What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Samson

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2007
1,154
304
I suspect from your second paragraph you actually mean mutually inclusive.

Historically they aren't, football clubs aren't held in portfolios to earn money, they are bought and sold with amazing frequency when compared to other businesses. The object is generally to build up a club's assets and try to sell it on for a profit on the purchase price and any investment made. Why do you think ENIC are different and are interested in the club's long term future rather than achieving the most profitable exit strategy?

What I don't understand is, if all of your talk about costs and profits at the different sites is true, why would anyone be keener to buy us in Stratford than in Tottenham?
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,957
45,227
I really don't understand this idea of ENIC just wanting to make money so we're all doomed, would they not make more money if we were as successful as Manchester United? Surely the more successful we are the more they can "line their pockets" and if we are sitting at the top of the table and winning the Champions League would we all reckon they're a bunch of money grabbing bastards? Sorry but it's just a non argument and smacks of desperation in the absence of any sensible objections.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2005
9,018
6,900
Not sure what this has to do with the stadium, but I think all buggies should be folded up before they are allowed on the bus, on numerous occasions I have seen selfish parents refuse to fold buggies up when somebody tries to get on in a wheelchair and can't because a buggy is taking the wheelchair space. The wheelchair user has to wait for the next bus because the bus driver doesn't want some inconsiderate parent shouting abuse at them on a crowded bus.

Not on bendy buses where there's plenty of room for both.

Do you have kids or are you disabled?
 

Hoowl

Dr wHo(owl)
Staff
Aug 18, 2005
6,527
267
Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.

Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.
 

ethanedwards

Snowflake incarnate.
Nov 24, 2006
3,379
2,502
Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.

Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.
Great post mate. We are definitely punching above our weight at the mo, we cannot afford not to qualify for CL, or it is bye bye Bale, Modric etc.
I know there are posters to whom the NLD and staying at WHL is the most important thing for the club. Get real, Arsenal are at the moment are on a different level to us, great stadium, financially stable etc they are going to benefit big time from the fair play rules.
I do no not want to go back to the time when are only meaningful game to us during the season was a one sided NLD.
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Feb 13, 2004
32,568
10,280
All I keep asking for proof on is the figure of £200m being the difference for the two projects, the quote from the architect clearly doesn't show that, it says the whole NDP project will cost £450m and that the stadium construction at the OS will be £250m, but that's not the cost of the whole project, so why do people keep making out that the stadium is the only cost in the OS project?

And I keep on saying I have no interest in offering you proof - if others want to that's up to them. My point is that it is blatantly obvious that there are advantages to the OS otherwise Mr Levy wouldn't be pursuing that option.

1) Well, startingprice, I thought you might be able to do better than that. Well, SOTM, I thought you might be able to do better than that.

2) If Levy is telling the truth then you have a problem. If he's telling lies, then you still have a problem, Why, because I said he is a shrewd business man:shrug: I would have thought this just tends to illustrate my point. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. So, he won't directly say something he has allowed one of his lieutenants to say, because it is tactically inappropriate ATM, and...?

3) since he's spinning - the very thing you are trying to deny. WTF:grin: I have said several times "He spins, of course he does, they are professionals you are an amateur" - the bit you are getting confused about is that I say you spin, too. That in no way states that Mr Levy & co. don't spin (a point that I have on the contrary been very happy to state explicitly).

4) You can't have it both ways. Who says? He spins, but ultimately there are advantages to the OS which, I have no doubt, include financial ones. Who says I can't have it both ways?

5) Here are sloth's words: Am I my brother's keeper? Why are you quoting Sloths words to me, I never parroted them and he is a big boy :)shifty:), he can speak up for himself.

"We know the difference in budgeted expenditure between the two is £200m, that's because the architect in charge of both projects has told us it is."
Are these the 'figures' you're talking about?
They're wrong.

6) You're asking me why Levy wants Stratford? I don't know,Ain't that the truth. But you are willing to put a negative SPIN on things and suggest all kinds of shenanigans, rather than just accept that there are almost certainly major advantages to moving to the OS that will almost certainly be of immense benefit to the club off and (hence) on the field that's my answer. If there are any advantages they appear to me to be so marginal that they are not wortth giving up our home, our tradition, our heritage and our culture for.

7) Levy could be mistaken. Given a choice between whether he is mistaken and you are mistaken, sorry, Good Pard'ner, but I am choosing you to be the mistaken one:wink: That's the problem. He could be taking bad advice. You'll recall that he woke up one morning and decided to sack Jol and appoint Ramos, universally regarded as a big mistake. He's not infallible.

8) Furthermore you have accused me of 'spin'. No. Sorry to confuse you about this. I have stated as absolute fact that you ARE spinning. I thought I had demonstrated this. You ask questions, but they are all negative. I ask questions which are negative and positive, and have given you examples to show how this is possible. I have even illustrated to you what my angle (or spin) is. Your SPIN is negative. My only argument is that the club has been spinning like crazy. It's not your only argument. You are also claiming that this SPIN has been to cover the fact that the benefits of moving to the OS, if any, are marginal. That is negative (and, thereforre, negative spin), and just does not bear scrutiny with the aid of common-sensse (as I demonstrated in a lengthy post that you either haven't read or felt totally incapable of refuting).I've shown that's the case by exposing the discrepancy between Keirle's statement (to which sloth has allied himself on this thread) and Levy's position. No, you have SPUN that into being the case. I have explained to you that it is a perfectly acceptable tactic that an experienced performer, like Dan Levy, would use. What I find so amusing is that 'suddenly', while being obsessed with SPIN, want to believe that Dan Levy is telling the truth as it tends to support your position:grin: Who's spinning? All sides - including me and you:hump:

9) I'm glad you don't want to move, and I'm glad that you would put your name to an appropriate petition. OK, we are agreed. So gald to have your approval. But I don't think we are agreed. I don't want to move, you point blank refuse to - to the point of illogically accepting that there are apparent advantages to moving to the OS. I don't want to move, if we have to move I would want it to be as close to WHL as possible. My first choice would be the NDP. But, and this is the important point, here, I am not a professional in this field, Mr Levy & co are.

10) But you do not do yourself any favours by accusing me of spin, But you are spinning, so how am I not doing myself any favourswhen all I am doing is asking questions, It is not all you arre doing, you also suggesting that there are no obvious advantages in moving to the OS, which defies logic, and, therefore, hinting at darker motives. questions which have been entirely appropriate. I never said your questions weren't appropriate, I said it was appropriate to ask questions from all angles - even those which don't agree with the position you ahve adopted. That is something you spectacularly fail to do.
Sotm

SP

Because Levy's main concern is to act in the interest of ENIC and their shareholder's, not in the long term interests of Tottenham Hotspur, I think you'll find this response numerous times throughout this thread. You accuse us of just hearing what we want to, yet you seem happy to ignore this very rational explanation and disregard it as a conspiracy theory.

I would say these two things are mutually exclusive.

The best for THFC = financial rewards for ENIC. Levy has never been afraid to back managers and spend big money on all aspects of the club to enable us to be competing with the best in every aspect of football, not just on the pitch. He knows that doing this will enhance THFC as a team, a club and a brand, which ultimately makes it a money-spinning investment and a good earner for the ENIC portfolio.

I suspect from your second paragraph you actually mean mutually inclusive.

Historically they aren't, football clubs aren't held in portfolios to earn money, they are bought and sold with amazing frequency when compared to other businesses. The object is generally to build up a club's assets and try to sell it on for a profit on the purchase price and any investment made. Why do you think ENIC are different and are interested in the club's long term future rather than achieving the most profitable exit strategy?

Yeah, BT, Kendall has answered it for me.

I haven't ignored it. In fact I have answered it directly. In response to your posing of this question previously, I have quoted Dan Levy directly in stating that they absolutely will not be guided by profit alone in selling the club, but will only sell if it is, in their opinions, to the long term benefit to the club. The difference is, I choose to believe Dan Levy's sincerity, you choose to disbelieve it is you do that because it makes your decision to point blank refuse to countenance any move from WHL as being more rational than emotional. I have no problem with it being emotional and do not attempt to denigrate it on that basis...I have a problem with you, SOTM, etc., attempting to graft bogus arguments on to your emotional response rather than just accepting that that is exactly what it is, printing it on the label and pasting it on the bluddy tin:hump:

So, as with the negative answers I ask and am happy for others to ask, once again, you are making accusations that don't stick. I am more than happy to lsiten to all sides of the argument - I don't ignore ones that don't suit my view point.
 

andyw362

New Member
Oct 16, 2005
993
0
Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.

Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.

100% correct, but dont expect the average football fan to be smart enough to understand or even believe that. That is why I believe the board should not bother consulting the fans. Just go ahead and build it anyway.
 

RichieS

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2004
11,916
16,436
Because Levy's main concern is to act in the interest of ENIC and their shareholder's, not in the long term interests of Tottenham Hotspur, I think you'll find this response numerous times throughout this thread. You accuse us of just hearing what we want to, yet you seem happy to ignore this very rational explanation and disregard it as a conspiracy theory.

The 2 are inextricably linked. If ENIC ruin the club they will not get a return on their investment and Levy would be considered negligent.

The fact that Levy priced Abramovich out of buying us says to me that there is a long term plan to make the club more valuable than it currently is. That will only happen through the acquisition of world class facilities (new training ground and stadium) and, more importantly to us, sustained success on the pitch which is what attracts the (particularly foreign) money.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,957
45,227
I don't know that I've ever heard of a bunch of asset strippers buying into a company and putting in a full decade of investment whilst along the way rejecting easy opportunities to make their profit, is that how assett strippers work? I don't think so, in fact bollox, I know so and to suggest that this is what Daniel Levy is all about flies in the face of reason and shows a breathtaking lack of business acumen, even less than Levy would be showing if this really is his plan.
Doesn't anybody get it? doesn't anybody realise what Daniel Lavy is about? He's not about stripping assetts he's about pure naked ambition, he doesn't want to own and Chair a top football club he wants to own and chair the top football club, his ambition is boundless I don't doubt that but neither do I doubt his obvious love for the Spurs, put the two togather and what have you got? Well just maybe we've got an opportunity to be the club I have imagined in my dreams and let me tell you I can dream really big.
His idea with the magnificent new stadium set in it's own space on it's own Island in the Iconic Olympic park is about taking us out of the parochial local based mentality and into being a world wide football institution competing successfully with very top sides in the world year in year out.
When you have an opportunity to reach for the stars you should take it, that is what our future must be or we are nothing.
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2010
7,837
16,145
Great post mate. We are definitely punching above our weight at the mo, we cannot afford not to qualify for CL, or it is bye bye Bale, Modric etc.
I know there are posters to whom the NLD and staying at WHL is the most important thing for the club. Get real, Arsenal are at the moment are on a different level to us, great stadium, financially stable etc they are going to benefit big time from the fair play rules.
I do no not want to go back to the time when are only meaningful game to us during the season was a one sided NLD.


Don't worry, when we move there will be no more one sided NLD's to suffer, you will have the east london derbies to look forward too.

I don't know if you watch our games in Valencia, because we have done ok against the scum recently, so your one sided theory sucks!!

Maybe you missed our game with INTER, we do have other little highlights in this grotty little ground of ours, not just getting rolled over by the scum.
 

Hoowl

Dr wHo(owl)
Staff
Aug 18, 2005
6,527
267
Until the development of the Emirates and the influx of sugar daddies, we've always had the potential to compete with the the top teams in the league. We've had a reasonably even financial footing and failed to challenge through bad choices in players and managers. There has been a tangible dream that we're only a couple of players away and next year will be our year. That's part of the reason we've been happy supoprting an average mid-table side, because there has been a large amount of hope and belief that our sleeping giant would rise again.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been gradually losing this even footing and competing with an increasing handicap. This has actually co-incided with us making some good choices of players and manager so in the short term things look rosy but this short term fluctuation merely hides the long term issue.

Without moving to a new stadium, our handicap will become bigger and bigger. We will lose that potential to compete with the top teams and more crucially, we will have to accept that we wont be able to compete with clubs like Arsenal on the pitch or in the transfer market. It will no longer be a realistic aim to compete at the top. That is the difference between what we have been through before and what will happen if we stay at the Lane.

Don't worry, when we move there will be no more one sided NLD's to suffer, you will have the east london derbies to look forward too.

I don't know if you watch our games in Valencia, because we have done ok against the scum recently, so your one sided theory sucks!!

Maybe you missed our game with INTER, we do have other little highlights in this grotty little ground of ours, not just getting rolled over by the scum.

1) See above.
2) Do you really think our rivalry with Arsenal will diminish if we move? They will only see us as rivals if we do just that, rival them for the chance to win things. If we're just another team to roll over that's when the rivallry starts to diminish and they become much more concerned with other winners like United and Chelsea.
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2010
7,837
16,145
1) See above.
2) Do you really think our rivalry with Arsenal will diminish if we move? They will only see us as rivals if we do just that, rival them for the chance to win things. If we're just another team to roll over that's when the rivallry starts to diminish and they become much more concerned with other winners like United and Chelsea.


Read what i wrote, i said there will be no more north london derbies if we move to east london! Fact!...where do i say our rivalry will end?

You can't have a NLD if your not in NL:shrug:
 

Hoowl

Dr wHo(owl)
Staff
Aug 18, 2005
6,527
267
Read what i wrote, i said there will be no more north london derbies if we move to east london! Fact!...where do i say our rivalry will end?

You can't have a NLD if your not in NL:shrug:

Semantics, it will still be a derby match and the rest of my post, which you declined to comment on, still holds true.
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2010
7,837
16,145
Semantics, it will still be a derby match and the rest of most post, which you declined to comment on, still holds true.


Tomato-Tomaato..

The whole thing here is the NORTH ..i am fully aware its a derby still thank you, read what i was sayiny mate, i merely pointed out to him there would be no more NORTH london derbies.

I would have thought all the pro stratford mob wouldn't give a toss anyway.

Excuse me but I give up reading all the pro OS shit now anyway, ive had a belly full of figures and shit as too why we should fuck off and live in hammer-land to become the biggest team the world has ever seen.
 

ethanedwards

Snowflake incarnate.
Nov 24, 2006
3,379
2,502
Don't worry, when we move there will be no more one sided NLD's to suffer, you will have the east london derbies to look forward too.

I don't know if you watch our games in Valencia, because we have done ok against the scum recently, so your one sided theory sucks!!

Maybe you missed our game with INTER, we do have other little highlights in this grotty little ground of ours, not just getting rolled over by the scum.
Thats the problem with your vision of supporting Spurs, its to fixated on being anti Arsenal than pro Spurs. Forget the tribalistic nonsense, and come out into the light. It's nice.
FYI I attend home matches now half a dozen times a season and watch the rest on TV.
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2010
7,837
16,145
Thats the problem with your vision of supporting Spurs, its to fixated on being anti Arsenal than pro Spurs. Forget the tribalistic nonsense, and come out into the light. It's nice.
FYI I attend home matches now half a dozen times a season and watch the rest on TV.


WTF ARE YOU ON? i merely picked you up on your NLD comment, where do i give you the impression that i am fixated on being anti arsenal you fool.

And sorry to offend you by calling them the 'scum', that just about sums you up.
 

ethanedwards

Snowflake incarnate.
Nov 24, 2006
3,379
2,502
WTF ARE YOU ON? i merely picked you up on your NLD comment, where do i give you the impression that i am fixated on being anti arsenal you fool.

And sorry to offend you by calling them the 'scum', that just about sums you up.
Do you wish Spurs to competitive at the highest level, attracting high calibre players.

Not offended in the slightest, you are at liberty to call them whatever you wish, if it makes you feel better. I stopped worrying about name calling after P4.
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,450
21,805
yip, its about 8-13% if i remember correctly, which is a bit hit and miss these days
 
Top