What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

TH1239

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
3,693
8,964
Beginning after the 2016-2017 season and for three subsequent years, we will potentially be receiving seasonal television rights payments somewhere between 135-140 million pounds (presuming we can finish 5th or 6th consistently in that timespan). Given that as recently as 2012-2013 we only raked in 55 million pounds in television income, that represents an extraordinary rise in revenue that is being felt all across the league.

Given that our wage bill has only modestly risen in the intervening years from 96 million to 104 million (and that's very likely to stay around that mark given how many players we're likely to shed this summer), I would really like to know what the club plans to do with this potential surplus cash? I've seen some people speculate that it could help fund the stadium, which is something that I've never seen raised in any Q&A with the club. It's not an insignificant amount of money we are talking about here. I mean, there is a real chance we'll be on par with Juventus in revenue generation before the stadium is built after the new television deal kicks in.

So, I think, there will have to be a strategic decision made at some point in the next year or so whether the club is going to ramp up spending on the squad from current levels once the next tv deals kicks in, or whether to keep the exact same spending restrictions in place and divert that television income towards the stadium in an effort to have less debt come 2020 or thereabouts, where you then would hope they'd be able to immediately start spending heavily to compete with the top 5 financial powerhouses in the league.
 

philip

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2009
1,352
2,503
Beginning after the 2016-2017 season and for three subsequent years, we will potentially be receiving seasonal television rights payments somewhere between 135-140 million pounds (presuming we can finish 5th or 6th consistently in that timespan). Given that as recently as 2012-2013 we only raked in 55 million pounds in television income, that represents an extraordinary rise in revenue that is being felt all across the league.

Given that our wage bill has only modestly risen in the intervening years from 96 million to 104 million (and that's very likely to stay around that mark given how many players we're likely to shed this summer), I would really like to know what the club plans to do with this potential surplus cash? I've seen some people speculate that it could help fund the stadium, which is something that I've never seen raised in any Q&A with the club. It's not an insignificant amount of money we are talking about here. I mean, there is a real chance we'll be on par with Juventus in revenue generation before the stadium is built after the new television deal kicks in.

So, I think, there will have to be a strategic decision made at some point in the next year or so whether the club is going to ramp up spending on the squad from current levels once the next tv deals kicks in, or whether to keep the exact same spending restrictions in place and divert that television income towards the stadium in an effort to have less debt come 2020 or thereabouts, where you then would hope they'd be able to immediately start spending heavily to compete with the top 5 financial powerhouses in the league.

Our rivals will be getting similar amounts. Presumably transfer fees and wages will be rising strongly and eating into the increased revenue heavily.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
...So, I think, there will have to be a strategic decision made at some point in the next year or so whether the club is going to ramp up spending on the squad from current levels once the next tv deals kicks in, or whether to keep the exact same spending restrictions in place and divert that television income towards the stadium in an effort to have less debt come 2020 or thereabouts, where you then would hope they'd be able to immediately start spending heavily to compete with the top 5 financial powerhouses in the league.

The main brake on our desire to sign top-bracket players is not transfer fees, it is salaries. Good business practice, reinforced by the Financial Fair Play regulations, restricts our overall wage bill to approx. 55% of turnover. Turnover will not increase meaningfully until we increase our capacity from 36k to 55-60k.

That would suggest that the supposed "windfall" of increased television revenues (which, as @philip points out, is not unique to THFC) would be better put to use in other areas of the business, such as reducing debt on the NDP, because we are not going to sign players by offering huge transfer fees, as long as we cannot offer comparably huge salaries as well.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
This is very useful.

I would suggest that SC staff create a quick/permanent link to this that we can all find easily, so we can direct people with queries on this thread to the answers here. It could save a lot of time on "asked and answered" queries.

Might be an idea for @TaoistMonkey to put it in the stadium picture thread?
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
WRT the Cockerel, yes it would be nice to have it back on the roof, but I reckon it would also look good mounted as a statue on the main approach to the ground. A nice big stone plinth with the names of past players carved into it, much like we have with the monuments commemorating those who died in the wars, and the Cockerel, polished to a Golden gleam, proudly mounted on top. I think it would be a fantastic commemoration to our history and all of those who contributed to it.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I would love to walk up to the ground and stop at something like that, reading all the names and remembering what quality we have had over the years. That, for me, would be a huge recognition of the clubs history. You could highlight the winning teams, show the team that made history being the ONLY non league team to win the FA Cup. The double winning team, the Cup Winners Cup winning team ad infinitum.

Young fans will see them, read up on them and learn more of our history, keeping it alive through each generation.

I really believe now that using the Cockerel in that way would be a better way of enhancing our tradition than mounting it on the roof.

I might just get on to Levy with that suggestion myself.

I like that idea, but regardless of laws I think that will leave it too exposed to vandalism. There are quite frankly dickheads out there who don't care about sentiment for other people regardless of rivalries and I wouldn't want to leave something so sacred open for attack. Being mounted on the stadium or in a museum would be the best solution.

I love the new stadium but others have said would like something on it our outside it to let people know it's ours. From looking at the pictures there doesn't seem to be anything to signify that it is ours. I'm sure that will be addressed though. I also liked the old stadium designs but it is amazing how much of an improvement this is. Well done all
 

Wick3d

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,573
11,892
Finally the CPZ is being extended into Edmonton! Living in the area can be quite annoying especially on match days. You bastards take up every parking space! :D
 

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,901
130,571
@davidmatzdorf - How big a concern is the proposed removal of the 3 listed buildings. From what I can see, the 3 buildings are only 'locally listed' whereas Warmington House, the building the club intend to keep is 'nationally listed'. If buildings are only locally listed, is it easier to get them removed?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
@davidmatzdorf - How big a concern is the proposed removal of the 3 listed buildings. From what I can see, the 3 buildings are only 'locally listed' whereas Warmington House, the building the club intend to keep is 'nationally listed'. If buildings are only locally listed, is it easier to get them removed?

What I wrote:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/ind...s-and-discussions.38802/page-797#post-4665358

See point 5 and the "EDIT" addendum.

It may be easier in theory to get locally listed buildings removed, but, last time around, the combined powers of persuasion of THFC & Haringey Council were ineffective.
 

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,901
130,571
What I wrote:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/ind...s-and-discussions.38802/page-797#post-4665358

See point 5 and the "EDIT" addendum.

It may be easier in theory to get locally listed buildings removed, but, last time around, the combined powers of persuasion of THFC & Haringey Council were ineffective.
Cheers. I remember reading that now.

But who does the decision ultimately rest with? Is there some sort of overriding mechanism which means that any opposition could be ineffective?
 

Spurs Lodge Kittens

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
1,307
3,083
The 3 buildings we want to get rid of really dampen my optimism that everything will go according to plan with our revised application.

Tell me, if the council/or whoever decides that the buildings must stay - will Tottenham/Populous be happy to still proceed with the plans and only the 2 metre wide pavement?
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,477
21,855
The 3 buildings we want to get rid of really dampen my optimism that everything will go according to plan with our revised application.

Tell me, if the council/or whoever decides that the buildings must stay - will Tottenham/Populous be happy to still proceed with the plans and only the 2 metre wide pavement?

there'll be an accident with a crane... or fire :shifty:
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
Tell me, if the council/or whoever decides that the buildings must stay - will Tottenham/Populous be happy to still proceed with the plans and only the 2 metre wide pavement?

It is clear from the published comments from the club that the increased capacity will not be possible unless the pavement can be widened. They won't be able to get 61,000 people in and out of the stadium and the neighbourhood safely.
 
Last edited:

acky99

Member
Aug 15, 2012
45
45
It is clear from the published comments from the club that the increased capacity will not be possible unless the pavement can be widened. They won't be able to get 61,000 people in and out of the stadium and the neighbouhood safely.
If we are not allowed to remove the buildings then the only alternative that is left, is to close the high rd, before and after the match for say an hour before and after.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
I rarely comment on "negative ratings". People can say what they like (that's the title of one of my songs ;)) and I'm opinionated enough that I generally have to take the "dislikes" with the "likes".

But some people plainly do not really "get" the ratings function. As in: disliking a post because they do not like the facts contained in it.

A "dislike" rating is not going to have any effect on the struggle that THFC is likely to have to convince the historic-buildings people to let them remove three buildings in order to increase our stadium capacity. It just makes the SC member who issued the rating look foolish.

[edited on moderator advice]
 
Last edited:

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Crossrail%202%20regional_zpsguwpggmm.jpg


Yes baby get the fuck in there. Now only have to wait another 15 years.

http://applications.haringey.gov.uk/overwhelming-support-for-crossrail-2-plans.htm
 
Last edited:
Top