Now we know the real reason why the stadium complex built the NFL capability - it was to retain Kane. He can practice his goal kicking for his career after football.
So the dancing spurs fans wont be able to use the "arena" made for them because you want to host an NFL game? Contradicting yourself after you said all the amenities would make the fans stay hours after a game.
It does certainly look a fantastic stadium but a game changer? Really? Maybe for Spurs with it having a much higher capacity, once the debt is paid is off or managed and the gamble of a London NFL franchise comes to fruition but for football in general? No.
Minutes? If Spurs game finished at 2pm noon and the NFL game started at 8pm, there'd be 6 hours between the two games. That's plenty of time for one set of fans to leave before the 2nd lot arrive.
This obviously wouldn't apply to any rare occasion when a Spurs game and an NFL games were scheduled for the same day.
Stop scratching around to make silly points.
Yet another lie.
No. It's simply that if that was the way that the scheduling worked out, then it could be done as far as Spurs are concerned.So you are now expecting special treatment in choosing kickoff times are you?
What about the 1pm and 8pm (Eastern) TV time slots that all teams rotate through during an NFL season?
That’s a 5pm turnaround and midnight. And what if the hypothetical NFL London team is scheduled for a Thursday night game and you’ve got a European match the same day?
Then there’s the collective bargaining agreement to look at... the NFL would be better off putting a franchise in Mexico City.
Those figures seem very optimistic.
Looks great! Still looks like a toilet seat from above though.
Optimistic? Try fundamentally wrong.
£70m per annum of non-match day revenue? The only way it'd be half that is it Levy himself were paying £1m for a pie every match day.
Maybe Glaston is a secret billionaire and intends to do just that.
And during to win points.
Pointing to mental health issues is never "nothingness".
It was you who provided the timescale, not me.
I'm a strong believer that a good property investment will always pay off long term but that will also depend on them finding other solutions in the short term. Like you say remaining in the CL spots last few years has really helped them keep the books looking better because without that money there is a potential they'd be in even more debt.
In fairness to Spurs they were trying to get the Olympic stadium on the cheap like West Ham did, that would have saved them a good £1bn
Could have made flats and sold off their current stadium as well.Danny Levy at Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust meeting recently quoted the debt at £634m according to https://www.skysports.com/football/...adium-costs-will-not-affect-transfer-spending There is a lot of talk that the true final cost is yet to be revealed so will be interesting to see if that debt will rise further.
Technically speaking the £634m is a loan facility (extended from £400m in November) and it's not clear whether the club have spent all of that yet, or whether some of that is ear marked for future developments on the site (ie flats/hotel/extreme sports etc). Whatever is the case it's clear that the £1bn figure often quoted is clearly just a nice headline figure that incorporates spending on the site going back years and years.
A quick note on the seats - whilst it's true that some seats are only slightly bigger than the Old WHL ones (I'm guessing these are the rail seats that have been installed in the away end and single tier stand), I'm fairly sure I've seen quoted in the plans that the seat sizes in the new stadium will go up to 700mm wide
A quick note on the seats - whilst it's true that some seats are only slightly bigger than the Old WHL ones (I'm guessing these are the rail seats that have been installed in the away end and single tier stand), I'm fairly sure I've seen quoted in the plans that the seat sizes in the new stadium will go up to 700mm wide
Do you realise that the post you're replying to - a post given as if I made it - is a total fabrication as presented? It comes from another website entirely and was not made by me. @Suedesi is the culprit in this particular instance.
The more that the continual deliberate telling of lies on this forum continues - fabricating quotes and all the rest of it - the more that any kind of genuine discussion becomes difficult, moving towards impossible.
I would ask that the mods do something about it.
Last edited:
Disappointed by all the waffling and lack of pictures.
Love me a good new stadium. Even got excited to see the Reebok from the outside as a kid and I felt like a VIP when visiting Wigan's new plush JJB.
Spurs' new one looks incredible. Nice on the eyes from the outside and that big stand should be a trend setter for new stadiums from now on.
Love me a good new stadium. Even got excited to see the Reebok from the outside as a kid and I felt like a VIP when visiting Wigan's new plush JJB.
Spurs' new one looks incredible. Nice on the eyes from the outside and that big stand should be a trend setter for new stadiums from now on.
Someone changed the name of the person involved merely to wind you up. Stop taking everything so seriously.
The one thing I know from debating issues with you is that you rarely put your balls on the line in terms of actual predictions (like the quoted post). That way when they don't happen you can change the argument to suit the changing landscape.
When you argued that £100m net spend was likely you kept the terminology vague enough that you could comfortably talk about "investment in new contracts" and "new facilities". Obviously they weren't the topic of conversation at the time.
Likewise when it was asserted £20m was wildly optimistic for a naming rights deal. I believe the phrase "naive if you believe it'll be less than £10m" was used, which implied £20m was a really possibility but if the deal ended up at £8m you'd say "Oh so I was £2m out".
The same was true when people asserted the cost of the project would be more than double the original projection. The argument then changed to state that additional features had been the reason for the increases, as if the club made a conscious decision to pay the extra £550+m for a few restaurants and a retractable pitch.
Even in your posts about on the pitch performances - a 2 year "trend" is used when that puts Spurs in a great light... A 3 year "trend" is used when that suits and "like for like results" is used in other circumstances. The end result of course is that Spurs are constantly improving despite performances, league finished and points totals not reflecting this.
You can prove me wrong of course and give your best guess in terms of Spurs' revenue 19/20, Spurs' gross debt 19/20 and Spurs' net spend Summer 2019. I won't hold it against you (too much)!
Last edited:
I totally agree. Locking this thread might well be a good idea as it's full of shit.
Sunshine, I've just won a £50 bet with a poster on here concerning my prediction that Pochettino wouldn't be moving to United from Spurs this summer. I even gave them 2:1 odds, so it would have cost me £100 had I lost the bet.
Your comments re. naming rights concerns something that (a) hasn't yet been resolved (and so can't yet be proven wrong or right); and (b) refers to what the club is reportedly aiming for (£20m per season) rather any prediction from me. But if you want a prediction then I'll predict it will be - at the very least - significantly more than £10m, despite your "less than £10m" view.
Your various comments (here and in many other posts) about stadium costs lack credibility because, as I've said before, you appear not to have realised that the oft-reported £1 billion figure, whether accurate or not, is actually for the entire Northumberland Development Project, which includes far more than just the stadium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumberland_Development_Project#Scope_of_project
PS. You appear to confuse the difference between a guess and a prediction.
A strange bet from the third party given that better odds would be available from the bookies. If anyone wants a bet that involves me having the odds wildly in my favour then I'm game. How about £500 on Kane staying at Spurs this Summer? I say he stays... I'll even give 2/1 odds, or 3/1. Anyone? Anyone?
Of course it hasn't been resolved. The point about vague predictions follows though "significantly more than £10m". You'd be declaring a roaring success if you achieved £10.5m. Likewise if/when the naming deal turns out to be 20 years at £9m per year front loaded which includes an £90m payment up front you'll be lauding the deal as a masterclass. Suddenly the goal posts would change and the front loaded element would be worth far more than "an extra few million."
I've always been talking about the entire development project as below info. I've had a watch on it for years as my company is tendering for supply (mainly to the hotel/apartments).
However a 180 bed hotel and 49 apartments is a fraction of the total cost. For example we're supplying product to a 184 bed Marriott hotel at London City Airport whereby the build cost is less than £15m.
Again I'd be happy for you to predict (or guess) how the near £950m costs are split because (generously) a £25m hotel, a £15m apartment block and £40m of other works, gets you a lot of change from £100m (phase 3 was estimated at £80m)
Again the £450m cost estimated in 2012 included all three phases of the project. Those same phases have at least doubled. The stadium cost was projected at £305-320m. These costs will be over £800m.
Despite this people will say "the finances work", when in truth if a financial decision is made based on something costing x, that same thing costing 2.5x would generally change the decision making process.
Last edited:
Again, the total project is not just - as per the pic caption you've posted - the stadium, museum, café, hotel and club shop. It also includes 585 new homes, a community health centre, an extreme sports centre, a 6th form college, club HQ and more.A strange bet from the third party given that better odds would be available from the bookies. If anyone wants a bet that involves me having the odds wildly in my favour then I'm game. How about £500 on Kane staying at Spurs this Summer? I say he stays... I'll even give 2/1 odds, or 3/1. Anyone? Anyone?
You said I shy away from making predictions. When I point to a prediction I made about Pochettino - at a time when a fair few United fans were claiming confidence he'd be coming to United in the summer - you waffle on about Harry Kane.
Of course it hasn't been resolved. The point about vague predictions follows though "significantly more than £10m". You'd be declaring a roaring success if you achieved £10.5m. Likewise if/when the naming deal turns out to be 20 years at £9m per year front loaded which includes an £90m payment up front you'll be lauding the deal as a masterclass. Suddenly the goal posts would change and the front loaded element would be worth far more than "an extra few million."
More waffle about something that hasn't even happened yet.
I've always been talking about the entire development project as below info. I've had a watch on it for years as my company is tendering for supply (mainly to the hotel/apartments).
However a 180 bed hotel and 49 apartments is a fraction of the total cost. For example we're supplying product to a 184 bed Marriott hotel at London City Airport whereby the build cost is less than £15m.
Again I'd be happy for you to predict (or guess) how the near £950m costs are split because (generously) a £25m hotel, a £15m apartment block and £40m of other works, gets you a lot of change from £100m (phase 3 was estimated at £80m)
Again the £450m cost estimated in 2012 included all three phases of the project. Those same phases have at least doubled. The stadium cost was projected at £305-320m. These costs will be over £800m.
Despite this people will say "the finances work", when in truth if a financial decision is made based on something costing x, that same thing costing 2.5x would generally change the decision making process.
You obvious fancy yourself as a finance wizard, but your endless predictions of financial disaster for Spurs are laughable. We have stadium that will, compared to WHL, boost our income every year for many decades to come, and our annual income will soon hit the £400m mark.
I literally said "£40m of other works." These works obviously include the extra things you mention such as houses, sports centre, community centre etc... Apologies for failing to list every brick of detail.
The point obviously stands though. 90% of the project is the stadium and that 90% has increased from £305-320m predicted cost to over £800m.
Unless you believe that the £80m of works that can be somewhat accurately predicted (from a build cost point of view) due to similar projects being undertaken in every city in the UK, having ran over to the tune of up to 700%. If that were the case then there'd be even greater questions to ask.
It was obviously a blunder to begin with in assuming a state of the art stadium in 2019 with the time and logistical limitations involved could cost anything close to £300m.
The only question is how much of the £500+m overspend will be added to the nine figure originally projected debt or whether Pochettino's miraculous ability to keep the team in the CL despite a negative net spend has mitigated things to a decent degree.
One thing is for sure - if after the project is complete Spurs have a debt less than £700m then Pochettino should be given a £25m bonus and a statue built in his honour as a minimum.
I also don't recall ever predicting financial disaster unless you can quote this? I believe the stadium would not have been given the green light from Lewis had the costs been known. I also believe had the costs been known there are much better means of spending £950m that wouldn't result in a 15 year pay back. However financial disaster isn't on the cards... Years of austerity to pay for Levy's vanity project but not financial disaster.
However once a middle 8 figure investment was made there was no turning back for Levy and his ego. He'd have been a laughing stock.
As I said a £400m investment in both the squad and in a competent and aggressive commercial team would have gotten you a similar outcome for half the cost in an environment where match day revenue is declining both in terms of inflation but particularly in terms of % of total revenue.
Considering Spurs revenue is £380m currently of which half is TV revenue negotiated by others I don't think £400m is particularly impressive. Especially when well over 10% of this is down to Pochettino and the majority of the rest is down to a centrally negotiated deal
Last edited:
£40m - especially in London - does not get you 585 new homes, a 6th form college, community health centre, an extreme sports centre, club HQ and more. Nor is the stadium 90% of the total project costs.
Moreover, so much of what you say is based on media reports which you choose to take as true. For example, you don't know that the club assumed £305- £325m as the stadium cost - you just choose to believe it.
Nor do you know what the final size of the project debt will be, or the time period over which the club will choose to repay it. Yet you choose to believe that "years of austerity" lie ahead, just as you choose to deny that the club's annual income will increase by c. £100m compared to WHL.
In truth, you are in a tiny, mindless minority: those arguing that Spurs should not have built a new stadium and should have instead spent the money on signing new players.
I'll finish this conversation by posting 17/18 revenue mixes to highlight the lunacy of this investment:
Spurs match day revenue - £75m
Spurs TV revenue - £210m
Spurs commercial revenue - £103m
Liverpool match day revenue - £81m
Liverpool TV revenue - £223m
Liverpool commercial revenue - £151m
Man Utd match day revenue - £106m
Man Utd TV revenue - £204m
Man Utd commercial revenue - £280m
Anyone who looks at those numbers and deduces match day revenue is the issue and that spending £950m (or £800-£850m if you want to focus in the stadium alone) to close that £30m gap is in your words "mindless".
No-one has said that match-day revenue is the issue. It's simply one of the issues. Moreover, commercial revenues will also increase as direct result of the new stadium complex. And overall our income will increase by c. £100m.
Besides, it's not all about money. The increased stadium capacity will, year after year, allow many more fans to see us play than would otherwise be the case. And the stadium design will facilitate a cracking atmosphere which may, for all you know, raise the performance levels of the home team.
Could this be the best stadium in the europa league next season?
Old Trafford might be there too
Losing to Palace on the grand opening of their new stadium would just sum up Spurs.
Fitting considering that the real crystal palace was also a titanic vanity project. The building cost £300 million adjusted for inflation – strikingly similar to the original projected cost of Spurs’ new stadium. The only difference is that they managed to stay within budget
The £75m is from the first season at Wembley (I think at a cost of around £15m per season) - The final season at WHL (with a smaller capacity of 30,000 with one corner demolished) was around £45m or so - so maybe £50m adjusted if Spurs had just stayed at WHL instead of redeveloping.
Another note on any published costs is that anyone reporting a figure will have vested interests in making it as high or as low as possible. For example, Spurs would have wanted to make the overall project seem as expensive as possible to minimise the affordable housing requirements (the residential part of the devopment still only has outline planning consent I believe) - the £630m odd loan facility is really the only current indication of the costs, but until next years accounts are published none of us really have any idea of how much of that the club has taken up and what costs they have sunk into the project.
You're correct in terms of the £75m and also that the difference is likely to be £50-55m on a like for like basis.
In terms of the construction costs the papers state £1b which I think is them attributing a headline grabbing figure rather than an accurate one. The word in the industry is that costs will finish between £850-950m. However with the length of the delays along with the extra costs associated with the majority of the season being played at Wembley the true figure will be closer to the latter than the former.
This would probably tally with the £630m loan facility in truth as £300m utilised from cash flow is roughly in line with the estimates. Naturally the interest from this kind of loan would equate to the majority of the extra income gained.
Word on the street is that for the test events the club vastly underestimated just how many fans would stay after the matches - certain areas were actually overcrowded (and that was at 3/4 capacity) and they sold out of a lot of the food and drink. Now I'm sure things will settle down when the novelty wears off and people start to find a routine but it certainly bodes well for the future.
At the moment though, it's all a bit pointless prescribing guesses to figures - only the club really know roughly where things stand and what they expect the returns might be. The next financial returns will be the interesting ones - and by then we should know if there have been any naming rights sold. If it does become the home to an NFL franchise, it would open up exposure to two huge markets, which is probably what Levy is counting on when attracting a partner who will pay what he's looking for. Still plenty of ifs on that front though.
As you've correctly pointed out though, it's not just the stadium where Spurs have been lagging behind - the commercial revenue is where not just Spurs, but everyone lags behind United. I think to a certain degree, you got a head start on everyone else - and it will be an area that other clubs can exploit more in the future - with the new stadium I've seen a lot more "official partners" coming on board with Tottenham, for example. There's only so more "official lemon zest dishwasher tablet supplier to Manchester United" deals that can be done! It's hard to quantify how much of a part of that the new stadium had in landing those deals, but it is something that probably helps.
Of course the first few times people go to a stadium they'll stay for ages. They want to experience how great the new building and amenities are. I'm sure the Millennium Dome would be a raving success if they had the same amount of visitors every weekend, compared with New Years Eve 1999.
My view is that if you compare Liverpool or Chelsea with Arsenal you see that in truth a new stadium barely helps grow commercial revenue. The former two clubs have seen positive commercial revenue, whereas the latter have experienced very poor commercial growth. It's an area where Levy has performed disastrously.
Here’s what Glaston wrote in another thread yesterday (too scared to post it here presumably)
Five-year partnership with Saracens announced
https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/ne...-and-saracens-announce-five-year-partnership/
Five-year partnership with Saracens.
Five-year partnership with Saracens.