No, they couldn't, not for a dual-capable, NFL and football stadium.
To host an NFL franchise in the same stadium requires a retractable pitch, not to mention a whole raft of other dedicated NFL facilities. This adds significantly to the cost.
To host an NFL franchise in the same stadium requires a retractable pitch, not to mention a whole raft of other dedicated NFL facilities. This adds significantly to the cost.
Actually I merely cited a Daily Mail article that covered both leg-room and seat width - in a helpful response to a poster who asked if there was any info about this.
Anyone who wilfully distorts what other posters have said or done is not worth having any kind of a conversation with. Not only does it detract from the quality of thread discussions, it's also relentlessly boring.
I haven't posted on any Villa forum for donkey's years. I post on here and on a Spurs forum. So you can join the queue of clueless liars, who clog up this and other threads.
So all/most of the additional cost was to satisfy the NFL?
Donald?
It's a thread of 45 pages which you have just added to with a post of total nothingness.
A significant percentage of the stadium cost, yes. But the retractable pitch element, which was the biggest such NFL-related cost, has other purposes besides just NFL football.
Where's your trousers?
I think it's fair to say the line of Prem clubs who even could host an NFL franchise contains only 1 candidate.
You don't bang down anyone's door if you don't have the means to even offer what they might want in the first place. Instead, you sit on the side-lines and say "well, we never wanted to do it anyway" … because, after all, you have no other choice.
Did you just reply to the same post by Bilbo 25 minutes after you replied to it the first time?
I replied to a different point in that post … if that wasn't obvious.Did you just reply to the same post by Bilbo 25 minutes after you replied to it the first time?
So does this NFL stadium have a name yet? Spurs denied they were calling it ‘The Nike Stadium’ right?
unmentionable
/ʌnˈmɛnʃ(ə)nəb(ə)l/
noun
plural noun: unmentionables
- a person or thing that is too shocking or embarrassing to be mentioned by name.
American football can’t be played on grass?
Yes, of course it can. But a whole season of NFL home games - as in hosting an NFL franchise - can't be played on the same grass pitch that a Prem football club uses without rendering that pitch virtually unplayable for football matches
And that's aside from the need for NFL-squad-size changing rooms and other dedicated NFL facilities.
It's also aside from scheduling issues (also related to pitch damage issues). The Spurs stadium could host an NFL game and Spurs game on the same day if needed.
Yeah but what stops any business who can afford it from building an American football stadium and making all this gold? Except for the fact there isn’t actually an NFL franchise in England and zero guarantee there ever will be?
If the new ground has an NFL pitch that can work all season, does that mean Tottenham will be making an NFL team? Or will it just be one off matches?
Nothings stops them from doing it, except that Spurs have already done it. So they'd be one step behind right from the start, with no guarantee that, by the time they finish building this hypothetical new stadium, Spurs won't have already sewn up an NFL franchise. That's a huge risk to take for such a mega-cost investment … and so it's unlikely that any business will take it on.
I agree there's no guarantee that there ever will be an NFL franchise in England. It's a gamble that Levy has taken on, no doubt based on a lot of homework. The NFL is apparently aiming to establish a London franchise by around 2025 and this project has the active support of the UK government. Also the NFL have already contributed some money (not much) towards the cost of Spurs' new stadium and have been closely involved in the stadium design process right from the start.
So if there ever is a franchise based in England, it's more likely than not it'll be hosted at the Spurs' stadium.
Last edited:
It wouldn't be Spurs making/running an NFL team. It's that our stadium would be - if it comes to pass - the permanent home/host of an NFL team, a team that would be run by its owners (not Spurs).
The idea is that a team franchise based in the USA currently would re-locate to London and play all of its home games there.
They don’t have to take a risk. They can wait until it’s agreed it’s happening and then build one. It’s funny you talk about this huge risk investment but don’t acknowledge that Spurs have done just that with guarantees of nothing more than two games a year based on nothing more than a dream currently.
Was it the same homework that went into when the stadium would be opened? Or the conservative estimate of a world record breaking naming rights deal? Or appointing Tim Sherwood as manager?
Facts are there is currently no NFL franchise in England and no evidence there ever will be. And plenty of questions of how much money it is actually worth to host their games.
Ahh ok, would the teams fans not be angry with that decision though?
If it happens itl be interesting to see how many people take to it as supporters of the team and go to all the matches.
Why would a NFL franchise contractually agree in advance to move to a stadium not yet built when, if they want to move to England, there is already a world-class, NFL-ready stadium in London? The notion is pie in the sky stuff.
I have already acknowledged that Levy is taking a risk, but it's not the same level of risk as building an NFL-only stadium would be ….because the Spurs stadium will be drawing in lots of money regardless of an NFL franchise. It's simply that an NFL franchise would bring in a lot more money, but Spurs are not going to go bust without it.
As for no evidence that there ever will be a franchise in England, there's plenty of evidence that there might well be. If you want to regard Levy as an ignorant fool when it comes to this, then that would be your mistake.
And if you doubt that hosting an NFL franchise would be hugely lucrative for Spurs then I doubt in turn that you know what you're talking about.
As for the rest, no-one has ever said that Spurs as a club don't make mistakes, but if you want to start citing managerial failures then every club makes such mistakes. The stadium finish delay is not so important in the grand scheme of things … not when the stadium will stand for many, many decades.
PS. It's silly to pass judgement on the allegedly "failed" sale of stadium naming rights when the stadium has not yet even fully opened. You might want to wait and see
So what I said then? No evidence it will.
Pie in the sky. Jesus Christ. The reason would be the same reason any business would choose between competing offers. A competitor may offer a better financial deal. You stated nobody else could do it. Of course they could. The question is how many people want to. If it’s a bottomless pit of cash like you suggest then you’d be an idiot to think one stadium would have a free run at it. The bulk of any money will go to the owners not the stadium hosting. If it happened Spurs might make a few million but in the grand scheme of things it will be a pittance.
Bit strange that apparantly no respectable company wants to buy the naming rights of this so called ‘ground breaking’ stadium.
This is more of a general question, but do PL pitches roll in new grass for every game? Or do they manage a single plot over a season of wear and tear?
There's no evidence that it won't either. I've already said that it's gamble, but a gamble based on some evidence that it might pay off.
The fact that you are seriously suggesting that some entrepreneur might yet build, from scratch, an NFL-only stadium in England, says everything about your level of common-sense.
I have not said that an NFL franchise at our stadium would be a "bottomless pit of cash" (and nor have I said that the majority of the money would go to Spurs), but it would most certainly bring in a lot of money for Spurs - both from stadium hosting fees, from a very significant rise in commercial deal sponsorships, from having a share in profits from food, drink and merchandise sales, and more.
There doesn’t need to be evidence it won’t because that is the status quo. It’s fact that there is no London based NFL franchise.
You’re saying nobody else can do it. But obviously they can. Nothing you say can change that. Whether anyone wants to is a different matter. If nobody else wants to do it then it raises the question as to its likliehood and it’s profitability. I also never said it had to be NFL only. They can use it for events, weddings, celebrations etc too. They could even incorporate a cheese room if they wanted.
All those things either a drop in the ocean as to not be worth mentioning or pie in the sky. Why will there be a very significant rise in commercial deal sponsorships and how significant is it? I’ll take some thoroughly researched projections as an answer please. How much profit did Wembley make from hosting NFL games? I’ll take a breakdown of the FA’s accounts as an answer please.
They really couldn't host the two on the same day, that's just hyperbolic rhetoric and general rubbish.
I get what your attempting to say, but it's a fallacy that it's actually possible given the logistics of the whole thing
Don't be silly. The status quo is that there isn't an NFL franchise. By definition you can't have a status quo that refers to the future.
I haven't said that nobody else can build an NFL-stadium from scratch. I've said it's very unlikely that anyone now will do it.
Wembley is not an analogy, because Wembley is not where a Prem club is based and is not owned by a Prem club: there is no Prem club there to benefit from commercial NFL-related sponsorship deals and the huge NFL TV audiences involved.
I can't be bothered any further to dispel your ignorance concerning the lucrative potential nature of a full and permanent tie-up in hosting an NFL franchise. You fondly imagine that you know more about the finances concerned than Levy and that he's invested large sums of money in a gamble that won't pay off even if the gamble succeeds. Well, good luck to you matey.
Last edited:
It isn't. The pitch can be switched over in around 25 minutes.
Spurs could play a 12 noon kick-off, for example, with the fans ushered out by 3 or 4pm. Then gates open at 4.30pm for an NFL game in the evening. Or some fans could buy a ticket for both games and stay inside.
Well yeah. That’s what I said. I don’t need to provide evidence of something not happening when it is currently not happening in front of your very eyes. You’re basing your dreams on something that might happen. There’s no evidence it will happen.
You did. You said no other club could host NFL matches. They can. There’s just no evidence anyone else actually wants to. If there’s a fortune to be made then it’s amazing nobody else cares.
You’ve spent all this time replying but when it comes to providing any evidence of how much money there actually is to be made you can’t be bothered? It’s strange that. Its fortunate that no business has ever misjudged a market. That’s why none of them ever go out of business.
No health and safety or policing issues at all there.
I can't see how a London based NFL franchise could be a thing now or in the future.Have some games during the season, fine, but every home game ?
That would be horrible for everyone involved, like playing at Wembley + 10 000km. It will probably be a small money boost on the side and nothing more. I think you're setting yourself up for disapointment in the coming years. You will have a nice stadium but you're massively underestimating the consequences in the short to medium term.
That would be horrible for everyone involved, like playing at Wembley + 10 000km. It will probably be a small money boost on the side and nothing more. I think you're setting yourself up for disapointment in the coming years. You will have a nice stadium but you're massively underestimating the consequences in the short to medium term.
What health and safety or policing issues?
60000 people leaving a stadium minutes before 60000 enter. Yeah I don’t see how that would be a problem. And I’m sure the police or local council wouldn’t have any issue dealing with the number of people. They just capped capacity at Wembley for limited events for the laughs.
its not impossible. american sports teams do it frequently for hockey / basketball.
Look nice, tbh. Exactly what you expect after all those money spent on it.
They really couldn't, I get that it's feasible, logistically and in actual operation it just couldn't happen.
Policing, transport baring in mind how crap the ground is to get too, parking etc etc , just wouldn't happen,
But I get what your saying.