What's new

Tottenham likely to leave White Hart Lane a season early

chico

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2004
710
1,194
If we do have to move a season early please let it be a London ground. Surely we must be able to rent Wembley for some of our matches????
Saracens Rugby hire it out for a few big matches each season, so it's not like they don't rent it out to clubs? I'm sure the F.A. could do with the money too?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
I'm not sure that the disruption from construction is the key factor, as the article implies. I think it's more likely to be the cost. There is a considerable marginal cost attached to building the stadium in two phases, which is what we would have to do if we were to stay in WHL throughout.

The plan has long been to build about 3/4 of the new stadium, then move into the part-completed stadium (with a capacity >36k) for one season, during which the old WHL is demolished and the rest of the new stadium is constructed, and then start the second season in the completed stadium.

That would require each building operation, from foundations through structure, electrics, roofing, furnishing and everything else to be done twice. That's inefficient and would cost a hell of a lot more than a single phase, which would enable the contractor to plan the various trades to work through the building in sequence.

If THFC can negotioate a deal to use another stadium that costs less than the additional cost of the build, they will want to do it. However, they'll also have to allow for reduced ticket sale and merchandise receipts from fans who don't fancy the trek out to Wembley, Milton Keynes, Brighton or Ipswich (!?!?) every fortnight. It will be a complicated decision that will require detailed, careful financial modelling.
 

mil1lion

This is the place to be
May 7, 2004
42,344
77,596
I imagine Daniel Levy will go for the cheapest possible option. Park View Road Ground it is then. "We're the Danson Park End, Danson Park End, Danson Park End Tot-ten-ham"
 

chico

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2004
710
1,194
I'm a season ticket holder , love Spurs, and do go to the odd away game. But family & work commitments wouldn't allow me to travel to Brighton or Ipswich 20+ times a season. Also the cost of travel would be prohibitive for many? My Oyster Card wouldn't work in those two towns! I sincerely believe that many will want the temp. ground to be within or close to the M25.
 

sharky127

SC Supporter
Jan 14, 2005
2,465
1,100
I heard a nasty rumour a few weeks back that we may play 'home' games at Upton Park once West Ham vacate it until our new stadium is complete. Thought it was garbage until now :(
 

absolute bobbins

Am Yisrael Chai
Feb 12, 2013
11,650
25,962
I heard a nasty rumour a few weeks back that we may play 'home' games at Upton Park once West Ham vacate it until our new stadium is complete. Thought it was garbage until now :(
Levy wanted to buy it just to use while we built the new stadium, we'd then have sold it on for a profit.

West Ham said no and Galliard are going to be turing the land into flats
 

PT

North Stand behind Pat's goal.
Admin
May 21, 2004
25,468
2,408
Ipswich? What's Brazil been saying in the bar now?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
Levy wanted to buy it just to use while we built the new stadium, we'd then have sold it on for a profit.

West Ham said no and Galliard are going to be turning the land into flats

I find this implausible, to the extent that I'm pretty sure that, if there's any basis for it at all, it's been mangled in translation. West Ham will have been fully aware of the residential development value of the Upton Park site since before they bid for the OS. They wouldn't sell it on as a stadium, without planning consent for redevelopment, for similar reasons why it was not plausible that ENIC would have contemplated selling THFC before getting planning consent for the NDP: they would be throwing away all that additional asset value.

Levy & THFC wouldn't be so naive as to try on an offer for the stadium based on its value as a stadium - WHUFC would tell them to fuck off and stop taking the piss, by return of e-mail.

It may be that THFC was interested in acquiring the stadium land, but the best deal for WHUFC would certainly be a risk-sharing, profit-sharing partnership with a large house-builder such as Galliard Homes. There's just no way they would forego the potential profits from the development of their land, especially in a rising residential market. If they are working with Galliard, I reckon they'll have an elaborate contract that links the eventual price for WHUFC's land to the number and/or value of flats and houses that Galliard get into the planning consent. That would blow any offer from THFC for the stadium out of the water and somewhere into earth-orbit.
 

1882andallthat

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2009
2,821
4,157
It seems to me as though the most obvious option is to secure a stadium for a season that is as near to our ground as possible with good transport links that is also cost effective, not just in terms of rent but also an option that yields as much revenue from ticket sales as is possible. That would mean a stadium with a capacity of over 45000 -50000
For me it has to be the OS, I'm not privy to costs but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a cheaper option than hiring wembley stadium for a season of matches. That decision should not be down to the Spammers as they are merely the tenants.
We ought to be in a strong negotiating position as it's all about recouping public funds back and if West Ham are paying a reasonable rent for it there should be no reason why we should be denied similar rental terms, albeit for a shorter duration.
 
Last edited:

doom

Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2003
2,368
1,338
yep 1882 the OS does seem the obvious choice (ground sharing). Unless the alternate saturdays are booked there would be no commercial reason I could think of that stops us renting it.
 
Top