LONDON - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium / New White Hart Lane (62,214) - Page 7 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Completed


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which design do you prefer?
The KSS design 81 16.23%
The Populous design 418 83.77%
Voters: 499. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 6th, 2008, 07:58 PM   #121
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,416
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post


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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 6th, 2008, 08:03 PM   #122
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,416
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
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.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2008, 09:34 PM   #123
michał_
Registered User
 
michał_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Krk | Stw
Posts: 1,635
Likes (Received): 73

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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.
michał_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 7th, 2008, 01:48 AM   #124
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,303
Likes (Received): 70

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.
Bobby3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 02:43 AM   #125
Benjuk
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

From soccernet...

Quote:
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.
Benjuk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 02:53 AM   #126
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 03:11 AM   #127
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 03:51 AM   #128
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 04:06 AM   #129
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
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.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 03:02 PM   #130
2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,548

Can't wait until Friday, been waiting seven years for this!!
2005 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 05:16 PM   #131
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 9,298
Likes (Received): 5021

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
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...
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 07:04 PM   #132
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 07:08 PM   #133
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,042
Likes (Received): 3

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.
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 09:14 PM   #134
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 9,298
Likes (Received): 5021

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 10:22 PM   #135
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,556
Likes (Received): 16655

Apparently MAKE are doing the masterplan for the area but the stadium designer is KSS group.
RobH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2008, 11:25 PM   #136
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1


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.
berkshire royal no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2008, 03:20 AM   #137
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,982
Likes (Received): 97

build 60k with option to increase to 70k for world cup. say bye bye emirates.
Mo Rush no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2008, 04:18 AM   #138
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2008, 04:24 AM   #139
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,952
Likes (Received): 7443

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
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?
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2008, 11:01 AM   #140
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,556
Likes (Received): 16655

Read it on another forum. Have no reason not to trust them. We'll have to wait till Friday to see.

Also if you search google for "KSS stadium", they were the group who designed the planned expansion of WHL to a 48,000 seater a few years ago.
RobH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
england, football, hotspurs, populous, soccer, spurs, stadium, tottenham

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 23945 Today 02:37 AM
LONDON - Olympic Stadium (60,000) jerseyboi Completed 18385 October 13th, 2019 03:59 AM
LONDON | New Tottenham Hotspur FC Stadium | 62,062 | U/C 2005 Cultural and Sporting Venues 1070 October 6th, 2019 01:01 PM
LONDON - White Hart Lane (36,284 | 1898 - 2017) LAYiddo Demolished 209 September 5th, 2019 11:18 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us