Spur-of-the-moment
Well-Known Member
- Jul 26, 2003
- 669
- 276
On the five OPLC criteria, Wham were better on at least three. In addition the athletics people were publicly in favour of the Wham bid. The uphill struggle was therefore on the criteria as well as public perception.
The only way Spurs could turn this around was, first, to address the criteria, the most important of which was the issue of regeneration. To do that, they had to form alliances with local bodies and promise money. Second, they had to please the athletics lobby with a super-duper Crystal Palace facility, together with a serious investment in local public transport. They might have done better with the former, with some more commitment of funds, perhaps, but Wham and Newham were already involved with the local people and, with this head start, Spurs weren't likely to catch up. On the latter, the spending required for Athletics would have compromised the financial advantages of Stratford for Spurs.
But the most important point to make about both of these major issues is that behind-the-scenes lobbying was not going to work without more investment. This would have had to be associated with a public campaign in order to turn around the public and political attitudes.
Several folks on here have argued that Stratford was going to be significantly better financially for THFC than the NDP, either in terms of stadium costs, or in terms of associated development, or in terms of commercial (corporate and sponsorship) opportunities. Leaving aside the doubts about added commercial revenue, let's say for the moment that it was a better financial deal.
HOWEVER, that was only the case in theory, because Spurs were, effectively, doing local regeneration and providing an athletics legacy on the cheap. But such a cheap bid was never going to be acceptable to anyone. If they had offered to spend more money, they might have stood a better chance, but increasing the spend in this way would have made it financially no better than the NDP.
Wham was always in the driving seat because retaining the running track meant not spending anything on the athletics legacy and because their links with Newham, Westfield, local organisations, together with the business model associated with non-football use of the stadium (by Live Nation and others), also meant they weren't spending so much of their own money on local regeneration. In the end Wham's finances were not so 'stretched' as those of Tottenham.
Spurs tried to do it on the cheap, which was not good enough. This also became the public perception. When, at too a late stage, THFC tried to persuade rebellious fans of the financial advantages, this ony served to reinforce the wider impression of a 'cheap' bid among the general public.
This is the key lesson. Stratford never was the great business opportunity it has been made out to be. This is an illusion. For us Stratford was a seductive but empty mirage. In order to have any chance in the OPLC's, the politicians' and the public's eyes we would have had to spend more money, at which point the 'opportunity' would be no more. Spurs had a punt on the cheap, and, inevitably, failed.
There was a four-fold naivety on the part of Spurs: (1) thinking that the bid was a technical tendering process; (2) imagining that a bid on-the-cheap was going to persuade the OPLC, the politicians or the public; (3) failing to understand the nature of Wham's running-track model and, as a result, concluding that it was unsustainable; (4) hiring the wrong PR people, or instructing them incorrectly, or both.
I agree we couldn't possibly have had a running track. We're a bigger club, with a different financial strategy, and we therefore have greater ambitions for a 55 - 60k stadium.
But Wham's model is different. They will not aim at a substantially bigger turnover through stadium revenue. To fill the stadium and to make up for poorer sightlines, they will offer a significantly cheaper ticket-pricing stucture for a 'family day out' that also provides shopping, and facilities for kids. Instead of raising revenue immediately, having a bigger stadium will strengthen and develop the present and future supporter base, something that Spurs are, in fact, also keenly aware of as a reason for stadium expansion. If sustained greater success comes at some point for Wham, then they can start raising ticket prices to raise revenue.
Spurs' analysis was blinkered and beside the point. When they tried to attack Wham's model their arguments were based on the wrong premises. The model not only works for West Ham, it also works for the local area.
Your point is important. Perhaps Spurs thought that their own narrow vision of how a 60k stadium should work would rule Wham out altogether, rendering their other advantages irrelevant. They were wrong, and badly so.
Sotm
