New Stadium Details And Discussions

[MattyP]

Stop being such a twonk mate.

The only reason there's any prospect at all of the NDP is because of Levy's financial wizardry in solving the conundrum of how to run a Premier League club without a sugar daddy, from a mid-table base of no CL and be profitable enough to consider borrowing £400m and it not be utterly crazy and still be knocking on the door of the top echelons of the club game.

The only person, imo, who's had a greater impact on his club in the last two decades is Arsene Wenger and he was starting from a place of far more potential than Levy was.

On the NDP itself. It isn't viable for a club like Spurs, owned by ENIC, without a sugar daddy, to borrow £450m for a stadium development in Tottenham. The OS is viable for all the reasons you've fought tooth and nail to deny since day one (in that at least you've been shown to be totally incorrect).

However it is simply wrong to imagine that because it is unviable for ENIC it was wrong to go down the path. If we hadn't we wouldn't have planning permission etc. As it is we're a club with a large waiting list, a too small stadium, but plans and planning permission to build a new one. If we don't get the OS, Levy's goal will be to sell the club to someone who can afford the NDP as a vanity project. He's far more likely to do so as things stand than he was previously.

The really depressing thing for me - contrary to what most think I'm sure - is that selling out to nasty billionaire torturer or murderer would really be the death of the club. I know fans don't care where the money comes from, but I do.

I also know that most think there's no difference between the way Utd or Arse have done it and the way Chelsea or City have, but I do. I think that the fans are completely irrelevant to City and Chelsea, they have nothing to do with the success of the club, they're just a bunch of gurning loons leering on from the side-lines. Their club has been stolen from under them and been turned into like nothing so much as the latest must have accessory in the Blillionaire play-boy's club.

That's the terminal event our club's soul. We'll go on supporting it, but somewhere down the track we'll all of us who remember the club before the billionaire era will realise the club we used to love is no more.

We shouldn't have had to borrow the full £450m though, arguably we should not have to borrow any more than the gooners did for the stadium section of their project - £260m at 5.9% fixed over 20 years - once naming rights, hotel, supermarket, flats and maybe a small equity contribution were taken into account.

With Levy's comments, the likelihood that we could now get the same loan, either the amount or the interest rate, I'd think would be remote. His statements have increased the risk, which will have a knock on effect on any lending decision.

As for the billionaire argument, I'd actually not have a problem with it as things stand today. If (and it is a big if but is however the premise for this paragraph) Uefa's FFP rules are actually applied, the only thing a billionaire could spunk his money on would be a new stadium, as this is excluded from the FFP rules.

 

[PT]

We shouldn't have had to borrow the full £450m though, arguably we should not have to borrow any more than the gooners did for the stadium section of their project - £260m at 5.9% fixed over 20 years.

It would be highly unlikely in the current financial market that a business model like Spurs could procure a long term loan anywhere near 5.9%.

The factor of what is affordable therefore is not the balance required to finance, so much as the rate attributed to it, rendering unaffordable repayments.

 

[StartingPrice]

I'm on the season ticket waiting list and I do say "I don't care if staying in Tottenham means no increased capacity"

1) You are 1 person (believe me, you are:roll - the waiting list is, :shrug:, 30,000. Why do you make your post as though you ahve conducted some kind of Straw-Poll and have proven me worng;

2) The point about fans with season-tickets opinions possibly differing form those on the waiting list, and those with STs not considering the attitude of those on the WL in taking a stance that, if they had their way may lead to us occupying a 36,000 apacity WHL indefinitely, was only one part of my post;

3) I started discounting your opinnion when you quoted one line of my post purporting to show I was saying something exactly the opposite of what I was saying (because it seemed to suit your purpose of claiming that anyone who doesn't adopt your hardline stance is in favour of the OS, despite the numerous occasions I have created posts directly addressed to you stating that this is not the case). And when I complained about this, and following you request for clarification of that, I provided it and you didn't have the decency to apologise. It's quite pathetic, really:roll:

 

[worcestersauce]

As for the billionaire argument, I'd actually not have a problem with it as things stand today. If (and it is a big if but is however the premise for this paragraph) Uefa's FFP rules are actually applied, the only thing a billionaire could spunk his money on would be a new stadium, as this is excluded from the FFP rules.

Ahh but where would he want that new stadium to be?

 

[sloth]

We shouldn't have had to borrow the full £450m though, arguably we should not have to borrow any more than the gooners did for the stadium section of their project - £260m at 5.9% fixed over 20 years - once naming rights, hotel, supermarket, flats and maybe a small equity contribution were taken into account.

MattyP you're one of the most reasonable, knowledgeable posters on here imo. Even on this issue, where your view is that we should stay and try do the NDP you've always put a balanced argument across. All of which is why I'm amazed that you've come up with a load of twaddle in this post.

You know extremely well the difference between the Ashburton Grove project and our own. I won't tell you a single thing you don't already know, but anyway...

Property development in Highbury is a different kettle of fish to N17, the very location of their old stadium leant itself to high end residential development.

Their project went ahead before the credit crunch. It's caled the credit crucnch for a reason and it relates directly to the lack of credit (loans) going around. This applies at the governmental level (Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc.). To interbank lending rates. To large and small business loans. To the consumer on the street. Banks and lending institutions are trying to get rid of their toxic debts not take on added liabilities.

It's salutary that Arsenal's lenders were Halifax Royal Bank of Scotland, supported by such luminaries of the banking world as Allied Irish, Bank of Ireland and Banco Espirito (Portuguese). Most of which have since been nationalised for making shockingly poor loan judgements.

So Arsenal planned to off-set their stadium build with a residential property development in salubrious Highbury at the height of the property and lending boom and in the middle of this country's longest of sustained period of growth since the second world war. At a time when banks were lending recklessly and competing with each other for business, when interest rates were low and so was inflation.

Not forgetting that Arsenal were at that time a recent Championship winning side and had qualified for the Champions League every year for the previous decade or so. They also had Wenger who'd made an art form out of selling players at their peak value and replacing them with better, younger ones.

The final nail in the comparison coffin is the fact that Arsenal only needed to borrow £250m for their project, with total cost about £100m less than our own (your assertion that we wouldn't have to borrow for the property development is false btw, we'll have to borrow to afford the development only realising the off-set on the eventual sale of the property).

So against all of the above you want to make a comparison with our own stadium project and say if they could do it, how come we can't? Come off it!!

By the way, eve with all of the advantages Arsenal's project had over the proposed NDP it was touch and go for them whether the project was viable and remember that was on the back of only a £250m loan. Check this article from 2005: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/article771187.ece

With Levy's comments, the likelihood that we could now get the same loan, either the amount or the interest rate, I'd think would be remote. His statements have increased the risk, which will have a knock on effect on any lending decision.

I don't buy your premise a jot. Banks make cold-hearted lending decision on the strength of the proposal before them. They're well aware that Chairmen have to manage the expectations of dumbwit fans. If the figures add up the we'll get the loan simple as.

Seeing as Levy's already decided that they don't think it's viable the whole thing is a moot point though. The banks won't loan the money to us because we won't be asking the to.

As for the billionaire argument, I'd actually not have a problem with it as things stand today. If (and it is a big if but is however the premise for this paragraph) Uefa's FFP rules are actually applied, the only thing a billionaire could spunk his money on would be a new stadium, as this is excluded from the FFP rules.

We'll see on that issue, judging by their spending I'm guessing Chelsea and City have some loop-hole they're planning on exploiting when it comes to the crunch.

But admittedly I am less uncomfortable with the idea of billionaire owner under financial fair-play regs.

 

[bigturnip]

The OS is viable for all the reasons you've fought tooth and nail to deny since day one (in that at least you've been shown to be totally incorrect).

I don't see how, I think only the future will hold the answers of who's been incorrect in their arguments. Financially, from Levy's comments we know that the OS isn't necessarily a cheaper option over the NDP, so I'm not sure how you can conclude I'm wrong on that point. The transport, I've always said Stratford will be better for the majority of fans, I just don't think the transport in Tottenham is anywhere near as bad as people are trying to make out.

However it is simply wrong to imagine that because it is unviable for ENIC it was wrong to go down the path. If we hadn't we wouldn't have planning permission etc. As it is we're a club with a large waiting list, a too small stadium, but plans and planning permission to build a new one. If we don't get the OS, Levy's goal will be to sell the club to someone who can afford the NDP as a vanity project. He's far more likely to do so as things stand than he was previously.

As the OS only came back on to the agenda at the end of last year, you're finally admitting that Levy's plan has been to sell the club all along.

The really depressing thing for me - contrary to what most think I'm sure - is that selling out to nasty billionaire torturer or murderer would really be the death of the club. I know fans don't care where the money comes from, but I do.

I think you'll find a lot of people care, myself included, but if a bid were on the table tomorrow that guaranteed our future in Tottenham I would bite the billionaire's arm off, the lesser of two evils.

I also know that most think there's no difference between the way Utd or Arse have done it and the way Chelsea or City have, but I do. I think that the fans are completely irrelevant to City and Chelsea, they have nothing to do with the success of the club, they're just a bunch of gurning loons leering on from the side-lines. Their club has been stolen from under them and been turned into like nothing so much as the latest must have accessory in the Blillionaire play-boy's club.

I agree, but I'd rather be thought of, by the board, as a gurning loon in Tottenham than a complicit minion in Stratford.

That's the terminal event our club's soul. We'll go on supporting it, but somewhere down the track we'll all of us who remember the club before the billionaire era will realise the club we used to love is no more.

I don't understand how you can say that a billionaire would destroy our club and then not accept that some people believe moving from Tottenham will destroy our club.

 

[bigturnip]

1) You are 1 person (believe me, you are:roll - the waiting list is, :shrug:, 30,000. Why do you make your post as though you ahve conducted some kind of Straw-Poll and have proven me worng;

I'm not sure how you concluded that, I used the word 'I' three times in that sentence, I think it's pretty obvious that I was only talking for myself.

2) The point about fans with season-tickets opinions possibly differing form those on the waiting list, and those with STs not considering the attitude of those on the WL in taking a stance that, if they had their way may lead to us occupying a 36,000 apacity WHL indefinitely, was only one part of my post;

If I replied to every point in every post, I'd be even more annoying than I am now. :razz:
I agree that the whole NDP to OS switch of focus seems quite fishy, but to say that if we don't move we would end up like Millwall is quite hysterical really.

3) I started discounting your opinnion when you quoted one line of my post purporting to show I was saying something exactly the opposite of what I was saying (because it seemed to suit your purpose of claiming that anyone who doesn't adopt your hardline stance is in favour of the OS, despite the numerous occasions I have created posts directly addressed to you stating that this is not the case). And when I complained about this, and following you request for clarification of that, I provided it and you didn't have the decency to apologise. It's quite pathetic, really:roll:

I remember, but I'm not sure I agree with your version of events, if you direct me to the posts I will revisit them and see.

 

[bigturnip]

The final nail in the comparison coffin is the fact that Arsenal only needed to borrow £250m for their project, with total cost about £100m less than our own (your assertion that we wouldn't have to borrow for the property development is false btw, we'll have to borrow to afford the development only realising the off-set on the eventual sale of the property).

What you've done here is exactly what people have been doing regarding the erroneous £200m difference between the OS and the NDP.

You are comparing Arsenal's stadium costs to our total project costs, if you look at Arsenal's whole project including the residential developments I believe the final cost was in the region of £560m, about £110m more than our own.

 

[StartingPrice]

I agree with everything you say, and the facts are the facts...it's a good post.

I just have one question: Dan Levy maintained from the start that the funds for the NDP were in place and were hedged, and totally seperate from day to day financing of the club (including transfer funds, etc). So I have to question whether you are right to put the level of borrowing so high:shrug: Even bearing in mind you point about ENIC being more reluctant to put money in, due to the changed financial climate, I am pretty certain Dan Levy gave a much lower figure for the amount that would be borrowed for the project, originally.

On the whole, however, I agree...and I do believe the council thought they had us by the short-and-curlies as they had a 'captive audience', but now the 'captive audience' is off the leash and the council-moot run a very high risk of ending up with egg on their (collective) faces, not to mention a disgruntled voting public.

That's absurd to call those figures facts, they are just plucked from thin air, besides even the figures sloth made up he has calculated incorrectly. If you're paying down the loan by £18m per year you will pay less interest each year, you won't carry on paying £45m interest per year. In the example given we would pay back £297m over the first 5 years, not £315m.

Well, thanks for taking that quote completely out of context:-|

Go back and read it again, I questioned the very figures you have questioned...the facts I was referring to were the other bits.

1 MM away from my IGNORE list for this. I'm sure you are now gonna say you don't care, but that's part of the problem - you want to come on here and puff your chest out about how you are captain loyalty and understand everything, and you don't actually pay any attention to what anyone says.

Read my post again, I said I didn't see where Sloth got his figures on debt for the NDP, not that those self-same figures were spot on.

I suppose I should judge you too much, really, it is typical journo tactics, and I'm guessing you ahve read plenty of journo inches...monkey see, monkey do:roll:

I've quoted the exact part of Sloth's post that you quoted, which part of that were you agreeing was fact?

It was a lengthty post. I ommitted the bits I agreed with. I included the bit I disagreed with. The facts I agreed with were the obstacles put in the way by EH, at he apathy from the council, etc.

Here is the relevant portion of my post, again:

"I just have one question: Dan Levy maintained from the start that the funds for the NDP were in place and were hedged, and totally seperate from day to day financing of the club (including transfer funds, etc). So I have to question whether you are right to put the level of borrowing so high:shrug: Even bearing in mind you point about ENIC being more reluctant to put money in, due to the changed financial climate, I am pretty certain Dan Levy gave a much lower figure for the amount that would be borrowed for the project, originally."

You seem to want to portray anyone who doesn't just accept your hardline approach as being pro-Stratford, no matter how many times they explain they aren't.

What really concerns me, BT, is that N_17, yourself and others, have come onto this site primarily just to push you agenda (you may have made a few posts previously, but not a lot, N_17 certainly hadn't), and instead you have managed to alienate folk who broadly agree with you, to the point where I put N_17 on ignore, and, because of the above exchange, pretty much felt like doing the same for you.

As I said to N_17, ad nauseam, 'asking questions' isn't just asking negative questions and putting a negative spin on everything. And, as I have said to you literally dozens of times, continually claiming that you ARE in favour of the club progressing and ARE in favour of the club increasing the capacity of the stadium, just does not equate with taking such a hardline approach that the automatic causal consequence would be being stuck in a 36,000 stadium and the limited success we have had so far atrophying. In order to be taken seriously in a debate you have to be able to consider seriously the counter-arguments your opponents provide you with, not look for an easy (but apparent to anyone who knows where to look) angle to attack it form without the slightest consideration as to whether it should adjust, ameliorate or amend your initial position. And you need to be able to ask these questions yourself - even if it uncomfortable to do so.

 

[MattyP]

MattyP you're one of the most reasonable, knowledgeable posters on here imo. Even on this issue, where your view is that we should stay and try do the NDP you've always put a balanced argument across. All of which is why I'm amazed that you've come up with a load of twaddle in this post.

You know extremely well the difference between the Ashburton Grove project and our own. I won't tell you a single thing you don't already know, but anyway...

Property development in Highbury is a different kettle of fish to N17, the very location of their old stadium leant itself to high end residential development.

Their project went ahead before the credit crunch. It's caled the credit crucnch for a reason and it relates directly to the lack of credit (loans) going around. This applies at the governmental level (Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc.). To interbank lending rates. To large and small business loans. To the consumer on the street. Banks and lending institutions are trying to get rid of their toxic debts not take on added liabilities.

It's salutary that Arsenal's lenders were Halifax Royal Bank of Scotland, supported by such luminaries of the banking world as Allied Irish, Bank of Ireland and Banco Espirito (Portuguese). Most of which have since been nationalised for making shockingly poor loan judgements.

So Arsenal planned to off-set their stadium build with a residential property development in salubrious Highbury at the height of the property and lending boom and in the middle of this country's longest of sustained period of growth since the second world war. At a time when banks were lending recklessly and competing with each other for business, when interest rates were low and so was inflation.

Not forgetting that Arsenal were at that time a recent Championship winning side and had qualified for the Champions League every year for the previous decade or so. They also had Wenger who'd made an art form out of selling players at their peak value and replacing them with better, younger ones.

The final nail in the comparison coffin is the fact that Arsenal only needed to borrow £250m for their project, with total cost about £100m less than our own (your assertion that we wouldn't have to borrow for the property development is false btw, we'll have to borrow to afford the development only realising the off-set on the eventual sale of the property).

So against all of the above you want to make a comparison with our own stadium project and say if they could do it, how come we can't? Come off it!!

By the way, eve with all of the advantages Arsenal's project had over the proposed NDP it was touch and go for them whether the project was viable and remember that was on the back of only a £250m loan. Check this article from 2005: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/article771187.ece

I don't buy your premise a jot. Banks make cold-hearted lending decision on the strength of the proposal before them. They're well aware that Chairmen have to manage the expectations of dumbwit fans. If the figures add up the we'll get the loan simple as.

Seeing as Levy's already decided that they don't think it's viable the whole thing is a moot point though. The banks won't loan the money to us because we won't be asking the to.

We'll see on that issue, judging by their spending I'm guessing Chelsea and City have some loop-hole they're planning on exploiting when it comes to the crunch.

But admittedly I am less uncomfortable with the idea of billionaire owner under financial fair-play regs.

Firstly, thanks for the compliment to start of with :up:

Couple of things to say in response to your points.

Ar5ena1's stadium project cost £390m, including a new waste and recycling centre and relocation of existing businesses.

The Highbury Square development cost £150m.

So, comparing like for like, the costs of the overall projects would be £540m for theirs, £450m for ours.

Yes, we would have to borrow to finance the final phase of our project, I am aware of that, however just like the Highbury Square development, which has now been fully paid off, this would not be a long term, ongoing debt and for that reason I have excluded it.

I fully appreciate the different financial world we live in now compared to when the Emirates was developed.

But it is still the most valid comparison, as it has the most similarities to our proposed scheme.

Is it realistic to think that we could get the same amount, under the same terms and conditions as they did? Probably not.

But isn't our Chairman known for driving a hard negotiation, of getting the best deal? If anyone can get the same deal, I genuinely believe it would be Levy.

I'd assume bringing in someone from Golman Sachs as a non executive Director was to open up more possibilities in the financial markets.

As I have said before, from the information that's in the public domain, it would seem that the largest single thing that has made the NDP go from being viable to not is the reduction in the number of flats from 434 to abour 200, from the first application to the second.

This funding shortfall could be addressed in any number of ways. For a start, the gooners tried to renegotiate their naming rights as they perceived it was too low. So, the comparison with the amount they received compared to what master negotiator Levy could extract could be too conservative.

It could be addressed through an equity contribution.

They could even offer fans the opportunity to have a brick, or a plaque, with their names on it in the stadium in exchange for a grand or two. Would only need 10,000 at £1k a pop to raise £10m. I'd happily pay a grand for that, if that was the difference between staying in Tottenham or not.

I'm not suggesting financing the NDP would ever be an easy thing to do, far from it. What I suspect is that in order for it to be financially viable, Enic would have to contribute more than they thought they would have to in order to address some of the changes that have happened since the first application.

That's perfectly reasonable for them to think that, as they are the owner and therefore have the right to determine that having to contribute £x out of their own pocket is a step too far.

 

[sloth]

I don't see how, I think only the future will hold the answers of who's been incorrect in their arguments. Financially, from Levy's comments we know that the OS isn't necessarily a cheaper option over the NDP, so I'm not sure how you can conclude I'm wrong on that point. The transport, I've always said Stratford will be better for the majority of fans, I just don't think the transport in Tottenham is anywhere near as bad as people are trying to make out.

Here are the facts BT:

* Levy wants a bigger stadium.
* Levy has bid for the OS and says we'll go ahead with it if we get it.
* Levy has said the NDP is non-viable.

So why, in your opinion, is the OS viable but the NDP non-viable?

As the OS only came back on to the agenda at the end of last year, you're finally admitting that Levy's plan has been to sell the club all along.

I've never denied that selling the club is on the agenda, I think it has since the day ENIC bought the club. I believe Levy was originally trying to sell to Abramovich all those years ago, wasn't he? The only money any major investment like ENIC's in THFC PLC is going to make is through the sale of the club.

I deny your specific, unsubstantiated rumour-mongering that ENIC only want the OS to sell to [insert someone rich].

I think you'll find a lot of people care, myself included, but if a bid were on the table tomorrow that guaranteed our future in Tottenham I would bite the billionaire's arm off, the lesser of two evils.

I think that's shows where your understanding of what's important as gone completely skew whiff. I don't think any football club is rooted in a particular area. I think it's rooted near wherever the majority of their match-day supporters live.

History is full of clubs which have moved about (our own club being one of them), those clubs continue to be thought of in the same way by their match going supporters providing they're close enough to where those supporters live to feel like it's their club. The OS has no problem on that score. If Levy moved us to Glasgow there'd be a big problem.

Anyway, I don't think you're close to being right. WHL is important, but it's no where near being the most important thing. Moving (provided it follows the above strictures) is a million times less dangerous to the soul of the club than a Billionaire play-boy buying us up.

Right now you're up in arms because you feel you're being disregarded by the club. But you have a voice and feel you should, because you're directly relevant to the clubs success. When/if a billionaire buys us you become pointless. He won't need you. Why should he listen to what you say. The fans become a complete irrelevance.

I agree, but I'd rather be thought of, by the board, as a gurning loon in Tottenham than a complicit minion in Stratford.

It's not "thought of", it's all you will be. At Stratford you remain relevant, the club's success is still dependent on you (well not you because you won't be there; but the rest of us fans), you matter.

I don't understand how you can say that a billionaire would destroy our club and then not accept that some people believe moving from Tottenham will destroy our club.

See above.

All I'd add is that irony of ironies, if we remain I think the chances of us being bought by a billionaire increase (if we remain an attractive enough proposition I'm sure ENIC will sell), in that scenario what money would you bet that he would simply move us out of Tottenham and dump us wherever the hell he wanted to? How much less important does the fans voice become when they're not required any more?

What you've done here is exactly what people have been doing regarding the erroneous £200m difference between the OS and the NDP.

You are comparing Arsenal's stadium costs to our total project costs, if you look at Arsenal's whole project including the residential developments I believe the final cost was in the region of £560m, about £110m more than our own.

A bit of further investigation (thanks to wiki) shows total cost for Ashburton Grove to be £470m (if that's not accurate can you provide your sources.)

They raised about £250m from banks which they later managed to switch to bonds.

Bonds issues rely on a market prepared to buy of course. Not sure if we'd find that today. Certainly not at 5.5%.

It also appears they built about 2000 homes, quite a few more than our 250 or so.

And of course there's also all those differences I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[bigturnip]

What really concerns me, BT, is that N_17, yourself and others, have come onto this site primarily just to push you agenda (you may have made a few posts previously, but not a lot, N_17 certainly hadn't), and instead you have managed to alienate folk who broadly agree with you, to the point where I put N_17 on ignore, and, because of the above exchange, pretty much felt like doing the same for you.

As I said to N_17, ad nauseam, 'asking questions' isn't just asking negative questions and putting a negative spin on everything. And, as I have said to you literally dozens of times, continually claiming that you ARE in favour of the club progressing and ARE in favour of the club increasing the capacity of the stadium, just does not equate with taking such a hardline approach that the automatic causal consequence would be being stuck in a 36,000 stadium and the limited success we have had so far atrophying. In order to be taken seriously in a debate you have to be able to consider seriously the counter-arguments your opponents provide you with, not look for an easy (but apparent to anyone who knows where to look) angle to attack it form without the slightest consideration as to whether it should adjust, ameliorate or amend your initial position. And you need to be able to ask these questions yourself - even if it uncomfortable to do so.

Firslty, please don't put me in the same category as N_17, I disagreed with most of his posts, especially over him trying to bring the betrayal of Bill Nicholson's memory into the argument, even if I agreed with his view of staying in Tottenham.

Secondly I had made quite a few posts over a number of years on this site, not in the thousands like others (I actually get out sometimes :razz, but the majority of my posts were made before I got involved in the new stadium debate.

I do apologise if I misinterpreted your quote, but I certainly didn't misquote you, when you said "I agree with everything you say" I didn't realise that you actually meant "I agree with some of what you say".

Of course I am in favour of the club progressing and increasing capacity, but I am also in favour of Tottenham staying in Tottenham. It's just a question of which order you prioritise things, I put staying in Tottenham at the top of my list, I guess you put progress at the top of yours. I'm not suggesting there's not a good chance of Stratford Hotspur progressing if the board win their bid for the OS, but I also believe the club can progress in Tottenham, maybe not to the same extent, who knows, but I'm happy to make that sacrifice to retain the club I love.

It is well known that my view is to stay in Tottenham at all costs, so there is no chance of me changing my position based on counter-arguments read here or anywhere else. I do agree with counter-arguments sometimes, like I agree transport will be better for most fans in Stratford, I agree that being in the Olympic Park will carry a bit of weight regarding a few extra corporate and tourist fans, maybe even a bit more sponsorship. I just don't believe that there is a counter-argument strong enough to move Tottenham out of Tottenham.

I think the main sticking point at the moment is that those of us who are anti-Stratford have, to varying degrees, a distrust of our great leader, therefore it's hard for us to see counter-arguments based upon his words as anything other than just more spin.

 

[bigturnip]

Here are the facts BT:

* Levy wants a bigger stadium.
* Levy has bid for the OS and says we'll go ahead with it if we get it.
* Levy has said the NDP is non-viable.

So why, in your opinion, is the OS viable but the NDP non-viable?

I can't answer that because I, like everybody else, don't have the figures, all I am saying is that you can't categorically state that I am wrong, because we simply don't know.

I've never denied that selling the club is on the agenda, I think it has since the day ENIC bought the club. I believe Levy was originally trying to sell to Abramovich all those years ago, wasn't he? The only money any major investment like ENIC's in THFC PLC is going to make is through the sale of the club.

I deny your specific, unsubstantiated rumour-mongering that ENIC only want the OS to sell to [insert someone rich].

I think they'll sell to whoever offers them the best price, regardless of whether they are rich or financing it with massive debts, I just think that DL feels he can get a better price by having the OS on the table

I think that's shows where your understanding of what's important as gone completely skew whiff. I don't think any football club is rooted in a particular area. I think it's rooted near wherever the majority of their match-day supporters live.

Well that is the crux of where we differ, I think the location is the top priority, you don't.

History is full of clubs which have moved about (our own club being one of them), those clubs continue to be thought of in the same way by their match going supporters providing they're close enough to where those supporters live to feel like it's their club. The OS has no problem on that score. If Levy moved us to Glasgow there'd be a big problem.

Yes, but we have always been in the same community, Tottenham, moving anywhere else would make us a franchise. And quite frankly I don't really care what other clubs have done in the past, all I care about is what this club does.

Anyway, I don't think you're close to being right. WHL is important, but it's no where near being the most important thing. Moving (provided it follows the above strictures) is a million times less dangerous to the soul of the club than a Billionaire play-boy buying us up.

And I don't think you're right that moving to Stratford is important, I agree that I don't want a billionaire playboy buying us up, but there is surely just as much danger of that happening in Stratford.

Right now you're up in arms because you feel you're being disregarded by the club. But you have a voice and feel you should, because you're directly relevant to the clubs success. When/if a billionaire buys us you become pointless. He won't need you. Why should he listen to what you say. The fans become a complete irrelevance.

It's not "thought of", it's all you will be. At Stratford you remain relevant, the club's success is still dependent on you (well not you because you won't be there; but the rest of us fans), you matter.

Again, I don't want us to be bought by a playboy billionaire, but why do you think this is more likely to happen if DL loses the OS bid?

See above.

All I'd add is that irony of ironies, if we remain I think the chances of us being bought by a billionaire increase (if we remain an attractive enough proposition I'm sure ENIC will sell), in that scenario what money would you bet that he would simply move us out of Tottenham and dump us wherever the hell he wanted to? How much less important does the fans voice become when they're not required any more?

I should really learn to read your whole post before responding to each paragraph:razz: Ignore my question above. I still don't see how Tottenham with planning permission for the NDP is more attractive to a billionaire playboy than Stratford with the OS. But has Abramovich moved Chelsea and have Man City moved since their sugar daddies took over? Do they even look likely to?

A bit of further investigation (thanks to wiki) shows total cost for Ashburton Grove to be £470m (if that's not accurate can you provide your sources.)

They raised about £250m from banks which they later managed to switch to bonds.

Bonds issues rely on a market prepared to buy of course. Not sure if we'd find that today. Certainly not at 5.5%.

It also appears they built about 2000 homes, quite a few more than our 250 or so.

And of course there's also all those differences I mentioned in my previous post.

I've never really been involved in comparing our stadium with Arsenal's, although I'm sure you can find a quote or two to disprove that, I don't really care what they did, just what we do. I was just pointing out that like with NDP vs OS you weren't using comparable figures.

 

[StartingPrice]

Firslty, please don't put me in the same category as N_17, I disagreed with most of his posts, especially over him trying to bring the betrayal of Bill Nicholson's memory into the argument, even if I agreed with his view of staying in Tottenham.

Secondly I had made quite a few posts over a number of years on this site, not in the thousands like others (I actually get out sometimes :razz, but the majority of my posts were made before I got involved in the new stadium debate.

I do apologise if I misinterpreted your quote, but I certainly didn't misquote you, when you said "I agree with everything you say" I didn't realise that you actually meant "I agree with some of what you say".

Of course I am in favour of the club progressing and increasing capacity, but I am also in favour of Tottenham staying in Tottenham. It's just a question of which order you prioritise things, I put staying in Tottenham at the top of my list, I guess you put progress at the top of yours. I'm not suggesting there's not a good chance of Stratford Hotspur progressing if the board win their bid for the OS, but I also believe the club can progress in Tottenham, maybe not to the same extent, who knows, but I'm happy to make that sacrifice to retain the club I love.

It is well known that my view is to stay in Tottenham at all costs, so there is no chance of me changing my position based on counter-arguments read here or anywhere else. I do agree with counter-arguments sometimes, like I agree transport will be better for most fans in Stratford, I agree that being in the Olympic Park will carry a bit of weight regarding a few extra corporate and tourist fans, maybe even a bit more sponsorship. I just don't believe that there is a counter-argument strong enough to move Tottenham out of Tottenham.

I think the main sticking point at the moment is that those of us who are anti-Stratford have, to varying degrees, a distrust of our great leader, therefore it's hard for us to see counter-arguments based upon his words as anything other than just more spin.

I apologise that you are being lumped in with N_17...but you do both belong to the 'Tottenham at any and all costs and against all arguments' brigade.

Not to worry about your getting out, I do fine myself. I just happen to have my own agenda, priorites and manner of organising my life which allows me to devote a lot of time to being part of the Spurs community. I actually walk everywhere, everyday I cover about 1 1/2 (half of it with a bag filled - literally -with books on my back). I also work for payment in kind (see above), but in a totally informal setting (so that if I decide not to go in I don't), doing something I really enjoy. I then work form home - meaning I have plenty of time to 'pop onto SC' - seen as I am working on the computer anyway. Before that I worked in a Museum, where I was pretty much my own boss, with only the Curator above me, in an office all off by itself, complete trust form the boss, and only seeing him (often) once in 3 or 4 days, when he would pop his head round the door to see if everything was okay - I'm sure that you understand that in these circumstances it was easy for me to pretty much spend my working life logged into SC. Onthe other hand, I didn't have the Internet at home, and worked (and work) on several academic projects of my own. As for 'getting out' in other ways - I almost literally spent the first 32 years of my life in pubs, clubs and nightclubs (SP was a bit 'naughty' in a previous existence) so IMHO I get a pass on the fact that I CHOOSE to stay away form pubs these days. Though not for lack of opportunites:wink: So, glad you are happy, but, cheap jibe FAIL I'm afraid:grin:

Yeah, you did misinterpret me - perhaps my position would have been made clearer if I had said "I agree with you in a wider, general sense" - but thought, after this amount of time debating this matter that we all knew that and so it was a 'given'. I wasn't being tendentious about the facts, just saying those facts that are so are not up for debate - bit of a truism, I'm afraid - none of us is perfect:wink: So, in other words, I was asserting that in a general sense I agree with him, and wasn't debating facts, but on that occasion was taking a position moe akin to your own as Dan Levy did say certian specifics which did not equate with what he is saying now, or with what Sloth as estimating in his costing of the NDP - as you will if you have reread the post in question.

I think you still haven't quite got my position right. It is this:
Stay in Tottenham if at all possible and agitate for the development of the NDP (regardless of DLs claim that it is no longer viable) with all of our collective lobbying powers. Failing this, move for a relocation as close to Tottenham as possible. Grudgingly go along with OS if all else fails and club goes ahead with it regardless.

I do believe ENIC will sell, eventually, and so will probably do what is in their best interests. But I also believe DL when he says he is a lifelong fan who will not sell the club unless it is in the club's best interests. And that, I think is the sticking point - not that I believe every word that comes out of DLs mouth, but that I believe in his general sentiment to do what is in the club's best interests.

As i have said, I would willingly sign a carefully worded petitionj, just not oen that says we MUST stay in Tottenham atall costs. And, quite frankly, now that the protest movement has had it's collective voice hear and caught the attention of DL et al, I do wish they would just shut up at matches now and deal with through channels, rather than engender even the slightest risk that it might unsettle players during games.

 

[sloth]

There's three main discussion points in your post:

* The sale of the club and the impact on the value and the intention to sell if we move to the OS rather than remain in N17

* The purpose for comparing Arsenal's stadium development with the proposed NDP.

* Whether Spurs becomes a franchise if it moves.

I've clumped your various paragraphs together to reflect this.

In turn then:

I think they'll sell to whoever offers them the best price, regardless of whether they are rich or financing it with massive debts, I just think that DL feels he can get a better price by having the OS on the table

And I don't think you're right that moving to Stratford is important, I agree that I don't want a billionaire playboy buying us up, but there is surely just as much danger of that happening in Stratford.

Again, I don't want us to be bought by a playboy billionaire, but why do you think this is more likely to happen if DL loses the OS bid?

I still don't see how Tottenham with planning permission for the NDP is more attractive to a billionaire playboy than Stratford with the OS. But has Abramovich moved Chelsea and have Man City moved since their sugar daddies took over? Do they even look likely to?

1. Levy has told us he's more likely to sell if we remain than if we move. We know he's a track record of telling us only what suits his purpose so we should maybe take this with a pinch of salt. It is evidence nonetheless and I'd be more inclined to think he's on the whole truthful than a bullshitter.

2. If we don't move and we can't afford the NDP then I'd say that ENIC will have gone about as far as they can with Spurs. If I was them and without a plan for growth I'd be looking to get out asap.

3. The only creditable buyer in this scenario is a billionaire play-boy type. Without a business case it can only be a vanity project.

3. If we get the OS there may be buyers but the motive to sell will be far lower for ENIC (unless they get a stupid offer in the £.5bn - £.75bn range; not going to happen). With a strategy for growth and the fact that Levy clearly enjoys his job and is a Spurs fan (by all accounts), it's worth ENIC seeing it through until we really are worth near the price bracket.

4. At the OS we attract all sorts of potential investment, not just the mafiosa/torturing/robbing/murdering/despots/tyrants types.

5. Specifically on your point re Chelsea and City. City recently moved. Chelsea haven't but with UEFA regs coming in they're proposing to move to Kensington Olympia. The Sheik's different from the oil baron however, in that the Sheik's dough is safe enough in his home country whereas Abramovich will have wanted to get his into the regulated European markets swiftish. There's also the advantage to some of these guys in the way that money circulates quickly when you make a few high value purchases (as happens with players or fine art for example), which you can then sell on quickly.

I've never really been involved in comparing our stadium with Arsenal's, although I'm sure you can find a quote or two to disprove that, I don't really care what they did, just what we do. I was just pointing out that like with NDP vs OS you weren't using comparable figures.

I think I rectified that in the post this is a reply to. They are comparable, there seem to be roughly the same over all costs, but we can surmise that Arsenal's project was far more viable than our own for all the reasons previously gone into.

This is important to the debate because their project, as fraught with difficulty as it was, can be seen to be a far more viable proposition than our own.

It trumps it in every way, from over all cost (including cost of borrowing), to eventual income from the development through property sales and the like. If you want to understand how come the NDP is not viable, just look at how close Ashburton Grove (with all its advantages over the NDP) came to non viability.

Yes, but we have always been in the same community, Tottenham, moving anywhere else would make us a franchise. And quite frankly I don't really care what other clubs have done in the past, all I care about is what this club does.

To understand whether we'd be a franchise perhaps it's worth considering what a franchise sport team is. There's a wiki article on the concept here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(sports) but in case you can't be bothered here it is boiled down.

In the States they're called franchises, but they're not a franchise in the business sense, it's just they have a similarity to it.

They are similar in that the organising League (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS etc) determines the number of teams and which cities they play out of.

It awards these licences to the owners of teams who play in their competition. They determine on a basis of geography how many teams can play in each region or city of the country.

If you purchase an American sports team you are said to have purchased the franchise (or licence) from the particular league to play in that league.

The reason people are getting confused is because they're mixing up the fact that from time ti time US sports teams move city with the term franchise.

They are not called franchises because they move. Their moving about is something completely different from the franchise system. It is simply because the rules of the leagues which operate the franchise system allow for clubs to move as long as it's not into another area which would compete with an existing club.

Indeed, if they had the franchise system over here they probably would have prevented Arsenal moving all those years ago, would prevent Spurs moving to the OS and may even insist on a couple of the London clubs moving out of London.

Moving then, does not in any sense turn us into a franchise. It does bring us closer to the old English tradition of "Wanderer" football clubs, however.

 

[sloth]

Firstly, thanks for the compliment to start of with :up:

Couple of things to say in response to your points.

Ar5ena1's stadium project cost £390m, including a new waste and recycling centre and relocation of existing businesses.

The Highbury Square development cost £150m.

So, comparing like for like, the costs of the overall projects would be £540m for theirs, £450m for ours.

Yes, we would have to borrow to finance the final phase of our project, I am aware of that, however just like the Highbury Square development, which has now been fully paid off, this would not be a long term, ongoing debt and for that reason I have excluded it.

I fully appreciate the different financial world we live in now compared to when the Emirates was developed.

But it is still the most valid comparison, as it has the most similarities to our proposed scheme.

Is it realistic to think that we could get the same amount, under the same terms and conditions as they did? Probably not.

But isn't our Chairman known for driving a hard negotiation, of getting the best deal? If anyone can get the same deal, I genuinely believe it would be Levy.

I'd assume bringing in someone from Golman Sachs as a non executive Director was to open up more possibilities in the financial markets.

As I have said before, from the information that's in the public domain, it would seem that the largest single thing that has made the NDP go from being viable to not is the reduction in the number of flats from 434 to abour 200, from the first application to the second.

This funding shortfall could be addressed in any number of ways. For a start, the gooners tried to renegotiate their naming rights as they perceived it was too low. So, the comparison with the amount they received compared to what master negotiator Levy could extract could be too conservative.

It could be addressed through an equity contribution.

They could even offer fans the opportunity to have a brick, or a plaque, with their names on it in the stadium in exchange for a grand or two. Would only need 10,000 at £1k a pop to raise £10m. I'd happily pay a grand for that, if that was the difference between staying in Tottenham or not.

I'm not suggesting financing the NDP would ever be an easy thing to do, far from it. What I suspect is that in order for it to be financially viable, Enic would have to contribute more than they thought they would have to in order to address some of the changes that have happened since the first application.

That's perfectly reasonable for them to think that, as they are the owner and therefore have the right to determine that having to contribute £x out of their own pocket is a step too far.

If the total project cost £540m and from that they got 2000 flats and apartments in upmarket Highbury then at a profit of say £100k per flat they made £200m right there. Compare that with our 250 apartments in N17 and even if we assume they make the same £100k a flat (not credible but anyway...), then we get £25m. That's an order of magnitude different, even assuming the generous assumption that flats in Tottenham are going to fetch similar profit to those in Highbury.

What's also interesting is that Arsenal only needed to borrow £250m. That says to me that they had about £300m from the company to put towards the project (we know £100m from the sponsorship), I can't imagine that we'd have anything like that amount to put towards the NDP. Or do you think we might?

 

[MattyP]

If the total project cost £540m and from that they got 2000 flats and apartments in upmarket Highbury then at a profit of say £100k per flat they made £200m right there. Compare that with our 250 apartments in N17 and even if we assume they make the same £100k a flat (not credible but anyway...), then we get £25m. That's an order of magnitude different, even assuming the generous assumption that flats in Tottenham are going to fetch similar profit to those in Highbury.

What's also interesting is that Arsenal only needed to borrow £250m. That says to me that they had about £300m from the company to put towards the project (we know £100m from the sponsorship), I can't imagine that we'd have anything like that amount to put towards the NDP. Or do you think we might?

Forgive me, but according to the Ar5ena1 accounts, the Highbury Square development was for approx 730 flats, not the 2,000 you have referred to a couple of times.

I do know that they had some other residential developments, but on a much smaller scale than Highbury Square, so genuinely can't see how they could get up to 2,000.

Also, looking at their 2007 accounts they state that delivering the Emirates cost them £430m in total (excluding the residential) not the £390m they state elsewhere on their website.

But I do take your point that the residential has boosted their coffers more than the 200 flats we've got outline planning permission would ours.

As for the respective funding gaps, they did have £63m in the bank at the end of their year end in 2005, they also obtained £15m from selling catering rights to the Emirates which went into fitting out that side of their new stadium, as well as a £30m injection of cash from issuing new shares to Granada in that year.

So, whilst they had a decent amount of cash in the bank before they started, they were quite creative in getting even more cash in.

Our cash position per the last set of accounts was only £11m, though this was before any money from Champions League.

Don't forget though that we are also building a new training complex - I suspect this has to be having an effect on the availability of cash/financing. Whilst that should "only" cost £30m and may/may not be partially funded by selling Spurs Lodge, it'll have a knock on effect in the short term.

 

[ibbz]

I'm absolutely not interested in anything Levy has to say, nor his arguments for the OS.

I absolutely do NOT wish to even move adjacent to the current stadium.

I absolutely wish to stay put and wish some one would come up with an economically viable and efficient idea of rejuvenating the current stadium, and I'm not bothered whether we have 40k or 60k, Tottenham Hotspur FC and its past and present and future all belong in its HOME - which is our current stadium.

I will never be happy about any move.

Chumps League or whatever, a lower attendance figure will not mean we'll be in any way an inferior club, and attracting new supporters, or investment is the way of big business and not of our beloved club and its history which is intrinsic to the stadium it currently plays in.

I watch Spurs because it's the club I love, I'd watch Spurs even if we were in League 2, and I do not wish for our club to sell out to Big Business, just for the sake of the Chumps League - its such a shit philosophy which has turned the FA Cup into a joke and which means a 4th place finish is an achievement rather than honours and football for footballs sake.

Fuck Levy, the Chumps League the EPL and all it stands for - and pillory me as much as you want, I don't care!

NO TO STRATFORD!

 

[ibbz]

:clap:

And just to add this.....

Levy harps on about only having the TEAMS interest at heart, and nothing to do with just making money...then why have we failed to buy a decent striker in the TWO transfer windows since we qualified for the CL?

Many fans will be suspiciuos as to why we didn't take advantage of the carrot of CL to offer and buy.....On one hand levy says we must move to stay in touch...and then doesn't give harry and the team the boost of a world class striker, massively damaging our chances of top 4...is he really ambitions or not anymore?.....that is why some are worried that the OS maybe part of a different plan which he may not be around to see.

Don't give me all that crap that he tried on the last day...anyone with half a brain will not really believe he went on the last day really expecting top players to sing to his tune and jump in his waiting helecopter cos we are so irresistable, even their wages we wouldn't meet.... even Barca or real couldn't have pulled that off.

Something doesn't add up, our transfer policy, our stadium policy...it is all abit shady IMO.

I have always been a big fan of levy, and i hope i have egg on my face and levy has no intention of moving us to sell out....but i love spurs too much to blindly follow any chairman and not question his motives untill its too late

especially when i see him doing things that don't quite feel right.

:clap:

Excellent response man!

Another reason for my rebellion and rejection of these tits and their ideas

 

[SpurSince57]

http://www.highburysquare.com/

Maybe a quarter or more of these apartments were flogged off to a couple of property companies as a job lot at well below the market rate. Prices are on the steep side, to put it mildly:

http://homes.trovit.co.uk/stadium-highbury-square-apartments-sale

In Tottenham, flats go at well below half that (even a three-bedroom place will only be about £200k). Depending on the amenities for residents, the ones Spurs are planning may go higher than that, but I don't think it would be for much more. The impression one gets from the CABE assessment is that the original design was pretty crap, so that although there were originally to have been twice as many properties, the club wouldn't necessarily have made twice the money.

Part of the scheme was that the club would develop more flats on the Sainsbury's site. What will happen to this idea?

And there are still things that don't ring right. I was talking to a local businessman yesterday morning, and he told me that there are just three properties that the club hasn't bought up, two scaggy garages on Northumberland Park and the Archway Sheet Metal Works; this was what I thought, but what I hadn't previously heard was that the guy who owns Archway spent a lot of money improving his premises the moment he got a whiff of Spurs' plans—obviously, to screw the club for as much as possible. I still find it difficult to believe Levy when he claims it could take 'years' for a CPO to go through; or rather, I find it difficult to believe he's only just found this out. And that's really going to encourage some other developer to come in, isn't it?

I also find it hard to credit that we didn't sound out English Heritage on the subject of Warmington House long before the plans were made public. You own a Grade 2 Listed Building you want to flatten; doesn't it occur to you that EH may take a dim view of this? Either Levy is far less astute than we think, or he's being a little economical with the truth; which of those do we believe?