-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Ah Ha. The plot thickens.
Came across this in the Wikipedia article for the new yet unnamed MLS expansion club in Los Angeles:
"At the press conference following the club's announcement [on October 30, 2014], the owners said they had yet to determine a stadium site, but hoped to break ground in early 2016 and be ready when the team began play in 2017."
I realize it is to be about half the capacity of Spurs' new stadium, but that's 2.5 years from not even having a site chosen. We can't even pretend to be that efficient.
"At the press conference following the club's announcement [on October 30, 2014], the owners said they had yet to determine a stadium site, but hoped to break ground in early 2016 and be ready when the team began play in 2017."
I realize it is to be about half the capacity of Spurs' new stadium, but that's 2.5 years from not even having a site chosen. We can't even pretend to be that efficient.
They also are building in LA vs. London. Chelsea had been trying as long as we have to do something, and they're even farther away from success. West Ham lucked into the Olympic Stadium. It's just very, very hard to do any kind of major construction that isn't a shopping centre, or very expensive property developments, within London, or most major cities.
kebab van? fuck me, you must be able to shit through a tea strainerI've just come back from my local kebab van, while I was there I noticed the plaque on their kebab rotisserie said 'Archway Sheet metal works', I was going to smash it up on principle...but I was hungry.
I've just come back from my local kebab van, while I was there I noticed the plaque on their kebab rotisserie said 'Archway Sheet metal works', I was going to smash it up on principle
I read that as "Plague".
Would of played havoc with the health and safety star rating.
aulinhowtf:
The reasons to build the new stadium are practically endless.
Naming rights (Extra £20+ mil for basically nothing)
Kit sponsors will pay us more.
Better atmosphere.
Season ticket waiting list is money waiting to be taken.
Will attract top quality players who like big stadiums.
Corporate facilities (We made £16 mil from this in 2011. Would easily rise to £20-25)
We will own flats/shops/land. (Woolwich made £38mil from property alone in 2012)
Easy to expand in future.
International football (Euro's spread across countries).
FFP
The Emirates cost £390m. Within a few years they had sponsorship deals totaling £277m. Work began in 2004 and by 2013 they were debt free. Many stadiums do quickly pay for themselves if they have a smart owner/Chairman (Debatable if we have that).
Basically, it can be summed up in 1 comparison.
Match day income 2012-13:
Woolwich - £93m
Tottenham - £33m.
We are the 10th biggest stadium in England. That isn't good enough for where we want to be and a new stadium gives the entire club a morale (and economic) boost.
Overall Rank Stadium Town/City
1 Wembley Stadium London
2 Old Trafford Manchester
3 Emirates Stadium London
4 St James' Park Newcastle-upon-Tyne
5 Stadium of Light Sunderland
6 Etihad Stadium Manchester
7 Anfield Liverpool
8 Villa Park Birmingham
9 Stamford Bridge London
10 Hillsborough Stadium
11 Goodison Park Liverpool
12 Elland Road Leeds
13 White Hart Lane London
10th biggest in the PL, Sheff Wed and Leeds still have bigger grounds than us.
Rebuilding WHL may not negate achieving any of that and at less cost/risk.
The Emirates was built in a whole different financial era. It's in another part of London - more central and attractive for events etc to generate revenue.
The arse rarely fill it and we will struggle to fill a 55,000 seater stadium every week. The match day revenue is overstated in every projection I've seen.
My point is that I'd like to have seen a clearer options appraisal.
The "progress" to date on the new stadium illustrates my point about cost and risk - we don't even know where we'll be playing while it's being built.
Who knows, wherever we go, maybe we won't come back.
You seem to forget Tottenham is having money thrown at it (£1 billion ear marked) and will be entirely regenerated. This is going to attract business. The private sector alone has promised £700 million to develop the area. Don't base your judgement on what Tottenham is currently like, but what it will be like. Areas change.
Whether they fill it or not doesn't really matter, their revenue is still higher than what it would be (http://qz.com/272754/to-get-ahead-in-soccer-try-building-an-enormous-stadium/). Fairly sure we could get 50,000 in to a brand new stadium in a swanky new area of London.
There is no other options. WHL is too old to expand, would mean knocking down stands. Moving area isn't popular with fans and considering the regeneration would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Refurbishment won't solve anything.
The stadium plans are a mess and Levy is incompetent. I agree here.
At the end of the day every top club in the world builds new stadiums (Real Madrid want a huge refurbishment, Bayern is being expanded, City is being expanded, Chelsea are expanding etc). Whether you understand/accept it or not, a new stadium is a good idea.
There are a lot of unsuccessful teams above us then....So why does it matter to have a new stadium ? Villa park is bigger & they are nowhere near Champions League, rather suggests the new stadium is not the golden ticket in reality and increases in match day revenue might not see us getting Falcal on loan anytime soon ( most likely get Booth or the Razz )
If you can't move house, improve your current house instead ? Might be cheaper & results in a nicer house...hope that heavy handed point is made ? Let the council deal with tossing Archway !
I don't quite understand the fascination with filling the stadium week in week out is. Even if you average 47-48 thousand in a 56,000 seat stadium you will still have a great atmosphere, a significant uplift in revenue in greater attendance and better corporate facilities ( cause let's not dick around, that's where the money is made in stadium revenue). General spurs fans will have access to "walk up" tickets without having to subscribe to a secondary ticketing company such as stubhub to all but the big games (woolwich, man u and chelsea).
I come from a perspective of AFL where games are sometimes played on the MCG (capacity 102,000) with only 30,000 attending though!!
I come from a perspective of AFL where games are sometimes played on the MCG (capacity 102,000) with only 30,000 attending though!!
Bit of a simple minded argument. Less successful teams with bigger stadiums, therefore stadium isn't a good idea...? Fair point, but by that note there's also more successful teams with bigger stadiums...? Renders the argument a bit pointless.
No one is saying a big stadium will instantly make us a success, but it gives the club a greater chance of that and improves revenue. As pointed out by several people, you simply cannot improve WHL. I never knew there was so much skepticism about the stadium, seems bizarre.
Explain precisely the problem with knocking down WHL's stands and rebuilding the new stadium by replacing the stands in a phased project.
We could have had a new stadium done and dusted by now, using that approach.
And I don't accept that this approach would have been more expensive.
That's one example of an alternative option, which was largely dismissed at the time as it meant moving away from WHL for part or all of a season. Well that's now on the table anyway.
You're giving me your view, which is fine and an expensive, high-risk, slow-to-build new stadium at Northumberland Park may be the best solution to whatever the problems are but my point remains - there's no proper, published appraisal of ALL the options.
That may be true of AFL but I've been to plenty of half/ three quarters full stadiums across Europe and the atmosphere is generally awful.
Give me 34,000 packed into WHL over 45,000 in a 55,000 seater, any day.
Anyone interested in a balanced consideration of the pros and cons of the new stadium project might like to read this letter from Archways' solicitor, which presents a different perspective ...
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/paul_winter___co-2.pdf
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/paul_winter___co-2.pdf
Last edited:
What is balanced about it? They say that their client should not have to comply with the compulsory purchase order, which has been issued, because they have a hypothetical plan that they say would be better for the area than the existing regeneration plan.
Common sense question, what kind of regeneration based around retail and leisure is going to be better because it has a sheet metal works in the middle of it? Just suck it up and get out the way you numpties.
You misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that the letter offers an alternative view on the stadium project, that people might like to take a look at.
Looking at issues from different perspectives can help to form a balanced opinion.
Of course, I'm aware that suggesting considering different perspectives on this forum is unlikely to be popular.
After all, it's just easier to fire an insult at someone who thinks differently to you.