LONDON - New White Hart Lane (56,250)

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by plasticterminator

Its very interesting to see that generally most people agree the glass frontage has been done to death last few years.

I don't think it's a "glass", per se, as much as it is about simply cladding a basic-shaped the venue in glass as a means reducing lighting costs. Play with the form, introduce other elements that employ more dynamic structure. Glass can be quite beautiful and useful, but simply using glass instead of brick or stone doesn't equate to being new or unique.

My $.02 anyway.

[Zorba]

I can't wait to see the design of the stadium. Although I don't know if Tottenham can fill up a 60k stadium on a regular basis. I guess it is a plan for the future. GO SPURS!

[JimB]

Originally Posted by flierfy

Wembley's arch is the best thing that ever happened to a football ground. I don't think that a shopping centre ever had a far-ranging landmark like this.

The Wembley arch is the ONLY good and memorable element of the stadium's exterior.

The remainder (the actual body of the stadium) is, you must admit, ordinary in the extreme.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

I don't think it's a "glass", per se, as much as it is about simply cladding a basic-shaped the venue in glass as a means reducing lighting costs. Play with the form, introduce other elements that employ more dynamic structure. Glass can be quite beautiful and useful, but simply using glass instead of brick or stone doesn't equate to being new or unique.

My $.02 anyway.

Agreed.

Nothing wrong with glass....so long as the architects do something new and different with it.

[Kamaras Hair Gel]

Originally Posted by JimB

Agreed.

Nothing wrong with glass....so long as the architects do something new and different with it.

yeah defo if its a circular design with a glass wrap around ala wembley then yes it has snoozefactor

new and invigorating designs on a postcard please

its a fantastic opportunity for the archies to make a mark on british venue

[bigbossman]

i have no idea why tottenham are aiming so high, there fan base is shrinking every year and getting older, Arsenal and chelsea have exhausted all the youth support in london and most tottenham fans are hand me downs, within 15 years they will be back with west ham and palace if they don't have success soon! and i mean proper success not a carling cup!

[RobH]

22,000 on the season ticket waiting list. And how are Spurs supposed to build a younger fanbase if they can't get tickets?

I think it may be difficult to fill regulary but Spurs' fanbase, as the 4th or 5th largest in England is more than capable of growing to fill such a stadium.

[bigbossman]

we have the same waiting list with a 60,000 capacity stadium. and i go around inner city london and 90% of the kids there are arsenal, if they're not arsenal its usually united a few are chelsea nowadays as well.

clubs like millwall, charlton and palace have big fanbases around there respective suburbs. bexleyheath is awash with millwall fans, as is croydon with palace fans, but tottenham have the same catchment area as arsenal and as the game becomes more of a tv sport are bound to struggle.

case in point, i know alot of gooners around tottenham/edmonton way, but you dont get as many yids around islington/camden/hackney way!

also alot of tottenham fans are baby boomers or the children of, right now in the 21st century it is rare for someone to make a conscios decision to support them, as i have said they need success to get younger people interested. not just the ones who are born into spurs families

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

i have no idea why tottenham are aiming so high, there fan base is shrinking every year and getting older, Arsenal and chelsea have exhausted all the youth support in london and most tottenham fans are hand me downs, within 15 years they will be back with west ham and palace if they don't have success soon! and i mean proper success not a carling cup!

There's always one, isn't there?....you know, some rival fan who blunders in and starts waving his willy around.

Congratulations, bigbossman. But seriously, if you really want to indulge in football discussions at the level of "my club is bigger than your club - nah, nah", go to BBC 606 and have it out with all the other ten year olds on there. This is an architecture forum. M'kay, petal?

That said, I'll take the bait just this once and respond to your points (such as they are):

As RobH has already pointed out, Spurs have 23,000 season ticket holders and more than 22,000 on the waiting list. Every Premiership game at White Hart Lane has been sold out for the past God knows how many seasons. This is despite scant success over the past 25 years and despite the outrageously high ticket prices that Spurs fans have always had to pay. Just imagine if Spurs ever did achieve consistent success! Clearly a new stadium is urgently required.

I need hardly point out, I hope, that it would be foolish in the extreme to spend an enormous sum of money on a new stadium only to discover, all too soon, that it is obsolete because it has insufficient capacity. Even if Spurs couldn't initially sell out 60,000 for every game, it is quite obvious that the club is highly ambitious and is set on breaking into the top four (regardless that those ambitions have, thus far, been thwarted). It follows, therefore, that Spurs believe that a 60K capacity will be required. It's called foresight; planning for growth. It's not rocket science, you know. I would suggest, by the way, that Spurs have a rather clearer picture of the current demand for tickets than you do and that, therefore, they are better able to judge what would be a suitable capacity for the new stadium.

As to the age of Spurs fans, you clearly don't get along to White Hart Lane very often. The majority of those who regularly attend matches at the Lane are under 40 - with an even spread of kids, teenagers, those in their 20's and those in their 30's. Right there, you have the foundations of an ongoing fan base for 50 years and more. The entire lifetime of any new stadium will be little more than that.

Certainly, it is true that Spurs will not have won a big proportion of floating voters over the past couple of decades. But that matters far less when a club already has such a large, loyal and passionate support as Tottenham's. With an existing UK fan base of 1.5 million (and a further 3-4 million worldwide), there will be more than enough children born to Spurs families to maintain the numbers even without significant further success.

And if that elusive success does ever materialize? Well, we might just find that 60,000 is simply not enough.

Right, now that we've got that out of the way, any chance that we can get back to discussing architecture?

[www.sercan.de]

How many suites does the club want?
120 like at WHT or more?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by www.sercan.de

How many suites does the club want?
100?
120?

I've no idea.

It's certain, though, that the new stadium will include a large number of corporate seats - maybe, like the Emirates, as many as 9,000. It would be impossible to pay for the new stadium without them.

How many of these corporate seats will be in boxes / suites (as opposed to a middle tier, such as at Wembley / Emirates) is a matter for conjecture.

We'll just have to wait until Friday week, when the plans will be revealed.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by JimB

There's always one, isn't there?....you know, some rival fan who blunders in and starts waving his willy around.

Congratulations, bigbossman. But seriously, if you really want to indulge in football discussions at the level of "my club is bigger than your club - nah, nah", go to BBC 606 and have it out with all the other ten year olds on there. This is an architecture forum. M'kay, petal?

That said, I'll take the bait just this once and respond to your points (such as they are):

As RobH has already pointed out, Spurs have 23,000 season ticket holders and more than 22,000 on the waiting list. Every Premiership game at White Hart Lane has been sold out for the past God knows how many seasons. This is despite scant success over the past 25 years and despite the outrageously high ticket prices that Spurs fans have always had to pay. Just imagine if Spurs ever did achieve consistent success! Clearly a new stadium is urgently required.

I need hardly point out, I hope, that it would be foolish in the extreme to spend an enormous sum of money on a new stadium only to discover, all too soon, that it is obsolete because it has insufficient capacity. Even if Spurs couldn't initially sell out 60,000 for every game, it is quite obvious that the club is highly ambitious and is set on breaking into the top four (regardless that those ambitions have, thus far, been thwarted). It follows, therefore, that Spurs believe that a 60K capacity will be required. It's called foresight; planning for growth. It's not rocket science, you know. I would suggest, by the way, that Spurs have a rather clearer picture of the current demand for tickets than you do and that, therefore, they are better able to judge what would be a suitable capacity for the new stadium.

As to the age of Spurs fans, you clearly don't get along to White Hart Lane very often. The majority of those who regularly attend matches at the Lane are under 40 - with an even spread of kids, teenagers, those in their 20's and those in their 30's. Right there, you have the foundations of an ongoing fan base for 50 years and more. The entire lifetime of any new stadium will be little more than that.

Certainly, it is true that Spurs will not have won a big proportion of floating voters over the past couple of decades. But that matters far less when a club already has such a large, loyal and passionate support as Tottenham's. With an existing UK fan base of 1.5 million (and a further 3-4 million worldwide), there will be more than enough children born to Spurs families to maintain the numbers even without significant further success.

And if that elusive success does ever materialize? Well, we might just find that 60,000 is simply not enough.

Right, now that we've got that out of the way, any chance that we can get back to discussing architecture?

it wasn't meant to be a rant about arsenal beign bigger than spurs my points were

-spurs are a hand me down club, i never said that there fans are old, i said they are all linked to the club through family, and that the nucleus of the fan base shows no sign of exterior growth, and won't do so without success. basically a chicken and egg question, should the success come first or the stadium.

-i said spurs are being too ambitious as if they don't maintain success they will never fill it, and thats bad business sense. you even mentioned that yourself.

i was really getting at the point that arsenal built a stadium well too small for themeselves (they were forced to really) and are reaping the rewards, and its something tottenham should do, 45-50,000 is what they should be aiming for filling it every week and keeping demand high.

We have a similar pricing scheme to white hart lane, which i dont get to of course, and we have nearly double the capacity,

wasnt it 03/04 you were averaging 34,000, 2,000 below capacity, so if suddenly success deserts you or you stop looking like you are gonna break the top 4, you will lose a fair few fans, granted there might have been mitigating reasons for the low attendances (jacques santini??)

you havent had churn (economic term referring to old customers being replaced by new). This is what the arsenal have had, ie middle class fans replacing the traditional working fan, if success suddenly deserted arsenal alot of the old school and normal fans would be priced back in would return, same at chelsea (maybe).

i for one have no problem with you building the stadium, nor should i, i just think you are stretching yourself, and leaving yourself vulnerable if success deserts you.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

it wasn't meant to be a rant about arsenal beign bigger than spurs my points were

If you say so, of course it wasn't, sweetie. It was purely a coincidence that you smuggled irrelevant details about Arsenal's season ticket waiting list and little digs about soon being no bigger than Palace into the discussion, huh?

spurs are a hand me down club

And what's wrong with that? With 1.5 million UK based fans and a further 3-4 million worldwide, there will be enough "hand-me-down" new Spurs fans to keep attendances healthy for a good three generations to come - even if Spurs never again achieve "proper success", as you call it. That will see us through the lifetime of any new stadium.

i never said that there fans are old

You said they were ageing. I merely pointed out that you were wrong.

i said that the nucleus of the fan base shows no sign of exterior growth

Nope...you said that the fan base was shrinking.

basically a chicken and egg question, should the success come first or the stadium.

What is it that you find so difficult to understand? Quite clearly, a new stadium is urgently required to satisfy demand, despite Spurs' lack of success.

i said spurs are being too ambitious as if they don't maintain success they will never fill it, and thats bad business sense. you even mentioned that yourself.

I mentioned no such thing. I said that, initially at least, Spurs may not fill the stadium for every game. As to maintaining success - what success? Spurs have achieved nine tenths of bugger all for most of the past 25 years and still they have 23,000 season ticket holders paying outrageuos prices (given the generally poor quality of the team over the years) and a further 22,000 who desperately want to become season ticket holders.

i was really getting at the point that arsenal built a stadium well too small for themeselves (they were forced to really) and are reaping the rewards

This in an entirely illogical statement. If Arsenal had built a stadium which wasn't "well too small for themeselves", they would be reaping even greater rewards, surely? An object lesson to Spurs not to make the same mistake.

45-50,000 is what they should be aiming for filling it every week and keeping demand high.

Spurs could have sold 45,000 season tickets this season, had they the capacity. That's before tapping into the remaining 50,000 registered members who buy match tickets on a regular basis; the less frequent general sale fans who occasionally come to games; 2-3,000 away fans; increased numbers of corporate customers etc. It would be utterly pointless, then, to build a stadium which would not even satisfy current demand.

We have a similar pricing scheme to white hart lane, which i dont get to of course, and we have nearly double the capacity

Err, so what?

wasnt it 03/04 you were averaging 34,000, 2,000 below capacity, so if suddenly success deserts you or you stop looking like you are gonna break the top 4, you will lose a fair few fans

Average attendances in 03/04 were just under 35,000. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances. Spurs were nearly relegated that season, having been in the bottom three until the last couple of months. They sacked Glenn Hoddle after six games and refused to appoint a new manager - leaving David Pleat in temporary charge so that they could get the right man in for the following season. A great many Spurs fans boycotted games for the remainder of the season, arguing that they were damned if they were going to give the club their money when the club had given up on the season as early as October.

you havent had churn (economic term referring to old customers being replaced by new). This is what the arsenal have had, ie middle class fans replacing the traditional working fan, if success suddenly deserted arsenal alot of the old school and normal fans would be priced back in would return, same at chelsea (maybe)

I don't see what social class has to do with anything. Spurs has one of the wealthiest per capita fan bases in the country - if not THE wealthiest.

i for one have no problem with you building the stadium, nor should i, i just think you are stretching yourself, and leaving yourself vulnerable if success deserts you.

As I said in my previous reply, I'm quite sure that Spurs have a rather better understanding of the demand for tickets than you. Daniel Levy, whatever else he may or may not be, is very astute when it comes to matters of finance and financial risk. He would not be proposing a 60K stadium without having looked at the figures from every conceivable angle and concluding that the risk was acceptable.

Let's compare the benefits of a 60K stadium to one of 50K:

We already know that, with 45,000 potential season ticket holders, Spurs could already almost certainly sell out 50,000 for even the least glamorous games. If Spurs could, in addition, only sell out the full 60,000 for five Premiership games a season (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and West Ham would always sell out) and, say, only one high profile cup game per season, that would still mean added income of at least £3 million per annum more than the revenue from a 50K stadium. Allow for a further ten games (cup and league) that average at 54K. That would bring in a further £1.5 million and a total of £4.5 million extra per annum as a result of the 10,000 extra seats.

All the above are conservative estimates.

Now assume that the stadium cost £300 million to build and that the extra 10,000 seats accounted for £50 million of that (an exaggerated figure, certainly). Now assume a punishing interest rate and debt payable over 25 years - resulting in added payments of £4 million per annum.

After all is said and done, and even after pessimistic estimates, Spurs would still be £0.5 million per annum better off with the 10,000 extra seats. Of course, this is all just back of an envelope stuff but it gives you an idea of what Spurs' thinking might be. And, let's face it - they are in the best position to judge.

[bigbossman]

Sweetie LMAO, you internet guys you...

please, if you are gonna attempt to disect my comments argue all my points not select ones.

-from your estimates you fail to account for cost of the new stadium, the fact that unless you are playing as many games as possible you won't reap the rewards, that means long cup runs and champions league football

-Arsenal were forced to build a smaller stadium by islington council who said local infrastructure couldn't cope with more than 60,000 people per game. it's turned out to be a strange blessing because the demand is as high if not higher than it was at highbury keeping prices artificially high, something tottenham should bare in mind.

look i hope you do build it, i just think that it wont be the success that you lot are thinking it will be. You might fill it for your first couple of seasons but YOU NEED SUCCESS to maintain it, look at newcastle...

build a stadium within your means, not at the limit of them

Finally the reason why i compare to arsenal is beacue tottenham did first, with statements like "as least as good as arsenal" etc. You have a long way to go before you get in our league AGAIN, in terms of revenue potential and fanbase, and trying to copy us by building a 60,000 seater isn't the way to go.

[Sea Toby]

That is the problem isn't it? As long as the television revenues are not divided equally among the Premier league teams there is no hope of much equality. Instead, the revenues are divided by TV ratings, obviously the winning clubs receive more. In America, we realize that the league is only as strong as the weakest links. Salary caps, and revenue sharing is the norm, not otherwise. We don't downgrade and/or upgrade clubs from a minor league to a major league.

All the clubs are playing in two leagues, the national and an international league at the same time. All for the chase of more money. Who dreamed this up? Its as stupid a system as one can get. Instead of a league of 30 or so equal teams, there are two levels of teams, upper and lower. I guess the upper crust teams like it because they can maintain themselves at a upper level with good management. Money buys too much.

In America we have amateur drafts, salary caps, and equal status teams. With proper management any team can win, and not necessarily the highest payroll teams.

You are worried that without salary caps and such equalizing measures, your teams won't survive the current credit crunch. No one in America is fearful of this happening to their major league teams. Many of your clubs are looking for sugar daddies, people willing to lose their shirts and their wealth supporting a team. In Liverpool, they are upset the new owners borrowed the money to buy the team. Yet, they can't wait for the new owners to build a new stadium, one which will increase the team's revenue strings which will buy better players. That is the key for newer bigger stadiums.

Nevermind buying the club through a loan will eventually pay off. Any funds servicing a loan is funds not buying better players.

[2005]

Was pleased to read this.

Levy acknowledged the concern. "We said to the architects that atmosphere is something we absolutely want to protect because there's a great atmosphere here," he said.

"One of the difficulties of bigger stadiums is that it is harder to retain atmosphere within stadium because you're further away from the pitch. That is always a challenge; I don't care where you go in the world."

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by Sea Toby

You are worried that without salary caps and such equalizing measures, your teams won't survive the current credit crunch.

What a crude comment. You seem to forget that they are clubs over here and not franchises. And these clubs survived depressions and war times. Why should they now falter? Because of inequality and the lack of salary caps? Nonsense. Salary caps never work and club are different and ever will be. Unlike franchises clubs are distinguishable. They have loyal fan bases that never let their club go bust. Clubs might be relegated but they rarely disappear.

[Sea Toby]

Let's see, Manchester United plays at Old Tafford, seats 78k. What is equal to the revenues of that stadium compared to Wignan Athletic's JJB Stadium, seats 25k? Not even close. Revenues and payrolls can be checked as well, Wignan Athletic 27 million payroll as compared to Chelsea's 133 million payroll. This is the difference between night and day!

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

from your estimates you fail to account for cost of the new stadium, the fact that unless you are playing as many games as possible you won't reap the rewards, that means long cup runs and champions league football

I don't see your point. Spurs are no more likely to be successful and to embark upon long cup runs if they build a 50K stadium than if they build a 60K stadium. If your point was just that the more successful that Spurs are (in any stadium of any size) the more money they will earn, then you are merely stating the blindingly obvious.

Arsenal were forced to build a smaller stadium by islington council who said local infrastructure couldn't cope with more than 60,000 people per game. it's turned out to be a strange blessing because the demand is as high if not higher than it was at highbury keeping prices artificially high, something tottenham should bare in mind.

Hahahaha! I find it staggering that any proper football fan would actually count the setting of artificially high ticket prices as a "blessing"! Genuinely beggars belief! But fair enough, if that's what you really want at Arsenal. It's most definitely NOT what we want at Spurs, however.

look i hope you do build it, i just think that it wont be the success that you lot are thinking it will be. You might fill it for your first couple of seasons but YOU NEED SUCCESS to maintain it, look at newcastle...

Spurs haven't needed success to get to a point where they already have 23,000 season ticket holders; 22,000 on the season ticket waiting list; a further 50,000 paid up and registered members; 1.5 million UK based fans; a further 3-4 million fans worldwide. Yet again, I repeat: the people at Spurs who have made the decision to build a 60K stadium are in a rather better position than you to judge what capacity that stadium should be.

build a stadium within your means, not at the limit of them

I guess that the collected wisdom of the world on the subject of goal setting has completely passed you by? If you only ever set easily achievable goals, you will never grow. You have to stretch yourself. Why not be honest just for once and admit that the real reason why you are protesting so much about this is that it just narks you that Spurs will soon have a stadium to rival Arsenal's. You just want to keep Spurs down in what you consider to be their proper place.

Finally the reason why i compare to arsenal is beacue tottenham did first, with statements like "as least as good as arsenal" etc.

Eh? Tottenham haven't mentioned Arsenal at any point in relation to their stadium plans. Go on, I challenge you to find any quote from Spurs such as you claim. Put up or shut up.

You have a long way to go before you get in our league AGAIN, in terms of revenue potential and fanbase, and trying to copy us by building a 60,000 seater isn't the way to go.

See? I was right. This is all about you. Honestly, the sheer arrogance of Arsenal fans can be breathtaking at times. You really think that Spurs building a new stadium is all about trying to copy Arsenal? Nothing to do with the real and urgent need for a new stadium, then? Nothing to do with 23,000 season ticket holders and a 22,000 waiting list? Nothing to do with the ambition to improve and grow the club? Nothing to do with the desire to compete at the top level of English and European football? Nothing to do with what Spurs, after careful and deliberate consideration, deem to be a suitable capacity and an acceptable financial risk?

Nope, according to you, Spurs just want to copy Arsenal. It would be no less risibly arrogant for me to say that Arsenal only have so much white in their kit because they wanted to copy Tottenham; that they only won the double in 1971 because they wanted to copy Tottenham; that they only play beautiful pass-and-move football under Wenger because they wanted to copy the style most closely associated with Tottenham.

Seriously, get a grip.

Whether you like it or not, Spurs are going to build a 60K stadium. Whether you like it or not, the people at Spurs are in a far better position than you to judge on a suitable capacity. Whether you like it or not, Spurs are not content to play the role of Premiership and European also-rans in perpetuity. Whether you like it or not, Spurs are an ambitious club and the building of a new 60K stadium is crucial to their ambitions.

Nothing to do with Arsenal....m'kay? So just cease your trolling, creep away and console yourself with the "blessing" that is your artificially inflated ticket price. There's a good lad.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Sea Toby

That is the problem isn't it? As long as the television revenues are not divided equally among the Premier league teams there is no hope of much equality. Instead, the revenues are divided by TV ratings, obviously the winning clubs receive more. In America, we realize that the league is only as strong as the weakest links. Salary caps, and revenue sharing is the norm, not otherwise. We don't downgrade and/or upgrade clubs from a minor league to a major league.

All the clubs are playing in two leagues, the national and an international league at the same time. All for the chase of more money. Who dreamed this up? Its as stupid a system as one can get. Instead of a league of 30 or so equal teams, there are two levels of teams, upper and lower. I guess the upper crust teams like it because they can maintain themselves at a upper level with good management. Money buys too much.

In America we have amateur drafts, salary caps, and equal status teams. With proper management any team can win, and not necessarily the highest payroll teams.

You are worried that without salary caps and such equalizing measures, your teams won't survive the current credit crunch. No one in America is fearful of this happening to their major league teams. Many of your clubs are looking for sugar daddies, people willing to lose their shirts and their wealth supporting a team. In Liverpool, they are upset the new owners borrowed the money to buy the team. Yet, they can't wait for the new owners to build a new stadium, one which will increase the team's revenue strings which will buy better players. That is the key for newer bigger stadiums.

Nevermind buying the club through a loan will eventually pay off. Any funds servicing a loan is funds not buying better players.

Sea Toby - the way that top level sport is organised in America is completely different to the way that it works in the rest of the world. You're comparing apples and pears. There are major advantages and disadvantages to the US system.

But this is a subject for an entirely different thread (and probably for an entirely different website).

Please restrict your posts on this thread to discussion about stadiums and, specifically, about Spurs' proposed new stadium. Thanks.