Would we have had the left over money though? Didn’t we borrow it at a very low rate for the build and would we have been able to borrow to buy players instead?
I’m asking, as I don’t know. Not making an arsey point.
If you look at the footprint of the new stadium complex its several times the size of the old WHL - and inside the new stadium you will even find a marker of where the centre spot in old stadium was - and as you might recall there was a well publicised spat with Archway metal fabricators to be able to buy some of that land.
The only way the current stadium capacity has been achieved is with steep steps/seating on a much larger site (the critical part is the width of the site) - so your idea it could have been achieved without buying up lots of land just wasn't feasible.
Before Spurs’ last match at White Hart Lane, we take a look at how work has progressed of their new stadium development over the past 11 months
www.theguardian.com
The pictures in the Guardian report give you a sense of the increased width and length of the new stadium v WHL. Much of this extra length and width of land had to be bought from a variety of owners over about a 15 year period - assembly of the land package was a lengthy process.
I know as much as anyone about the location of the ground now and then. I went to the old place constantly while they were buying up land around it, while they knocked down the NE corner, while the new stadium started going up and watched every single day on skyscraper city as it was built while we were at wembley. I went to both the test games and did a stadium tour when it opened.
Believe me, I know.
At no point though did I say we could have developed the old stadium without buying up land. That would have been obvious. But that had to happen either way, They could have bought that land and simply expanded the stand sizes of the original WHL. The bought most of the properties on the main high road years before they started work. A new West Stand wouldn't have been a mammouth project and could have added an easy 10k seats and higher exec standards. The North stand from recollection had a lot of space around it save for Archway - they sold eventually. Another 5+ thousand seats there and our 36k stadium would have become 51k or there abouts.
The East is tricky as it had a narrow road behind it and I think a school? But that's not to say it couldn't have been vastly improved. Get those pillars out, work on the roof, add some extra seats, maybe as many as 5k without a huge footprint increase and thats 56k
That leaves the existing south stand which was where all the atmosphere was and would still be. Also feel like if the stadium grew organically it would have always maintained that "home" feel to it.
As for costs, yes we borrowed money for the new place that we may not have been able to borrow for team investment (probably could have in the first half of ENIC ownership)
But we did put a good few hundred million of club earned funds into it. And with the loans we have to pay back what we have borrowed, albeit at a good rate.
Had we simply spent the "deposit" to redevelop WHL we'd have no payback and would instantly earn the reward for increased capacity.
And tbh, I'm still not convinced the new stadium is the guaranteed money maker some think it is. Sure we make more on match days than our rivals. But the real money comes from CL qualification. premier league TV money, sponsorship etc, and in that regard, we're still miles behind the teams we want to catch.
