What's new

Tottenham insist suggestions of £1.2bn final stadium bill are inaccurate

mawspurs

Staff
Jun 29, 2003
35,066
17,740
Tottenham Hotspur believe they can complete the club’s new stadium for under £1billion, despite the rising cost of delays and gloomy predictions of construction experts.

Source: Telegraph
 

wakefieldyid

SC Supporter
Jun 13, 2006
1,560
1,591
Nothing too elightening in the Telegraph report, which is full of comments by unidentified industry insiders. From the tone of the reports, it's hard to escape the conclusion that these insiders are probably connected to Multiplex, the unsuccessful bidders for the project.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
"Sources within the construction industry claim......."

"One construction expert has told Telegraph Sport......"

No names, no quotes, no credentials of the so-called 'expert(s). The usual scaremongering bullshit. There used to be a time when this type of crap was called 'tabloid journalism' and the 'broadsheets' considered themselves above it. Evidently no longer.
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
"Sources within the construction industry claim......."

"One construction expert has told Telegraph Sport......"

No names, no quotes, no credentials of the so-called 'expert(s). The usual scaremongering bullshit. There used to be a time when this type of crap was called 'tabloid journalism' and the 'broadsheets' considered themselves above it. Evidently no longer.

That isn't how journalism works, particularly in B2B. Insiders and sources is how most stories break as industries are small and you'll be ostracised if you go on the record.

Obviously, some pervert this and give the industry a bad name, but similarly the idea that if there are no quotes or it's only an insider, then it's not true, is just a very naive way of looking at it.

If they had a quote from Levy and head of Mace on the record, would you believe it all? They'd have their PR hats on and be on damage limitation, yet by your reckoning that should all be gospel.

Most of the stadium reports have been emanating from Construction News, which is very reputable. I used to work in their office and they're known for being very on it.
 
Last edited:

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
That isn't how journalism works, particularly in B2B. Insiders and sources is how most stories breaks as industries are small and you'll be ostracised if you go on the record. Obviously, some pervert this and give the industry a bad name, but similarly the idea that if there are no quotes or it's only an insider, then it's not true, is just a very naive way of looking at it.

If they had a quote from Levy and head of Mace on the record, would you believe it all? They'd have their PR hats on and be on damage limitation, yet but your reckoning that should all be gospel.

Did you think Balague's piece the other day was made up tosh, or do you think he had an inside line on Poch? Let's see if he gets access again as that should tell you exactly where it came from. As if it was made up, why would Poch ever give him the time of day again?

Most of the stadium reports have been emanating from Construction News, which is very reputable. I used to work in their office and they're known for being very on it.
If that's what you want to believe then go ahead.

To provide some perspective, the original projected cost of the entire development - including hotel and apartments - was estimated at 800 million. Now around eighteen months later we are expected to believe that the stadium, not the whole development, will cost 1.2 billion; and we are to believe this with no evidence apart from the opinion of a single, un-named 'expert' of whom we don't know his or her level of expertise, the access that he or she may have to the original cost projection, contract structure, current costs, or detailed specifications of the project.

You call it informed opinion if you wish. I call it sensationalist bullshit.
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
If that's what you want to believe then go ahead.

To provide some perspective, the original projected cost of the entire development - including hotel and apartments - was estimated at 800 million. Now around eighteen months later we are expected to believe that the stadium, not the whole development, will cost 1.2 billion; and we are to believe this with no evidence apart from the opinion of a single, un-named 'expert' of whom we don't know his or her level of expertise, the access that he or she may have to the original cost projection, contract structure, current costs, or detailed specifications of the project.

You call it informed opinion if you wish. I call it sensationalist bullshit.

That’s not what I said and it’s not what you said.

I don’t argue for it, or the facts and figures inside; I argue against the idea that no quotes or named source means bullshit. As that’s bullshit. And this story sounds fairly obviously like the source is at Multiplex from the way it’s written, and the details revealed. As ever you read between the lines.

Although the original projected cost is relatively meaningless now in a mid-Brexit world, sorry. Materials, import duties, costs, everything has gone up and likely to rise more, and Levy could never have predicted that - even before the delays that we are still in the middle of, with an undetermined end point, and are reportedly picking up the cost for.

But just go ahead believing the positive stories and writing off the bad ones as rubbish. The club have been behind the news at every turn; quite why you’d base it solely on their word I’ve no idea as they’ve been wrong about pretty much everything, sometimes seemingly wilfully so.
 
Last edited:

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
That’s not what I said and it’s not what you said. I don’t argue for it, I argue against the idea that no quotes or named source means bullshit. As that’s bullshit. And sounds fairly obviously like the source is at Multiplex from the way it’s written.

And the original projected cost is meaningless now in a mid-Brexit world, sorry. Materials, costs, everything has gone up, even before the delays that we are reportedly picking up the cost on.

But just go ahead believing the positive stories and writing off the bad ones as rubbish.
You make a number of assumptions, particularly about me, that I would like to correct:-
1. I know how journalism works regarding the protection of sources.
2. I know how journalism works regarding 'clickbait'.
3. I know how journalism works regarding journalists 'fishing' by putting out partially substantiated or unsubstantiated stories hoping to reel in further sources in order to get to the bottom of an issue.
4. I am aware of the fact that Brexit has had an impact on construction costs.
5. I do not consider quotes to be 'gospel' whoever the source is; they are generally opinion. However, a quote from a named official of the club is of more value in this instance that any other for the simple reason that the figures can subsequently be checked in published accounts.
6. I know that the absence of any quotes does not make a story bullshit.
7. I do not automatically believe 'positive' stories and 'write off bad ones as rubbish'.

Having said that, my point is and was a simple one: that for the costs of the stadium to have increased by 400 million - 50% of the original total project costs (which, let us not forget, include the not insignificant historical, completed, cost of land acquisition) - is sensationalist bullshit; and that the absence of any credible source being quoted is evidence to support this opinion.

You are welcome to your opinion, even if - and perhaps particularly if - you think mine is wrong. However, I chose not to make assumptions or comments about you in my response to your post and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
You make a number of assumptions, particularly about me, that I would like to correct:-
1. I know how journalism works regarding the protection of sources.
2. I know how journalism works regarding 'clickbait'.
3. I know how journalism works regarding journalists 'fishing' by putting out partially substantiated or unsubstantiated stories hoping to reel in further sources in order to get to the bottom of an issue.
4. I am aware of the fact that Brexit has had an impact on construction costs.
5. I do not consider quotes to be 'gospel' whoever the source is; they are generally opinion. However, a quote from a named official of the club is of more value in this instance that any other for the simple reason that the figures can subsequently be checked in published accounts.
6. I know that the absence of any quotes does not make a story bullshit.
7. I do not automatically believe 'positive' stories and 'write off bad ones as rubbish'.

Having said that, my point is and was a simple one: that for the costs of the stadium to have increased by 400 million - 50% of the original total project costs (which, let us not forget, include the not insignificant historical, completed, cost of land acquisition) - is sensationalist bullshit; and that the absence of any credible source being quoted is evidence to support this opinion.

You are welcome to your opinion, even if - and perhaps particularly if - you think mine is wrong. However, I chose not to make assumptions or comments about you in my response to your post and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Cool beans. As is increasingly the case on this site, and in life in fact, you are trying to change the order of things to paint yourself in a better light

Your initial comment made lots of assumptions as did your response to me. So the idea that you don’t make assumptions is frankly laughable when your entire point is based on assumptions. As are most on this subject.

No 6 of your last post completely contradicts your first post, in fact, as you used “no quotes” as evidence of it being bullshit. Now you’re caveating

For someone who knows how journalism works, your first post was woefully ill informed, so was that wilfully so? Did you even read the story?

As for costs, it was originally costed at 400m so already doubled before work began and was reportedly up to £1bn projection at end of last year (so 8 months ago). Since then we’ve had a major delay and a flood on site, and the clock is ticking with no move-in date.

But yeah seems like total make believe
 
Last edited:

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
While tempted to go through your post line by line, I have neither the time or the inclination. However, one comment of yours is particularly apposite.

My last post contained this:
I chose not to make assumptions or comments about you in my response to your post and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Yet you wrote this:
Your initial comment made lots of assumptions as did your response to me. So the idea that you don’t make assumptions is frankly laughable when your entire point is based on assumptions.

So I haven't said or implied that I didn't make any assumptions and you either intentionally misinterpreted what I said or have a problem with written comprehension. Whatever the case, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Have a nice day.
 

sebo_sek

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2005
6,023
5,168
Whilst I don't think that the cost have skyrocketed to this extent, I am worried about these complications especially is regards to the NFL contract. Surely this will undermine our credibility as a partner to this multi-billion dollar industry.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
As I have posted 5-6 times on the New Stadium thread, there is a 20+ year history of journalists pulling the same scam, which is to ask about build costs at the inception of a construction project and then compare them with total development costs when the project is nearing the end. They do this specifically so they can whip up "outrageous cost overrun" stories. Everyone who works in development is familiar with it - we see it in the local press as much as the national press.

In this case, they've used especially egregious language: THFC "face a bill in the region of £1.2bn to complete their new stadium". which makes it sound as if there is a further £1.2bn still to pay. That's not an accident. It's an attempt to mislead.

The Telegraph itself, only a few days ago, published a sensible and reliable "Q&A" about the new stadium, in which it pointed out that 40% of the £850m cost of the overall project represented the stadium proper and that a similar amount of the total cost had been expended many years ago on land, planning consent and other preliminary costs.

The significance of this very last point for football supporters is that those costs do not have to be borrowed, because they were paid up to a decade ago. They probably haven't been represented in past income and expenditure accounts, because they've been capitalised, but the cash has been paid and thus does not represent debt. Rather, it represents equity.
 

littlewilly

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2013
1,670
5,181
Cool beans. As is increasingly the case on this site, and in life in fact, you are trying to change the order of things to paint yourself in a better light

Your initial comment made lots of assumptions as did your response to me. So the idea that you don’t make assumptions is frankly laughable when your entire point is based on assumptions. As are most on this subject.

No 6 of your last post completely contradicts your first post, in fact, as you used “no quotes” as evidence of it being bullshit. Now you’re caveating

For someone who knows how journalism works, your first post was woefully ill informed, so was that wilfully so? Did you even read the story?

As for costs, it was originally costed at 400m so already doubled before work began and was reportedly up to £1bn projection at end of last year (so 8 months ago). Since then we’ve had a major delay and a flood on site, and the clock is ticking with no move-in date.

But yeah seems like total make believe
Why waste so much of your time with speculation and quasi-expertise. I just read David M's posts on this to get better informed and ignore silly newspaper columns.
 

parj

NDombelly ate all the pies
Jul 27, 2003
3,586
5,861
£300m increase because of work that was done wrong in the safety systems.
  1. If the safety systems are installed incorrectly then the contractor employed to install has to fix
  2. The outstanding work will still be covered in the original quote unless Levy has changed something. You don't get a quote to build a stadium and then say it's for X days work. The incentive is on the contractor to delay
  3. £1.2bn for the stadium.... Lol. Massively over inflated.
Any contractor that provided this info is lying, or more realistically, the journo is lying
 

Vwbottom

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2012
2,079
6,134
And this ladies and gentlemen is probably why we didn't spend any money in the summer.
 

striebs

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2004
4,504
667
As I have posted 5-6 times on the New Stadium thread, there is a 20+ year history of journalists pulling the same scam, which is to ask about build costs at the inception of a construction project and then compare them with total development costs when the project is nearing the end. They do this specifically so they can whip up "outrageous cost overrun" stories. Everyone who works in development is familiar with it - we see it in the local press as much as the national press.

In this case, they've used especially egregious language: THFC "face a bill in the region of £1.2bn to complete their new stadium". which makes it sound as if there is a further £1.2bn still to pay. That's not an accident. It's an attempt to mislead.

The Telegraph itself, only a few days ago, published a sensible and reliable "Q&A" about the new stadium, in which it pointed out that 40% of the £850m cost of the overall project represented the stadium proper and that a similar amount of the total cost had been expended many years ago on land, planning consent and other preliminary costs.

The significance of this very last point for football supporters is that those costs do not have to be borrowed, because they were paid up to a decade ago. They probably haven't been represented in past income and expenditure accounts, because they've been capitalised, but the cash has been paid and thus does not represent debt. Rather, it represents equity.

Good point about the actual construction not even being half of the overall costs .

It seems reasonable to consider it equity .. if the project is carried through to completion .

I'm not an accountant but if the project were to be abandoned however , much of it would surely have to be reconsidered to be R&D expenditure .

Are Mace more solvent than Capita ? Would it be normal to insure the project against insolvency of the construction company ?

Project overruns and cost blowouts are the norm in most industries . Are the overruns particularly exceptional in this case ? Has it been rushed ?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
Good point about the actual construction not even being half of the overall costs .

It seems reasonable to consider it equity .. if the project is carried through to completion .

I'm not an accountant but if the project were to be abandoned however , much of it would surely have to be reconsidered to be R&D expenditure .

You generally capitalise all costs associated with a project while it is under construction and beforehand. If it were abandoned, I suppose you would have the partially completed premises valued, based on market value less cost-to-complete, and then write off or write back the difference between that and all costs accumulated to date, including historical costs such as land, also professional fees. That presupposes that you're trying to persuade someone to take over the project and finish it.

Are Mace more solvent than Capita ?

No idea.

Would it be normal to insure the project against insolvency of the construction company ?

It is common with projects where there is a general contractor who subcontracts the detailed works. It's also often necessary: bankruptcies and insolvencies are common in construction, because of small margins, negative cash flow and knock-on effects from bankruptcies of clients. I'm not sure how a developer could put this in place for a construction-management contract, because it isn't Mace cash-funding the build. THFC is doing that itself, by letting multiple specialist contracts, with Mace coordinating everything.

If you are concerned about the effects of liquidated damages on Mace, that isn't a concern now: they won't be agreed for many months/years, probably after a long and contentious negotiation.

Project overruns and cost blowouts are the norm in most industries . Are the overruns particularly exceptional in this case ? Has it been rushed ?

It's not a surprise that it takes more than a year to build a stadium! it was an exceptionally short programme and even the club agrees that it was a demanding order to get it ready in that time. I can't tell you if it has been "rushed". If parts of the work look shoddy and if many defects arise after it is under management, then we can conclude that it was rushed. There will be defects - there are always defects. But there was never any ambiguity about the ambitiousness of trying to make the stadium usable by Aug/Sept this year.
 
Top