Dele 'Muhammad' Alli | Walker takes the finger from Dele | FIFA open disciplinary proceedings

[horsechoker]

You all know WC 2018 will make or break a lot of super transfers that Summer!

Rashford to Real Madrid for £150m

 

[KingMinger22]

If he is to become one of the world best players, it's just matter of time before he leaves for clubs such as Real, Barca or Bayern. Otherwise, he would become a good player but not one of the world best.

His recent comment means he is thinking about the next stop already.

I understand that you are naming those clubs as they are outside of the PL so Spurs would prefer to sell him there...

However, I doubt he is going to want to leave the PL.

Home nations players want to play in the PL, of course. Bale was a complete anomaly.

One of two things will happen in the next 1-3 years with Alli:

1) Spurs break their wage structure and pay him market rates like the other top 4 contenders do.

or

2) He leaves to United or City. Maybe even Chelsea.

He's not going to go abroad. Why would he want to do that? He's English. The PL is everything.

 

[Lawman]

He can be either, switching between the two as circumstances dictate.

I've watched him perhaps a dozen games this season (I enjoy watching Spurs just now) and Alli has had the big build up but I find myself more impressed with some of your other players. I'm not saying he's not the real deal just I haven't quite bought the hype yet. He has great stats for a midfielder but when I watch him he's more of a forward than midfielder nowadays so his stats would not be as impressive. Anyhow wish he was at United and not trying to be a Wum. Just wanted your take on it. His stats and his age profile is off the chart good really not trying to have a go at him here. I just expected more on watching him with all the hype.

 

[Globule]

I understand that you are naming those clubs as they are outside of the PL so Spurs would prefer to sell him there...

However, I doubt he is going to want to leave the PL.

Home nations players want to play in the PL, of course. Bale was a complete anomaly.

One of two things will happen in the next 1-3 years with Alli:

1) Spurs break their wage structure and pay him market rates like the other top 4 contenders do.

or

2) He leaves to United or City. Maybe even Chelsea.

He's not going to go abroad. Why would he want to do that? He's English. The PL is everything.

Perhaps he's one of those type of Englishmen that *shudder* would like to experience a new culture and broaden his horizons.
He could earn megabucks at Bayern, Real or Barca, have a better chance of winning trophies and enjoy nicer weather. He might even have a proper crack at winning a CL or two, because those pesky foreign clubs didn't read the memo that the PL is everything.

 

[Claude Makélélé]

I understand that you are naming those clubs as they are outside of the PL so Spurs would prefer to sell him there...

However, I doubt he is going to want to leave the PL.

Home nations players want to play in the PL, of course. Bale was a complete anomaly.

One of two things will happen in the next 1-3 years with Alli:

1) Spurs break their wage structure and pay him market rates like the other top 4 contenders do.

or

2) He leaves to United or City. Maybe even Chelsea.

He's not going to go abroad. Why would he want to do that? He's English. The PL is everything.

Thanks for mentioning Chelsea but I do not expect we can sign him. We should definitely focus on other talents in the continent to save time and money. But I would be glad if he till stays at PL then.

 

[Claude Makélélé]

First of all, the post I replied to - before you jumped in - also mentioned the stadia of Chelsea, City and PSG. Secondly I'm talking about stadia in terms of their design, features and facilities, not about trophies won there or fan base or memories or who has played there. And thirdly, the sales value of naming rights is to do with the club as a whole and not just the stadium concerned.

Regardless of your condescending rant, I have many reasons right to think the new Spurs stadium is going to be awesome and better (not bigger, but better) than some of the stadia referred to. For example, it will have the largest single-tier stand ('kop') in the UK, bigger even than Borussia Dortmund’s ‘Yellow Wall’.

It has also been designed to bring the fans as close to the pitch as possible (closer than at any other modern stadium in the country) and has been acoustically engineered in several different ways to maximise the volume and longevity of the sound made by fans. These various acoustic features include a curved stadium roof, lined with aluminium to help bounce sound back towards the pitch, and even include fine tuning the acoustic properties of the material from which the seats are made.

There are in addition many other features: e.g. the sky lounge, a sky walk, a glass tunnel players entrance, a five-storey high glass atrium at the south end to provide a new focus for home supporters before and after the match, comfortable modern seating with more leg-room than at any other comparable ground in the UK, the longest general admission bar in any UK stadium, a micro-brewery, an in-house bakery ... the list goes on, and that's without even mentioning the many features and facilities outside of the stadium itself but within the stadium complex.

In general terms it's been designed to be much more than a place where fans just come to a match and then go home - it's intended to be a "day-long" experience.

Your new stadium is awesome and better than many others in your opinion, that would be true in terms of physical appearance. A big congratulation to you. But stop using it as a stark evidence to prove that Spurs is already a big big thing and that stadium will be the key to attracting new talents. That's bullshit. Most fans here, especially United, Liverpool and Arsenal (well, if not Chelsea) fans, knows exactly what a big big club is.

Good players (not even great ones), except salaries and trophies (that Spurs currently lack of) or good development for their careers (which Spurs probably is good at), don't care about other bullshit like the stadium - except they are going to Santiago Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Old Trafford or probably Allianz Arena. Those stadium have legendary status. Playing there actually would count as an achievement.

Edit: Finally, don't expect the new stadium will be the key boosting your spending power immediately. That's another garbage logic. The new stadium has to pay 70M loan annually during the next 5 years (excluding interest) for its 350M 5-year loan.

So even if its revenue is 100M matching that of Camp Nou and Bernabeu where regularly host the world biggest games (such an unreal scenario), the net revenue of Spurs' new stadium is about 100 - 70 = 30M annually for the next 5 years. This could even worse than the current stadium's revenue. Financially speaking, in short term, there should be no much excitement.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Your new stadium is awesome and better than many others in your opinion, that would be true in terms of physical appearance. A big congratulation to you. But stop using it as a stark evidence to prove that Spurs is already a big big thing and that stadium will be the key to attracting new talents. That's bullshit. Most fans here, especially United, Liverpool and Arsenal (well, if not Chelsea) fans, knows exactly what a big big club is.

Good players (not even great ones), except salaries and trophies (that Spurs currently lack of) or good development for their careers (which Spurs probably is good at), don't care about other bullshit like the stadium - except they are going to Santiago Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Old Trafford or probably Allianz Arena. Those stadium have legendary status. Playing there actually would count as an achievement.

Edit: Finally, don't expect the new stadium will be the key boosting your spending power immediately. That's another garbage logic. The new stadium has to pay 70M loan annually during the next 5 years (excluding interest) for its 350M 5-year loan.

So even if its revenue is 100M matching that of Camp Nou and Bernabeu where regularly host the world biggest games (such an unreal scenario), the net revenue of Spurs' new stadium is about 100 - 70 = 30M annually for the next 5 years. This could even worse than the current stadium's revenue. Financially speaking, in short term, there should be no much excitement.

Now you are moving the goalposts and coming out with a bunch of things that I've not said.

I said that the new Spurs stadium will be better than some of the other stadia mentioned - and I've given solid reasons why. I haven't said that it "will be the key to attracting new talents" - although it certainly won't hurt. Nor have I said that Spurs are "big big" - I've simply said (in other posts) that Spurs are a big club in their own right, which we are. This view is not changed by the existence of bigger clubs - of which there are not a huge number.

Nor have I said that "new stadium will be the key boosting [our] spending power immediately" ... although it will have a growing effect.

You mention a £350m loan to be repaid, plus interest. To put this sum into context, the planned sale of stadium naming rights alone might well exceed it. So if you're imagining that Spurs are going to be financially hamstrung for years to come, I think you're going to be disappointed.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I understand that you are naming those clubs as they are outside of the PL so Spurs would prefer to sell him there...

However, I doubt he is going to want to leave the PL.

Home nations players want to play in the PL, of course. Bale was a complete anomaly.

I wouldn't say its a complete anomaly. While Brits move less than most, every generation except that last one had players move to the continent from Keegan and Brady to Lineker and Hoddle to Owen and McManaman.

 

[acnumber9]

You mention a £350m loan to be repaid, plus interest. To put this sum into context, the planned sale of stadium naming rights alone might well exceed it. So if you're imagining that Spurs are going to be financially hamstrung for years to come, I think you're going to be disappointed.

It might in a best case scenario but it's also not going to be paid in one lump sum either. You're also glossing over the fact that the rest of the cost has been borrowed based on advanced ticket sales. So how long is it actually going to be before the increased revenue is going to be available to things other than servicing the debt?

 

[Claude Makélélé]

Now you are moving the goalposts and coming out with a bunch of things that I've not said.

I said that the new Spurs stadium will be better than some of the other stadia mentioned - and I've given solid reasons why. I haven't said that it "will be the key to attracting new talents" - although it certainly won't hurt. Nor have I said that Spurs are "big big" - I've simply said (in other posts) that Spurs are a big club in their own right, which we are. This view is not changed by the existence of bigger clubs - of which there are not a huge number.

Nor have I said that "new stadium will be the key boosting [our] spending power immediately" ... although it will have a growing effect.

You mention a £350m loan to be repaid, plus interest. To put this sum into context, the planned sale of stadium naming rights alone might well exceed it. So if you're imagining that Spurs are going to be financially hamstrung for years to come, I think you're going to be disappointed.

Who is going to pay you 350M for 5 years naming rights which actually means 70M per season? If you get 350M deal then it will run for around 15 years. Spurs is hoping for a deal worthing 20-30M annually, you don't know it? Just a quick Google it before making that exaggerated statement.

Well, according to this thread it looks like Alli is already at Barcelona at the moment, playing at a legendary stadium, not Tottenham.

 

[GlastonSpur]

It might in a best case scenario but it's also not going to be paid in one lump sum either. You're also glossing over the fact that the rest of the cost has been borrowed based on advanced ticket sales. So how long is it actually going to be before the increased revenue is going to be available to things other than servicing the debt?

Of course naming rights won't be paid in one lump sum, but then neither will the loan-repayment. The point is that money received from the one is balanced against out the money paid out for the other.

Only some of "the rest of the cost has been borrowed based on advanced ticket sales". Some of the stadium cost has already been paid for without borrowing (£100m as of 18 months ago ... and no doubt the sum invested to date has increased significantly since then), some will come from naming rights sale, and some from the NFL deal. Moreover, the club continues to makes profits (£33.0m last year after interest and tax was and £9.4m the year before).

The money coming into Spurs is (or some cases will be) increasing rapidly from many areas, TV money, CL money, contributions from the NFL, a new sponsorship deal with Nike that will be announced in due course, higher matchday income, the various non-football entertainment events that will be staged in the new stadium etc etc etc - and that's not counting stadium naming rights income.

So to answer your question, I imagine our increased income will more than offset the annual debt servicing needs right from the get go.

 

[acnumber9]

Of course naming rights won't be paid in one lump sum, but then neither will the loan-repayment. The point is that money received from the one is balanced against out the money paid out for the other.

I don't know what you mean by saying "the rest of the cost has been borrowed based on advanced ticket sales". Some of the stadium cost has already been paid for without borrowing: £100m as of 18 months ago ... and no doubt the sum invested to date has increased significantly since then. And the club continues to makes profits (£33.0m last year after interest and tax was and £9.4m the year before).

The money coming into Spurs is (or some cases will be) increasing rapidly from many areas, TV money, CL money, contributions from the NFL, a new sponsorship deal with Nike that will be announced in due course, higher matchday income, the various non-football entertainment events that will be staged in the new stadium etc etc etc - and that's not counting stadium naming rights income.

So to answer your question, I imagine our increased income will more than offset the annual debt servicing needs right from the get go.

No but interest isn't being added to your naming rights. It is being added to your borrowing.

I could see that the stadium is being funded on advanced ticket sales with a simple Google search. Where exactly have Spurs gathered the other £400m do you think? The money is coming from future profit. I know you like to paint as rosy a picture as possible but it's not reality.

Most of those increases in revenue apply to everyone else too. It's not really closing the gap for you.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Who is going to pay you 350M for 5 years naming rights which actually means 70M per season? If you get 350M deal then it will run for around 15 years. Spurs is hoping for a deal worthing 20-30M annually, you don't know it? Just a quick Google it before making that exaggerated statement.

Well, according to this thread it looks like Alli is already at Barcelona at the moment, playing at a legendary stadium, not Tottenham.

Who said it would be just over 5 years? Not me. And nor will the £350m loan have to be all repaid in 5 years - after that any outstanding debt will be refinanced or put into longer-term bonds.

 

[GlastonSpur]

No but interest isn't being added to your naming rights. It is being added to your borrowing.

I could see that the stadium is being funded on advanced ticket sales with a simple Google search. Where exactly have Spurs gathered the other £400m do you think? The money is coming from future profit. I know you like to paint as rosy a picture as possible but it's not reality.

Most of those increases in revenue apply to everyone else too. It's not really closing the gap for you.

You replied before seeing my edited post, in which I explained that its not all coming from advanced ticket sales - some will come from naming rights sale, and some from the NFL deal.

 

[acnumber9]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spurs-seal-350m-stadium-loan-kzrjc0t8m

There you go. These things ain't going into Spurs pockets.

 

[acnumber9]

You replied before seeing my edited post, in which I explained that its not all coming from advanced ticket sales - some will come from naming rights sale, and some from the NFL deal.

Some will come from it. But to date I don't think any deal with the NFL have actually disclosed a figure have they? Your profits from the expansion are mostly going into paying for it. On top a there's a further loan predicated on hopes of world record deals.

 

[Claude Makélélé]

Who said it would be just over 5 years? Not me. And nor will the £350m loan have to be all repaid in 5 years - after that any outstanding debt will be refinanced or put into longer-term bonds.

what? you wrote "the planned sale of stadium naming rights alone might well exceed it" (350M loan). If you count in advance your naming rights money of next 100 years then it would be billions of pound.

But the problem is that this 350M loan is 5-year loan (as a Spurs fan, again, you don't know it?) - according The Guardian - so you have to somehow pay it for the next 5 years - NOT next 10 or 15 years. That is why I wrote initially that "don't expect your new stadium revenue is the key boosting your spending power IMMEDIATELY".

 

[GlastonSpur]

Some will come from it. But to date I don't think any deal with the NFL have actually disclosed a figure have they? Your profits from the expansion are mostly going into paying for it. On top a there's a further loan predicated on hopes of world record deals.

The NFL have contributed £10m to the construction costs so far, with more to come (how much more I don't know). Plus there is a 10 year deal to stage at least 2 NFL games per year in the new stadium. But the more important aspect of this is the increased marketing exposure of Spurs in the USA.

 

[acnumber9]

The NFL have contributed £10m to the construction costs so far, with more to come (how much more I don't know). Plus there is a 10 year deal to stage at least 2 NFL games per year in the new stadium. But the more important aspect of this is the increased marketing exposure of Spurs in the USA.

So they're contributing £10m to £750m worth of construction? I'm sure if there was a big deal arranged Spurs wouldn't be slow in announcing it. That's a lot of money to find from elsewhere. A considerable amount from future profits. No doubt it's the best thing for Spurs long term but the idea it won't have a short term effect on your ability to invest is bonkers.

 

[Claude Makélélé]

No but interest isn't being added to your naming rights. It is being added to your borrowing.

I could see that the stadium is being funded on advanced ticket sales with a simple Google search. Where exactly have Spurs gathered the other £400m do you think? The money is coming from future profit. I know you like to paint as rosy a picture as possible but it's not reality.

Most of those increases in revenue apply to everyone else too. It's not really closing the gap for you.

Exactly. Even Arsenal, one of the best well-run club in football industry would turned to losses in 7 of the last 10 years (after building Emirate) without profits generated from old Highbury site and selling players. They had 250M loan to pay and 10 years without major trophies to do it.

 

[GlastonSpur]

what? you wrote "the planned sale of stadium naming rights alone might well exceed it" (350M loan). If you count in advance your naming rights money of next 100 years then it would be billions of pound.

But the problem is that this 350M loan is 5-year loan (as a Spurs fan, again, you don't know it?) - according The Guardian - "the planned sale of stadium naming rights alone might well exceed it- NOT next 10 or 15 years. That is why I wrote initially that "don't expect your new stadium revenue is the key boosting your spending power IMMEDIATELY".

If the stadium naming rights are sold for £400m - albeit paid in instalments - then this sum exceeds the £350 loan sum, does it not?

Yes, the £350m loan covers a 5 years period, but I've already said that after this any outstanding debt will be refinanced or put into longer-term bonds. And I haven't disagreed with your statement that our spending power won't be boosted "IMMEDIATELY" by revenues from the new stadium.

 

[GlastonSpur]

So they're contributing £10m to £750m worth of construction? I'm sure if there was a big deal arranged Spurs wouldn't be slow in announcing it. That's a lot of money to find from elsewhere. A considerable amount from future profits. No doubt it's the best thing for Spurs long term but the idea it won't have a short term effect on your ability to invest is bonkers.

Where have I said otherwise? In fact Spurs have been pruning their spending on players for several years past because of the new stadium and this will continue for a while yet.

 

[acnumber9]

Where have I said otherwise? In fact Spurs have been pruning their spending on players for several years past because of the new stadium and this will continue for a while yet.

You seem to be pinning a lot of your future hopes on this stadium and deals that haven't actually happened yet. No doubt it's great for Spurs long term future but their near future is definitely at threat.

 

[Claude Makélélé]

If the stadium naming rights are sold for £400m - albeit paid in instalments - then this sum exceeds the £350 loan sum, does it not?

Yes, the £350m loan covers a 5 years period, but I've already said that after this any outstanding debt will be refinanced or put into longer-term bonds. And I haven't disagreed with your statement that our spending power won't be boosted "IMMEDIATELY" by revenues from the new stadium.

350M loan pay back in 5 years vs 400M naming rights money in 15 years. You should know what is going to your next 5 years cash flow - which we are discussing about not 10 or 15 years, as well as the impacts of a long-term bond (IF it is available).

So, with the highlights above, how about keeping the "fantastic view" about the new stadium as a statement of a big club a little bit away until you have overcome its short-term consequent like Arsenal did? A new stadium is not that exciting as it was expressed by Spurs fan in this AND in another Tottenham thread.

Edit:

No doubt it's great for Spurs long term future but their near future is definitely at threat.

Exactly what I want to express.

 

[GlastonSpur]

350M loan pay back in 5 years vs 400M naming rights money in 15 years. You should know what is going to your next 5 years cash flow - which we are discussing about not 10 or 15 years, as well as the impacts of a long-term bond (IF it is available).

So, with the highlights above, how about keeping the "fantastic view" about the new stadium as a statement of a big club a little bit away until you have overcome its short-term consequent like Arsenal did? A stadium is not that exciting as it was expressed by Spurs fan in this AND in another Tottenham threads ...

I imagine Levy has our projected cash-flow well under control - don't you?

Quite honestly I don't why you think Spurs fans should not be very excited about our new stadium: it's a huge step forward for the club. And IMO it's going to be far more significant a game-changer for Spurs than many rival fans think - not least because it's much more than just a state-of-the-art stadium purpose-built for football. I'll stick my neck out and predict that - somewhere the down the line - an NFL franchise will also be based there (which would bring in huge money for Spurs). And I already know that it will be also staging big entertainments events (rock concerts and the like).

 

[Claude Makélélé]

I imagine Levy has our projected cash-flow well under control - don't you?

Quite honestly I don't why you think Spurs fans should not be very excited about our new stadium: it's a huge step forward for the club. And IMO it's going to be far more significant a game-changer for Spurs than many rival fans think - not least because it's much more than just a state-of-the-art stadium purpose-built for football. I'll stick my neck out and predict that - somewhere the down the line - an NFL franchise will also be based there (which would bring in huge money for Spurs). And I already know that it will be also staging big entertainments events (rock concerts and the like).

Yes, Levy is having the projected cash-flow clearly and precisely, as well as the risks of the under construction stadium. He knows exactly what he has to pay since he had to move from Olympic Stadium project to a 350M loan for this current project.

Who would not be excited when his club is going to build a brand new stadium? I am excited to the new Stamford Bridge too. But it is just absolutely bullshit to link that new stadium with the logics like: Spurs are already a big club as in terms of achieving great things the club is about to achieve the construction of what will be one of the very best stadiums in Europe; good players/ talents would love to play for Spurs because of that modern stadium and so on ...

And, as I said, take Arsenal as an example, a new stadium usually has short-term bad impacts.

The trophy (past, current and future prospect of winning it) is probably the most important thing to define a big club, followed by fanbase and income. It is more logic to say Spurs is a big club because it used to win the league than because it is building a new stadium (of 10 years trophy-less).

 

[Kraftwerker]

It's funny the way Glaston clings to things like rock climbing walls, music concerts, microbreweries, Sky tunnel (what?) like they're game changing additions to Spurs' make-up as a football club.

Each of these things are just bells and whistles around the side, it's the club whoring itself out to recoup as much of the huge debt as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a player has their head turned because he can climb a rock-wall or watch a Bieber concert on his day off is fantasy.

The NFL deal is on the NFL's terms. They're taking advantage of Spurs' financial situation to grow the NFL brand in GB, whilst throwing Spurs a few million to host a couple of games at the stadium, perhaps with the promise of a team down the line. All that would serve to do would be to dilute the Spurs brand further away from football. I can't think of any examples where team tie ups across sports or geographies have been particularly smart. The relationship more often tends to be meaningless or even parasitic.

What I can't fathom is why a club would spend £750m on a stadium, yet only build the 7th largest stadium in the country, and only marginally bigger than the other soulless bowl of their rivals down the road (which cost about half that). Surely if you're spending that money, you have to build something of true scale. Essentially, a once in a lifetime opportunity has presented itself to create the biggest football stadium in the country, and they've Spurs'd it.

 

[Thunderhead]

I think £350m quid is chicken feed to service in the prem nowadays, the one thing that I think may hamstring spurs going forward and winning and challenging for the league and Cups consistently is player salaries as that's going to have to go up £50-£60m per season just to maintain top 4. Then you have player transfers and the magic 'net spend' will probably be out of the window when upgrading players as United, City and Chelsea will spend big and possibly Arsenal too when Wegner final leaves, and even though that's no guarantee of success it puts them in a stronger position than a club spending £25m a season with £80m lower wages

 

[Lash]

Anyyy way, back to Alli. I do worry about him sometimes. There is no doubt he is talented beyond belief, but he has a real attitude and air of arrogance on the pitch. I think that plays to his talents at points, to the way he controls and moves the ball, it is majestic at times. I do on the other hand, think it brings his petulant and nasty side out when it doesn't go his way. He definitely thinks a lot of himself and I worry that will get his head turned at some point.

Anyway, another very good season under his belt, I hope he stays at Spurs and has another one similar with England!

 

[GlastonSpur]

It's funny the way Glaston clings to things like rock climbing walls, music concerts, microbreweries, Sky tunnel (what?) like they're game changing additions to Spurs' make-up as a football club.

Each of these things are just bells and whistles around the side, it's the club whoring itself out to recoup as much of the huge debt as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a player has their head turned because he can climb a rock-wall or watch a Bieber concert on his day off is fantasy.

The NFL deal is on the NFL's terms. They're taking advantage of Spurs' financial situation to grow the NFL brand in GB, whilst throwing Spurs a few million to host a couple of games at the stadium, perhaps with the promise of a team down the line. All that would serve to do would be to dilute the Spurs brand further away from football. I can't think of any examples where team tie ups across sports or geographies have been particularly smart. The relationship more often tends to be meaningless or even parasitic.

What I can't fathom is why a club would spend £750m on a stadium, yet only build the 7th largest stadium in the country, and only marginally bigger than the other soulless bowl of their rivals down the road (which cost about half that). Surely if you're spending that money, you have to build something of true scale. Essentially, a once in a lifetime opportunity has presented itself to create the biggest football stadium in the country, and they've Spurs'd it.

You misrepresent what I've said. You cite only the less important features of the new stadium complex and ignore things like the UK's largest single-tier 'kop' stand and the focus on fans' match-day experience in terms of acoustic engineering, closeness to the pitch, better seating and so on.

You've also got your facts wrong: after Old Trafford the stadium will be the 2nd largest football-dedicated club stadium in the UK, not the 7th (West Ham's capacity is bigger, but then it doubles as an athletics venue, with a wide running track between the fans and the pitch).

Regarding the NFL, the deal suits both parties: they're helped to grow their brand in the UK and Spurs are helped to grow their brand in the USA. And if an NFL franchise does eventually relocate to our new stadium, the financial benefits for Spurs would be large. Far from 'diluting' the Spurs brand it would receive an enormous boost.

It amuses me that you think Levy is being taken advantage of. Actually he is one of the shrewdest and brightest people in the world of football ... and he's been researching and planning this project down to the tiniest detail for many years.

 

[Kraftwerker]

You misrepresent what I've said. You cite only the less important features of the new stadium complex and ignore things like the UK's largest single-tier 'kop' stand and the focus on fans' match-day experience in terms of acoustic engineering, closeness to the pitch, better seating and so on.

This stuff is also bells and whistles. Acoustic engineering - listen to yourself. I'd wager anything old WHL will be remembered more fondly for atmosphere than this soulless comfy-seated matchday-experience bowl.

You've also got your facts wrong: after Old Trafford the stadium will be the 2nd largest football-dedicated club stadium in the UK, not the 7th (West Ham's capacity is bigger, but then it doubles as an athletics venue, with a wide running track between the fans and the pitch).

Nope I haven't got my facts wrong. It's only going to be the 7th biggest stadium in the country. Considering many of the top 6 were built much longer ago it seems a little unambtious to not go bigger.

Calling it a football dedicated venue, having spent months touting all the non-football events it will support, seems rather daft too. If anything it seems more like a general purpose pay-us-and-you-can-do-anything arena, with Tottenham Hotspur FC as just one element of many.

Regarding the NFL, the deal suits both parties: they're helped to grow their brand in the UK and Spurs are helped to grow their brand in the USA. And if an NFL franchise does eventually relocate to our new stadium, the financial benefits for Spurs would be large. Far from 'diluting' the Spurs brand it would receive an enormous boost.

Read the figures. A negligible amount to host a couple of NFL games - perhaps enough to pay about half of one of your in-demand player's wage demands. Your accountants recommended against the NFL compatibility due to cost vs profitability concerns. Hard to see how the Spurs 'brand' benefits from this. Americans are on the whole fairly parochial about sports, therefore won't give a shit, just the same as RedSox fans couldn't give two shits about their LFC tie up.

It amuses me that you think Levy is being taken advantage of. Actually he is one of the shrewdest and brightest people in the world of football ... and he's been researching and planning this project down to the tiniest detail for many years.

Shrewd and bright? Levy has run Spurs terribly for years. You have one of the highest turnovers of management in the Premier League during his reign. Poor decision after poor decision in terms of hiring i.e. his main job on the football side. He's thrown enough shit at a wall and something has stuck in Pochettino, who may or may not win trophies as a Spurs manager (would you wager any money on him winning a major trophy at Spurs? I wouldn't). Levy should've built a stadium years ago, when the market was favourable, but delayed and will now overspend on what should be the biggest stadium in the country given costs. Instead it's 7th.

Why does he get so much credit for hiring a succession of mostly shit managers, then turning up 10 years late to the stadium party with a backwards NFL cap and a Justin Bieber tshirt. Go home Levy, you're drunk (on microbrewery beer).

 

[GlastonSpur]

This stuff is also bells and whistles. Acoustic engineering - listen to yourself. I'd wager anything old WHL will be remembered more fondly for atmosphere than this soulless comfy-seated matchday-experience bowl.

A single-tier 'kop' stand + designing the whole stadium and every element within it to maximise acoustics + bringing the fans as close as possible to the pitch don't equate to "bells and whistles" - they will be key elements in the creation of fantastic atmospheres.

It's clear that your dismissal of the new stadium - before it's even finished and before you have actually been to a match there - as 'soulless' stems simply from a pre-determined desire to rubbish everything

Nope I haven't got my facts wrong. It's only going to be the 7th biggest stadium in the country. Considering many of the top 6 were built much longer ago it seems a little unambtious to not go bigger.

You have only been able to make this ridiculous claim by including non-football stadiums (e.g. national rugby stadiums), plus stadiums that are not purpose-built for football, plus Wembley stadium (which doesn't belong to club football). All it shows is the lengths you will go to try and present a distorted picture. The fact is that our new stadium will be the 2nd largest in the UK of those that are owned by a football club and dedicated to football.

Calling it a football dedicated venue, having spent months touting all the non-football events it will support, seems rather daft too. If anything it seems more like a general purpose pay-us-and-you-can-do-anything arena, with Tottenham Hotspur FC as just one element of many.

Not at all, all of the non-football events (NFL games, entertainment events) will take place on an entirely separate pitch. And NFL players and staff will have entirely separate changing rooms and other facilities that are solely dedicated to them. Spurs matches will take place on a pitch and in stadium that is purpose-built for football.

Read the figures. A negligible amount to host a couple of NFL games - perhaps enough to pay about half of one of your in-demand player's wage demands. Your accountants recommended against the NFL compatibility due to cost vs profitability concerns. Hard to see how the Spurs 'brand' benefits from this. Americans are on the whole fairly parochial about sports, therefore won't give a shit, just the same as RedSox fans couldn't give two shits about their LFC tie up.

As usual, you miss the point. The key factor for Spurs is not the two NFL games per year agreed so far (a minimum of 20 games in total), it's (a) the boost to brand exposure this gives us in the USA; and (b) the possibility of the stadium hosting an NFL franchise down the line (the NFL is even more lucrative than the Prem). You've also ignored (or else don't know about) the £10m contributed so far by the NFL towards construction costs, with more to come

Shrewd and bright? Levy has run Spurs terribly for years. ....

This statement just shows your amazingly blinkered bias. It's so obvious that I don't even have respond further on this.

Your whole post - and in fact virtually all of your posts about Spurs - do you no credit, although you seem not to realise this. You come across as an embittered, curmudgeon ... determined to present distortions and ignorance in the pursuit of your small-minded aims.

 

[thegregster]

It's funny the way Glaston clings to things like rock climbing walls, music concerts, microbreweries, Sky tunnel (what?) like they're game changing additions to Spurs' make-up as a football club.

Each of these things are just bells and whistles around the side, it's the club whoring itself out to recoup as much of the huge debt as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a player has their head turned because he can climb a rock-wall or watch a Bieber concert on his day off is fantasy.

The NFL deal is on the NFL's terms. They're taking advantage of Spurs' financial situation to grow the NFL brand in GB, whilst throwing Spurs a few million to host a couple of games at the stadium, perhaps with the promise of a team down the line. All that would serve to do would be to dilute the Spurs brand further away from football. I can't think of any examples where team tie ups across sports or geographies have been particularly smart. The relationship more often tends to be meaningless or even parasitic.

What I can't fathom is why a club would spend £750m on a stadium, yet only build the 7th largest stadium in the country, and only marginally bigger than the other soulless bowl of their rivals down the road (which cost about half that). Surely if you're spending that money, you have to build something of true scale. Essentially, a once in a lifetime opportunity has presented itself to create the biggest football stadium in the country, and they've Spurs'd it.

Some of that stuff could be put on the long finger.

The hotel part of the project is now unviable according to Spurs own export reports.

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/...uction-costs-in-planning-doc/10019739.article

 

[Kraftwerker]

...

I'm not dismissing the stadium, I'm just stating if you're going to go to all that trouble and expense, build the biggest stadium in the country.

I don't really want to drag United into the debate but if we knocked down Old Trafford and spent £750m on a new stadium, do you think we'd be fannying around with a 61,000 seater. Where's the ambition?

What's wrong with including non-football stadiums? Each of those venues are or can be football venues too (though some rugby stadiums have reluctance to host football). The point is they are stadium construction projects with vastly more capacity at considerably less cost.

The NFL tie up is a necessity to help with the burden of the cost. In an ideal world, where Spurs had been run better and stadium decisions made much further in advance, this whoring out would probably not be needed. The revenue secured barely makes a dent in your debts.

You don't want to debate the Levy point because you can't. It's an undeniable fact that he's made a series of poor and damaging managerial appointments, finally lucking out with Pochettino (who it should be noted has won nothing). 100s of millions has been wasted at the club for so little gain in terms of silverware. And you should've built your stadium over a decade ago. These are simple points. I've no idea why you don't hold your club's chairman to greater account for the club's failings during his tenure.

Hilarious talking about others distorting their Spurs opinions. The whole reason of your existence is to present distorted opinions about Spurs on other club's message boards. Given your extreme defensiveness it's clear a sprinkle of reality doesn't sit well with you.

 

[vadimivich]

I'm not dismissing the stadium, I'm just stating if you're going to go to all that trouble and expense, build the biggest stadium in the country.

I don't really want to drag United into the debate but if we knocked down Old Trafford and spent £750m on a new stadium, do you think we'd be fannying around with a 61,000 seater. Where's the ambition?

What's wrong with including non-football stadiums? Each of those venues are or can be football venues too (though some rugby stadiums have reluctance to host football). The point is they are stadium construction projects with vastly more capacity at considerably less cost.

The NFL tie up is a necessity to help with the burden of the cost. In an ideal world, where Spurs had been run better and stadium decisions made much further in advance, this whoring out would probably not be needed. The revenue secured barely makes a dent in your debts.

You don't want to debate the Levy point because you can't. It's an undeniable fact that he's made a series of poor and damaging managerial appointments, finally lucking out with Pochettino (who it should be noted has won nothing). 100s of millions has been wasted at the club for so little gain in terms of silverware. And you should've built your stadium over a decade ago. These are simple points. I've no idea why you don't hold your club's chairman to greater account for the club's failings during his tenure.

Hilarious talking about others distorting their Spurs opinions. The whole reason of your existence is to present distorted opinions about Spurs on other club's message boards. Given your extreme defensiveness it's clear a sprinkle of reality doesn't sit well with you.

Spurs could not have built a stadium a decade ago, that would have meant starting the design and development process (land acquisition, permitting, etc) about 15-17 years ago. ENIC only took over the club in February of 2001, and it was an absolute SHAMBLES, recently been nearly bankrupt and without even strong demand or need for a new stadium - in fact, the Park Lane and Paxton stands had just been built/renovated in the mid-90s under Lord Sugar. The fact that by 2008 Spurs were starting the stadium design process was pretty crazy on the face of it, given the condition the club was in at the start of the millennium.

If you had taken a random PL fan and told them in the winter of 2000 that Tottenham Hotspur FC would be one of the 10 richest clubs in the world, moving into a new 60K+ seat stadium and starting to regularly make the Champions League by 2017 ... they'd have laughed and asked you how much acid you did. Spurs were much more likely to get relegated in the near future, declare bankruptcy and become a yoyo club at best. That's why Levy is highly regarded by many Spurs fans, we know how bad the situation the club was in.

There's 2 parts to running a football club. One is make sure it's healthy off the pitch, with good financials, good facilities, etc. Levy has absolutely excelled in this area, building Spurs up from a toxic waste land to an extremely stable and wealthy club with world class facilities and the ability to attract further investment. He deserves a lot of credit for that, and Spurs for the first time since the 60s are in a stable situation and able to build and go forward. The second is on the pitch, and we can debate just how truly successful it's been to this point - though Spurs are in the middle of the best decade of on pitch performance in my lifetime at least (and I'm nearing 40).

 

[GlastonSpur]

I'm not dismissing the stadium, I'm just stating if you're going to go to all that trouble and expense, build the biggest stadium in the country.

I don't really want to drag United into the debate but if we knocked down Old Trafford and spent £750m on a new stadium, do you think we'd be fannying around with a 61,000 seater. Where's the ambition?

What's wrong with including non-football stadiums? Each of those venues are or can be football venues too (though some rugby stadiums have reluctance to host football). The point is they are stadium construction projects with vastly more capacity at considerably less cost.

The NFL tie up is a necessity to help with the burden of the cost. In an ideal world, where Spurs had been run better and stadium decisions made much further in advance, this whoring out would probably not be needed. The revenue secured barely makes a dent in your debts.

You don't want to debate the Levy point because you can't. It's an undeniable fact that he's made a series of poor and damaging managerial appointments, finally lucking out with Pochettino (who it should be noted has won nothing). 100s of millions has been wasted at the club for so little gain in terms of silverware. And you should've built your stadium over a decade ago. These are simple points. I've no idea why you don't hold your club's chairman to greater account for the club's failings during his tenure.

Hilarious talking about others distorting their Spurs opinions. The whole reason of your existence is to present distorted opinions about Spurs on other club's message boards. Given your extreme defensiveness it's clear a sprinkle of reality doesn't sit well with you.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better - a point which seems to elude you. Nor does it necessarily provide the means to host NFL games or large entertainment events on any of the 6 days (say) on average each week when the stadium is standing empty and unused.

So I'll leave you to obsess about United's bigger seating capacity and move onto your next dumb claim, namely ".... they are stadium construction projects with vastly more capacity at considerably less cost. "

Lol ... more obsession with seating capacity. However, the "less cost" stadium construction projects you've referred to have inferior facilities and mostly aren't able to host NFL games ... and even if they can (pace Wembley) they can't do it on the same weekend when they are also hosting a football match.

Essentially you're talking out of your ignorant arse. You claim that the "NFL tie up is a necessity to help with the burden of the cost", when in fact the NFL facilities are adding hugely to the stadium cost (far more than we will ever get back from the NFL in the short term), but are being put in place because Levy is taking the long view and believing that an NFL franchise is a prize on potential offer.

You claim that Levy is terrible as a club chairman, yet his club is looking down the league table - both this year and last - at several clubs who have vastly outspent Spurs for donkey's year ..... clubs who look enviously at Spurs' players and wonder how Spurs have managed to progress whilst still funding - with no sugar-daddy - the building of a world-class training centre and soon a world-class stadium.

Levy is a club chair that the fans of many Prem teams would give their right arms to have.

 

[Mickfoley]

He's a 30m player with an extra ordinary start to his career. Good while it lasts.

 

[Zii]

Why do people even bother discussing Spurs? The only guy responds is Glaston who is basically the TY of Spurs, they can do no wrong and are the best team In the world with a chairman who has never done bad business and is a god apparently in strategy.

At the end of the day Spurs are a midtable club that have luckily bumped into Ali and Kane and as a result are looking like a top 4 team.

Spurs have yet to win anything when their competitors have been the weakest in a decade and are now reaching a point where they either change their entire structure of their club or risk losing the players that are carrying them.

It's just pointless talking about Spurs on this forum, never seen a group of supporters be so so cocky for a team that have won nothing.

 

[balaks]

Why do people even bother discussing Spurs? The only guy responds is Glaston who is basically the TY of Spurs, they can do no wrong and are the best team In the world with a chairman who has never done bad business and is a god apparently in strategy.

At the end of the day Spurs are a midtable club that have luckily bumped into Ali and Kane and as a result are looking like a top 4 team.

Spurs have yet to win anything when their competitors have been the weakest in a decade and are now reaching a point where they either change their entire structure of their club or risk losing the players that are carrying them.

It's just pointless talking about Spurs on this forum, never seen a group of supporters be so so cocky for a team that have won nothing.

At the end of the day Spurs were a midtable club that have done extremely well getting Alli and in developing Kane and as a result are now a top 4 team. I changed the wording a little for you. No need to thank me.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Why do people even bother discussing Spurs? The only guy responds is Glaston who is basically the TY of Spurs, they can do no wrong and are the best team In the world with a chairman who has never done bad business and is a god apparently in strategy.

At the end of the day Spurs are a midtable club that have luckily bumped into Ali and Kane and as a result are looking like a top 4 team.

Spurs have yet to win anything when their competitors have been the weakest in a decade and are now reaching a point where they either change their entire structure of their club or risk losing the players that are carrying them.

It's just pointless talking about Spurs on this forum, never seen a group of supporters be so so cocky for a team that have won nothing.

Discussions would be aided if you and some other posters didn't engage in hyperbole and distortions. The problem is that a good percentage of posts in Spurs-related threads on here fall into one of three categories:

1) False claims about things that no Spurs poster has ever said (e.g. "the best team in the world", "chairman has never done bad business" etc).

2) Posts based in ignorance of the actual situation (e.g. "The NFL tie up is a necessity to help with the burden of the cost" - see post #1074 above).

3) Posts that don't really seek to discuss anything, but which are simply attacks, from every and all angles. And the more that Spurs progress - the more the volume of attacks rise. The problems for many posters of this ilk is that their attacks also fall into categories 1) or 2) above ... and they don't like it when this is exposed, so they try and mount even more attacks.