Future Exits?


Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
Hmmm. While I agree that ultimately redevelopment or a new stadium will be necessary, I think there is a danger of "overcapitalising" if we are not careful. A couple of points:

1. Everyone is pointing to the Scum as an example of how a new stadium allows you to improve revenue and keep/buy players. In actual fact, while that may well be true in the future, it absolutely is not true so far. They have kept/bought their players DESPITE not because of their new stadium. They have been had to be very careful over the last few years because of the cost of funding the new stadium. Their net cash flow has been severely damaged in the short term. That may well pay off in the future (unfortunately), but they have had 5 years now of shoestring budget because of it. It is only the Paedo's brillinat to lure young african kiddies to his nest that has kept their onfield success at a top four (but not title winning) level. And they are still a way off getting back to where they were.

2. The conseqences of getting it wrong on the pitch, while you are paying for the stuff around it, can be disastrous. Do you not recall all the Articles in the paper pointing out that the ability of Arsenal to fund the payment of Cashgonefurburton grove was predicated on their ability to continue to qualify for the Champions league. They were one lasagne away from missing that, and the knock on effects could have been cataclysmic. ManU's entire finance is based on the same premise, although are more likely to deliver each year because their Revenue is so much higher than those outside the top , it wasn't relegation, for those of you who want to argue). Orfour anyway, stadium or not. Leeds anyone? West Ham's Lost Generation (which had to be sold because of the crippling debt they incurred to redevelop Disney Park (no those with a memory will remember the lean years in the nineties where our own redevelopment nearly broke us. It's like any leverage: it enhances success; but it accentuates failure just as much. Are we so sure we will win enough matches to bring in enough money to pay the Bank? We played 40 last year, our most successful in ages.

3. The other clubs (apart from the Russian whores), including the Scum, all built/expanded their stadiums FOLLOWING success; not to garner it. "If you build it, they will come" is all very well for Kevin Costner, but it's a high risk play for the reasons above.

4. A big stadium (and the revenue it generates) doesn't guarantee success. The BarCodes have had one for years, in a one team town, and although they have enjoyed the revenue that brings in at times, they haven't won a thing.

Don't get me wrong, I agree we need to expand. The waiting list for Season Tickets evidences that. But we have to be cautious about it. There was no such waiting list two seasons ago.


Well-Known Member
Apr 22, 2006
Like 2bearis2do I have often wondered whether the solution might not be for the club to pay for the new Victoria Line tube station – or at least contribute so much towards it that it becomes an offer that the authorities can’t refuse. But could a station really be built for £10 million?

It was a bit of a finger in the air guess as to the cost. But if memory serves me right you wouldn't have to build entirely underground, simply have an extension from 7sisters which comes out from below the ground to above ground at the WHL station.

There are many LU stations that are above ground on the South side of the river.

If I had the time and the money I'd do a feasibility study!

I would love to know more about the inner thoughts of THFC, which buildings/houses they have bought, what blueprints they have looked at for redevelopment etc.



SC Supporter
Feb 2, 2005
3. The other clubs (apart from the Russian whores), including the Scum, all built/expanded their stadiums FOLLOWING success; not to garner it. "If you build it, they will come" is all very well for Kevin Costner, but it's a high risk play for the reasons above.

like the costner line.

cant really argue with that. all i would say is that we dont want to get left behind before its too late. With premiership clubs being bought up like krispy kremes, we could find ourselves down the rich list, and in alot sterner competition. I personally think wembley could be a solution - atleast a temporary one. But like most things, it would probably depend on us reaching the champions league. Other than the costly and time consuming redevelopment of White hart lane, i dont think there are any alternatives.


Well-Known Member
Apr 8, 2005
The existing planning permission to extend the East Stand is probably the best solution IMO. That permission will have to be renewed if we don't built it in the next couple of years (spot the nerdy Town Planner!). It will take capacity to 50,000 and whilst this doesn't quite compete with the Man Utds and Arsenals it would go a long way to get us close to being on a similar playing field. I'm honestly not sure we should have a bigger stadium anyway...this is our first UEFA campaign for 7 years yet there were empty seats at our last home fixture against Dinamo Bucharest. Not many, but there were empty seats. IF we were to have the misfortune of Jol leaving to go to another job say in 5 years just after we've moved into a new 65,000 stadium, a couple of senior players might follow and the next manager may want a clearout of several remaining players....fairly quickly the squad could change dramatically (and not necessarily for the better). It's very possible we could have an average aquad again....and I doubt if we would fill a 60,000 seater stadium every home match. I would hate to see the home of Spurs half full or even three quarters full match after match. 50,000 makes much more sense and I reckon it would be filled or close to being filled every match. Somehow (I don't care how) the transport links need to get sorted, extend The Lane and we can march with confidence into the future.


New Member
Jan 8, 2007
Hi to all the Spur true & faithful

35years a spurs fan & never been to England never seen a game live - live TV yes, but yet to enjoy the crowds passion..... will travel to London 25th of Jan .... Work & leave on 28th - so still wait a while longer, i will !

mostly just read the forums ..... read enough ... my opinion is usualy covered, very tired of B*^%it articles from suposedly honorable journalism ......... dont mind a bit of rumor mungering - but detest articles that are based on personal opinion - with out having at least atempted the minutest amount of research to substatiate their verbal dribling often hostile opinion!

Not to mention a lack of understanding with rgds to man managment, training ground form, injuries etc etc etc
All issues pertianing to team selection ...... like the lattest ofering of crap articles
Mido is out
Chimbonda to Italy
Callum davenport out - frdinand in
Defoe to be sold

All a load of bollocks
MJ has proven him self to be truthful & frank in all discussions that i have seen / herd ........
so stuff the papers stuff the bogus web sites stuff 90% of the suposed sports journalists .........

Ive just joined a site where I can talk to the fans ..... be they in the know or not ..... at least i hope their geniune Spurs !

Sorry for the rant ....... probably wont here much from me now ............ but hay no promises



Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
What Shirtfront writes about the tight cash situation at Arse*** over the past few years is correct, but that conspicuously changed about a year ago, when they started marketing the residential development on the old Highbury site "off plan". They all went like the proverbial hot cakes and for prices that exceeded expectations.

So I think the precise description would be that Arse*** had to be very careful for several years, because of the great risk they had taken, but that this risk has paid off handsomely for them, very much as in the capitalist watchword, "you have to speculate to accumulate". They are making such an enormous profit on the residential development that their borrowing on Ashburton Grove will be able to be drastically reduced and this will make their financial position very strong indeed, especially after one adds in the increased revenue from overpriced boxes and the general extra capacity.

A similar principle applies to the existing planning consent to extend WHL, of which I have never seen any details and which I thought had already expired (they last for 5 years - you actually have to start building something within that period; and now new planning consents last only 3 years, to deter developers from "sitting" on sites).

I think the club wants to assemble land near the stadium for profit-making mixed-use development, including residential units, to subsidise the cost of enlarging the stadium. One of the club directors has a paid consulting role, which I understand is to extend and develop the club's landholdings around WHL, and this can only be for associated development for profit.

So I think it is unlikely that the club will implement the existing planning consent - even if it is still valid, if they felt it was a viable option, they would have been working on it since it was granted.
Aug 9, 2006
It all comes down to the £20M you get for being in the champions league. 2 or 3 years of this would be great. There is a gulf in this country between the teams in the CL and the teams that aren't. It brings in money, it attracts good players but it doesn't stop them leaving.

We are not far from that big step that we should have had last season.

What we have to admit is that sometimes losing one player can benefit the whole of the team. the money we got for Carrick all but bought Berbs Zakora and Lennon. This for a player that is proving that he is not the class of player we require with every half game he plays for manure.

We still have the Mansion money and we are improving. Patience is the key