New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Shadydan]

I believe most people here over estimate the interest that other clubs and the media have in our new stadium. In my opinion they don't give toss and if they happen to broadcast one of our games and it happens to be the first at the new stadium its just incidental, nothing more.

For some reason people have it in their heads that this match absolutely has to be on TV, don't know why.

 

[slartibartfast]

Because it will be a historic event in one of the big 6 clubs history I imagine.
I'd be amazed if it wasn't televised regardless of who we are playing.

 

[slartibartfast]

How bad is it that a football pitch gets a blow job morre often than me?

If it makes you feel better I pretty much guarantee you get them more often than me.
Last one I got I put my back out.

 

[sly1]

I’m stunned by the number of people that think it is plausible that Levy/Tottenham would keep a finished stadium closed for over a month while waiting for a televised game for the first match.

Even ignoring financial consideration (and financial considerations alone are more than enough) and logistical considerations, it makes no sense.

The negative publicity of not opening the stadium for another month will clearly far outweigh any additional positive publicity of having the first game on tv. By a mile. This is so obviously that I can’t believe anyone could think otherwise.

 

[Yid121]

For some reason people have it in their heads that this match absolutely has to be on TV, don't know why.

Exactly.

As much as we are all looking forward to the opening, I don't think many other fans are that bothered.

Put it this way would you watch Liverpool Burnley just because they opened a new ground? I wouldn't.

Sky/BT know that Spurs Burnley would pull in Spurs fans and having the stadium opening fixture would also only really draw in Spurs fans.

Yes it would be good for the build-up marketing etc but they can still use that card for the first televised fixture at the new ground anyway and even better when it's against United and adds to the "big game feel".

From Levy's perspective, BEIN NSBC will all show it so Sky not showing it isn't really an issue if he's looking at global coverage. Maybe if he had to get a UK based company it'd be different. I'm sure ideally he would but it's not worth losing 3 fixtures of gated receipts at the new ground

 

[paxtonpolonius]

I agree.

Also, I don't remember Arsenal's first game at the Emirates being a big TV event.

 

[DogsOfWar]

No it wasn't. There has only been one scheduled opening game, and that was Liverpool. Anything after that wasn't possible has been speculation.

I would imagine that whether our first match in the new stadium is televised live in the UK is a complete irrelevance to the club, for several reasons.

First, it will have zero impact on attendance either on that day or any other day. Secondly, any marketing of the stadium facilities will be directed rather than relying on happy-clappy endorsements from TV football pundits. And thirdly, as has already been mentioned, it will be televised live everywhere apart from Britain - whoever the opponent happens to be.

So I suspect that the first match will be against whoever is the next fixture when the stadium has held the two test events and got its safety certificate(s); and that will be done as soon as possible.

My belief is that we underestimate the importance of this stadium to Levy and the club.
Its wont just be the home of Spurs but will be a multi event, 24/7, tourist attraction revenue generator to try to bridge the financial gap between us and the really big boys.
As a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see him prioritise a world wide marketing opportunity against United.
Burnley may be televised worldwide but no-one is going to watch that. Whereas United would be watched by a massive crowd with the stadium unveiling an inescapable part of the game.

If this was just a football only stadium built for a second tier Premiership side I'd agree with you but the trade-off between reduced revenue for one or two home games against the marketing value to help create a new stadium brand may be worth it.

 

[mil1lion]

Maybe we haven't told Sky and BT when the first game is because we don't know for sure. Crazy I know. It seems that this time around we're waiting to be sure before we announce anything because we don't want to be wrong again. What's telling to me is the stadium is a lot further along than it was when we announced the test events and opening game the first time. I guess we announce the next test events when we're certain it will pass.

 

[Dougal]

I can’t wait for the second game at the Lane.

 

[sly1]

My belief is that we underestimate the importance of this stadium to Levy and the club.
Its wont just be the home of Spurs but will be a multi event, 24/7, tourist attraction revenue generator to try to bridge the financial gap between us and the really big boys.
As a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see him prioritise a world wide marketing opportunity against United.
Burnley may be televised worldwide but no-one is going to watch that. Whereas United would be watched by a massive crowd with the stadium unveiling an inescapable part of the game.

If this was just a football only stadium built for a second tier Premiership side I'd agree with you but the trade-off between reduced revenue for one or two home games against the marketing value to help create a new stadium brand may be worth it.

All this is meaningless unless you can quantify the additional marketing value of having the first game be against Man U rather than Burnley. (I would imagine that it is negative value - I’m sure having an actual stadium up and running, functioning is a lot better publicity than having the first game against a bigger team)

I don’t know how much playing at Wembley is costing us, but I have read figures in the region of millions of pounds per game. Is the first game on television publicity going to be worth that in any scenario?

Also, I find it pretty hard to imagine what exact marketing value people are imagining. When people are putting on an event that requires a huge stadium for 60,000 people, they do some actual research - they don’t just think back to what has been on tv in the last few weeks and pick one of them.

 

[Lighty64]

Because it will be a historic event in one of the big 6 clubs history I imagine.
I'd be amazed if it wasn't televised regardless of who we are playing.

as @Shadydan said they didn't do anything when Arse moved to the Library. they never chose us to be on tv because we was due to open the stadium on the Liverpool match, they chose it because we 99% of the time when we play another of the top 6 side it's live.

whether it's Burnley or Man U or Arsenal towards the end of the season, the stadium will always get a boost in the build up. with all the disruption we have had with it, I doubt Levy gives a shit whether it's on TV or not. I doubt they will have an opening ceremony like they did when they closed the old Lane, and lack of coverage on the opening game won't bring in extra revenue, and they won't be taking the cameras down the isles, and if it's not on TV and turns out to not be the best of days then it will mean even less people seeing it.

 

[onlyonekeano]

If it was any other team in the League, I don’t think that I would watch any “pre match build up” for the opening match at a new stadium.

Of course there will be some fans that would watch it, but the concept of Levy building a stadium, having to delay the opening by 3 months, and then still deciding not to use it when it is ready for the sake of a few hundred thousand UK fans to watch the pre match build up, is preposterous.

If there was any doubt at all:

“We are all focused on ensuring contractors deliver our new stadium in the shortest possible period of time and opening our stadium at the earliest opportunity. The consequences of not being able to open our new stadium on 15 September against Liverpool have been immense. Building a venue of this scale that is open to the general public is a huge undertaking. We are creating, in Tottenham, a unique world class stadium with pioneering technology and engineering. Amongst the consequences of the delay have been substantial additional costs, not least of which the need for alternative venue hire, along with the inconvenience for our fans and those of our opposition.”

 

[worcestersauce]

Pretty sure there will be a programme on the new stadium anyway.

 

[Lighty64]

I can’t wait for the second game at the Lane.

but it might not be on TV, surely that will disappoint you especially as your have a sore head from Xmas day after the kids have been so loud from opening santas prezzies (not drink related) and all the hassle of getting to the stadium on boxing day without transport

 

[coys200]

It may simply come down to Levy’s ego. After all he has apparently worked tirelessly on this for 3 years and more. Given the choice between Burnley and no TV and United and live TV. It’s obvious what is the bigger occasion. As said many times even if it was Burnley it may be ready but I doubt finished. United would mean another month and 3 games at Wembley, possibly £3m. Without knowing the implications of that £3m it’s quite hard to call imo. Although Kramer who is there today seems absolutely insistent that Burnley is absolutely not possible. Just be glad when I can finally sit In my seat.

 

[14/04/91]

For some reason people have it in their heads that this match absolutely has to be on TV, don't know why.

Personally my surprise is all to do with Sky and their love of razzmatazz, nothing to do with the club. I’m certain the club will open the stadium as soon as they’re allowed, regardless of tv or opponent.
But Sky are all about the build up, it’ll give them something to bang on about for an hour.
Obviously no one (at this stage) can confirm a date but I am surprised Sky have not chosen the Burnley game if there’s any chance of it being ‘the one’.
Especially as the alternatives are Southampton v Woolwich and Fulham v West Ham.

 

[mil1lion]

Pretty sure there will be a programme on the new stadium anyway.

You reckon? We'll get a little feature before our next televised game but that's all. Every other coverage will go through our website. I think people are expecting too much tv coverage of it tbh.

 

[DogsOfWar]

All this is meaningless unless you can quantify the additional marketing value of having the first game be against Man U rather than Burnley. (I would imagine that it is negative value - I’m sure having an actual stadium up and running, functioning is a lot better publicity than having the first game against a bigger team)

I don’t know how much playing at Wembley is costing us, but I have read figures in the region of millions of pounds per game. Is the first game on television publicity going to be worth that in any scenario?

Also, I find it pretty hard to imagine what exact marketing value people are imagining. When people are putting on an event that requires a huge stadium for 60,000 people, they do some actual research - they don’t just think back to what has been on tv in the last few weeks and pick one of them.

The marketing wouldn't be for event organisers, it would be to create awareness of a new arena offering the 'Tottenham experience.'
How many tourists visit the Bernabou, or climb up the O2?
We can offer tours, skywalk, museum, NFL megastore plus bars and restaurants to drag in visitors to a, potentially, iconic stadium for football, NFL, and music.
This would create revenue 7 days a week for the lifetime of the stadium as well as increasing the value of any naming rights deal.
Combined with the area/transport regeneration it would attract and keep visitors in Tottenham all day and, therefore, spending their money on us and the local area all day.
The potential for increased daily revenue may outweigh any single match day and a 'free' worldwide advert could be hard to turn down.

 

[sly1]

The marketing wouldn't be for event organisers, it would be to create awareness of a new arena offering the 'Tottenham experience.'
How many tourists visit the Bernabou, or climb up the O2?
We can offer tours, skywalk, museum, NFL megastore plus bars and restaurants to drag in visitors to a, potentially, iconic stadium for football, NFL, and music.
This would create revenue 7 days a week for the lifetime of the stadium as well as increasing the value of any naming rights deal.
Combined with the area/transport regeneration it would attract and keep visitors in Tottenham all day and, therefore, spending their money on us and the local area all day.
The potential for increased daily revenue may outweigh any single match day and a 'free' worldwide advert could be hard to turn down.

And none of those things depend on having the first game against Man U.

You have absolutely idea what the actual financial value is of having the first game against Man U. Is it £1m, £10m, £100m? Do you even have a vague estimate. If not, all your points are irrelevant.

You give the bernabeu as an example of something we could try to replicate. Well what was the first game played there? No one cares, because it doesn’t matter in the slightest.

 

[Shadydan]

Personally my surprise is all to do with Sky and their love of razzmatazz, nothing to do with the club. I’m certain the club will open the stadium as soon as they’re allowed, regardless of tv or opponent.
But Sky are all about the build up, it’ll give them something to bang on about for an hour.
Obviously no one (at this stage) can confirm a date but I am surprised Sky have not chosen the Burnley game if there’s any chance of it being ‘the one’.
Especially as the alternatives are Southampton v Woolwich and Fulham v West Ham.

No reason why they can't do a special feature leading up to the match about the stadium and facilities etc.., I just don't see why they have to show the actual match though.