The new Spurs stadium - from topspurs

yiddo

Interesting read from Il Falcone on topspurs re the stadium.http://www.topspurs.com/thfccol-ilfalcone.htm

26th March 2008 – The new Spurs stadium

Now that the euphoria of the Carling Cup win has started to abate, thoughts have naturally turned to the future and what the prospects are for Spurs. Despite the reverse in the UEFA Cup and mixed fortunes in the league, what could have been a farcical season has turned into a trophy-winning campaign, which, really, is what counts. The outlook now is arguably better than it has been for many years (or at least since the last time the outlook was arguably better than it had been for many years).

Associated with such an upturn in our fortunes, the issue of the stadium has again been raised. The reasoning is that, if Tottenham really do want to compete and break into the fabled ‘top 4’, we need to either completely redevelop White Hart Lane or move to a new, purpose built arena.

If we do nothing and stand still, the argument follows, we don’t have a hope of catching up with the big boys, as we will miss out on the vastly increased revenues that come with having a capacity of around 60,000 compared to the meagre 36,000 that WHL currently holds. Look at Arsenal, runs the logic – see how they have benefited from having a swanky new stadium.

So let’s look at Arsenal. Though we may hate to admit any admiration for how the interlopers have gone about their business, it’s worth noting the order in which they have reached their current position as Champions League regulars. They assembled a winning team first and only then did they turn their attention to their own stadium dilemma. Trophies, frequent Champions League participation and with it a rise in TV money and increased demand at the gate made the Death Star viable, not the other way round. They may have had plenty of favours from local and regional government and public bodies, and they had to take on huge debt to fund it all, but the decision to move came from a solid foundation built on success on the pitch.

Tottenham’s position is actually similarly secure. We don’t, in the short term at least, need the money a bigger stadium can bring. THFC plc is one of those rare things in football – a profitable business. According to Deloitte’s annual bragging list, the club is the 11th ‘richest’ in the world. Despite an absence of CL participation thus far, one of the main reasons for this robust health is that the club has been able to depend on the loyalty and financial support of a large fanbase. For years we have been major spenders in the transfer market and high-price deals will continue while the TV cash keeps rolling in.

We don’t need to take on the huge debt burden of an entirely new ground to speculate for future success. Indeed, stepping into such a risky venture could even harm our chances: Arsenal have got lucky in that their relative ‘blip’ of no trophies for three and a bit seasons and more muted title challenges have been compensated by continuing participation in the CL and the new domestic TV deal.

This has kept them ticking over and enabled them to service the massive loans that funded the Theatre of Nightmares’ construction. But one season out of the CL money pit could tip their precarious debt position further into the red, particularly pertinent at a time of credit squeeze. In such a climate and without the safety net of CL revenue, we would be even more exposed. There’s taking a risk and being reckless, and having a large punt on the prospect of attaining a hard-to-achieve ambition after the ground is built at great expense, veers towards the latter.

Examples of how it should perhaps be done are not limited to the Goons. Before Man U turned Old Trafford into the world’s biggest football shopping complex, they made sure there were trophies in the bag first, and even then only redeveloped OT bit by bit. Successful clubs tend to concentrate on building a successful team before their ground. Examples of the errors of those who tried to do it the other way are numerous. Southampton, Derby, Coventry, Sunderland and even Newcastle have all been damaged to varying degrees by putting the cart before the horse.

There are similar doubts to be had over the reasons being given by the club for a complete redevelopment or a move. Chief among these is the old chestnut of transport issues. A myth seems to have been transformed into accepted fact that WHL is almost impossible to get to, that the parking problems are horrendous, and that escaping from the area after the final whistle is akin to The Warrior’s desperate fight for survival in the film of the same name.

WHL can be a pain to get to, the parking is an inconvenience, there are traffic jams after the game and Tottenham might not be the most charming of places on a midwinter night. But is it really that bad? Will a move to a new stadium lead us all into a new dawn of consumer freedom? The party line is that all of these ‘problems’ will be solved at a stroke by upping sticks. Anyone who has been to the new stadia up and down the country knows this is at best challengeable, at worst laughable. And it is worth repeating some facts about how ‘difficult’ it actually is to get to WHL. There are two overground stations and two underground stations, all within either easy or comfortable reach. If you really cannot countenance using public transport, or you are Jeremy Clarkson, there are plenty of private car parks to utilise. And while the rotten tailbacks of the North Circ and the M25 cannot be discounted, these have as much to do with the wider issue of road use than Spurs; people get stuck in traffic jams because there are too many vehicles on the road, not because Tottenham’s ground is in the ‘wrong’ place. There are problems with the transport infrastructure in N17, but these can be addressed and improved without the fait accompli need to cut and run to some former industrial backwater by the A10.

The suspicion persists that the real motive behind the clamour for a new ground is you-know-what. Returning to Arsenal, there are continuing rumours about what lay behind the move to Ashburton Grove, and the luxury development going up at Highbury might provide an answer. In this instance, we do not need to follow suit. After all, shouldn’t football clubs be about football, rather than property portfolios?

In recent weeks there has emerged another factor that might put a doubt on the wisdom of a big new ground. Since the Carling Cup win and the UEFA Cup exit, and with Spurs marooned in midtable, the season has effectively finished. For the remaining home games, it appears they might not be the oversubscribed sell-outs the stories about a massive ST waiting list would have you believe. The message boards are full of tales of fans saying they can’t shift spares, and that the same ‘casual’ supporters who were frantic in their search for a Wembley seat aren’t so desperate to see Spurs v Bolton in a meaningless (for the home team) fixture.

This isn’t to say Tottenham fans are fickle, rather than that when it comes to paying £50 or more to watch what is essentially a non-event, perhaps they are picking and choosing what they want to see. The club treats fans as customers, after all, so they can hardly complain when they exercise their preference as a consumer. For all the talk of the necessity for having a 60,000 capacity stadium, it’s doubtful that Spurs would be able to fill such an arena game in game out.

Without the more wider fanbase and the corporate hangers-on that the Goons have attracted in recent years, Spurs might not have the numbers to justify such an increased capacity quite yet. And when you are paying interest on a £300m loan, empty seats and executive boxes don’t add up. Unless the club were to amend its ticketing policy (and such devoted adherents of the free market are unlikely to countenance a progressive, subsidised pricing structure that will enable less-well off supporters to benefit from a reduced admission charge), there could be some embarrassing gaps for us to explain. Such a slur would be unfair on what is still one of the biggest and most loyal of all British club supports.

So where does that leave us? No one should pretend that the stadium issue is an easy one to resolve. Some difficult decisions will need to be made, and all this while our rivals either continue to count their winnings or travel further down the path to getting their own new ground sorted. If we do nothing, we stagnate, and we cant afford to let the gap widen. So, bearing in mind that there’s little point in being critical without offering some kind of constructive suggestion, here’s an alternative blueprint for a new improved White Hart Lane:

First, tear down the outdated and woefully inadequate West Stand. There is plenty of land that the club owns between it and the High Road, so there is scope for erecting a far larger replacement. Once the site has been cleared, assemble a temporary stand that can seat 5,000 while a new one is built behind it. Brighton have survived for years on something that looks it’s been made out of Blue tac and Meccano and Liverpool did something similar when rebuilding one of their stands a few years back. It’s not ideal but would suffice while a proper main stand is constructed – one that holds at least 15,000 and could hold plenty of boxes and corporate suites to keep the commercial department happy.

This would raise capacity to approximately 45,000. More than enough for where we are now and adaptable enough for where we want to be. If progress is maintained, stage 2 can kick in. We were told when they were redeveloped that the Paxton and Park Lane ends have in-built flexibility for expansion. If that’s the case, whip off the roof, build another couple of tiers to line up with the new West Stand, stick in some more luxury boxes and corporate seating areas and put the roof back on. Out of architectural necessity, these new tiers would probably need to be steep, vertigo-inducing and unsuitable for pregnant ladies. Good. One of Europe’s most intimidating stadiums, the Mestalla follows a similar template and has played no small part in making Valencia such a difficult team to beat at home.

This could leave us with a revised capacity of 55,000 plus: enough to take up the reported ST waiting list and enable many more members to see more games. If we still need a greater capacity then the East Stand would be next. This is arguably the most difficult to redevelop. Such was the botched job last time around that we would probably need to knock the whole thing down and start again. The club would have it that they have looked at doing this but myriad planning and logistical problems have kyboshed the option.

This might be the case now but is surely not insurmountable in the future. Man U solved their East Stand problem by incorporating the road underneath the new structure; we could do the same. At the same time, the club could work with local and regional authorities to improve transport in the area, chiefly an upgrade and extension of the Victoria line that could lead to a new Tube stop at Northumberland Park. And for those who cannot contemplate getting to WHL by anything other than a car, the club could provide additional affordable parking space on the land it now owns to the north of Paxton Road.

The net result would be a proper football stadium with a capacity possibly in excess of 60,000, with the cost spread over an extended period of time and invested as when circumstances allowed. And we’d still be in Tottenham. That might not sit comfortably with the naysayers who claim that there is no alternative but to abandon our spiritual home, but why ever not? We Are Tottenham, from the lane: it’s who we are, what we are and shouldn’t ever change it. West Essex Hotspurs, playing at the Brentwood Amstrad Leisure Arena, just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

This plan is no doubt riddled with architectural, design, financial and planning flaws. It ignores a welter of huge problems that will be difficult to overcome. But that’s not the same as saying it can’t be done.

therecklessone

My preference has always been for a redevelopment rather than a move away from the existing site, so I'm obviously in favour of what he's suggesting.

I'd exercise caution on the subject of "cart before horse" though, comparing us and any of Southampton, Sunderland, Derby etc is laughable...our geographical position alone suggests we can corner a significant portion of corporate money. That is where the big bucks lie, the Goons are supposed to make as much money from their 10k corporate/premium seats as they do from the 50k Joe Soap seats. Spurs cannot afford to be left behind in that regard, N17 has precious little to offer a visiting suit other than the matchday experience.

As for the argument for an increased capacity, is the demand really there? How many games have we sold out this year?

August
14 Tue Home Everton PL 35716
18 Sat Home Derby PL 35600

September 2007
15 Sat Home Arsenal PL 36053
20 Thu Home Anorthosis Famagusta UEFA Cup 35780
26 Wed Home Middlesbrough Carling Cup 30084

October 2007
01 Mon Home Aston Villa PL 36094
25 Thu Home Getafe UEFA Cup 26240
28 Sun Home Blackburn PL 36086
31 Wed Home Blackpool Carling Cup 32196

November 2007
11 Sun Home Wigan PL 35504
29 Thu Home Aalborg UEFA Cup 29758

December 2007
02 Sun Home Birmingham PL 35635
09 Sun Home Man City PL 35646
26 Wed Home Fulham PL 36077
29 Sat Home Reading PL 36178

January 2008
05 Sat Home Reading FA Cup 35243
19 Sat Home Sunderland PL 36070
22 Tue Home Arsenal Carling Cup 35979

February 2008
02 Sat Home Man Utd PL 36075
21 Thu Home Slavia Prague UEFA Cup 34224

March 2008
06 Thu Home PSV Eindhoven UEFA Cup 33259
09 Sun Home West Ham PL 36062
19 Wed Home Chelsea PL 36178
22 Sat Home Portsmouth PL 35998


Our capacity is 36,310.

Our best league attendance is 36,178 which is pretty good, but those cup games make grim reading...:( Where exactly was our ST waiting list vs Getafe in the UEFA or Boro in the Carling Cups?

yiddo

I'm inclined to agree with you about the demand. I'm a member and cept for the goons and man uits always fairly easy to get a ticket. I know you sometimes have to be online at 9.30 on the first morning etc but its not impossible. I sometimes wonder would 45k be enough?

Dublin Spur

We are not a Derby or a Southampton by any means, we're much bigger.
But in the same token we nowhere near a big as Arsenal these days (sadly)

Arsenal's new stadium was built on the back of
1) 10/12 years of sustained sucess and the amount of new fans that this produces
2) CL football every season
3) they got a zhitload of cash for their old home
4) great co-operation from their local concil re planning permission etc...

I think it would be very dangerous to think we could pull the same gig off as those w@nkers up the road. I don't think we could as the both clubs circumstances are completely different.

I think that 50k would be plenty big enough for WHL. that's just another 15k on top of were we are now. If the West stand was changed to something like the main stand at Leeds then it would be a case of job done. And there's room for a zhitload of corporate boxes there too. Move the back of the stand onto the current carpark and put a new car park underground. Job done

KingdomYid

I too would be in favour of redevelopement of WHL rather than moving away.I agree totally with the idea of building step by step according to success and stability.After all as the writer above said "We are Tottenham from The Lane".I think anywhere around the 50-55K mark is more than adequate to fulfill the demand for tickets apart from maybe 2 or 3 games a season where demand goes crazy,but you could not justify huge debt just for these couple of big games.

galinka

Very well thought out plan for redevelopment. 50,000 would be plenty - increasing ST numbers would mean no tickets for non ST holders when it comes to Wembley time in future, think only 7000 this year for LC final.

My only gripe about Tottenham is the area itself! Bloody awful dump.

Hatch99

My only gripe about Tottenham is the area itself! Bloody awful dump.[/QUOTE]


Imagine how the Scousers feel :-)

therecklessone

galinka wrote: »

Very well thought out plan for redevelopment. 50,000 would be plenty - increasing ST numbers would mean no tickets for non ST holders when it comes to Wembley time in future, think only 7000 this year for LC final.

In truth Andrew, if we did increase capacity and ST numbers to 30k+ I believe the club would have to look at the way tickets are allocated for Big demand games again, and probably set aside a % for members for the likes of cup finals (and probably FA Cup semis as well)

Indeed, they might even extend that to all of our away games, including league fixtures.

galinka

Absolutely Ronan, there is no way they could allocate all tickets to ST holders especially if ST number increased beyond 30,000.
And selling ST is the only way to guarantee end of season fixtures like Boro and Bolton.:D

indiewindy

therecklessone wrote: »

09 Sun Home Man City PL 35646
26 Wed Home Fulham PL 36077
29 Sat Home Reading PL 36178

January 2008
05 Sat Home Reading FA Cup 35243
19 Sat Home Sunderland PL 36070
22 Tue Home Arsenal Carling Cup 35979

February 2008
02 Sat Home Man Utd PL 36075
21 Thu Home Slavia Prague UEFA Cup 34224

March 2008
06 Thu Home PSV Eindhoven UEFA Cup 33259
09 Sun Home West Ham PL 36062
19 Wed Home Chelsea PL 36178
22 Sat Home Portsmouth PL 35998


Our capacity is 36,310.

Our best league attendance is 36,178 which is pretty good, but those cup games make grim reading...:( Where exactly was our ST waiting list vs Getafe in the UEFA or Boro in the Carling Cups?

Are the empty seats not the away teams not selling out their allocations, 48K in whl would be the best solution

therecklessone

indiewindy wrote: »

Are the empty seats not the away teams not selling out their allocations, 48K in whl would be the best solution

Away accommodation seats 3k, even if Getafe took nobody to WHL we were still 7k short ourselves. In Aalborg's case we'd be 4k short.

I'd be surprised if PSV didn't take their full allocation.

Blackpool definitely took a decent crowd (1.5-2k I believe).