New Stadium Details And Discussions

[SpurSince57]

I keep hearing people going on about an athletics legacy and how its so important we keep the olympic stadium for this. My point of view is athletics is very much a minority sport in this country spectator wise it will never be able to compete with the major sports. I dont see that changing after the olympics. Yes for the next two or so years while the hype is around about the olympics we will probably see more interest in it. But lets face it once this hype dies down I dont see how they will sell 60,000 out for an athletics event like the golden league or diamond league. Didn't they struggle to sell Crystal Palace out this summer when Usan Bolt was there?! And thats only 17000!

The only times for athletics i can see it selling out is for major championships like the Olympics which will probably be another 50 odd years before we get that again after 2012 and the World and maybe European championships which in reality we will probably get in the next 10 years if they go with the West Ham proposal but again once we have staged those two events it will probably be another 15/20 years before we get them again.

Also i see West ham are proposing in there bid that Essex County cricket club play there 20/20 games there in the summer. There is no way on earth Essex will come even close to selling a 60,000 seater stadium out for a domestic 20/20 game! Look at the counties in cricket who have test match venues and youll see for the domestic 20/20 games they very rarely sell them out and most normally these grounds are about 25000 seater stadiums.

I just cant see how West Hams/ Newham council bid for this stadium is going to be financially viable as apart from for major concerts i seriously think they will struggle to sell it out for all the other events they are proposing to stage there.

What I don't understand is how what seems to be a very bare-bones stadium that has no bars and restaurants (and no toilets, some claim) cost more to build than an almost-as-large one with all these features, a hotel, a supermarket and a couple of hundred flats. Can someone explain?

The Stade de France has a tier of seating that covers the running track and can be retracted during athletics events. Was this option not examined or considered?

 

[sloth]

So, Levy has come out today and said the NDP is currently not financially viable.

If it was financially viable at £400m, it is extremely damning on his stewardship of this issue that it has become not viable due to an increase of £50m.

Every single capital project has has a contingency buffer built into it, generally in the region of 10%.

I'd love to sit down with him and go through why it is no longer financially viable. Because from where I am sitting he is either he is talking out of his arse or he is an amateur, and I never got that impression at all.

Where you're sitting is not a very neutral place. You're bound to feel negative towards Levy because on the one hand he's proposing something you really don't won't to happen and on the other he's telling you something you really want looks non-viable in the current climate.

From someone without an axe to grind however, as I haven't, his position is neither amateurish nor bollocks.

We know we need a bigger ground, the current options are redevelop WHL or move to the OS. Until recently we've done heaven and earth to redevelop WHL, but costs have spiralled and potential income plummeted.

You are deliberately one-eyed whe you come to interpreting this, more evidence of your jaundiced opinion of Levy. You're quite capable of reasoning that the £50m additional planning costs aren't the only thing which has changed since we began the NDP. You, like me, realise that we've now half the apartments to sell, but at £50m greater cost. You're also aware that inflation's running high and interest rates predicted to rise this year and perhaps rise steeply. You are also well aware that lenders will be factoring in the very likely scenario of a double-dip recession and that all of this will be reflected in perhaps as much as double the loan fees as we might have expected even 18 months ago.

A maximum exposure of £450m with most coming from private lenders at even 7% could be as much as £28m per annum in interest payments alone. But I don't think we'd get even close to 7% in the current climate, that's the rate you charge safe bets, we'd be ranked as high risk and so interest rates are going to be much closer to 10% or even 12%. As much as £48m a year then. Non-viable in other words.

But as I say, this is all stuff you're more than capable of reasoning yourself. You've just chosen not to, probably for the reasons I suggested before.

What I don't understand is how what seems to be a very bare-bones stadium that has no bars and restaurants (and no toilets, some claim) cost more to build than an almost-as-large one with all these features, a hotel, a supermarket and a couple of hundred flats. Can someone explain?

The Stade de France has a tier of seating that covers the running track and can be retracted during athletics events. Was this option not examined or considered?

All the additional cost came from Lord Coe's insistence that the stadium have an athletics legacy afterwards. Some of us have been going on about this scandal for years - long before it was anything to do with Spurs - but the politicians and the press have let him get away with, or often even facilitated, an almost criminal waste of public money.

What they should have done from the first was build the stadium with a football club in mind. In consultation with said football club, who would have contributed to the costs and ensured a suitable athletics legacy afterwards.

Coe wasn't interested, he wanted it to be solely for athletics use and hence came up with the wheeze to build a temporary outer skeleton at huge added cost, which could later be taken down to leave a 25k seat bowl.

He's still not getting any heat for that decision. It's totally disgraceful.

 

[MattyP]

Where you're sitting is not a very neutral place. You're bound to feel negative towards Levy because on the one hand he's proposing something you really don't won't to happen and on the other he's telling you something you really want looks non-viable in the current climate.

From someone without an axe to grind however, as I haven't, his position is neither amateurish nor bollocks.

We know we need a bigger ground, the current options are redevelop WHL or move to the OS. Until recently we've done heaven and earth to redevelop WHL, but costs have spiralled and potential income plummeted.

You are deliberately one-eyed whe you come to interpreting this, more evidence of your jaundiced opinion of Levy. You're quite capable of reasoning that the £50m additional planning costs aren't the only thing which has changed since we began the NDP. You, like me, realise that we've now half the apartments to sell, but at £50m greater cost. You're also aware that inflation's running high and interest rates predicted to rise this year and perhaps rise steeply. You are also well aware that lenders will be factoring in the very likely scenario of a double-dip recession and that all of this will be reflected in perhaps as much as double the loan fees as we might have expected even 18 months ago.

A maximum exposure of £450m with most coming from private lenders at even 7% could be as much as £28m per annum in interest payments alone. But I don't think we'd get even close to 7% in the current climate, that's the rate you charge safe bets, we'd be ranked as high risk and so interest rates are going to be much closer to 10% or even 12%. As much as £48m a year then. Non-viable in other words.

But as I say, this is all stuff you're more than capable of reasoning yourself. You've just chosen not to, probably for the reasons I suggested before.

The gooners borrowed £260m at 5.3% to fund their stadium development. I'm acutely aware of the difference in economic climates compared to now and the impact the difference in our performance on the pitch would have on lending, but I can assure you the interest rates we would get would be closer to 5.3% than the 10% or 12% you quote.

We would not have put through the first application if those were the sorts of figures being quoted, even with the additional 200 flats the first application had over the current scheme.

But you are correct that I am not coming from this from a neutral perspective. As someone who invests a lot of time and money in the club, as I readily admit others on here and elsewhere do and have the right to have a pro Stratford opinion, I believe it is appropriate to ask, even demand, that what is being told to us and being carefully leaked to sway opinon is justified and supportable by facts and figures.

Do I think Levy has run our club well? Yes. Do I consider him to be an astute businessman? Yes. Does that mean I'm happy to believe everything that he comes out and says when it comes to something I consider to be important? No.

If we get the bid and he adequately demonstrates that the NDP is not financially viable and that the OS will indeed deliver the £200m savings Mike Lee and David Keirle have leaked out then I will no doubt keep quiet and watch whilst they move the club to Stratford.

Until such time I do feel I / we have the right, even the duty, to question what we are being fed.

 

[ethanedwards]

What I don't understand is how what seems to be a very bare-bones stadium that has no bars and restaurants (and no toilets, some claim) cost more to build than an almost-as-large one with all these features, a hotel, a supermarket and a couple of hundred flats. Can someone explain?

The Stade de France has a tier of seating that covers the running track and can be retracted during athletics events. Was this option not examined or considered?

This is a good question, which seems to have missed by most people, basically it is a concrete bowl with a bit of scaffolding for seats, no facilities and cost £500 mill. Something smells.

 

[Lilbaz]

This is a good question, which seems to have missed by most people, basically it is a concrete bowl with a bit of scaffolding for seats, no facilities and cost £500 mill. Something smells.

The stadium only (and I use the term loosely) cost £200m. The rest was purchasing and decontaminating the land building the island etc...
What I want to know is how come all the land in London seems contaminated? Does this mean I will get super powers :grin:? Or will I just die ?

 

[StartingPrice]

So, Levy has come out today and said the NDP is currently not financially viable.

If it was financially viable at £400m, it is extremely damning on his stewardship of this issue that it has become not viable due to an increase of £50m.

Every single capital project has has a contingency buffer built into it, generally in the region of 10%.

I'd love to sit down with him and go through why it is no longer financially viable. Because from where I am sitting he is either he is talking out of his arse or he is an amateur, and I never got that impression at all.

I think the truth is it has become massively less viable financially for the very simple reason that it is now being compared with a far cheaper project.

 

[barry]

The stadium only (and I use the term loosely) cost £200m. The rest was purchasing and decontaminating the land building the island etc...
What I want to know is how come all the land in London seems contaminated? Does this mean I will get super powers :grin:? Or will I just die ?

Super powers

 

[worcestersauce]

Super powers

Ah so that's where Gareth Bale spent the other summer!

 

[ibbz]

Tottenham Hotspur, Pride of East London!

Well, at least we'll be the most successful club in East London.

I'm quite looking forward to rubbing the Spanners noses in it, and having the prestige of an Olympic Stadium as a home!

I'm also looking forward to easy fast transport links, DLR, Tube, Rail and bus accessible from anywhere in the UK and Europe (Startford being a sort of International 'terminal'.

I'm also looking forward to the fact that the Stadium dominates the skyline around Leyton, Startford and other parts of East London.

If TFL were to develop the Victoria Line, and Harringey Council did their utmost to accomodate Spurs at Tottenham High Road then all would be ok - but said organisations are a bunch of wankers so screw em!

 

[Lilbaz]

Super powers

:grin: I'm going to get x-ray vision so I can see Karren Brady's tits. Although I could just buy the Sport or get a job on the Legacy Committee. That leaves teleportation or immortality. Decisions, decisions.

Back to the debate, how is the decision going to work? These are the 5 points that need to be met:

1. To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Olympic Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money;

2. To secure a partner with the capability to deliver and operate a legacy solution for a venue of the stadium's size and complexity;

3. To re-open the stadium for operational use as rapidly as possible once the 2012 Games have finished;

4. To ensure that the stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol supporting the economic, physical and social regeneration of the surrounding area;

5. To allow flexible usage of the stadium, accommodating a vibrant programme of events that allows year-round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport.

Along with those criteria, a prerequisite for making the shortlist was to satisfy the demand for "a stadium solution that supports the intent of the London 2012 bid commitments for athletics, or proposes a credible alternative".

The bidders will also want to see as many people as possible visiting both the stadium and the park. How does our bid match up against West Hams, and which points are most important?

 

[louisg]

What I don't understand is how what seems to be a very bare-bones stadium that has no bars and restaurants (and no toilets, some claim) cost more to build than an almost-as-large one with all these features, a hotel, a supermarket and a couple of hundred flats. Can someone explain?

The Stade de France has a tier of seating that covers the running track and can be retracted during athletics events. Was this option not examined or considered?

Levy seems to think that the stadium only cost 80 million, its all other stuff that make it up to 500 million.

Who knows regarding the seating, it seems very stupid that it wasnt in the design.

 

[sloth]

The gooners borrowed £260m at 5.3% to fund their stadium development. I'm acutely aware of the difference in economic climates compared to now and the impact the difference in our performance on the pitch would have on lending, but I can assure you the interest rates we would get would be closer to 5.3% than the 10% or 12% you quote.

We would not have put through the first application if those were the sorts of figures being quoted, even with the additional 200 flats the first application had over the current scheme.

But you are correct that I am not coming from this from a neutral perspective. As someone who invests a lot of time and money in the club, as I readily admit others on here and elsewhere do and have the right to have a pro Stratford opinion, I believe it is appropriate to ask, even demand, that what is being told to us and being carefully leaked to sway opinon is justified and supportable by facts and figures.

Do I think Levy has run our club well? Yes. Do I consider him to be an astute businessman? Yes. Does that mean I'm happy to believe everything that he comes out and says when it comes to something I consider to be important? No.

If we get the bid and he adequately demonstrates that the NDP is not financially viable and that the OS will indeed deliver the £200m savings Mike Lee and David Keirle have leaked out then I will no doubt keep quiet and watch whilst they move the club to Stratford.

Until such time I do feel I / we have the right, even the duty, to question what we are being fed.

Just read what I wrote and it's was pretty pompous. Won't be the first time and certainly won't be the last. But sorry for that anyway.

 

[ethanedwards]

Levy seems to think that the stadium only cost 80 million, its all other stuff that make it up to 500 million.

Who knows regarding the seating, it seems very stupid that it wasnt in the design.

Check this one out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=8U8p52he-Fs

 

[MattyP]

Just read what I wrote and it's was pretty pompous. Won't be the first time and certainly won't be the last. But sorry for that anyway.

Not a problem mate, no need to apologise :up:

 

[Lilbaz]

Check this one out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=8U8p52he-Fs

Looks like it would be very expensive to change from athletics to football (erecting the roof etc...). Would a football team really want to scale down everytime there is an athletics meet (schools, british gran prix etc...) and then put it back up for a match?

 

[gio747]

I'm not sure what I want but one thing's for sure - If we do go to the Olympic site, we should spend the £200 million we save on hiring Steve Ovett to cut the ribbon!

 

[SpurSince57]

If TFL were to develop the Victoria Line, and Harringey Council did their utmost to accomodate Spurs at Tottenham High Road then all would be ok - but said organisations are a bunch of wankers so screw em!

Can we try this for what seems about the two hundredth time?

The Victoria Line won't be developed because it isn't cost-effective to spend millions building something which will see heavy use (or any use at all) only on Spurs match days.

Whilst I fully agree that Haringey Council can be a bunch of wankers (I've told them so often enough, if usually a tad more politely, over the past 34 years), they're probably not that much worse than most local authorities, and in this case they've done pretty near as much as they can given the current economic circumstances.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

I'm not sure what I want but one thing's for sure - If we do go to the Olympic site, we should spend the £200 million we save on hiring Steve Ovett to cut the ribbon!

We ain't saving 200m: nowhere near.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

I think the truth is it has become massively less viable financially for the very simple reason that it is now being compared with a far cheaper project.

'Far cheaper'? Really?

Basically, we don't know that.

Compare net cost of NDP with the cost of

Stratford stadium
plus Crystal Palace (not a joke proposal)
plus S106 costs of Stratford
plus S106 costs of CP
plus annual rent to OPLC
plus annual contribution to legacy fund

Suddenly it starts adding up.

Cheaper? I'd like to see the real not the spinned figures.

 

[Lilbaz]

Lets put it another way then Sotm. We will be getting a lease for 200 years for land worth £300m for next to nothing. That is worth more than our club.