The anti-Stratford protests begin!

[MattyP]

What would you have the poll ask ? It couldn't just be do you want to stay or go because that would assume it was financially neutral. If there was to be a poll then to me it is simple, poll all current season ticket holders and those on the waiting list and ask them if they're willing to make a one off payment of £4,000 each in order to stay at WHL because financially that is what would be required. What do you think the outcome of that poll would be ?

Personally I would pay it, though the club would have to provide the evidence that the £200m stacks up.

 

[SpurSince57]

What would you have the poll ask ? It couldn't just be do you want to stay or go because that would assume it was financially neutral. If there was to be a poll then to me it is simple, poll all current season ticket holders and those on the waiting list and ask them if they're willing to make a one off payment of £4,000 each in order to stay at WHL because financially that is what would be required. What do you think the outcome of that poll would be ?

To ask for a goat option?

 

[bigturnip]

£200mil is the quoted difference, you'll have to excuse me for rounding.

Where has this been quoted? We know the two stadiums will cost the same, we know the NDP will cost around £450m in total, we have no idea what the final bill for Stratford is likely to be?

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

Personally I would pay it, though the club would have to provide the evidence that the £200m stacks up.

Me too but I think we're in the minority and if I'm right then I don't like the alternatives of staying at WHL with no NDP and falling behind due to limited capacity or bankrupting the club in building NDP.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

Where has this been quoted? We know the two stadiums will cost the same, we know the NDP will cost around £450m in total, we have no idea what the final bill for Stratford is likely to be?

Mentioned in many articles on the topic, I don't think anyone has the break down and from memory a few pages back a couple of people were e-mailing the club to try and get this. What we do know is that dealing with the concerns of English Heritage alone cost £50mil so not difficult to see all the other differences amounting to 4x this.

 

[MattyP]

Mentioned in many articles on the topic, I don't think anyone has the break down and from memory a few pages back a couple of people were e-mailing the club to try and get this. What we do know is that dealing with the concerns of English Heritage alone cost £50mil so not difficult to see all the other differences amounting to 4x this.

That's actually not true. Levy's exact words were as follows

Retained historic buildings, which will require
extensive refurbishment and renovation, increased development
costs associated with the piazza, the loss of enabling development
with the reduction in residential, substantive S106 and S278
agreements and a sizeable contribution to Transport for London,
collectively add in the region of £50m to the costs.

s106 cost £15-£16m according to Haringey, the reduction in the residential development will account for a significant portion of the £50m as well.

 

[AngerManagement]

I'm of the opinion that Enic and Levy would never have even entertained the prospect of moving to Stratford unless it were significantly cheaper all in all and provided better future earning potential than staying in Tottenham.

While i'm not just blindly trusting Levy and Enic, I do conceed I do not really know the facts and figures and have only what I read here and in the papers to go on.

I just do not see any reason for Levy and ENIC to move the club unless it were the most economically viable option.

 

[SpurSince57]

Next time you're down at the Lane look at the buildings which have been preserved and think really, really hard how restoring them could possibly come to £50m. Rudolph's, the 'Red House' and the old Tottenham and Edmonton Dispensary are all in pretty decent nick, externally anyway, and Warmington House and Marsh House aren't exactly derelict. I'd say that a million would cover it and you'd still have change for a few beers at the Two Brewers. Well, you would, if the plc, having extensively restored it as a pub, have extensively converted it into a ticket office. That won't have come cheap.

Most of the £16m-odd paid to Haringey and TfL is to go on road and pedestrian access; I will confess that I don't understand why Spurs have had to stump up £3m to TfL towards improvements at Tottenham Hale Station (WHL and NP yes, I could see, but the Hale?), but we're talking about a tiny percentage of the whole here. Nevertheless, an alarming number of people on SC seem to be under the impression that Haringey has put endless obstacles in Spurs' path and tried to extort scores of millions.

This is total bollocks.

 

[roosh]

Next time you're down at the Lane look at the buildings which have been preserved and think really, really hard how restoring them could possibly come to £50m. Rudolph's, the 'Red House' and the old Tottenham and Edmonton Dispensary are all in pretty decent nick, externally anyway, and Warmington House and Marsh House aren't exactly derelict. I'd say that a million would cover it and you'd still have change for a few beers at the Two Brewers. Well, you would, if the plc, having extensively restored it as a pub, have extensively converted it into a ticket office. That won't have come cheap.

Most of the £16m-odd paid to Haringey and TfL is to go on road and pedestrian access; I will confess that I don't understand why Spurs have had to stump up £3m to TfL towards improvements at Tottenham Hale Station (WHL and NP yes, I could see, but the Hale?), but we're talking about a tiny percentage of the whole here. Nevertheless, an alarming number of people on SC seem to be under the impression that Haringey has put endless obstacles in Spurs' path and tried to extort scores of millions.

This is total bollocks.

That perception of Harringey has abounded alright, but when it comes down to the actual figures, I don't think it matters why the cost of the NDP is so high, the issue is that it is actually more costly.

 

[MattyP]

Just revisited the first planning application compared to the second.

The first application wanted planning permission for 434 flats, the second only for 200.

At a very conservative average of £100,000 per flat, that's best part of £24m of the £50m explained, add the £16m and you are almost up to the £50m already.

 

[SpurSince57]

That perception of Harringey has abounded alright, but when it comes down to the actual figures, I don't think it matters why the cost of the NDP is so high, the issue is that it is actually more costly.

The whole project will be more expensive, sure, but we're not comparing like for like. You have to knock off what's already been spent from that £450m too, and will the saving be invested in the squad or passed on to the fans in the way of cheaper tickets? In the case of the latter, dream on. We're cash cows, and the plc knows that.

 

[jj87]

Me too but I think we're in the minority and if I'm right then I don't like the alternatives of staying at WHL with no NDP and falling behind due to limited capacity or bankrupting the club in building NDP.

Who said anything about bankruptcy?

It is a completely skewed debate when staying in Tottenham becomes presented as anti-progress, bankrupting the club or falling behind.

The fact is we are competing and progressing as it stands, are not short of cash and an increased capacity at White Hart Lane would strengthen us even further. Otherwise it wouldn't have ever even been considered as an option.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

The whole project will be more expensive, sure, but we're not comparing like for like. You have to knock off what's already been spent from that £450m too, and will the saving be invested in the squad or passed on to the fans in the way of cheaper tickets? In the case of the latter, dream on. We're cash cows, and the plc knows that.

SS57 - you clearly think the numbers discussed are wrong so what do you think the agenda of the "plc" is ?

Personally I'm not sure what DL has done to warrant this lack of trust other than being the best custodian of the club in my memory.

 

[SpurSince57]

Why inverted commas for 'plc'. They're better employed for 'club'.

Levy has indeed been an excellent custodian of the 'club', but let's not forget that he's also been an excellent custodian of one of ENIC's assets; Lammy (who's always struck me as an OK guy on the several occasions I've met him, despite the double damnation of being a New 'Labour' MP and a lawyer) went totally troppo on Talkshite—perhaps something to do with having to have your brain switched off before you're allowed on air—but did touch on, to put it mildly, what must be at the back of all our minds; is ENIC going to cash in at some stage? The 'I know he's going to sell the club, officer, 'cos he' got that shifty look about him' isn't the brightest way to put your case, especially for someone who's a lawyer, but doesn't it concern you that we're getting into bed with a hugely rich 'events' company that also happens to be massive in US sports franchises?

And it's not that I think the figures are 'wrong'; I know the '£50m' for the restoration of the listed buildings is total bollocks, but I have no idea how the difference between the NPD and the OS breaks down, and neither does anyone else outside the upper echelons at Spurs. Without that, how are we supposed to make any kind of decision?

 

[roosh]

The whole project will be more expensive, sure, but we're not comparing like for like. You have to knock off what's already been spent from that £450m too, and will the saving be invested in the squad or passed on to the fans in the way of cheaper tickets? In the case of the latter, dream on. We're cash cows, and the plc knows that.

This issue of comparing like for like is a bit of a misnomer, because it won't be built like for like. The overall cost of both developments need to be compared, and the one that represents the most financially sound should be preferred.

Current location and heritage should also be considered, but if the cost of staiying where we are runs into the hundreds of millions then the sentimental aspect of staying put should be questioned.

It's a bit like a family moving house, from a family home. There is undoubted emotional attachment to the current home, but if the cost and hassle of renovating the current home, will mean that the family has to wait longer to achieve their goals, as well as take on extra burdens that are not central to achieving their goals, then it might make more sense to move into the much easier and less expensive option just 5 miles down the road.

The family won't forget their old home, and there may be some emotions attached to the end of an era, but the family will undoubtedly settle into their new abode - much easier if all the family rally together and the benefits of the new home start to materialise sooner.


It really does come down to a question of how much staying in our current location means to us as a club, and what the costings of both sites are.

On the very crude figures we have so far, is it worth £200m plus the increased revenue over the lifetime of the lease?

Or can we learn to accept our new home?

 

[bigturnip]

Mentioned in many articles on the topic, I don't think anyone has the break down and from memory a few pages back a couple of people were e-mailing the club to try and get this. What we do know is that dealing with the concerns of English Heritage alone cost £50mil so not difficult to see all the other differences amounting to 4x this.

Please link me to one of these 'many articles' where the difference for the two projects has been quoted as £200m from an official source.

 

[Spursking]

I can understand that some people in the local Tottenham area can react about a possible move away from the "Tottenham area", but to progress as a Club we need a bigger stadium - a brand new Stadium with top quality facilities.

 

[roosh]

Why inverted commas for 'plc'. They're better employed for 'club'.

Levy has indeed been an excellent custodian of the 'club', but let's not forget that he's also been an excellent custodian of one of ENIC's assets; Lammy (who's always struck me as an OK guy on the several occasions I've met him, despite the double damnation of being a New 'Labour' MP and a lawyer) went totally troppo on Talkshite—perhaps something to do with having to have your brain switched off before you're allowed on air—but did touch on, to put it mildly, what must be at the back of all our minds; is ENIC going to cash in at some stage? The 'I know he's going to sell the club, officer, 'cos he' got that shifty look about him' isn't the brightest way to put your case, especially for someone who's a lawyer, but doesn't it concern you that we're getting into bed with a hugely rich 'events' company that also happens to be massive in US sports franchises?

And it's not that I think the figures are 'wrong'; I know the '£50m' for the restoration of the listed buildings is total bollocks, but I have no idea how the difference between the NPD and the OS breaks down, and neither does anyone else outside the upper echelons at Spurs. Without that, how are we supposed to make any kind of decision?

I think it is only prudent to presume that ENIC will, at some stage, sell the club to the highest bidder. The nature of business and indeed life is that all things are impermanent, so either the club ceases to exist, or it is sold.

The question we should perhaps be asking, is whether there is a conflict of interest between ENIC and the fans. ENIC are undoubtedly interested, primarily, in a return on investment, while the fans are primarily concerned about the club as a going concern as well as competing for honours. The location of the club is also quite important. The order of those priorities is perhaps down to the individual.

So is there a conflict of interest between the first two, and the attempt to realise a return on investment? I would say, not necessarily, the three pretty much go hand in hand.

It comes down to a question of how much financial difference will it make? Is that financial difference enough to justify leaving our current home?
At what cost should we stay where we are?
What material difference would the savings and additional revenue make to the chances of success of the team?


As you mention, until we have the figures it is difficult to make a decision. Unfortunately, we might not actually get the detailed costings, so we have to base our decision on other information.

The first is a question of the level of trust we have in the board? And this is largely predicated on whether there is an actual conflict of interest betweeen maximising shareholder returns and progressing the future of the football club.

Personally, I think the two are interlinked, so I would give the benefit of the doubt to the board, because if it improves the value of the club, then it will have a trickle down effect on the team.

 

[bigturnip]

I can understand that some people in the local Tottenham area can react about a possible move away from the "Tottenham area", but to progress as a Club we need a bigger stadium - a brand new Stadium with top quality facilities.

Simple then, build a bigger stadium in Tottenham, oh wait a minute...

 

[SpurSince57]

I can understand that some people in the local Tottenham area can react about a possible move away from the "Tottenham area", but to progress as a Club we need a bigger stadium - a brand new Stadium with top quality facilities.

Go back to sleep.