It'll probably only be used on match days, the East stand bunch have needs too...
-
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
Don't bother on my account - I plan on being inside the stadium within two minutes of arriving outside.
Cost per seat surely is relevant seeing as the club now need to balance the costs over a certain amount of time.
When people say where's the money gone etc that big spaceship looking thing in N17 should give us a few clues
Female Body Appreciation thread is in the Off Topic forum.Any new photos? Feeling a bit down after last night
Well the money hasn't been expended on a per-seat basis in terms of added capacity, it's been spent on all the bells and whistles to bring in premium seating revenue from the plutocrats. It's meant to be an investment in future revenue growth. We shall see.
The idea behind building a new stadium was not to damage our ability to compete financially, let's be completely clear about that. The stadium is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Long term the stadium being the 2nd biggest in the Country & 10th biggest in the top 5 leagues across Europe, whereby only 4 of those teams, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United & Bayern Munich are financially bigger than us at the moment will bring with it long term revenue streams to keep us in that bracket as well as a larger following not only in the U.K. but globally. We just have to tough it out a little until we see its dividends paid and rewarded
Well but what's the long term there? Retiring the stadium debt?
In terms of the revenue boost, that's a day 1 thing.
And if it's the revenue boost's ability to put a better product on the field, well, that's begging the question isn't it?
We haven't even moved in yet pal. I'm sure Levy will know the importance in onfield growth and how pivotal it is for off-field growth, they go hand in hand.
That, along with the over-inflated prices currently put us in a fragile position. I've seen West Ham are in talks with Celta Vigo for Maxi Gomez at c£50m. Simply put it would be reckless for us to make such a signing unless they genuinely enhance the quality of the team.
I think the patience the club is showing is great, I really do. Would I like a signing of course I would, would I prefer nothing to a dud? You bet your life I would and at present, apart from a few players that have caught my eye (Berge, Andersen, Grealish, Porro, Mooy, Sessegnon, Clarke etc) I'm quite content with us sticking it out until the summer when a few will leave and a few will arrive to replace them.
I don't want to get into the specifics of any particular player or any particular window. But lets be clear here. The market is what the market is. The prices are not over-inflated, they are what the market bears, and will only increase in the future. That is the business of football and that is the marketplace in which ENIC is sinking their capital.
If ENIC thinks they can perpetually out-compete the other domestic super-clubs with dramatically lower squad costs, I think they are fooling themselves. If ENIC thinks they can continue to produce revenue growth that keeps them among the global elite without consistently out-competing the other domestic super-clubs and remaining a fixture in the Champions League, I think they are fooling themselves.
Approximately 50% of the east side cladding is now complete - looking good for all or the vast majority to be complete before the stadium being used for the NFL game at the start of February, the main risk being whether Spurs can get the last pieces of the main framework (to the left and below the screen) supplied and fitted next week.
First pieces of the screen installed.
I can't believe what I am reading. People talking a bout cost per seat. This is not a property investment project where you building x number of flats and then you are going to lease, rent or sell.
This is a top London club whose old stadium was of small capacity, outdated and needed total rebuild.
Q. When is the stadium ready?
This is a top London club whose old stadium was of small capacity, outdated and needed total rebuild.
Q. When is the stadium ready?
Approximately 50% of the east side cladding is now complete - looking good
No building looks good while full of cranes.
ps. it will look good when finally eventually finished.
No cranes on the skyline now !
More vans on that pitch than in a Eredivisie game
WTF, is this true?
The Spurs stadium is on time, it’s the deadline that’s wrong
The Spurs stadium is on time, it’s the deadline that’s wrong
For those that can't be arsed to have to register to read that article.
The Spurs stadium is on time, it’s the deadline that’s wrong
23 JANUARY, 2019 - Zak Garner-Purkis
At the current rate, Tottenham’s £850m new stadium is due to complete just over three years after it started.
Compared to other projects of a similar scale that is pretty much the expected timeframe for such a job.
The problem is the deadline for completion was seven months ago.
Analysis by Construction News found that of the seven newly built stadiums with capacities above 40,000, constructed after the Taylor Report made all-seater stadiums a requirement, the average length of time taken to build the schemes was more than three years.
In fact, no stadium has been built from scratch in less than three years this century, with the last project completed in less being the Millennium Stadium in 1999.
However, while the time taken to complete the project may be in keeping with previous jobs of a similar scale, missing the deadline for completion is not.
Contrary to popular belief, the majority of big UK stadium projects are delivered on time.
Of the major all-seater projects embarked on post-Taylor Report, only Wembley and Spurs have missed sporting deadlines.
Spurs may have had its issues, but it certainly has not been the seven-year saga that Wembley was. In fact, if the project had set itself a three-year deadline, then it’s likely the job would be on time, making Wembley the real outlier.
But here’s the question the construction industry needs to ask itself: is it unreasonable for Spurs to expect the timeframe for completion to get shorter?
Given there have been meteoric improvements in the speed, efficiency and productivity in other sectors, why should the same not be asked of construction, which constantly comes bottom of the pile when measured against other industries.
The modern stadium is a project of incredible complexity and the reason why it was possible to build the 42,000-seater Stadium of Light in a year back in 1999 is because it doesn’t have the same level of sophistication as the Spurs stadium does.
Many will complain that pushy clients are making infeasible demands, but is it unrealistic to expect an industry to have improved ten years on from the last project of a similar scale (Woolwich’s Emirates 2006)?
One thing that surely isn’t helping is the way in which it is being treated by the banks.
A Spurs spokesman revealed to Construction News this week that main contractors were reluctant to take up the favoured contract options of the scheme’s financial backers: a fixed-price design-and-build arrangement.
The contractors’ reticence is understandable considering the level of risk involved, but with banks reducing lending to the construction sector, is it fair for them to also be pushing for riskier agreements?
The sector needs the ability to invest, particularly if it is going to improve the speed at which it works. Having financial institutions acting this way does little to help.
A demanding client may be difficult, but an unhelpful bank can be disastrous.
The Spurs stadium is on time, it’s the deadline that’s wrong
The Spurs stadium is on time, it’s the deadline that’s wrong
23 JANUARY, 2019 - Zak Garner-Purkis
At the current rate, Tottenham’s £850m new stadium is due to complete just over three years after it started.
Compared to other projects of a similar scale that is pretty much the expected timeframe for such a job.
The problem is the deadline for completion was seven months ago.
Analysis by Construction News found that of the seven newly built stadiums with capacities above 40,000, constructed after the Taylor Report made all-seater stadiums a requirement, the average length of time taken to build the schemes was more than three years.
In fact, no stadium has been built from scratch in less than three years this century, with the last project completed in less being the Millennium Stadium in 1999.
However, while the time taken to complete the project may be in keeping with previous jobs of a similar scale, missing the deadline for completion is not.
Contrary to popular belief, the majority of big UK stadium projects are delivered on time.
Of the major all-seater projects embarked on post-Taylor Report, only Wembley and Spurs have missed sporting deadlines.
Spurs may have had its issues, but it certainly has not been the seven-year saga that Wembley was. In fact, if the project had set itself a three-year deadline, then it’s likely the job would be on time, making Wembley the real outlier.
But here’s the question the construction industry needs to ask itself: is it unreasonable for Spurs to expect the timeframe for completion to get shorter?
Given there have been meteoric improvements in the speed, efficiency and productivity in other sectors, why should the same not be asked of construction, which constantly comes bottom of the pile when measured against other industries.
The modern stadium is a project of incredible complexity and the reason why it was possible to build the 42,000-seater Stadium of Light in a year back in 1999 is because it doesn’t have the same level of sophistication as the Spurs stadium does.
Many will complain that pushy clients are making infeasible demands, but is it unrealistic to expect an industry to have improved ten years on from the last project of a similar scale (Woolwich’s Emirates 2006)?
One thing that surely isn’t helping is the way in which it is being treated by the banks.
A Spurs spokesman revealed to Construction News this week that main contractors were reluctant to take up the favoured contract options of the scheme’s financial backers: a fixed-price design-and-build arrangement.
The contractors’ reticence is understandable considering the level of risk involved, but with banks reducing lending to the construction sector, is it fair for them to also be pushing for riskier agreements?
The sector needs the ability to invest, particularly if it is going to improve the speed at which it works. Having financial institutions acting this way does little to help.
A demanding client may be difficult, but an unhelpful bank can be disastrous.
The Spurs stadium is on time, it’s the deadline that’s wrong
NFL game at the start of February??? Unless we’re all of a sudden hosting the Super Bowl next weekend there isn’t one.
Approximately 50% of the east side cladding is now complete - looking good for all or the vast majority to be complete before the stadium being used for the NFL game at the start of February, the main risk being whether Spurs can get the last pieces of the main framework (to the left and below the screen) supplied and fitted next week.
First pieces of the screen installed.
There’s a screening of the Super Bowl in one of the executive suites
No ... that's just wrong ... the revenue comes in across the year
If the stadium increases our revenue by 150m a year for 20 years that's 3 billion more to spend, but it's still only 150m a year, when you consider we've already upped our salaries by some 75m a year then half of that increase is spent already, give Eriksen a 100k payrise and that's another 5m
Buy just one player for 50m on 200k a week and that's pretty much the money spent ....
It's not that hard to follow ...
Utd have a revenue of €666m, City €568.4m, Liverpool €513.7m, Chelsea €505.7m, Woolwich €439.2m and we had a huge increase to €428.3m .... with luck, and CL football in NWHL, we can grow that to €500+ .... we will be able to match our rivals not jump ahead of them, on the pitch we are already there, so don't expect miracles .....