The anti-Stratford protests begin!

[talkshowhost86]

I shall be intrigued to learn how Levy believes we can build a 60,000 seat stadium at Stratford and completely refurbish Crystal Palace for the same cost as building a 60,000 seat stadium at WHL.

So would I but again I ask, if there isn't a financial gain to be made from moving to Stratford why would Levy, who as many have pointed out is a money grabbing bastard who's done nothing for the club, even consider it?

 

[roosh]

That is exactly what it is to me, the club is no more if they aren't playing in Tottenham

that isn't a very rational belief. The club that you support at the moment, will continue to play at their current location for a number of years, and it will be the same club that, if they move, will be playing in stratford.

To use the example of a family moving home, it would be like saying that the family would be no more if they moved house.

 

[dimiSpur]

So would I but again I ask, if there isn't a financial gain to be made from moving to Stratford why would Levy, who as many have pointed out is a money grabbing bastard who's done nothing for the club, even consider it?

I never said he was a money grabbing bastard who's done nothing good for the Club. On the contrary, apart from a few judgement mistakes in manager appointments, which were probably more unlucky than stupid, he's been the best chairman we could hope to have IMO.

However that doesn't mean he might not be looking to sell on. Furthermore, he's not the owner. So if Joe Lewis has told him to get the Olympic site as he'd be able to get shot of us easier, then he has an obligation to fulfill his boss' orders.

 

[dimiSpur]

that isn't a very rational belief. The club that you support at the moment, will continue to play at their current location for a number of years, and it will be the same club that, if they move, will be playing in stratford.

To use the example of a family moving home, it would be like saying that the family would be no more if they moved house.

Yea but to use everyday life examples like that isn't rational either. I could say that moving to a new area cos it's cheaper is like disowning you're relatively clever son to adopt a new genius of a child as it will be cheaper to get him to study as he'll probably get a scholarship

 

[talkshowhost86]

I never said he was a money grabbing bastard who's done nothing good for the Club. On the contrary, apart from a few judgement mistakes in manager appointments, which were probably more unlucky than stupid, he's been the best chairman we could hope to have IMO.

However that doesn't mean he might not be looking to sell on. Furthermore, he's not the owner. So if Joe Lewis has told him to get the Olympic site as he'd be able to get shot of us easier, then he has an obligation to fulfill his boss' orders.

Of course he's looking to sell on. That's never been in doubt has it? My point is that people think this is a bad thing. I would argue that in his time Levy has made us a stable team and then elevated us to playing in Europe's elite competition. All of that makes the club more marketable and therefore a better prospect for buyers. Does that mean that what Levy has done is bad?

People seem to ignore the fact that sometimes things that are good for the club as a business are also good for the club as a football team. Stratford could (and I mean could because of the lack of information on it) be the same.

 

[dimiSpur]

Of course he's looking to sell on. That's never been in doubt has it? My point is that people think this is a bad thing. I would argue that in his time Levy has made us a stable team and then elevated us to playing in Europe's elite competition. All of that makes the club more marketable and therefore a better prospect for buyers. Does that mean that what Levy has done is bad?

People seem to ignore the fact that sometimes things that are good for the club as a business are also good for the club as a football team. Stratford could (and I mean could because of the lack of information on it) be the same.

Hehe, I think you should re-read the bit of my post you highlighted!

I never said he's looking to do us damage. I'm saying maybe Stratford is being pursued in order to sell us, thus he's doing it for personal gain. Doesn't mean he's going to bankrupt us, just IMO "sell out" in order to get what he wants

 

[SpurSince57]

that isn't a very rational belief. The club that you support at the moment, will continue to play at their current location for a number of years, and it will be the same club that, if they move, will be playing in stratford.

To use the example of a family moving home, it would be like saying that the family would be no more if they moved house.

Supporting a football club isn't a very rational activity full stop, and whilst you can indeed use the example of a family's moving home, it's not the best of analogies.

 

[roosh]

I know what you mean't. I'm just surprised to see such naivety on the whole from so many fans who can't see the "NPD is costing too much" excuse from the Club is nothing more than a smokescreen to get a stadium that will make THFC easier to sell on.

We've known for a while that CL+Stadium=Spurs4Sale.

The NDP project was the dogs bollocks according to the Club this time last year. What's changed? Section 106? 16m and we can't build a new stadium then? No way.

The OS might be a little cheaper, but IMO it's only an option if the NDP get ridiculously overpriced, i.e stupid money demands from council or it proves impossible to build, which it isn't as we've already secured building permission.

I firmly believe Stratford is in the firm interest of the current owners, not THFC. There's a big difference in that. The owners will find it easier to sell on with the OS. I also believe they've had a whisper from a prospective buyer saying "get Stratford and we'll buy", hence why in the space of 2 months, the NDP from the most exciting new stadium in Europe, has become an unviable option and the Stratford site has become the new Wembley.

that fails to take into account the fact that we'll have a new stadium with NDP, so if a new stadium is all they need to sell, why go to the expense of drawing up plans for the NDP, and then look at an alternative. If a new stadium is the key, then there is no need for Stratford, because planning permission has been granted for the NDP.

 

[SpurSince57]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...d-West-Ham-tussle-over-35m-Games-handout.html

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

Matty & SS57 - not picking on you but of those opposed to Stratford you are being the most articulate. I'd like to know how much of a move is too far. To state the obvious NDP isn't identically located to our current stadium but is acceptable. If we didn't have that but could remain on the High Road would that be ok ? If no High Road anywhere in N17 ? If we couldn't get N17 would Stamford Hill as N16 be too far ?

I won't go on because you can see where I'm going, where do you draw the line and why ?

 

[roosh]

Yes, but once again that works both ways! Those supporting the move and saying we should move are doing so without knowing fully exactly what the costs are. They're just taking vague reports of the OS costing 200m as gospel and ranting and raving about how backwards anti-Stratford fans are. They are doing the complete opposite in other words, suppporting something they don't know the full information on.

Once we have the information we need to compare the two projects, then we can make an informed decision on our opinions.

However I, unlike some, believe that those saying they'd rather we stay at 36.000 WHL than 60.000 Stratford have a point. They don't just feel that way for the sake of it, they feel that way for what could be a number of reasons. That's what makes THFC special, the fact there's so many people that despite the area being a dump, connect with the WHL surroundings. We've been there since 1899, it's easy to see why fans are regarding this as an unacceptable move.

I'm opposed to the move. But I'd love to see the list of figures to see exactly what we would gain from moving to East London and ending our North London traditions.

I think this is a healthy discussion, bcos it has potential long-term ramifications for the club, and it is best to have heard arguments for and against, so that people can form a reasoned opinion on the potential scenarious, when they become clear. Instead of having a small window of opportunity to consider the facts.

As mentioned, we are not dealing with all the facts, what we are dealing with is potential scenarios. Those potential scenarious are:
1) NDP & Stratford have very similar, long-term financial ramifications
2) Stratford makes considerably less long-term, financial sense
3) NDP makes considerably less long-term financial sense
4) Neither goes ahead and we retain our current stadium

Now, without the facts and figures we cannot possibly make a definitive decision, but what we can do is discuss those possible scenarios, so that when (or should I say if) we are furnished with the relevant information, we have already considered the options to a degree, meaning less time is needed to discuss the options.


With regard to the options:
I think options 2&4 don't really need discussing, because either way the answer is stay put.

1) NDP & Stratford have very similar, long-term financial ramifications

I think all fans are in agreement on this one. If there is not too much difference in the long-term financial ramifications for the club, then the preferred option is the NDP - hands down, no questions asked.

Option
3) NDP makes considerably less long-term financial sense
is the one which causes the issues.

It appears that there are some opposed to the move at all costs, while others would be willing to consider the move, depending on the overall financial impact on the club.

Now, for those wanting to stay at all costs, we can look at a range of scenarios, and actually determine whether or not there is a cost at which they would move. All the options here are not necessarily realistic, but they can serve to see roughly at what cost people are willing to stay put.

1) If not moving meant the bankrupting the club, would the preferred option be to stay or go? This isn't realistic, but sets one extreme of the potential trade off.

2) If staying meant there was no new stadium development, that ENIC sold up and that we couldn't compete at the top of the premiership, but regularly qualified for the UEFA Cup - due to limits on our financial income, would the preferred option be to stay?

3) If staying meant there was no new stadium development, that ENIC sold up and that we struggled to compete at the top of the premiership, occasionally qualifing for the CL but regularly qualifying for the UEFA Cup (with limited chances of success) - due to limits on our financial income - would the preferred option be to stay?

4) If staying meant there was a new stadium development, that the club was burdened with debt, and couldn't compete at the top of the premiership, but regularly qualifying for the UEFA Cup - due to limits on our financial income - would the preferred option be to stay?

5) If staying meant there was a new stadium development, that the club has more debts than had they moved, and that we struggled to compete at the top of the premiership, occasionally qualifing for the CL but regularly qualifying for the UEFA Cup (with limited chances of success) - due to limits on our financial income - would the preferred option be to stay?


For those saying that they would support a move, if it made considerably more financial sense, I think the reasoning is that, rather than risk allowing the potentially bigger financial risk, of the NDP, to hamper our future prospects of success, it would make more sense to move and thereby maximise our future chances of winning trophies.

 

[roosh]

I shall be intrigued to learn how Levy believes we can build a 60,000 seat stadium at Stratford and completely refurbish Crystal Palace for the same cost as building a 60,000 seat stadium at WHL.

but it's not just a 60k seater stadium at WHL - it's not even a 60k is it? is it 56k? It is the overall cost of the development that needs to be compared, because it will be the overall cost that determines the level of debt we have to incur.

 

[roosh]

Yea but to use everyday life examples like that isn't rational either. I could say that moving to a new area cos it's cheaper is like disowning you're relatively clever son to adopt a new genius of a child as it will be cheaper to get him to study as he'll probably get a scholarship

except that to disown your son would constitute breaking up the family/club, while moving house would not.

 

[roosh]

Supporting a football club isn't a very rational activity full stop, and whilst you can indeed use the example of a family's moving home, it's not the best of analogies.

supporting a football team certainly isn't a rational activity, but that doesn't mean that rationale has to be eschewed when it comes to making important decisions concerning the future of the football club.

a better analogy may have been a home that has been in a family for many generations, where parents and grandparents have grown up, thereby deepening the attachment. Both involve a strong emotional attachment to a location, and both require some rationale thinking to evaluate what is best for the future of the club/family.

If the future prospects of the family are not hampered by staying in the family home, then that is what will be the preferred option every time, but if would materially affect the ambitions of the family, then the move would have to be considered.

 

[striebs]

I don't think it's down to absolute cost. I think it's because factors such as the partnership with AEG, the extra money we'll get from naming rights and corperates mean the financial risk is significantly less.

Think you have hit the nail on the head .

I think the AEG connection and dual use for non-footballing events is THE key difference .

Not sure whether the revenue for naming rights or corporates would be any different though .

Surely one of the biggest financial risks is whether the stadium will be filled or not . As it stands at the moment I believe Spurs attendance and gate receipts would be higher if the new stadium was located in Tottenham than Stratford . If Tottenham achieved massive success on the pitch then a new breed of plastic fans might prefer the improved transport links .

 

[roosh]

On the issue of a legacy, was it definitively promised that the legacy would be in the Olympic Stadium, or was it just that there would be a legacy for athletics?

 

[SpurSince57]

I've also made this point in the sticky stadium thread: if AEG weren't desperate to get their hooks into the OS at the expense of their rivals Live Nation, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

 

[AngerManagement]

Yes I imagine more than just being cheaper to develop the OS moving there gives us far greater future earning potential which is probably the main motivating factor for the board.

 

[michaelden]

However I, unlike some, believe that those saying they'd rather we stay at 36.000 WHL than 60.000 Stratford have a point. They don't just feel that way for the sake of it, they feel that way for what could be a number of reasons. That's what makes THFC special, the fact there's so many people that despite the area being a dump, connect with the WHL surroundings. We've been there since 1899, it's easy to see why fans are regarding this as an unacceptable move.

I'm opposed to the move. But I'd love to see the list of figures to see exactly what we would gain from moving to East London and ending our North London traditions.

Please expand on this point after you have taken into account the Financial Fair Play laws due to come into effect in the next 2 years. Every newspaper, pundit and specialist has agreed that Spurs can not continue with just a 36,000 seater and retain any hope of maintaining a cL spot.

I think this is a healthy discussion, bcos it has potential long-term ramifications for the club, and it is best to have heard arguments for and against, so that people can form a reasoned opinion on the potential scenarious, when they become clear. Instead of having a small window of opportunity to consider the facts.

As mentioned, we are not dealing with all the facts, what we are dealing with is potential scenarios. Those potential scenarious are:
1) NDP & Stratford have very similar, long-term financial ramifications
2) Stratford makes considerably less long-term, financial sense
3) NDP makes considerably less long-term financial sense
4) Neither goes ahead and we retain our current stadium

Now, without the facts and figures we cannot possibly make a definitive decision, but what we can do is discuss those possible scenarios, so that when (or should I say if) we are furnished with the relevant information, we have already considered the options to a degree, meaning less time is needed to discuss the options.


With regard to the options:
I think options 2&4 don't really need discussing, because either way the answer is stay put. - and as posted above that does not make any sense since the new laws would restrict our ability to attract top players even further


1) NDP & Stratford have very similar, long-term financial ramifications

I think all fans are in agreement on this one. If there is not too much difference in the long-term financial ramifications for the club, then the preferred option is the NDP - hands down, no questions asked. - Agreed.

Option
3) NDP makes considerably less long-term financial sense
is the one which causes the issues.

It appears that there are some opposed to the move at all costs, while others would be willing to consider the move, depending on the overall financial impact on the club.

Now, for those wanting to stay at all costs, we can look at a range of scenarios, and actually determine whether or not there is a cost at which they would move. All the options here are not necessarily realistic, but they can serve to see roughly at what cost people are willing to stay put. - part of the problem isn't just the cost but the restrictions on future growth. The OS infrastructure is designed for 80,000+ people. The NDP currently, and for the forseeable future, is restricted to 56,000 people. Should Spurs need a bigger stadium in 5-10 years we would be doing this all over again if we remain at WHL.

1) If not moving meant the bankrupting the club, would the preferred option be to stay or go? This isn't realistic, but sets one extreme of the potential trade off. - Go

2) If staying meant there was no new stadium development, that ENIC sold up and that we couldn't compete at the top of the premiership, but regularly qualified for the UEFA Cup - due to limits on our financial income, would the preferred option be to stay? - This is highly improbable when our ability to page wages is impacted by the FFP laws

3) If staying meant there was no new stadium development, that ENIC sold up and that we struggled to compete at the top of the premiership, occasionally qualifing for the CL but regularly qualifying for the UEFA Cup (with limited chances of success) - due to limits on our financial income - would the preferred option be to stay? See #2

4) If staying meant there was a new stadium development, that the club was burdened with debt, and couldn't compete at the top of the premiership, but regularly qualifying for the UEFA Cup - due to limits on our financial income - would the preferred option be to stay? - See 2# and earlier note on future expansion

5) If staying meant there was a new stadium development, that the club has more debts than had they moved, and that we struggled to compete at the top of the premiership, occasionally qualifing for the CL but regularly qualifying for the UEFA Cup (with limited chances of success) - due to limits on our financial income - would the preferred option be to stay? - See #4


For those saying that they would support a move, if it made considerably more financial sense, I think the reasoning is that, rather than risk allowing the potentially bigger financial risk, of the NDP, to hamper our future prospects of success, it would make more sense to move and thereby maximise our future chances of winning trophies.

Agreed, it is a sliding scale of acceptable options for most, not a yes or no.

I do think that my note about future growth is very relevant when considering future risk, both initial stadium financials and the future wage paying portion of turnover allowed by the FFP laws.

 

[worcestersauce]

I've also made this point in the sticky stadium thread: if AEG weren't desperate to get their hooks into the OS at the expense of their rivals Live Nation, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

i think it's unlikely that AEG had a board meeting one day and said lets get involved in this flag ship opportunity just because it will get right up live nation's nose, it may be a bonus but surely there is more to it than that.