Comments on: Why this stadia approach doesn’t work for Tottenham

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:31:10 +0000

The extra seats may generate £30m , but with Premium seats, extra corporate and naming rights, revenue should rise by about £50m- about the same as the Gooners when they moved to the death star. In addition Daniel Levy has said that the calculations are based on reaching the CL 5 years in every 9. If you reach the CL knock-out stages revenue with about 5 full houses at WHL would be about £50m extra. So in CL years our turnover can go from £125m to £225m, almost identical to Gooners and Cheatski, and more than the Scousers. Bear in mind also that Chelski and Man City are facing major challenges with FFP. There have been stories suggesting that a major sponsor may buy a stake in the club. I feel sure Danny boy has got something up his sleeve to keep the debt/repayment costs down.

By: Chris grayy

Chris grayy — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:53:35 +0000

Think figure for net income increase is there or thereabouts. A significant sum to compete with most clubs – as you say Spurs already financially strong. Need financial fair play regime to work properly though to outflank Chelsea and Manchester City even with larger stadium.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:26:30 +0000

back of envelope calculations will not do. Levy Knows that Spurs are in the top 15 clubs in the World Financially and want to compete with Bayern Munich, PSG , Barcelona, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, Jeventus and AC Milan

By: gillysbaldpatch

gillysbaldpatch — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:15:08 +0000

Does anyone know what is happenning with reintroducing standing areas. I remember standing @ WHL in 55000 crowd. I appreciate we would never go back to that but surely standing season ticket areas could be considered.

By: chris gray

chris gray — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:24:57 +0000

20,000 extra seats will probably increase income by say £30/40 million per season. However, expenditure on the stadium will also go up. Assume naming rights/other income of half the cost, there is still £200 million to repay – say over 40 years that’s £5 million a year, plus interest say £10 million a year. So the net additional income would be say £15/25 million per year. Spurs need that extra money to help compete at the highest level.

By: spurian

spurian — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:22:11 +0000

in levy i trust

By: gingeryid

gingeryid — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:08:28 +0000

I note your points, but what about potentially moving to Olympic Stadium or Wembley for a year or two, getting the stadium built in its entirety, so that commercial development can also proceed at the same time?
The Ar5e seemed to struggle while the residential bits of Highbury were finished several months/years later.

Agree that developing existing WHL would be problemmatic as the pitch would have to shift to make it feasible which would extend the construction period and increase costs. I can still remember West Stand Development when we had reduced capacity for 2 seasons, but admittedly it was cheaper to get in then and we had no boxes!!!

By: Sam Antrobus

Sam Antrobus — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:52:00 +0000

Have a day off, ‘cretins. As was the case yesterday, where you cited my article as ‘ill-researched’ in which I don’t believe you could cite any of my statistics as incorrect, you’ve flown off the handle about second guessing Levy. The article doesn’t second guess Levy.

It is in fact, serving to shoot down the notion that WHL could be developed in a way similar to Anfield, while in fact praising the NDP. The only slight question mark suggested, was the raising of private finance; in which while the appointment of McLaren to construct Phase One of the project suggests it’s near, it’s still a good question to ask. It’s the biggest economic downturn in recent memory and our chairman is asking for an unprecedented amount of money. Nor have I said here, yesterday or anywhere that he cannot raise it. Merely that it will be a challenge. You don’t need a Land Economy degree from Cambridge to ask that question.

By: TonyRich

TonyRich — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:35:34 +0000

If Spurs transport links are commonly described as “poor”, why is it that the nearest station to Anfield is 1.5 miles away. Spurs has 2 tube stations that far away, plus 6 other British rail stations within 1.5 miles. The traffic is a nightmare, yes, and I think that that is the main difference. Arsenal are surrounded by tube stations, so by that comparison, Spurs’ links are poor.

By: sickof cretins

sickof cretins — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:30:20 +0000

to continue..Perhaps you might care to write an article detailing all the financial pros and cons and a feasibility study. Finance? Blimey, yesterday you,apparently, had difficulty distinguishing naming rights from ownership. Cobblers and lasts spring to mind.