Inside Sport re: Our stadium plans

A thought on the 52k, I don't believe for one minute that that is the boards aim but it may be that with the current infrastucture, transport etc 52k is more likely to get planning permission, then we can increase in the future.
Old Trafford holds 70 odd thousand but it was increaed steadly in stages, the original design allowed for that unlike the Emirates, I suspect the board will use the Man Utd model.

As for whether we can fill a 60k ground, yes we can, there are some games that we won't at the moment but as success grows then all we will for all games.
Arsenal for eample will play many games with whole areas empty when their curent success tails off, that's natural, they have no bigger a fan base than we do, never have had, but it's fair to say they have newer ones and that they are more enthused than us at the present time.

I'm not sure they'd refuse planning permission on a 60k stadium but if they did they'd be unlikely to grant it on 52k and then 60k a few years later.

Liverpool are building a 60-70k seater for £500m, there's no point spending £300m to end up with 52k. If we can get the biggest league ground in London we will be able to sell ourselves as a venue for cup semi-finals or potential World cup/Euro champ as well as bid for CL/UEFA cup final

Key to this is transport. Ashburton Grove is very attractive from a public transport perspective.

One solution that might work is a similar one to Munich. We could build the ground and own it but take someone like West Ham on as tennants. A groundshare yes, but one that gives us absolute ownership rather than just partners. This would give us an income to justify the expense and for West ham, a low risk route to a new stadium. It would also give us a reason to move to the east, in a few years the transport links would be the best outside central London with great connections to mainland europe via stratford's eurostar terminal and rail links to City of London Airport and Stansted

camaj said:

I'm not sure they'd refuse planning permission on a 60k stadium but if they did they'd be unlikely to grant it on 52k and then 60k a few years later.

Click to expand...

I was musing on whether there is a recommended max based on the infrastructure and transport, if it's 52k then why ask for 60k when you know it'll get refused, so I figured it may explain the 52k. Obviously I wouldn' expect them to mention the increase at the beginning just get the thing built and then it's just additions ground improvements
My faith in Haringey council is not great and so I think given any opportunity they'll reject.

liamc23 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2007/11/now_or_never_for_spurs.html

Click to expand...

The BBC Sports Editor wrote that? No wonder there's redundancies..

I don't like the idea of groundsharing, and don't think it will work. Still prefer to see gradual expansion of the Lane, or a brand new stadium

I think we should see how Arsenal pans out financially then act if it is a success. (minus any cash they earn from winning stuff)

DC_Boy said:

I don't like the idea of groundsharing, and don't think it will work. Still prefer to see gradual expansion of the Lane, or a brand new stadium

Click to expand...

All options are complicated.

Building a new site away from WHL would upset some of our fans, me included, who despite the problems still love the old place.

Ground sharing with Wet Spam would almost certainly lead to ambushes by the locals.

Groundsharing with the goons would make sense location and capacity wise, but would ignite emotions about sharing with our nearest and not so dearest.

Phased redevelopment would negate much of the above, but we'd still have the transport issues and lose capacity and more pertinently income, whilst its being done. And we know ENIC love money.

No easy solution, understandable why it is taking some time, but my preference, like yours, has always been gradual redevelopment.

With ENgland going to try and host the world cup, would they not want some bigger better stadiums around. I know it a long way off but it must be better than places saying they will build them to find they run late and finished days before kick off.

To say I'd be upset if we ground share with wet spam or anybody else for that matter is an understatement. We should have our own ground as we always have done. I don't have a problem with us shareing a ground with somebody while we're re building WHL.

As far as capacity of a newly built WHL goes, I'd like to think we'd show a statement of intent and at the very least look to get 60k capacity, but I think if we can, we should go for more.

The stadium design should have a large input from us the supporters, and I hope the THFC supporters trust would be asking the club for as much input as possible, we want a footballing stadium, not some dreary, souless, corporate, prawn sarnie arena.

I appreciate money has to be made in the modern game, but it would be nice if THFC got the balance right and considered us the supporters as well.

worcestersauce said:

Obviously I wouldn' expect them to mention the increase at the beginning just get the thing built and then it's just additions ground improvements

Click to expand...

Yeah I understood, but you can't just improve the ground, you'd need planning permission and there's little chance of them turning down a 60k stadium now but then giving the thumbs up 5 years later.

gibbs131 said:

I think we should see how Arsenal pans out financially then act if it is a success. (minus any cash they earn from winning stuff)

Click to expand...

Well firstly each situation is unique, you can't forecast our future based on there past, and it's pretty clear that it's gone quite well. There are rumours of an expansion to 100k at Ashburton Grove.

MattyP said:

Building a new site away from WHL would upset some of our fans, me included, who despite the problems still love the old place.

Click to expand...

Maybe but some fans, like you, are probably happy watching shit teams outselling us and pricing us out of the market for new players.

I think we must recognise that in order to compete in the top 4 and possibly for europe we need to keep up financially. The main way to do this would be matching their attendance figures and playing in the CL. If you don't mind seeing us slip further and further behind then I can understand your point but I don't think we can have it both ways

I don't think we'd get ambushed either. They don't do it now and they'd most likely be watching there team get hammered than worrying about us.

camaj said:

There are rumours of an expansion to 100k at Ashburton Grove.

Click to expand...

This is bollocks, that place is maxed out already. It was built at 60k and has zero capacity for expansion. I know this for a fact as I remember pointing it out to a goon mate when he was trying to goad me by showing me architects plans on the scum website when they were building.

As for WHL, I'd like to see worcester avenue shifted eastwards and new tiers on the shelfside and west stands. Then, when we're ready we could do the same to paxton and park lane and bobs yer uncle we have one big fuck-off size stadium holding massive amounts of yids and still with the same character. We could even put another row of exec boxes under the new west stand tier to keep the corporate whores happy.

However, the real shame with the whole expansion thing for me is that I'd love to reclaim the shelf and its just never gonna happen.

We need at least a 80k seater. That way I'll be garrenteed a seat - Woo Hoo

It will be great to stay at WHL but unfortunately I fear it will just be another concrete bowl on the site of my beloved ground.
Would love them to re-jig WHL to get to the 50 odd thousand, which i'm sure they could do.

camaj said:

Maybe but some fans, like you, are probably happy watching shit teams outselling us and pricing us out of the market for new players.

I think we must recognise that in order to compete in the top 4 and possibly for europe we need to keep up financially. The main way to do this would be matching their attendance figures and playing in the CL. If you don't mind seeing us slip further and further behind then I can understand your point but I don't think we can have it both ways

I don't think we'd get ambushed either. They don't do it now and they'd most likely be watching there team get hammered than worrying about us.

Click to expand...

Not at all Camaj. But we've spent what, the third highest amount of money in recent years on players and we've finished next best after the top four. Yes attendances are important, but given that our ticket prices are higher than most, the comparatively lower attendances are negated to a certain degree, not to mention other revenue streams, which now are more important than pure gate revenue.

I want Spurs to win every game, win every competition, have the highest attendances, have the biggest fan base, play the best football, and be true to their traditions, which includes staying at our traditional home.

If you want something different to me, then thats fair enough. I'm not gonna be as presumptuous as you by guessing what you want.

got some pics ill post later

Naked women, I hope.

MattyP said:

Yes attendances are important, but given that our ticket prices are higher than most, the comparatively lower attendances are negated to a certain degree

Click to expand...

Yes but at the expense of fans. In order to compete we'll have to continually raise our prices. At the moment we can't compete with the top 4 and the only way we will is increasing our income. Surely we will slip further behind when West Ham, Everton and Pompey all build 60k stadia? I know it's not the be all and end all but it's a large part of it.

which includes staying at our traditional home.

Click to expand...

But if it comes down to a choice between staying where we are but suffering on the field or moving/rebuilding and pushing in to the top 4 and being title contenders what one do you choose? It might be nice if we could have both but it'll probably come down to a choice.

If you want something different to me, then thats fair enough. I'm not gonna be as presumptuous as you by guessing what you want.

Click to expand...

I didn't presume anything, a guess is a guess. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong :shrug:

camaj said:

Yes but at the expense of fans. In order to compete we'll have to continually raise our prices. At the moment we can't compete with the top 4 and the only way we will is increasing our income. Surely we will slip further behind when West Ham, Everton and Pompey all build 60k stadia? I know it's not the be all and end all but it's a large part of it.



But if it comes down to a choice between staying where we are but suffering on the field or moving/rebuilding and pushing in to the top 4 and being title contenders what one do you choose? It might be nice if we could have both but it'll probably come down to a choice.



I didn't presume anything, a guess is a guess. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong :shrug:

Click to expand...

Some valid points, and of course the danger is that with other clubs potentially increasing their capacity more income will follow and that could affect our ability to compete.

I may be in the minority, of one for all I know, but I love the traditions of being at WHL and would prefer the board fight as hard as they can to give us a lovely, larger stadium on the old site.

If there was absolutely no option but to move, then of course I would accept it, its in the best interest of the club.

But we would still have to acquire the land, try to sell the current land, plus the additional land we have already purchased around the Lane (and lets face it thats not gonna raise much).

Guess we will see at the beginning of next year.

Spurs stadium news

From: Eurosport


LONDON (Reuters) - Tottenham Hotspur will finalise in the first half of next year plans to expand their White Hart Lane ground, the Premier League club said on Tuesday.
"There has been speculation again today regarding our stadium development plans," the North London club said in a statement on their Web site (www.tottenhamhotspur.com).
"The club is currently reviewing its options, a process which is ongoing and will see us commit to one option in the first half of 2008."
The BBC had reported that Spurs wanted a ground of similar quality to the Emirates Stadium built by North London rivals Arsenal and had turned to one of the key figures in that development.
It said Tony Winterbottom, former executive director of the London Development Agency, was now masterminding plans to expand White Hart Lane to a capacity of 52,000 from around 36,240 in a project costing some 300 million pounds.
Of that sum, half would be borrowed.
According to the BBC, Tottenham would vacate the ground for two seasons in a likely link up with West Ham that could also see them use Wembley Stadium for top matches such as the derby with Arsenal. Alternatives to the preferred option of rebuilding White Hart Lane would be developing nearby land to the north for a new stadium or moving further afield to Enfield in outer London.

Again from Eurosport:


Tottenham have remained tight-lipped over the latest reports about plans to redevelop their White Hart Lane ground or move to a new stadium.One suggestion is that Spurs will shut down their traditional home for two seasons while it is upgraded to a 52,000-capacity arena and ground-share with rivals West Ham at Upton Park until the work is completed.
Another idea is for Spurs to play high-profile matches like the north London derby against Arsenal at the new Wembley Stadium.
Reports have claimed that Spurs have turned to Tony Winterbottom, formerly of the London Development Authority, who played a major role in the building of Arsenal's new Emirates Stadium, to help them realise a venue of similar quality on their site adjacent to busy Tottenham High Road.
But a club spokesman said: "All we can say is to advise you to recall what the chairman (Daniel Levy) said in his statement when we announced our financial results last month and see what happens early next year."
After announcing in October a record turnover and a £32million operating profit, Levy said: "The club is currently reviewing its options based on developing our stadium and our state-of-the-art training centre and we will commit to one of the options in the first half of 2008."
White Hart Lane's current capacity is just over 36,000 but to stay there and expand to a 52,000-seat facility in an overcrowded area with notoriously poor public transport links would be likely to cost in the region of £300million.
And reports suggest it would mean Spurs vacating White Hart Lane for two seasons and proposing a temporary ground-share plan with West Ham.
Tottenham are already said to have approached both West Ham and the Football Association for their reaction - with sell-out matches, like the Arsenal game, at Wembley. But no party has officially confirmed such talks.
Another option open to Spurs is to build a new stadium on one of several sites they have identified in other parts of north London, not far from White Hart Lane, although the redevelopment of their current facility is reportedly the favoured choice.
Outsiders have also suggested yet another option - that Levy and his ENIC corporation, who bought out the Alan Sugar regime six years ago, sell up completely if new Spanish manager Juande Ramos cannot turn around Spurs' fortunes on the field by the end of next season.
Former Tottenham idol Jimmy Greaves told Radio 5 Live's Sportsweek programme at the weekend: "They should be in the last-chance saloon. "If Senor Ramos doesn't do it within 18 months I feel the whole lot of them should fall on their swords."

Extension of WHL will be good but the two years sharing will be terrible. Firstly there is the fact we will be playing a shitty Upton Park and secondly if we do play some at Wembley the prices will be astronomical.