means they need more revenue, and the only way that comes is a bigger stadium. It could fail to work out, and the revenue might not come, but it's their money, and their choice. Italian teams are odd because except for Juventus, none own their own stadium. So they're paying rent, not earning revenue. We're not in that kind of environment.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

Moving into a larger stadium has far from guaranteed success for the scum down the road. Just saying.

Their owner also has actually pocketed the money rather than invested in the squad. They have the money to compete a lot more strongly than they are. Kroenke wants to pocket it, and Wenger doesn't want to use it. They've chosen to stagnate, rather than compete.

 

[Nantynew]

If not now, then when? The club's revenue base is the biggest barrier to sustainable challenges for the top 4, and ENIC and the board want to compete at that level. There are no other ways to sustainably increase the revenue base beyond that, under FFP. Chelsea do have a smaller stadium, and have been trying to expand for many years, with even less success than we've had. Abramovich's spending has allowed them to compete beyond what their revenue base would normally allow, and that's allowed them to do a bunch of different things, as the glory seekers around the world have now eagerly piled onto their "brand," but that model isn't one ENIC seems willing to follow.
We may over-extend and still remain uncompetitive, but there really aren't any alternatives on the table. The club wants to challenge for the top 4. They aren't willing to subsidize losses to do so. That means they need more revenue, and the only way that comes is a bigger stadium. It could fail to work out, and the revenue might not come, but it's their money, and their choice. Italian teams are odd because except for Juventus, none own their own stadium. So they're paying rent, not earning revenue. We're not in that kind of environment.

Maybe there's more to life than challenges for top four, if it means taking unnecessary risk.

My point about the Italian stadia is that, ownership aside, they've usually got masses of unsold seats, despite being a lot cheaper than the PL.

I think we are likely to end up with a costly, larger stadium that we can't fill, unless we dramatically reduce ticket costs. In which case, we may have underestimated the likely match day revenue.

I expect most people to disagree with me because at heart, we are all seduced by the concept that's being presented. I just have my doubts that it's the only or even best option and wanted to get a bit of a debate going.

 

[alexwooty]

I think people are looking at this in too polarised a fashion. New, expensive stadium or the club dies.

I'm saying that we could maybe modernise, within our means, including player trading, sponsorship deals and reasonable borrowing where needed and plan a less risky , more sustainable, longer term development strategy.

I suggest that there is a disconnect between the holy land of the spanking new stadium's extra revenue for wages and having to pay for it.

To turn your question round, if we're paying back the loans for our new stadium, where's the money going to come from for new players and wages? The money from those extra 20,000 seats is being stretched a very long way.

I'd rather put "competing with the top four" on hold than risk this new stadium project, which looks too costly and disruptive for a club our size.

And as an aside, anyone who thinks the new stadium will be a much sought after venue for concerts etc is deluded. Sadly, Tottenham is just the wrong location to be appealing for those events.

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong about this by the way.

It's not just about 20k new seats - it's about newer, bigger, swankier corporate hospitality facilities too. The scum down the road only gained about 20k new seats, but their matchday revenue has increased from £37M a season in their last year at Highbury to over £90M now.

 

[Nantynew]

It's not just about 20k new seats - it's about newer, bigger, swankier corporate hospitality facilities too. The scum down the road only gained about 20k new seats, but their matchday revenue has increased from £37M a season in their last year at Highbury to over £90M now.

Yes but realistically, people are not going to use our new stadium for conferences and corporate events. The Emirates is much more central and near Kings X and Euston.

The corporate hospitality at the Lane could be improved and modernised as part of a much lower cost refurb of our current stadium.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

Maybe there's more to life than challenges for top four, if it means taking unnecessary risk.

My point about the Italian stadia is that, ownership aside, they've usually got masses of unsold seats, despite being a lot cheaper than the PL.

I think we are likely to end up with a costly, larger stadium that we can't fill, unless we dramatically reduce ticket costs. In which case, we may have underestimated the likely match day revenue.

I expect most people to disagree with me because at heart, we are all seduced by the concept that's being presented. I just have my doubts that it's the only or even best option and wanted to get a bit of a debate going.

Getting debate going is a good thing. I don't think you'll get much sympathy from the "Champion's League or bust" crowd though. If a smaller Spurs with greater accessibility for the fans was a choice on the table, and the one taken, I could be happy with that. But that's an actual choice, and it would be one the fans would need to live with. Right now, we're feuding with each other as different sets of fans present their visions as absolute truths for the club. ENIC own it, and have made their choices. We as fans would be a lot happier if we could reach a consensus on what we think of those choices, and then vote with our wallets/feet accordingly. The refusal to do that is our biggest problem, in my view.