SandroClegane
Well-Known Member
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,717
- 13,842
Most NFL Franchises own their stadiums so not sure where you're getting "rent" from.
The Mauricio Pochettino thread
- Thread starter TaoistMonkey
- Start date
- Status
'O Zio
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2014
- 7,405
- 13,785
Yeah that's exactly right. Except I never even brought up my avatar, I just called out someone who openly admitted to trolling
Seriously, why do you care what my avatar is anyway? If you're going to complain about it not being specifically Spurs related then a) probably half the members of this entire board don't have a spurs-themed avatar, presumably because it's fairly obvious that you like spurs if you're on here in the first place and b) your avatar is of some sort of viking fom a TV show or something so why is that any more spurs-related than mine?
Anyway, who actually gives a fuck really. It's an avatar on a forum, if you want to get your knickers in a twist over it then be my guest.
'O Zio
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2014
- 7,405
- 13,785
You're probably right about rent, I don't think they necessarily pay that, but it's not true at all that most NFL franchises own their stadium. The vast majority of them are only minority shareholders in the stadium, with the majority being owned by the city/county etc. Of the 32 teams, only 7 of them are the majority owner of their stadium.
Database
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2014
- 403
- 612
He shoot himself in the foot with his book. He's done fantastic job for two or three years and now it looks like he's following Redknapp's footsteps by self-sabotaging his own career. It really looks like players won't forgive him and locker room is lost for good. How fast things change in football...
Lot of WTF ratings were given when I and others criticised Pochettino's book. How stupid you look now...
Lot of WTF ratings were given when I and others criticised Pochettino's book. How stupid you look now...
guiltyparty
Well-Known Member
- Sep 21, 2005
- 9,023
- 13,524
People have some funny ideas about our non existent NFL deals. Lot of eggs being thrown in that basket, not a lot of understanding of how it will most likely work
Anyone who thinks we’re getting our own franchise any time soon is in dream world. Anyone who doesn’t think that if we did, the NFL team would become the priority of the stadium, is in cloud cuckoo land. I suspect that's why some are a bit suspicious.
Anyone who thinks we’re getting our own franchise any time soon is in dream world. Anyone who doesn’t think that if we did, the NFL team would become the priority of the stadium, is in cloud cuckoo land. I suspect that's why some are a bit suspicious.
Last edited:
tiger666
Large Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 27,978
- 82,216
To be fair mate none of us had realised the book would make them so angry that Sanchez would punch someone and Toby would tear out his own hamstring.
'O Zio
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2014
- 7,405
- 13,785
I don't think the book has anything to do with it to be honest. We'd already had performances like this long before we even knew about the book. Also, most of the players seems to have been involved in the book as well so they've all presumably known for months what he'd said about them so if it had affected them it wouldn't just be happening now.
Not sure about eggs being thrown in baskets but it's highly likely that an NFL team will be based at our stadium. Not any time soon but I think in 10 years we'll see an NFL team in London. Everything is pointed that way so it's more likely than not IMO.
As for the NFL team becoming the priority, that's absolute nonsense mate. Really not sure what you're basing that on. The stadium would still belong to us and even if the NFL did take a part of it, they'd still only be minority shareholders so wouldn't have any say. Also given that Levy is just about the best negotiator there is, I can't see him getting stitched up by the NFL either. They'd only be there 8 times a year as well anyway don't forget. And what kind of precedent are you basing this on? At the moment there are a handful of stadiums that are used for other things, one for baseball and a couple that get converted for soccer, but all of those stadiums' primary purpose was NFL in the first place so it's a completely incomparable situation.
Sorry mate but you're basing this whole "they're going to take over" thingf on absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
He's already gotten stitched up by the NFL. We had ITK reports that the NFL deal nearly collapsed when the NFL walked away, forcing Levy to go back to the NFL...not a position he is used to being in.
Everlasting Seconds
Well-Known Member
- Jan 9, 2014
- 14,914
- 26,616
Lost the locker room
Thewobbler
Well-Known Member
- Oct 29, 2016
- 3,814
- 5,701
The NFL does not need tottenham hotspur or its stadium. They make enough money. So it doesn't suprise me that they would walk away from levys demands. But levy did the right thing in crawling back as the NFL when its comes in to town is very popular.
Some own a majority share, but most are majority owned by the locale it is in and the city pays a massive sum to build it. Im not sure any team owns their stadium outright. Mostly every franchise has to pay some rent to the city, but it is usually so miniscule that it barely even registers. And whenever a city tries to hold the franchise’s feet to the fire and get a little more money out of a deal for a new stadium, the franchise moves to a city they can get a better deal with.
guiltyparty
Well-Known Member
- Sep 21, 2005
- 9,023
- 13,524
Interesting debunker of a very vague response to a lot of bluster. Let's try to address.
1. Why is it highly likely that they will be based at our stadium? What evidence do you have to base that on? There is no commitment to having a franchise at the new WHL. We have a 10-year deal for two games a year, which is actually not much of a commitment for the amount of money we're committing to a bespoke venue. Games will still be held at Wembley and Twickenham, and Chelsea's new ground most likely. So it is pure wishful speculation at this stage.
2. "I think in 10 years we'll see an NFL team in London." Point 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. I agree, there will inevitably be a London team eventually, if only because this 'playing in the UK' stuff is really, really expensive without a permanent home, to the extent that is stopping the Jaguars breaking even on the deal. That said, it took the NFL 20 years to get a team in LA, in its own country, I think we'll be waiting a while: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/sep/22/nfl-london-team-wembley-ravens-jaguars
3. Becoming the priority - well, it would be good to see what YOU'RE basing this on. My response was specifically to those who think the franchise will be ours (of which there are comments on here). If Spurs were granted the ownership of a franchise, it would undoubtedly take priority as there is more money to be made in NFL, particularly if it was a one-off non-US franchise. But they won't, at best the new WHL will play host to it, and the created franchise will pay a rent.
4. More people will want to watch NFL at our stadium than football. That is a total given. There are 13 million NFL fans in the UK, and 4 million tuned in to the Super Bowl. Games will sell out quicker, the merchandising and commercial opportunities will be far bigger. NFL in the UK will attract ALL American football fans as well as those just after something different; the team will become all fans' second team at least. Tickets will sell for higher prices than football, it's far more appealing to families due to the lack of crowd trouble. For football, you have to discount fans of all the other clubs, too. So yeah, despite the lack of games, I can feel the commercial possibilities will be fairly compelling to prioritise it.
4. Levy the best negotiator there is? Levy is a great at some things, not so good at others. He undoubtedly wanted a franchise before committing to the stadium build and didn't get one, so I would be mindful of your confidence there. Not only does it make sense to such a big financial commitment, but there is ITK suggesting he very much didn't get the deal he wanted. Not everything he touches turns to gold. "Can't see him being stitched up by the NFL." Hmm, yeah, because NFL owners are idiots, right?
I think we all best just cross our fingers we do get the franchise otherwise paying that escalating stadium build off is going to be fun.
Last edited:
LexingtonSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2013
- 13,456
- 39,042
I will say this - if the NFL bases a team in London - it will almost certainly play at New White Hart Lane.
The stadium is the only one in London/England built to NFL specs in terms of field, seating, sidelines, and dressing rooms.
NFL teams prefer to lease stadium space - because it is cheaper, and allows the teams greater flexibility to move...
Having the NFL as a tenant is not ENIC's path to owning an NFL team. I think it is ENIC's path to paying off the stadium debt faster. The more events staged at the stadium, the more revenue can be used to pay down the debt. The more visible the stadium is in terms of global events - NFL and CL - and to a lesser extent concerts - the more ENIC can demand for naming rights - which goes towards paying down the debt.
Spurs will see an uptick in operational revenue - assuming ENIC can maximize these other sources of revenue to pay down the stadium debt. But these other revenue streams are unlikely to ever flow directly to Spurs operations - they will be stadium revenues flowing directly to ENIC. Spurs will have the advantage of increased match-day revenue, and presumably less austerity than Arsenal in paying down the stadium - but the NFL is not going to turn Spurs into Chelsea or City, or United.
The stadium is the only one in London/England built to NFL specs in terms of field, seating, sidelines, and dressing rooms.
NFL teams prefer to lease stadium space - because it is cheaper, and allows the teams greater flexibility to move...
Having the NFL as a tenant is not ENIC's path to owning an NFL team. I think it is ENIC's path to paying off the stadium debt faster. The more events staged at the stadium, the more revenue can be used to pay down the debt. The more visible the stadium is in terms of global events - NFL and CL - and to a lesser extent concerts - the more ENIC can demand for naming rights - which goes towards paying down the debt.
Spurs will see an uptick in operational revenue - assuming ENIC can maximize these other sources of revenue to pay down the stadium debt. But these other revenue streams are unlikely to ever flow directly to Spurs operations - they will be stadium revenues flowing directly to ENIC. Spurs will have the advantage of increased match-day revenue, and presumably less austerity than Arsenal in paying down the stadium - but the NFL is not going to turn Spurs into Chelsea or City, or United.
Doctor Dinkey
Legacy Fan
- Jul 6, 2013
- 3,624
- 8,744
You're right.
Got demolished with the rest of WHL.
Hopefully they'll build him a shiny new one in the new stadium, with his own key and everything.
'O Zio
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2014
- 7,405
- 13,785
1.There has been so much "smoke" about having an NFL franchise in London over the past however many years that it's highly unlikely that it's all just madeup hogwash. Also the fact that they're playing multiple games every season in London anyway is quite clearly paving the way to move a team over their permanently at some stage. Like I said before, I think it's more likely than not at this stage. When it will be is another matter
2. It's a matter of time, but when it will be is debatable. I reckon it will be in 10 years or so, but that's just my opinion, nothing more, nor did I ever claim it to be anything more. I'm basing that partly on that's when our current arrangement with the NFL will run out so that's when there's likely to be a "getting together" of all the people involved. But like I say, that's entirely my opinion/prediction, which you're fully entitled to disagree with. As for the LA thing, that's not really a fair comparison to be honest as it's a completely different situation altogether as almost all of the complication with LA are not relevant to London anyway and vice versa
3. I don't think the franchise will be ours and have never said that. It will be an existing franchise that will be moved over, therefore will already have an owner. As for the exact arrangements I couldn't possibly comment as that's a matter for Mr Levy and the NFL. It's possible that one of the ways we might be compensated for the stadium use would be by being given a partial stake in the franchise, but I don't believe we'll own anything outright. I'm not sure about them paying rent either because in that case, they almost may as well just carry on playing at Wembley etc. Like I say though, the specific details of the deal I wouldn't be able to predict.
4. I don't think it's an absolute given that more people will come to the new stadium to watch the NFL than Spurs. In fact, I'd say it's almost a given that the exact opposite would be true. All 8 home games are likely to sell out, I'll give you that, but even still there's still going to be more people total that come to our 30ish home games a season unless we're only getting crowds of 10k for half the games. Plus, as we've already discussed, the new franchise would either be renting the stadium in some way, or Spurs/ENIC would be minority shareholders of some form, whereas Spurs is completely their thing, so even with the extra revenue created by the NFL team, they're still going to prioritise Spurs becuase it's more in their interest to do so and they would ultimately have the power over the stadium, not the NFL. I don't see any scenario where it's in ENIC's interest to make the NFL a priority over Spurs. The NFL deal will be supplementary income to recoup the stadium cost, nothing more, nothing less. The NFL also wouldn't have that much of a leg to stand on other than threatening to leave but I can't see that happening either. The players/coaching staff etc. will all prefer having their own fixed stadium with proper NFL facilities than playing here there and everywhere in Wembley/Twickenham etc. And I'd be astonished if they build their own stadium because we all know how reluctant the NFL is to pay for any of their own shit and England doesn't have the culture of publicly funding professional sports teams stadiums (insert jokes about West Ham and the Olympic stadium here).
5. OK so "best negotiator" is probably hyperbole on my part, apologies. The fact is though, he's an extremely shrewd businessman and not someone that the NFL are going to be able to pull a fast one on. So he didn't get a binding commitment to an NFL franchise in advance, but that was always a long shot and I'm sure he probably didn't expect to get that really. That doesn't rule out that it will happen eventually though. I never once said the NFL owners were idiots did I? You're putting words in my mouth. All I meant was that I think Levy will get a deal done that is beneficial to us and that he won't get fleeced by the NFL because it's quite obvious that if/when they do move a team to London, our stadium is the best option for them.
guiltyparty
Well-Known Member
- Sep 21, 2005
- 9,023
- 13,524
I so disagree with so much of what you’re saying.
I find it even stranger that you’d dig into my admittedly vague comment when you clearly know nothing on the subject and then claim “I never said that” on one point, when my post was not aimed at or addressed to you but you felt the need to take me to task with your complete lack of info.
Where do you even start... Yes NFL is just a bit of extra money... that’s why we’re spending 1bn quid on a stadium made specifically for it when we could do it a lot cheaper without. No biggie if we don’t get it..
You sound confused. Which was my original point. The NFL hold all the cards; not us tho
'O Zio
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2014
- 7,405
- 13,785
First of all, I wasn't "taking you to task" as you put it. You made a comment on a discussion board and I was discussing it. Isn't that kind of the point? I get completely what you're saying and I'm not confused in the slightest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in short, your original point are:
- People shouldn't assume we're getting our own NFL team
- The NFL are going to take over and become the priority for the stadium and everyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot
The second point I completely disagree with and explained my reasoning for it. Some of it, as I have always made clear, is just my opinion/feeling, which I'm just as entitled to as you are to disagree with it, and some of it is based on actual facts as I've outlined in my other post. Really not sure what part of it you think I'm confused about. I don't see how you can think that the NFL will just just take over the whole stadium and become the main attraction when a) there isn't really any need for them to do so and b) ENIC/Tottenham will still own the stadium.
We're spending extra money to make an NFL-suitable stadium because we believe that we can generate more revenue from that than it costs to make, which will in turn go towards paying off the stadium. It's an investment.
I never said it wasn't a big deal if we didn't get a franchise, I think it would be, but the fact that we HAVE spent the extra money to facilitate it is surely just more evidence that there will be a team moving in at some point is it not? I don't believe that Levy wouldn't spent the money on it on the off-chance that a team moves in, so he must be fairly certain that it's going to happen.
SpunkyBackpack
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2005
- 7,831
- 9,372
I cant believe that Pochettino's book cost us an NFL franchise, how naive can you be!
- Status
Similar threads
