What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

SpurinChicago

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2011
161
431
Tbh @SpurinChicago does have a valid point. Would it be better to invest in the team rather than the training ground and stadium?

In the short term probably yes. Buying players doesn't guarentee success but it gives you a better chance. But you do also have to pay the wages and if something goes wrong you can be in trouble.
Also, simply building a stadium doesn't mean it will be filled. While we have fantastic players today, who is to say tomorrow they will want jump ship for better wages? If we languish mid-table, are you certain people will continue to show at the prices ENIC charges? There are certainly risks with anything.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
I know fuck all about these things but you would have thought that lighting contractors would have been sorted long before, especially to work hand in hand with the builders, as the main infrastructures was being built.

I haven't a clue either but maybe the decisions were made quite some time back and are just now being "announced"...

This is another area where the "construction management" procurement, with Mace as manager, is different to a traditional building contract. There is no main contractor - Mace is responsible to procure the various subcontracts directly and they will be doing that as required, not months/years in advance. The subcontractor for the first-fix electrics will have made it clear to Mace when they need to know who will be supplying the second-fix electrics, such as lighting, and Mace will have programmed that into their procurement schedule.

Am I the only one that thinks "fuck this stupid fucking stadium?" By all accounts, it is going to cost 800 million pounds. As far as I can tell, the difference in match day revenue between us and Arsenal (the highest) is 60 million pounds. So, being kind and ignoring the time value of money, it will take at least 13 years to pay off with the additional revenue. Then, even after it is paid off, there is no competitive advantage gained. Liverpool, our closest competitor financially, still generates 100 million pounds more a year. So we aren't in a better competitive position after the stadium is paid off. Meanwhile, we sit here and cry poor while having the best team we have seen in at least 30 years. Just my .02.

Passing over the arrogant, know-it-all tone for a moment...

The £800m includes 500 flats, a museum, a hotel, the land acquisition (long since paid for), the design and planning consent process (ditto) and probably Lilywhite House and the Sainsbury's supermarket (ditto).

The only area where I have expertise is the housing. A new-build 2 bedroom flat in N17 will presently sell for between £300k and £350k. Although the flats by the stadium will command a premium, there will also be plenty of 1 bedroom flats, so let's be conservative and say £300k per flat. There are 500 flats. That's £150m of capital receipts, assuming the market stays stagnant, which it is now.

Then there are the naming rights and the sale of the rights to the hotel operator. And probably multiple other forms of sponsorship.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that a billionaire and his protégé, both of whom have decades of experience in long-term investment and property development, might have worked some of this stuff out in more detail than your knee-jerk rant on a forum.

The stadium is actually flying up!

They only have that little bit to finish to complete the ring what is the next stage after that?

It looks like its well on time

There is at least a year more work. Once the exterior shell has been completed, the job is scarcely half-done. Internal fitting takes a very long time. The superstructure is the quick, dramatic part of the work - the foundations and the fitting-out take ages, but little appears to happen.

It is impossible to tell by the apparent speed of construction on site whether the build is seriously late or ahead of schedule. You have to pore over the detailed programme to work that out. I can't tell and I have 30 years' experience in the industry.
 

SpurinChicago

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2011
161
431
Every team in the league has spent more than us on players over the last few years yet we finished 2nd. Spending money on players doesn't guarantee success.
Wages have statistically been shown to be the single greatest indicator of success. Certainly there are no guarantees. The Leicester City's of the world happen. But those tend to be outliers. As statistically we are currently. But I think it is overly optimistic to assume this will continue.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Wages have statistically been shown to be the single greatest indicator of success. Certainly there are no guarantees. The Leicester City's of the world happen. But those tend to be outliers. As statistically we are currently. But I think it is overly optimistic to assume this will continue.

Yes and wages according to most financial experts should (in football) be around 50-60% of turnover. So if we increase guaranteed (corporate is mostly guaranteed unless we become total shit) turnover by £60m a year (even if we have to pay £20m a year for the stadium), then we can have an improvement on the pitch.

Also city, utd and liverpool have paid far more in wages the last couple of years but aren't ahead of us.
 

SpurinChicago

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2011
161
431
This is another area where the "construction management" procurement, with Mace as manager, is different to a traditional building contract. There is no main contractor - Mace is responsible to procure the various subcontracts directly and they will be doing that as required, not months/years in advance. The subcontractor for the first-fix electrics will have made it clear to Mace when they need to know who will be supplying the second-fix electrics, such as lighting, and Mace will have programmed that into their procurement schedule.



Passing over the arrogant, know-it-all tone for a moment...

The £800m includes 500 flats, a museum, a hotel, the land acquisition (long since paid for), the design and planning consent process (ditto) and probably Lilywhite House and the Sainsbury's supermarket (ditto).

The only area where I have expertise is the housing. A new-build 2 bedroom flat in N17 will presently sell for between £300k and £350k. Although the flats by the stadium will command a premium, there will also be plenty of 1 bedroom flats, so let's be conservative and say £300k per flat. There are 500 flats. That's £150m of capital receipts, assuming the market stays stagnant, which it is now.

Then there are the naming rights and the sale of the rights to the hotel operator. And probably multiple other forms of sponsorship.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that a billionaire and his protégé, both of whom have decades of experience in long-term investment and property development, might have worked some of this stuff out in more details than your knee-jerk rant on a forum.



There is at least a year more work. Once the exterior shell has been completed, the job is scarcely half-done. Intertnal fitting takes a very long time. The superstructure is the quick, dramatic part of the work - the foundations and the fitting-out take ages, but little appears to happen.

It is impossible to tell by the apparent speed of construction on site whether the build is seriously late or ahead of schedule. You have to pore over the detailed programme to work that out. I can't tell and I have 30 years' experience in the industry.
No, it did occur to me. I am in finance myself. Personally think Levy is a genius, financially. And financially, this deal will probably net him, personally, close to quarter of a billion pounds when all is said and done. (Not bad on an 8 million pound real investment). What I do not see is how it helps the product or our ability to compete . I don't see how stifling spending while we have the best team we have fielded in 30 years helps us competitively, now or in the future. But thanks for your input.
 

SpurinChicago

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2011
161
431
Yes and wages according to most financial experts should (in football) be around 50-60% of turnover. So if we increase guaranteed (corporate is mostly guaranteed unless we become total shit) turnover by £60m a year (even if we have to pay £20m a year for the stadium), then we can have an improvement on the pitch.
Too true. But even then we are at the low end. So while Arsenal and Liverpool, for example, generate significantly more revenue (turnover), they are also spending a higher percentage of their revenue on wages (57% to our 52%). So even with an increase in revenue (turnover), there are no guarantees that it will even be spent on wages or players. United only spends 51% of their revenue (turnover) on wages, but their revenue dwarfs ours outside of gate receipts.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Too true. But even then we are at the low end. So while Arsenal and Liverpool, for example, generate significantly more revenue (turnover), they are also spending a higher percentage of their revenue on wages (57% to our 52%). So even with an increase in revenue (turnover), there are no guarantees that it will even be spent on wages or players. United only spends 51% of their revenue (turnover) on wages, but their revenue dwarfs ours outside of gate receipts.

If there is no guarantee that we would spend money on players if we build the stadium, there's no guarantee that money would be spent on players if we didn't build the stadium.

I'm not sure what your argument is? For better or worse we are spending money on the stadium. Enic have put in more money than they have taken out and lewis is even using tavistok to help fund the stadium (levy's letter to the london mayor confirms this).
 

chico

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2004
710
1,194
Boys and Girls, it's easy to see some merit in both points of view re stadium and costs. But remember one 1 FACT, in our old beloved WHL we hadn't won the title in 56 years, the new stadium MAY give us a better chance to rectify that ultimately disappointing fact
Let's be positive and all get behind the new stadium, as there is no going back.
 

ryantegan

Block 33 Season Ticket holder :)
Jun 28, 2009
6,014
17,841
I am not saying that there should be no investment in capital infrastructure. But in my mind, the training ground and the stadium are different kettles of fish. The training ground is designed to improve players and facilitate recruitment. There is no line item on the balance sheet that will determine the ROI. Instead, the returns are visible on the pitch. An endevour designed to improve the product (football). The stadium, on the other hand, has no affect on player improvement or recruitment. It is all balance sheet. And will be a large outflow of cash for the better part of at least a decade. But is ultimately an endevour entered into to improve the bank accounts of our ownership group.

Its about building a club with assets that maximise the buy out cost for new investors

ENIC is an investment company who will sell, dont be naive to think they wont
 

yiddopaul

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2005
3,418
6,654
Boys and Girls, it's easy to see some merit in both points of view re stadium and costs. But remember one 1 FACT, in our old beloved WHL we hadn't won the title in 56 years, the new stadium MAY give us a better chance to rectify that ultimately disappointing fact
Let's be positive and all get behind the new stadium, as there is no going back.
Yep. I cannot believe that a Spurs fan doesn't want us to have a massive brand new stadium, and only see's it as a negative. (Actually, yes I can). We're a massive club, and need a stadium to match. We have been getting left behind in recent decades stadium-wise. Clubs in the division below can have bigger stadiums than us. Very short sighted to think a new stadium is anything but positive.
 

Westmorland

Active Member
May 21, 2014
290
449
But isn't our product the football? Isn't our revenue largely generated by having a successful product? Isn't our club refusing to invest in the actual product in order to build this stadium? All of the clubs above us in earnings (save Arsenal) generate roughly the same from gate receipts. Their increased revenue is a direct or indirect result of being actually successful. Why would an investment of 800 million (or 100 million for that matter) not be better spent on the actual football? The answer seems simple:risk. There is less risk in the stadium. Building it gives ENIC a larger profit when they sell off. But as far as I can tell, using Arsenal as the closest example, there is no real competitive advantage gained. Arsenal's trophy haul is significantly diminished following their move to the Emirates. Arsenal Wenger admits that they spent the last ten years (roughly) paying it off. But their owners made a killing, so there is that.
When arsenal built their ground the tv money was 40-50m...we have just received 145m and will be approx that for next 2 seasons. Plus factor in the two seasons in champ lge which would not have been budgeted for . We got 35-40m last season..if we are as poor again we will get more as the tv money has gone up by about 30 per cent.
Next tv deal is due to be sorted by the new year. Cannot see sky and bt paying much more but the overseas deal will go up as they have done a few deals already. China deal has gone up by a multiple of 12-14 ..will be 564 m over 3 years .So no end in sight for the current gravy train. If we can get a good deal for the naming rights we will be n a very good position
 

Dunc2610

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2008
1,588
4,000
Anyone see the south stand roof truss falling down today... Did wonder how they'd get that down with the crawler cranes the other side of the new foundations, seems a couple of cheeky fireworks and wallop down it came!
 

SpurinChicago

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2011
161
431
When arsenal built their ground the tv money was 40-50m...we have just received 145m and will be approx that for next 2 seasons. Plus factor in the two seasons in champ lge which would not have been budgeted for . We got 35-40m last season..if we are as poor again we will get more as the tv money has gone up by about 30 per cent.
Next tv deal is due to be sorted by the new year. Cannot see sky and bt paying much more but the overseas deal will go up as they have done a few deals already. China deal has gone up by a multiple of 12-14 ..will be 564 m over 3 years .So no end in sight for the current gravy train. If we can get a good deal for the naming rights we will be n a very good position
But doesn't that diminish the need for increased revenue associated with a stadium? Won't other teams not building stadiums use that money to improve their team instead of allocating towards capital investments? The team we finished behind just signed their third player of the season. We currently have zero signings (if you don't count the official announcement on twitter of us signing a crane operator). But yeah. I am not oblivious everyone's points and understand where you are all coming from. I guess I harken back to the old days when the Levy line used to be "we cannot compete financially until we make Champions League money." Once that was achieved it became "we cannot compete financially until we have the new stadium." Guess I am just a little freaked out that we may lose the better parts of a once in a generation squad to build some stadium rather than trying to win the league. Granted, it may be "knee jerk."
 

Speedy

Active Member
Oct 22, 2005
642
887
Anyone see the south stand roof truss falling down today... Did wonder how they'd get that down with the crawler cranes the other side of the new foundations, seems a couple of cheeky fireworks and wallop down it came!

It certainly looks like the complexity of the north stand truss wasn't repeated! I'd love to see some pictures or video of this coming down
 

arnoldlayne

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2007
1,107
1,173
But doesn't that diminish the need for increased revenue associated with a stadium? Won't other teams not building stadiums use that money to improve their team instead of allocating towards capital investments? The team we finished behind just signed their third player of the season. We currently have zero signings (if you don't count the official announcement on twitter of us signing a crane operator). But yeah. I am not oblivious everyone's points and understand where you are all coming from. I guess I harken back to the old days when the Levy line used to be "we cannot compete financially until we make Champions League money." Once that was achieved it became "we cannot compete financially until we have the new stadium." Guess I am just a little freaked out that we may lose the better parts of a once in a generation squad to build some stadium rather than trying to win the league. Granted, it may be "knee jerk."
From what I remember, Levy & Co were talking about a new stadium/increased capacity shortly after they arrived

We have a small stadium/pitch /capacity compared to all our peers - and are being left behind - except for the genius of Pochetino

This is not for the short term - this is building for our long term future - at a time football and related investment is at an all time high

We are also building a multi-function stadium to help get our name known worldwide - NFL, concerts, bringing it up to UEFA/FIFA standards & our training ground is being used by many European clubs/England for preparation (& eventually as base)

If Levy & Co make money out of this, so what? Every owner has some agenda - Man City & Chelsea owners to get international credibility, Glazer & Co to get richer, etc.
 
Top