Levy must weigh up the risk, before sanctioning the club’s millions

Football FanCast columnist Roy James wonders if Spurs should really contemplate investing in a new stadium, in light of other club's plights.

It is not often that I concur with anything connected with the scum, but Arsene Wenger's words certainly struck a chord with me and serve up a real warning to football clubs determined to follow their route. I personally don't believe we should be taking such a risk and I hope Dan Levy and the board take note.

Wenger's warning was simply about the pitfalls of financing a new stadium and the affect it has on resources. The general consensus was that it is all right having a brand spanking new stadium, which in time will see the club in a solid financial footing, but in the short term and why it is being funded, it could have a detrimental effect on the playing staff and resources for the manager. He is absolutely spot on and by casting an eye over all the clubs who have invested in a new stadium, not one of them can claim they have moved on to any form of success.

The bottom line is we as a football club have to decide whether we want to witness success in a small stadium, or have an average side in a big one and I certainly know where I sit in that argument. I don't know how good Spurs' financial footing is at present and what kind of burden it will have on the club, but is it really worth taking that risk, especially in light of the way other clubs have struggled previously? Arsenal may bode the best gate receipts in the country, but you ask any of their supporters and they would swap it all for some success, something that they have failed to achieve since the move.

I totally understand the reasoning behind it; especially given our waiting list for season ticket holders, but surely it would be more cost effective developing White Hart Lane gradually. Man United and Newcastle did it over a course of a few years and I see no reason why we cannot do the same with one stand at a time. Surely it would prove a far cheaper alternative and wouldn't have such a financial burden on the football club or bring constraints to squad investment? I think that the board should really take into consideration the plight of other clubs who have gone down that route and really decide what is important. Striking a balance has yet to be achieved, so what is to say that we would fair any different?