LONDON - New White Hart Lane (56,250)

[JimB]

Originally Posted by 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."

Where did you read that?

Good to hear.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by JimB

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.

of course its a FINANCIAL blessing to the club, i as a fan am not the club so it is not a blessing to me as i can barely afford to attend more than 2 games a season (usually againt tosh like fulham), but to the club it is as THEY CAN CHARGE HIGHER PRICES AND MAKE MORE MONEY, DOY!

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by JimB

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.

there u go http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ur/7699135.stm

with direct quotes from levy saying "It will be an iconic stadium and will be at least as good as Arsenal's Emirates."

granted he might've been asked how it will compare to our stadium, but the article reports it as him saying it without being asked, he didn't need to bring us in but he did.

[michał_]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

granted he might've been asked how it will compare to our stadium, but the article reports it as him saying it without being asked, he didn't need to bring us in but he did.

How the hell did he not need to bring you in? If you build a 60k stadium that's going to be ultra-modern, where are you going to look for a comparison? Maybe the closest ultra-modern 60k stadium around, eh? It's a natural thing and I sure hop it will be better than Arsenal, cause on the outside, "Arsenal Terminal" is bloody boring. A nice look from the inside doesn't compensate for everything...

And Tottenham surely deserves a stadium of that magnitude. They fill their current ground in 99% (even though it's hidously ugly), have a huge waiting list for season tickets and so even if they are not going to fill it at once, it's something to build upon without a doubt.

[Bobby3]

Where will Spurs play while this is going on? I'd assume they'll hire Wembley given the heat between them and Arsenal and West Ham.

[Benjuk]

From soccernet...

Daniel Levy and the Tottenham Hotspur board could be forgiven for being more than just a little annoyed with the International Olympic Committee.

White Hart Lane will be replaced as Spurs' home, but not by the Olympic stadium in Stratford.

On the same day last week that the Spurs chairman announced plans for a new 60,000-seat stadium to replace White Hart Lane, the IOC performed a totally unexpected and astonishing U-turn which could end up costing Spurs a lot more than the £44 million it has already.

With London set to host the 2012 Olympics a centrepiece stadium is being constructed in Stratford, a district of east London a little more than five miles from White Hart Lane.

For years football clubs like Spurs, West Ham United and even lower league sides like Leyton Orient have cast covetous looks in the direction of Stratford, hoping that they could become the new tenants of a new Olympic stadium after the conclusion of the games.

However, there was one rather large stumbling block; an IOC stipulation that the main Olympic venue must have an athletics legacy, meaning the stadium could not be handed to a football club once the Olympic flame was doused. That was the IOC's position, everyone knew it and it was there for all to see.

That was until IOC president Jacques Rogge spectacularly backtracked and said the most important thing was that the stadium was used in some sporting capacity and not left to become an expensive white elephant.

It should have been music to the ears of the Spurs board, had they not been simultaneously revealing that the club had spent five years buying and taking options over property around White Hart Lane, including ''almost 60 separate property transactions, including 40 residential and potentially 160 commercial properties at a commitment of £44 million.''

The IOC's decision must be excruciating for Tottenham. Of course, moving into the Olympic stadium would not exactly be cheap, but it would surely be more cost effective than the massive expense of actually building a stadium once added to the £44 million Spurs have already incurred to this point.

Forget the financial implication of the IOC's volte face, the key frustration for Spurs must be that they made an important decision whilst under the impression that all the variables were set.

That previously immoveable objects have now been shifted has denied the club an option that could have saved them lot of money.

Interesting.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Bobby3

Where will Spurs play while this is going on? I'd assume they'll hire Wembley given the heat between them and Arsenal and West Ham.

No need to move anywhere.

The new stadium will be situated immediately to the north of the existing stadium, on land currently occupied by a light industrial estate. White Hart Lane will operate at full capacity throughout the construction period and will then be redeveloped for housing / shops etc.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

From soccernet...



Interesting.

I'd say that the IOC has done Spurs a HUGE favour!

Moving to Stratford was one of the least favoured options as far as Spurs fans were concerned. Spurs belong in Tottenham and the fans are thrilled that the new stadium is bang next door to the old one and that we can park, drink and eat in all the same places (other than those that will be bulldozed by the redevelopment!). We're also thrilled that we'll be getting a purpose built football stadium and not some frankenstein-like converted athletics stadium.

I'm not sure that the Olympic stadium was ever a viable option for Spurs, anyway. Firstly, if any football club was going to take up residence at the Olympic stadium, it was always most likely to be West Ham - by far the closest club to Stratford.

Secondly, knowing Spurs' tough line on financial matters, I'm not sure that they could ever have signed up to the kind of deal that Man City had to sign with their local council (who own the COM stadium).

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

of course its a FINANCIAL blessing to the club, i as a fan am not the club so it is not a blessing to me as i can barely afford to attend more than 2 games a season (usually againt tosh like fulham), but to the club it is as THEY CAN CHARGE HIGHER PRICES AND MAKE MORE MONEY, DOY!

Err......let me get this straight. Your argument is that it's a "blessing" that Arsenal have a smaller capacity than they need? Because that means that they can set artificially inflated ticket prices? Which means that they can make more money? Right? Have I got you so far?

Well excuse me for being a bit simple but couldn't Arsenal set much lower ticket prices and yet make just as much money as they do now if they had a stadium with the bigger capacity that you claim they need?

Blessing, my arse!

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

there u go http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ur/7699135.stm

with direct quotes from levy saying "It will be an iconic stadium and will be at least as good as Arsenal's Emirates."

granted he might've been asked how it will compare to our stadium, but the article reports it as him saying it without being asked, he didn't need to bring us in but he did.

Fair play. I hadn't seen that quote.

But:

1. As you say, it is quite possible (probable, even) that Levy mentioned Arsenal in relation to a journo's question. Articles hardly ever cite the questions to which quotes refer, so no reason why this article should be any different.

2. "As good as" is not the same as "as big as" and refers, to state the obvious, to quality rather than quantity. Your argument revolves around the question of quantity.

[2005]

Can't wait until Friday, been waiting seven years for this!!

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by JimB

Err......let me get this straight. Your argument is that it's a "blessing" that Arsenal have a smaller capacity than they need? Because that means that they can set artificially inflated ticket prices? Which means that they can make more money? Right? Have I got you so far?

Well excuse me for being a bit simple but couldn't Arsenal set much lower ticket prices and yet make just as much money as they do now if they had a stadium with the bigger capacity that you claim they need?

Blessing, my arse!

From a financial perspective I'd suggest he's correct. At the least, it's becoming the standard direction for US sports teams and creeping into other cultures as well. (See most new Mexican and Argentine facilities). 1) Overbuilding runs the risk of ticket-saturation, which is a business no-no in this day and age. Consistent sell-outs equates to near guarantee budgeting, something financial planners prefer in an unsure world. Perhaps more-importantly... 2) your proposal for more seats at lower prices yields smaller profit margins per-seat. Essentially, you're saying build more stadium, at greater cost, for the same level of return. No bank would appreciate that, despite the benefits you and I would reap as commoner fans. From a business perspective you want as much revenue from as little expenses as possible. For now such high prices are something the market (but not I, sadly) can sustain.

Granted, the levels we're talking about means this is a matter of semantics. Levy's proven at least smart enough to know where s**** should set their margin, and I suspect 55-65k is right on target. The optimum pricing and sell-out scenario BBM is referencing is really only critical when looking at significant shares of seats not selling, which I'd peg at 3-6k for a stadium that size. Doubt we'll see that many seats consistently left unsold, if for no other reason but to speculate who the next manager will be.

Originally Posted by JimB

I'd say that the IOC has done Spurs a HUGE favour!

Moving to Stratford was one of the least favoured options as far as Spurs fans were concerned... We're also thrilled that we'll be getting a purpose built football stadium and not some frankenstein-like converted athletics stadium.

Agreed. A redesign could've been done very well, but relocating might've hurt the club.

Not that I'd have minded too much...

[JimB]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

1) Overbuilding runs the risk of ticket-saturation, which is a business no-no in this day and age. Consistent sell-outs equates to near guarantee budgeting, something financial planners prefer in an unsure world.

That's a very good point. Guaranteed income allows for much easier financial planning. However, I don't believe that financial planners necessarily need to be assured that a stadium will be full for every game. They only need to be assured that the figures will remain in the black even if the stadium isn't full. They can just as easily plan on, say, a guarantee of 90% of capacity being used on average as they can on 100% of capacity being used.

2) your proposal for more seats at lower prices yields smaller profit margins per-seat. Essentially, you're saying build more stadium, at greater cost, for the same level of return. No bank would appreciate that, despite the benefits you and I would reap as commoner fans. From a business perspective you want as much revenue from as little expenses as possible. For now such high prices are something the market (but not I, sadly) can sustain.

Again, you make a very good point. However, the benefits to the club of an extra 10,000 seats wouldn't be restricted merely to ticket sales. You must also factor in the inevitable increase in merchandise sales; the increased value of the stadium's catering concessions; the ability to accomodate (and therefore gain or consolidate) potential new fans; the prestige of having a 60K as opposed to 50K stadium; and any other intangible benefits.

The optimum pricing and sell-out scenario BBM is referencing is really only critical when looking at significant shares of seats not selling, which I'd peg at 3-6k for a stadium that size. Doubt we'll see that many seats consistently left unsold

I suspect that you slightly overestimate Spurs' ability to sell out a 60K stadium - which is somewhat surprising! I think it highly unlikely, even with current high ticket demand and the inevitable added interest generated by a move to a new, state of the art stadium, that Spurs could sell many more than 50,000 tickets for the likes of Bolton or Middlesbrough at home on a wet and windy, midweek night in Febuary. Not without reducing ticket prices significantly.

However, I think that Spurs could plan for a minimum Premier League attendance of 50K for 4 or 5 games; full houses of 60K for 5 or 6 games; with the remainder averaging out at around 55K.

[Republica]

Extra seats normally pay for themselves after after a few years if they are only sat in a few times each season.

However a stadium that isnt full may not generate as much profit as a smaller full one. And we all know that money is key in bringing in the best players.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by JimB

However, I don't believe that financial planners necessarily need to be assured that a stadium will be full for every game. They only need to be assured that the figures will remain in the black even if the stadium isn't full. They can just as easily plan on, say, a guarantee of 90% of capacity being used on average as they can on 100% of capacity being used.

Agreed, but the desire is also to maximize the price for whatever tickets are sold. So long as tickets go unsold, they've little recourse to ask the price they want, thus the desire to have sell-outs.

Again, you make a very good point. However, the benefits to the club of an extra 10,000 seats wouldn't be restricted merely to ticket sales. You must also factor in the inevitable increase in merchandise sales; the increased value of the stadium's catering concessions; the ability to accomodate (and therefore gain or consolidate) potential new fans; the prestige of having a 60K as opposed to 50K stadium; and any other intangible benefits.

Again, agreed. And again this is semantics at this point. Surely s**** could build 70k and it would eventually be paid off and it would surely see at least several full/near-capacity crowds in the near term. What the financiers and engineers are surely evaluating is how best to maximize the short-term return while preserving options for long term growth. Pool's Stanley Park showed a bright example of this when originally leaving one end nearly open, a move designed solely to maintain high demand for their product despite having a waiting list that exceeded the new capacity. They only upped the ante after seeing what ManU could do and seeing the change in construction costs. (Well, there was more to it still, but you get the picture.)

Bottom line, if you're planning on growing again in the future it's usually best to initially err on the side of caution and simply add later, rather than overbuild and change the character of your product (Middlesbrough).

I suspect that you slightly overestimate Spurs' ability to sell out a 60K stadium - which is somewhat surprising! I think it highly unlikely, even with current high ticket demand and the inevitable added interest generated by a move to a new, state of the art stadium, that Spurs could sell many more than 50,000 tickets for the likes of Bolton or Middlesbrough at home on a wet and windy, midweek night in Febuary. Not without reducing ticket prices significantly.

I thought you hinted that was an okay practice?

I kid.

In all seriousness I suspected, and perhaps still feel, they'd be better served with something between 50 and 55k, at least until we all see what's going to happen with the Reign of the Sugar Daddies. And they may yet do that pending realized construction costs, loan terms, etc. As I said, done right a design can always be enlarged later. And if atmosphere is as important as Levy says, maybe it'd be all the better not to change the crowd make-up too much.

Guess we'll know more this week. Cheers.

[RobH]

Apparently MAKE are doing the masterplan for the area but the stadium designer is KSS group.

[berkshire royal]

I just checked out the KSS Group web page (might I add a very good page to) and I think it is highly likely that they are the architects because they are the group that designed Spurs new Training Centre (Approval granted 2008).

There credentials include The Falmer Stadium at Brighton (easily the best mid-sized new stadium design in the country), Estadio Municipal in Coimbra, The New Haifa Stadium (which looks like a pretty nice stadium) and also both the Bates Villages, and also the beauty that is the Grandstand at Ascot. This all sounds good hopefully they use this opportunity to make something that is impressive and most importantly original.

[Mo Rush]

build 60k with option to increase to 70k for world cup. say bye bye emirates.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Agreed, but the desire is also to maximize the price for whatever tickets are sold. So long as tickets go unsold, they've little recourse to ask the price they want, thus the desire to have sell-outs.

I see your point. But, to return to bigbossman's initial argument, I still can't accept that Arsenal being forced to build a lower capacity than they wanted or needed can be viewed as a blessing. I suspect that the restriction is costing them rather more than it is benefiting them - while, at the same time, effectively disenfranchising the club's core support, many of whom can no longer afford to attend games.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by RobH

Apparently MAKE are doing the masterplan for the area but the stadium designer is KSS group.

Where did you hear that? Do you trust the source?

As berkshire royal pointed out, KSS are the architects for Spurs' new training ground and academy. Could it just be that someone was getting their wires crossed?