ENGLAND - Stadium and Arena Development News

[JimB]

Originally Posted by terryfied

They started to re-develop the Scoreboard end in 1971, making most of that end seated, they have rebuilt parts of Old Trafford every few years since then, ending up with what we have today.

Every stand at WHL was redeveloped between 1980 and 1998.

But we're talking about capacity increases here.

And OT's capacity didn't start on an upward curve until the North stand was redeveloped in 1995-6.

Utd had been the top team in the country for a few years by then.

[2005]

Terryfied, Tottenham Chairman Daniel Levy last year told "thespursweb"

"Priority one is the first-team, priority two is the academy and the stadium has to be the third priority, because it's not under our control. I'm not hugely optimistic. We've put an enormous amount of effort into lobbying and drawing up plans, but it's not in our control."

"We are in an incredibly deprived area, with poor transportation, and I
don't see any immediate short-term solution."

[terryfied]

Originally Posted by 2005

Terryfied, Tottenham Chairman Daniel Levy last year told "thespursweb"

"Priority one is the first-team, priority two is the academy and the stadium has to be the third priority, because it's not under our control. I'm not hugely optimistic. We've put an enormous amount of effort into lobbying and drawing up plans, but it's not in our control."

"We are in an incredibly deprived area, with poor transportation, and I
don't see any immediate short-term solution."

I can see where he's coming from, anyhow, it's nice to see Spurs at the top end of the Premiership where they belong, despite the above problems.

[terryfied]

Originally Posted by JimB

Every stand at WHL was redeveloped between 1980 and 1998.

But we're talking about capacity increases here.

And OT's capacity didn't start on an upward curve until the North stand was redeveloped in 1995-6.

Utd had been the top team in the country for a few years by then.

Old Trafford's capacity actually dropped from 58,000 in 1988 to 43,000 in 1996, following the Taylor report, it then started on an upward trend to the present day, so in that respect you are correct.

[Fillet Tower]

Originally Posted by 2005

Terryfied, Tottenham Chairman Daniel Levy last year told "thespursweb"

"Priority one is the first-team, priority two is the academy and the stadium has to be the third priority, because it's not under our control. I'm not hugely optimistic. We've put an enormous amount of effort into lobbying and drawing up plans, but it's not in our control."

"We are in an incredibly deprived area, with poor transportation, and I
don't see any immediate short-term solution."

Perhaps your only solution is to make a move at some point. I remember A site near Ally Pally being mentioned when Arsenal were looking for land. I wonder if that is still available, although the transportation there is probably worse than WHL. But as was said, the current stadium site probably wouldn't generate a lot of money needed for the move and knowing that lovely London mayor of ours, there would be a lot more spanners in the works. (build 5 blocks of flats around the stadium and you'll be fine!)

[2005]

Originally Posted by Fillet Tower

Perhaps your only solution is to make a move at some point. I remember A site near Ally Pally being mentioned when Arsenal were looking for land. I wonder if that is still available, although the transportation there is probably worse than WHL. But as was said, the current stadium site probably wouldn't generate a lot of money needed for the move and knowing that lovely London mayor of ours, there would be a lot more spanners in the works. (build 5 blocks of flats around the stadium and you'll be fine!)

Your right there. I know that Tottenham are a very well run club and can spend the cash in the transfer market but Tottenham do not have the money to move.

A few months ago the club looked at a site in Tottenham Hale but rejected it as an idea as the board thought the area was "too small". I know that Tottenham want to build something big but how big? I wouldn't say Spurs could get 60,000 at the mo as the past 15 years haven't been exciting and not enough to attract that size crowd but to be honest though Spurs could fill 60,000. Like I've said before, Tottenham sold 25,000 season tickets with a waiting list of 20,000. In all Tottenham could've had 45,000 season ticket holders. Then add that to the members that Tottenham have. I would say that Tottenham could only get 50-53,000 every game in a season at this moment in time.

Its going to be interesting to hear what the board have to say during the Annual General Meeting in a few months time. It is one of those "cross your fingers" moments now.

[Its AlL gUUd]

Imagine Spurs build a 60k stadium as well. Thats how many big stadia in London

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd

Imagine Spurs build a 60k stadium as well. Thats how many big stadia in London

quite a few stadia...enough for a world cup in london j/k

[Slimboy Fat]

Originally Posted by 2005

I would say that Tottenham could only get 50-53,000 every game in a season at this moment in time

what happened to the 250000?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Slimboy Fat

what happened to the 250000?

Oh dear. Bubomb's back!

[JimB]

Not strictly related to the development of White Hart Lane but this, about the Olympic Stadium, is from the Telegraph today:

Caborn and Livingstone have different goals for stadium
By Mihir Bose

There is growing tension between Richard Caborn, the sports minister, and Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, about plans for the post-Olympic use of the 2012 stadium. London's bid promised that after the Olympics, the stadium would be scaled down from 80,000 seats to 25,000 to provide a permanent modern home for athletics.

Livingstone is very keen for it to be used for athletics and has promised to underwrite losses of up to £10 million a year at the Olympic Park after 2012.

The London Development Agency plan is that in 2013 Crystal Palace, where the IAAF Grand Prix will be staged this weekend, will have a bulldozer put through its old and decrepit arena and from that year all major athletics events will be held in the Olympic stadium.

However, the government are petrified of being left with a post-Olympics white elephant. Caborn makes no secret of his experience from Sheffield that athletics just does not earn enough money to justify a stadium on its own. While there has been talk of having a Premiership rugby club being based at the stadium, Caborn is convinced only a football club can provide the regular income that will ensure there is not a drain on public money.

Caborn is much taken by the example set by Manchester after staging the Commonwealth Games. The athletics track was removed, the stadium converted for football use and Manchester City moved in, paying £4 million a year ground rent. The football solution has worked well and the arena can be used for athletics, though there is no athletics stadium as such.

This led the government to commission KPMG, an accountancy firm, to talk to all the London football clubs - including West Ham, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR and Charlton - about possible use of the Olympic stadium.

Tottenham, with limited options at White Hart Lane , have been looking for a new ground and are keen, as are West Ham. However, insiders say the work done by KPMG was not thorough enough. Now everyone involved in 2012 - the government, the mayor, the 2012 organising committee and the Olympic Development Authority - are working on plans involving the future shape of the Olympic stadium. I am told they are working on three models.

Model 1 would see the stadium reduced to a 25,000-seater after the Olympics with athletics at its core, plus multi-purpose use or use by a rugby club.

Model 2, the one West Ham would like, would see the introduction of a 40,000-seater football stadium incorporating a running track, a bit like the old Wembley.

Model 3, the one Tottenham would be keen on, would see the stadium converted purely for football, seating 50,000 with no running track, the modern way for football.

However, in order to fulfil London's bid promise, athletics would be accommodated elsewhere in the Olympic Park, perhaps combined with the hockey stadium.

Livingstone favours Model 1 and Caborn Model 3. An insider told me: "Richard sees football as the only solution. I am sure if push comes to shove Ken will realise that athletics on its own can never sustain the stadium. But the problem for Richard is if you go for a football solution, then there might be concerns that public money has gone to giving a stadium to a football club which is a private company."

[2005]

I don't want to see Spurs in shitty Stratford!

[MoreOrLess]

I'm supprized Spur's would be happy with 50,000 given the opportunity to go up to 80,000 and the fact it would be possible to devolp WHL to 52,000.

Having the post games running track in another stadium certainly makes sense, theres never going to be the demand for 40,000 plus atheltics capacity outside of a Commonwealth Games or World Championships and both of those could use the new Wembley.

[Fillet Tower]

Originally Posted by 2005

I don't want to see Spurs in shitty Stratford!

It should be a much improved area by the time the Olympics arrive there. Excellent transport too. I know how much you Tottenham fans love your North London history though! But, would it be worth the move (and the banter that will come with it!) to help your team progress?... And is 6 years too long to wait?

[2005]

Originally Posted by Fillet Tower

It should be a much improved area by the time the Olympics arrive there. Excellent transport too. I know how much you Tottenham fans love your North London history though! But, would it be worth the move (and the banter that will come with it!) to help your team progress?... And is 6 years too long to wait?

I know what your saying and all but Tottenham just can't leave NL. Just about every Spurs fan refuses to leave NL. We have been in Nl ever since we were established. Also the distance is a bit too far.

[skaP187]

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

I'm supprized Spur's would be happy with 50,000 given the opportunity to go up to 80,000 and the fact it would be possible to devolp WHL to 52,000.

Having the post games running track in another stadium certainly makes sense, theres never going to be the demand for 40,000 plus atheltics capacity outside of a Commonwealth Games or World Championships and both of those could use the new Wembley.

??????? Why are they building an olympic stadium in the first place then??????
Come on, Wembley will be finished in 2012 wouldn't it ?????

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by skaP187

??????? Why are they building an olympic stadium in the first place then??????
Come on, Wembley will be finished in 2012 wouldn't it ?????

Wembley in athletics mode will have a capacity of 68,000, large enough for the world champs or commonwealth games but not for the Olympics. Plus the area around Wembley has very little room for the devolpment of other Olympic facilties(stadiums, park, village etc).

[skaP187]

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to redevelop Wembley to for instance a 120.000 cap footballmode and 90.000 atletic mode? or just design a new olympic stadium like that and start a little earlier with constructing and not rebuilding Wembley??? (or am I cursing now?)

[2005]

Tottenham beat Inter Milan today 2-1. Before the game a few people on the the Spurs forum I go on said that they shall take some pics of the Lane. Shall post the pictures as soon as possible.

[Roar]

What do you see as a desirable capacity for Spurs?

I say for Spurs possibly 50,000.

I am very happy our new stadium holds 60,000. Although I think we would have been able to sell 70,000 without fail.