Tottenham reveal new designs for £400million stadium

[postigol]

zzzzzz

17 years on and yet another computer image released.

 

[Hoops]

It looks like Westfield

 

[guiltyparty]

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

The ideal size for a stadium is not what you can fill for every match. That would be too small. The ideal size is what you can fill for most matches.

The marginal costs of an extra few thousand seats aren't that much, compared to the nearly-fixed costs of building a big stadium. So you make it as big as you can, even if that means that it won't be full every time.

"The MARGINAL costs of an extra few THOUSAND seats aren't that much"

Ye jest. How are ENIC going to pay off their debt for the cost of the new stadium if the aim is not to sell every seat?

Every seat no sold is a cost, to suggest otherwise is plain daft. If that was logical the Board should just keep the 36,000 seat stadium and raise cost of season tickets.

Take your theory to a bank for a loan and they would laugh at you more than a Jim Davidson joke.

 

[diamondlight]

The marginal costs of an extra few thousand seats aren't that much, compared to the nearly-fixed costs of building a big stadium. So you make it as big as you can, even if that means that it won't be full every time.

Yup, and Levy will also be accounting for the fact that a shiny new stadium will attract new fans. It will market itself, it will provide a better matchday experience, it will attract better players, and it will have a novelty factor, all of which will bring new faces through the turnstiles. For the small marginal cost of the extra seats, we can afford to gamble on our crowds getting bigger.

 

[BAE]

A bit greedy but I be would have liked an extra 882 seats.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Generally, you can make more money per seat filling a bigger stadium most of the time than you can filling a smaller stadium all of the time. The additional capacity doesn't cost that much - the bigger the stadium, the smaller the cost per seat.

 

[myhartlane]

Are Wembley and Twickenham not in London?

Historically Middlesex so in that context no!

 

[newbie]

The ideal size for a stadium is not what you can fill for every match. That would be too small. The ideal size is what you can fill for most matches.

The marginal costs of an extra few thousand seats aren't that much, compared to the nearly-fixed costs of building a big stadium. So you make it as big as you can, even if that means that it won't be full every time.

I suspect though the first couple of years it will sell out due to the novelty factor, also the corporate side will be top class so hopefully with the economy picking up the boxes will sell out.

 

[myhartlane]

Historically Middlesex so in that context no!

Can't believe some idiot disagrees with me on this historical fact. It's not my opinion mate, it actually was the case!
Chief.

http://genealogy.stredder.net/geography/uk/england/Middlesex/Middlesex Map.htm

 

[Azazello]

Ye jest. How are ENIC going to pay off their debt for the cost of the new stadium if the aim is not to sell every seat?

Every seat no sold is a cost, to suggest otherwise is plain daft. If that was logical the Board should just keep the 36,000 seat stadium and raise cost of season tickets.

Take your theory to a bank for a loan and they would laugh at you more than a Jim Davidson joke.

Do you mean that they wouldn't laugh very much, if at all?

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

Generally, you can make more money per seat filling a bigger stadium most of the time than you can filling a smaller stadium all of the time. The additional capacity doesn't cost that much - the bigger the stadium, the smaller the cost per seat.

Absolute bunkum.

Incredible statement to make David. The cost of the seat, type of events and number of events held would be the revenue and thus profitability decider. I am sure that any new stadium isn't being built to make more profit from being half empty.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I am sure that any new stadium isn't being built to make more profit from being half empty.

Of course not. That's a reductio ad absurdum argument. But I would make an educated guess that it would maximise its profitability if it is (say) entirely full 80% of the time and 60%-80% full the rest of the time, in other words, for midweek European group matches and cup games.

With a slightly 'oversized' stadium, you make more money out of (say) the extra 3,000 customers in the large majority of the games than you lose by carrying a few thousand empty seats in the kind of matches when tickets are generally cheaper anyway.

I'm sure the club has modelled this kind of thing in every conceivable way, dating back to their introduction of the Bronze membership to gauge the level of frustrated demand for season tickets. I really do not think that they have applied to raise the capacity from 56,250 to 61,000 because of a desire to spite Arsenal. They think they can make more money that way, so they paid Populous and their team to value-engineer the stadium design and the transport plan to fit people in more efficiently. Even if that means some empty seats sometimes.

 

[Hoops]

Ye jest. How are ENIC going to pay off their debt for the cost of the new stadium if the aim is not to sell every seat?

Every seat no sold is a cost, to suggest otherwise is plain daft. If that was logical the Board should just keep the 36,000 seat stadium and raise cost of season tickets.

Take your theory to a bank for a loan and they would laugh at you more than a Jim Davidson joke.

Lol good god. I think you should steer clear of business and stick to football topics.

 

[Ironskullll]

Do you mean that they wouldn't laugh very much, if at all?

haha you beat me to it!

 

[southlondonyiddo]

So we have planning for 56,000 currently. Have we applied for planning on 61,000 yet or this is the application now?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

So we have planning for 56,000 currently. Have we applied for planning on 61,000 yet or this is the application now?

The current approved capacity is 56,250. The latest planning application includes, along with many other aspects of redesign, an increase in capacity to 61,000.

I don't think it is an accident that the overall bulk, shape and location of the stadium itself appear to be unchanged, or nearly so. They have carefully avoided making the building conspicuously bigger, because they [rightly] reckon that this would cause controversy with the revised planning consent.

 

[carpediem991]

Personally I think 61k is too much for us at the moment. We show rarely business on the transfer market and show low ambition, so don't know where the 61 k should be coming from in 80% of the games. Europa League games in frint of 20 k in this stadium? We have to be careful not to lose too many with this modernization. I think about 52 k with the option to increase it would be more sensible, but what do I know. Let's see what happens.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

Lol good god. I think you should steer clear of business and stick to football topics.

I sold my business, have homes in two Countries and retired at 48. Am also intelligent enough to know that God is spelt with a capital letter.

I think you should steer clear of assumptions.

Jog on....

 

[PT]

The seat split is circa 53k standard seating and circa 8k hospitality (boxes etc).