New Stadium Details And Discussions

[mattyspurs]

Edmonton was wrong then? Still not ready to go.

I didn't expect it to be. IIRC Edmonton posted in October an announcement about the go ahead for the Stadium was due in November.

 

[sloth]

Sadly not a surprise, without major investment it's simply not credible that the NDP would be affordable in the current climate. It's good to have it reconfirmed that we're committed to finding a solution, but for the foreseeable we'll have to accept that we're a mid-size club and all the implications towards success and holding onto our best players that implies.

 

[mpickard2087]

NDP sounds as far away as ever, when Levy says 'failure is not an option. we will find a way to get this project done' it sounds a bit desperate to me and that we are not even close to getting started on it.

 

[Stoof]

Once the financing gets in place, the actual construction won't take that long. Acquiring a financial backer and agreeing terms with them is the thing that always always takes a massive chunk of the time if you look at a project like this as a whole.

I still have confidence. But these deals are tricky. Especially in a recession!!

 

[SugarRay]

Didn't the scum take almost a decade between discussing plans to move to actually moving in to their new gaff?

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

From elsewhere:-

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial][SIZE=-1]• Reason for delisting the Club from the stock exchange and taking it private is that the Club cannot get any backing from Institutions, neither banks to finance the huge cost of the new stadium. The open market value of the club is circa £80 - £90m - and no bank will loan £200m + if the market value is only £80 -£90m. So they have taken out all the small shareholders (000’s like me) and they no longer have to hold an Annual General Meeting - despite the audience pleading to continue – at least we can all see what is happening at the club. Levy said issues will be communicated by the Club website from now on.
• By going Private they will seek investment from sources that will probably be more ‘risky’ and not allowed if they were Public. (They wouldn’t say this) I could personally see more high net worth individuals being approached to lend them money. People like Alan Sugar, Philip Green, Joe Lewis himself, etc, etc, etc – but as Levy said – bringing potential Corporate investors up Seven Sisters Road to Spurs isn’t very attractive – investors want to see growing prosperous trouble free areas. Can you honestly see the Sultan of Qatar in a limo pulling up at the Ground , having had a kebab on the way!
• They do not have a naming rights sponsor, and the traditional banks and institutions have no appetite for investment in Football Clubs where their market value is so low. Compare our £80 - £90m market cap value to Man Utd’s market value of £1.5bn. (20 times bigger).
• Ignore the £17m being ‘given’ to the Club by the Mayor - they have received no monies directly. But they continue dialogue with Central Gov, Mayor and Haringay Council . Levy said that failure to build the stadium is not an option – and the Club is progressing with these talks.
• The demolishing of surrounding buildings is expected to be completed by the summer 2012.
• The club have spent £85m buying up this adjacent land.
• Phase 1 should commence next Summer 2012 – to build the Supermarket. There will be no building after this and the other vacant derelict land will not be used as car parks due to residents objections – it will lie dormant until the stadium goes ahead.
• The new training Ground has cost £17m and will be open next Summer 2012 – they will consider public tours but parts will have restricted access as they don’t want their competitors seeing what they have done (can’t see what is so secret about a treadmill). Levy believes it is one of the best training complexes in the World.
• They spent £1.7m on the failed Stratford bid – and Levy said, had they known the Government stipulation of the track from the outset, they would not have wasted their time.
• Levy stated that no big players would be sold this January.
• Levy stated that at each transfer window they try to better the position than when it opened, and this coming Jan would be no different - if they can improve the squad – they will do.
• He would not be drawn on Cahill, Modric or Adebayor – or any specific players, neither Harry Redknapp’s position at the end of the season – all he said was that Harry is enjoying himself at the moment and has not told Levy that he will be leaving. Levy said that he told Harry this morning that if we beat Chelsea next week at home we’ll be right up there in contention.
• Levy and the board did get a round of applause at the end.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[spud]

On reflection, it makes sense that the club would get the AGM to agree to de-listing before making a definitive announcement, as the stated purpose for de-listing is to put the club in a better position to obtain funding.

It also makes sense that a sponsor would be obtained first, in order to provide this source of finance with the maximum initial publicity for its investment with the announcement of definitive plans for the new 'Naming Rights' stadium.

I am, however, a little surprised that nothing more concrete was announced (although 'failure is not an option' and 'we will find a way' are pretty categoric from Levy), and look forward to seeing what Edmonton has to say.

 

[spud]

Edmonton has posted on COYS that he thought an announcement would be more detailed, but has added "....I think the club has moved into the post announcement phase without stopping to announce. Massive amount of work going on, clear plan, money being spent, Danny very driven to make this happen."

I'm relaxed about it; I'm pretty sure that we'll have our new Lane in the timeframe previously suggested and that we'll consequently be up there competing at the top table within the framework of the FFP.

One other thought on the lack of a full announcement today. While we have apparently received verbal assurances about funding from public sources that would impact the project, we could be waiting until we receive a written undertaking before committing ourselves, rather than risk being left high and dry.

 

[Delboy10]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...court-Qatar-for-funding-for-new-stadium.html?

 

[Lilbaz]

If it's a deal for Stadium and Shirt then we have to ask for at least £200m (10 year deal) as we already get £12.5m for shirts alone. Whether they'll pay is another question, but it would go a long way to helping us pay for the stadium, get the money off of Sainsbury and we're looking good.

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Interesting post from Skyscrapercity's forum:-

I can't help attribute the wild variations in the reported capacity figures to journalistic laziness. In recent media coverage I've noticed, for example, pictures of the first planning application rather than of the second one. The latter was approved in planning committee over a year ago and finally signed off when the S.106 agreement was exchanged recently. Pictures are on the official website. Perhaps only lazy/time-pressured/cut-and-paste journalism would publish the pictures from the first application or circulate the wrong capacity figures.

Going back to your main argument, there are two principal, related questions.

(1) Why did the capacity end up at 56,250? For a long period there were rumours of a 50k capacity based on an upgrade of the existing structure. Then, in October 2008, Spurs announced they intended to build a new 60k capacity stadium. My hunch is the football club were releasing a headline figure suitable for press consumption rather than as a definitive capacity. When the first public NDP exhibition was held in November 2008, the capacity was not specified but visitors were told it would be between 55k and 60k.

In April 2009, the second exhibition gave a precise capacity of 58,237. When, in October 2009, the first planning application was submitted, the capacity was reduced to 56,250. This reduction of approx 2k was mostly made up of ~ 1.5k in premium seats, with just ~ 0.5k in ordinary seats. It looks like this capacity reduction was entailed by the Kop-end design.

Maybe it was a happy coincidence, but if the local council or Transport for London had insisted on a reduction in capacity for traffic/transport reasons, then the Kop design managed to deliver the reduction in a way that undoubtedly improved the stadium. However, I can't help thinking that the plc would have only approved the Kop end if they’d felt there was over-provision of premium/corporate seats. Remember the financial crisis broke in this period. From early 2009, there was clear evidence of recession and those with good weather eyes knew this was not a hiccough but rather a long term problem. This would affect forecasts of demand for corporate/premium seats.

There'll be a 'method' (i.e. a business model) of calculating the optimum stadium capacity and this will apply as much to corporate as ordinary seating. The model will aim to maximise income but ensure that demand remains greater than supply, keeping ticket prices and income as high as possible. Naturally the 'method' should also take account of economic circumstances, particularly the likelihood of longer-term reduction in demand for tickets. Hence a business model should have determined the reduction in corporate seats. If a general reduction in capacity had been demanded by traffic and transport issues, then it stands to (business) reason that a way would have been found, within the parameters of the Kop-end design, to sacrifice lower-revenue ordinary seats rather than higher-revenue corporate places. The latter would have been reduced for other reasons.

Business modelling that generates the optimum number of seats also applies to the overall capacity. We're forced to look at the Emirates as an important precedent. It has a capacity of 60k and can benefit far more from (a) the longer recent history of success, especially participation in the Champions League, a key corporate and tourist attraction; (b) a position closer to the West End and the tourist trade; and (c) a position far more convenient for the City and Canary Wharf and the high-end corporate market. Never mind our reflex loyalties, the prima facie question is why on earth should out-of-the-way Tottenham Hotspur with its far weaker CL record be able to support a 60k stadium?

My answer to this is a loyal one. But also true. I believe Spurs has a more dedicated and sure support than our nomadic neighbours. The fact that we could sell out our stadium through all the dark years speaks for itself. Yes, we also have our loyal corporates and travellers, but the glory-hunting, plastic, fly-by-night corporate and tourist fan trade, which is sensitive to minor geographical inconvenience, favours the Emirates far more than White Hart Lane. If one had to guess an appropriate overall capacity for us, then it should be less than the 60k for the Emirates. And if the reduction should take place in any segment, then it will be in the corporate and premium fan seats rather than in the provision for real supporters.

(I'd be cautious about rumours saying they plan to increase the size of the Emirates. Who would take such a risk in this gloomy economic climate, especially since a lot of ST holders stayed away in the early part of this season when they weren't looking too good?)

Bear in mind that the Emirates has a corporate/premium seat capacity of 9,000 (from which it earns a staggering 35% of matchday income). The original NDP stadium corporate/premium seat capacity was 8,134. Rather too close to the Emirates and, I suspect, rather hopeful. When the overall capacity was reduced, the corporate provision fell to 6,690. Rather more realistic. But it may depend on the results of the recent premium seat survey. Perhaps the market has changed. Hence the wriggle-room possibility of a 'modest' increase in capacity.


Back to the planned reduction in the NDP stadium capacity from 58k to 56k... No doubt it would have pleased the authorities because traffic and public transport would have been (slightly) less of a problem. But whether traffic and public transport were the determining factors in the capacity reduction is the question. Moreover, compared to the ordinary match goer, it should be easier to 'manage' corporate/premium entry and departure from the stadium, without the need for a reduction in capacity driven by traffic and transport demands.

A related issue is the nature of the site. From what I can gather, there is very little, if any, latitude in the design parameters, given the restrictions of the site. It's quite possible that the seating capacity had not yet been determined at the point of the announcement and first exhibition. Hence, er, 'ball park' figures would have been provided. Once a positive initial public response to the overall shape was received, the design would have progressed to the important interior details, including the number and type of seats.

Here the issue is whether it was ever possible to have a 60k capacity stadium according to the site requirements and the design (including safety considerations, crowd flows, the shape of the external public spaces, and so forth). So one might hypothesise that ~ 58k rather than ~ 60k was in part a site and design requirement and partly a business-model obligation rather than the result of transport/traffic problems. It's all speculation so this is just a little hypothesis.

The first planning application submitted in October 2009 was withdrawn partly as a result of English Heritage and CABE objections, but we shouldn't forget that a TfL/GLA report written in December 2009 expressed severe misgivings about the transport and traffic plan. So the second (and eventually successful) planning application submitted in May 2010 involved not only a response to EH and CABE but a new traffic and transport plan. We should note that the second planning application did not reduce the stadium capacity but put in place a substantially revised traffic and transport plan. Perhaps one might argue that this observation reinforces the view that the initial reduction in capacity was not related to traffic and transport. Perhaps.


At a THST meeting in the summer we learned that a 'modest' increase in capacity from 56,250 was being considered by the club. By the way, it would have to be quite 'modest', requiring only variation in the already-existing planning consent, because neither the club nor Haringey would want to go through the time-consuming procedures - and perils - of a whole new planning consent process.

Maybe now there is greater latitude in traffic/transport issues in a recession-hit, post-riot Tottenham. Or maybe the figures used in the business model of stadium capacity have changed. Perhaps the recession has not impacted premium seat demand as much as originally forecasted and thus a greater corporate capacity can now be entertained. Indeed, the THST minutes indicated that a new survey on corporate seating would be conducted. So, perhaps a way has been found to retain the Kop end and recover the original corporate provision to give a capacity of 58k again.

Who knows?

In the final analysis, we should hope that the stadium design for which planning consent has been gained also possesses the potential to expand capacity. That way, we go with building a lower risk 56k capacity and expand when our success requires it.


(2) If the reduction in capacity had been determined solely by transport and traffic issues, and if there is latitude in the site and design, then how should the traffic/transport infrastructure be improved to allow a 60k capacity?

I guess it would involve relatively minor adjustments to the existing plans rather than any major extra investment in the public infrastructure. After all, the increase in capacity from 56,250 to 60k would represent less that 7%. Thus there would be adjustments to the existing arrangements to have more/longer matchday trains, more matchday buses, greater capacity in the shuttle to Manor House, improved safety features at the main stations, an extended CPZ, measures to retain the crowds at the new stadium and release them over a longer period, and so on.

(Could the 7% increase from 56,250 to 60k be regarded as 'modest', by the way? Is it significantly less modest than the 3.5% increase from 56,250 to 58,237? My guess is that a 3.5% increase would not raise planning committee eyebrows, whereas a 7% increase might... perhaps. Maybe.)

All the above measures, combined with non-transport related improvements in the fabric of public spaces around the stadium, were costed at less than the money that seems to be available from the public purse after the riots. So I somehow doubt that Spurs are pushing for more money to make the adjustments in transport infrastructure for a 7% (let alone a 3.5%) increase in capacity.

Surely Spurs, Haringey and Boris would want to facilitate a modest increase in capacity, perhaps even to 60k, with the minimum of fuss and with little if any increase in infrastructure costs. Why in the present cash-strapped circumstances should the public authorities suggest extra expenditure when the aim is to satisfy Spurs with the current subsidy offer?


But, again, who knows?

 

[spud]

Interesting post from Skyscrapercity's forum:-

An interesting read, L.A. Y; thanks for sharing it. Do you know who wrote it?

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

An interesting read, L.A. Y; thanks for sharing it. Do you know who wrote it?

This bloke mate:-

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=86827414

 

[brasil_spur]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...court-Qatar-for-funding-for-new-stadium.html?

I like the sound of the Qatar deal, i think Levy could get some serious money from these guys, which could get the stadium up and underway.

Happy days!

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/futureplans/stadium-development-update.html

Update - Northumberland Development Project 22 December, 2011

The Club has this week submitted some revisions to its planning permission for the Northumberland Development Project as the Club looks to secure the deliverability of the new stadium scheme.

Fans will be aware that the Club’s existing permission was granted by Haringey Council following unanimous cross-party support and the completion of all of the legal agreements in September 2011.

The proposed changes focus on maximising the number of new jobs and new homes which can be created. Specifically we are making two separate planning applications - one covering the residential development along Park Lane and another covering some changes to the space above the supermarket building.

In summary, we have improved the design and layout of the new residential development to the south of the new Stadium to create a better setting along Park Lane - replacing the currently consented single curved residential building running east-west the length of Park Lane with four separate buildings running north-south above new commercial space. In between the buildings three new green spaces will be created with trees and new planting to provide both private and communal space for the new residents. This layout means sunlight penetrates into and through the buildings, onto the open spaces and through onto the public space around the stadium.

Above the supermarket, we are proposing one additional floor and importantly this is set back 32 metres from the building’s edge along Northumberland Park and set back 20 metres from the building’s eastern and western edges. There are some other smaller design changes also being made above the supermarket and the footpath beside the main customer entrance is being widened, but there are no changes to the layout of the supermarket itself. Likewise there are no changes being made to the car park, servicing, entrance or exit arrangements and no additional parking spaces are being sought.

The Club believes these changes represent an improvement on the current permission and has written to local residents to explain these changes.

Along with these proposed changes, the Club is also engaged in discussions with the Mayor's office, Haringey Council and central government as we continue to progress the new stadium scheme and associated development.

 

[PT]

Liking the sound of that as tweaking progress.

 

[StartingPrice]

Liking the sound of that as tweaking progress.

Is that in the euphemistic sense :shrug:

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Possible stadium sponsor hint?

"A "Brand Centre" is likely to be occupied by a motor vehicle manufacturer for the purposes of promoting its brand and technologies, but will differ from a traditional car showroom in that products (cars) are unlikely to be displayed for sale. Again, it is not possible to confirm the extent to which the proposed floorspace will be used for this purpose, but the inclusion of this use within the proposed development provides the opportunity to do so."

From Page 9 here:-

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=424964

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Full list of revised docs:-

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=252805

Some visuals of the updated Supermarket developement here:-

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=424978

Nothing too interesting though.

Revised layout of the southern developement (the flats) at the end of this one:-

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=424951

 

[OmarsComing]

(I'd be cautious about rumours saying they plan to increase the size of the Emirates. Who would take such a risk in this gloomy economic climate, especially since a lot of ST holders stayed away in the early part of this season when they weren't looking too good?)

Arsenal wouldn't be allowed to increase the size of their stadium.

Firstly the residents opposed the height of the roof, therefore the roof of the Emirates is slanted to accommodate the residents' wishes.

Therefore the only way for the to increase capacity would be to build underneath the current stadium and that would be difficult due to the underground car park.