Stadium Info

[si_yidarmy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...all.html?in_article_id=492103&in_page_id=1779

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7080067.stm

Following on from the thread i read the other day about Levy in that magazine,

From various sources it seems we will know the plans by June

 

[Real_madyidd]

The club said this themselves ages ago! - it was even re-confirmed in the half year results that were out the other day.

 

[si_yidarmy]

i also remember my dad saying that all the buildings near white hart lane have been boarded up.

According to the Times, spurs brought them all out. So i can only assume its an expansion. Otherwise, what would have been the point?

 

[SpurSince57]

Do try and keep up. Most of the properties on the High Street frontage have been boarded up for well over a year now.

 

[milkman]

old news mate. but looks like an expansion rather than moving. good news for all fans :up:

 

[chinaman]

Must have a decision by June, one way or the other. Just can't keep dawdling about the issue any longer if we want to get amongst the biggies.

 

[biggsyboy]

why is staying good news for all fans? travel is a nightmare and we will be left with a hotch potch of a stadium (some old,some new and still nowhere near as big as Arsenal, Newcasle, Everton, Chelski etc. Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on shabby palyes as we have done over the past 10 years, we should have a shiney new stadium like arsenals!

 

[nickspurs]

They have to buy all the properties at the moment so it keeps both options open. Doesn't signal anything I'm afraid. If we ultimately go for relocation it would still have made sense as we could flog a much bigger plot of land when we check-out.

 

[buttons]

They have to buy all the properties at the moment so it keeps both options open. Doesn't signal anything I'm afraid. If we ultimately go for relocation it would still have made sense as we could flog a much bigger plot of land when we check-out.

Tis true, we could be buying all the units around the stadium to cover oursleves and make the plot easier to sell on when we move out. The stadium itself isn't a great development site but if you have the high road frontage etc it makes it more desirable to devlopers etc.

Not saying we will be moving away from WHL just saying that we could be buying things in as an exit strategy rather than to redevlop the ground.

 

[Mr-T]

why is staying good news for all fans? travel is a nightmare and we will be left with a hotch potch of a stadium (some old,some new and still nowhere near as big as Arsenal, Newcasle, Everton, Chelski etc. Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on shabby palyes as we have done over the past 10 years, we should have a shiney new stadium like arsenals!

Er, if we expand to 55,000 as seems to be the word, then it'll be bigger than newcastle, everton and chelski and only 5k smaller than arse. Also, I dont know if you've ever been to st.james or stamford bridge, but those are REAL hotch potch stadiums. The bridge with the track disguised and the pitiful attempt to conceal their monstrous east stand and st.james looks so lop-sided i'm suprised it dosn't fall over. I think that most people realise the symmetry and compactness of WHL is part of the reason we have a good atmosphere, I think Levy also knows this.

As for shiny new stadium like ar5ena1s, no thanks - gimme a hotch potch with atmosphere any day.

 

[petewise]

Personally I would rather stay at WHL, but that is because I have N17 in my car reg.

 

[DC_Boy]

As long as we don't have a temporary groundshare and as long as we don't make ourselves so poor it significantly affects our transfer budget, I don't mind really whether we go or stay - as long as it's a sensible development - blah blah etc

 

[Dougal]

Personally I would rather stay at WHL, but that is because I have N17 in my car reg.

I'm sure they'll take that into consideration

 

[bill]

i also remember my dad saying that all the buildings near white hart lane have been boarded up.

According to the Times, spurs brought them all out. So i can only assume its an expansion. Otherwise, what would have been the point?

"WE'RE PARK LANE, WE'RE PARK LANE, WE'RE PARK LANE TOTTENHAM"​

we're shelf side, we're shelf side, we're shelf side tottenham​

YIDO:clap: YIDO:bowdown: YIDO:clap:​

And with ground redevelopment it is very soon to be;

"WE'RE THE CAR PARK, WE'RE THE CAR PARK, WE'RE THE CAR PARK - TOTTENHAM"




edit: i just noticed i'm vinny sideways!!! nice - just like zokora

 

[michaelden]

In the mail article some muppet says if we don't get CL footy in 18 months the whole board should fall on their swords!

WTF!!!

I'd rather we kept trying than changing. A bit of continuity and FFS repect is due to DL and co. for getting us so far anyway.

 

[bigturnip]

I vote for doing nothing at all.

At the end of the day we may have half the capacity of Old Trafford, but our ticket prices are probably twice as high. Average ticket price over a season is probably about £40 at the moment, assuming we play 25 home games at full capacity that's about £36m revenue, chuck in another few million from the corpate lot and that probably makes revenue around £40m a season now. If we expand to 55,000 then we will probably have to drop ticket prices slightly to get max capacities, say £35 average over the season. This makes revenue a little over £48m for seats and say we squeeze a bit more out of the corparates so our ground revenue is say £55m. We now have £15m more a season in revenue, but to build the stadium is going to cost £250m easily (assuming we don't have to buy any more land), this is going to come from a loan, either from ENIC or a bank. At a rate of around 6.5% we will be paying back over £16m a year just in interest. OK, so other revenues at the club will rise, we will probably sell more stuff in the shops, more programmes and refreshments, sponsorship will increase. But costs will rise too, extra stewarding and policing and the running costs of a fancy new stadium must be quite high. It's probably going to take 50 years to pay for itself and that's assuming we can fill it.

So I doubt there will be any real financial gain and in all likeliness we won't be able to fill the ground when the likes of Derby come to play. What we have now is a financially stable club with an improving squad, capacity crowds week in, week out and a fanatastic atomsphere. I'm not against change, but I think we should all take a minute and look at what we've got before we go messing with it.

If someone could guaruntee me a great atmosphere, full stadiums and a financially secure future with money for new players, I would jump at a new stadium, but not at the cost of any one of those things, let alone the possibility of all of them.

 

[DC_Boy]

I vote for doing nothing at all.

some good points there BT - it's a difficult one - it's not just about revenue though - we need to get more people watching Spurs on a regular basis to keep our fan base going - I know there are empty seats at UEFA cup games etc - but I think it's important for more fans to be able to see the big lge games too - as a kid in the 60s I would have been well deprived if I hadn't been able to see the Man U Arsenal Pool games etc

 

[Mr-T]

some good points there BT - it's a difficult one - it's not just about revenue though - we need to get more people watching Spurs on a regular basis to keep our fan base going - I know there are empty seats at UEFA cup games etc - but I think it's important for more fans to be able to see the big lge games too - as a kid in the 60s I would have been well deprived if I hadn't been able to see the Man U Arsenal Pool games etc

Maybe the empty seats at uefa games is partly due to the club putting these games as Cat A?

 

[DC_Boy]

Maybe the empty seats at uefa games is partly due to the club putting these games as Cat A?

you're not wrong Mr T

 

[midspur]

note the date, 6/11/2007!