Spurs 2018/19

SquishyMcSquish said:
Honestly I can't imagine any other club losing their star midfielder (Dembele honestly was, under Poch he was immense and even last season when he was waning he was the key man in most of our big game victories, we miss his presence so badly this season) and deciding to promote a player like Skipp to replace him. It's so fecking stupid. Most of our players when interviewed said Dembele was our most underrated player and the most talented at the club, but no, let's flog him to China in January and ignore the fact he's gone, that'll work out fine.

Then you have some of our fans thinking that's ok and that we'd need to borrow to replace him (if we need to borrow to replace one central midfielder, we're up shit creek), it's honestly completely baffling. We can build the best stadium going, but nobody is going to come to it if we lose the likes of Dembele, Walker and Eriksen and replace them with bargain basement options (or not at all) and that's the simple truth. Watch us sell Toby this summer and play a clearly not ready Foyth rather than actually spending money.

We're headed straight back below Arsenal the way we're acting (you know, a club who built a mega stadium and shock horror it didn't transform them as a club) and we'll deserve it with some of the attitude from our fans. Just total acceptance of being a champions league side who were the first premier league team to sign nobody, because investing in football players is a luxury for a football club, and it's far more worthy to spend hundreds of millions on some fancy apartment blocks. We can afford that but a 40m midfielder will lead to heavy borrowing.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Dembele was star midfielder who had turned 31 and become semi-crocked, managing a grand total of 680 minutes for Spurs - in all competitions this season - before leaving for China.

That made his star-shining cast somewhat less overall light don't you think? But you try and paint a different picture.

Nor was Skipp his replacement, as you claim. It has been Harry Winks who has benefited from far more game time this season.

As for the rest of your bollocks, the stadium is going to be sold out, with a cracking atmosphere, regardless of your dire warnings.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Dembele was star midfielder who had turned 31 and become semi-crocked, managing a grand total of 680 minutes for Spurs - in all competitions this season - before leaving for China.

That made his star-shining cast somewhat less overall light don't you think? But you try and paint a different picture.

Nor was Skipp his replacement, as you claim. It has been Harry Winks who has benefited from far more game time this season.

As for the rest of your bollocks, the stadium is going to be sold out, with a cracking atmosphere, regardless of your dire warnings.
Click to expand...

And he was our best midfielder all of last season, and crucial to performances against Liverpool, Manchester United, Juventus and Arsenal. Probably our best big game player and a dominant force in midfield. The club knew of his injury issues/decline, and probably knew he was off to China soon, yet did nothing last summer to counter this by bringing in another midfielder to help us compete. We badly miss a midfielder with genuine quality, when Eriksen doesn't step up (which is often now, looks like he can't be arsed with the club and I don't blame him) our plan is get it to the wing backs and hope.

Winks was already in the squad last season and alternated with Dembele, Skipp got promoted this season to replace a leaving midfielder. He wouldn't be getting games if Dembele & Winks were both still in the squad as they were in 17/18. Winks has potential and is nice and tidy, but he is no replacement for Dembele, not in a million years.

At first I'm sure it will be, and I'm sure at first the atmosphere will be great. But if you think we'll keep selling out a stadium if we keep playing like we have for a long period now, and if we keep replacing top players with 'good enough' ones, you're delusional. Even clubs like Arsenal struggle with the Emirates in recent times due to fans becoming disinterested with the lack of ambition from the club. Let's just say that if Eriksen/Toby do leave, and we don't replace them with top class talent, the fans should fecking riot.

Look, it's pretty obvious we're just at odds ideologically. You clearly value a stadium and facilities over footballers and trophies, that's fine. You think that fancy buildings will make a club successful, I think that capitalising on talent and building a legacy on the pitch is the way a club establishes itself, the rest is just trimming. We're getting all the trimming without actually accomplishing anything tangible on the pitch, and if you're ok with wasting what could have been a golden period, that's fine. Eriksen isn't hanging around, Kane won't if we continue like this, nor will Alli or our other top players.

Maybe you'll be right, and we'll breeze top 4 this season and then Eriksen will sign a contract and Levy will suddenly decide it's cool to start spending. I doubt it though.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Well OK, but the money still ends up being paid unless the players concerned are sold and the manager leaves or is fired. And even over one year, I'd guess those 4 improved contracts will cost around £20m extra.
Click to expand...

If you meant 100 million for 5 years combined then yeah, considering the length of contract makes sense but if you talk about 100 million this summer then no, only 1 year should be considered as that's what will be spent this year.
 
Gonna be an interesting summer.

We're probably losing Alderweireld and Eriksen, we will probably also see most of these players leave as well: Jansen, Nkoudo, Llorente, Wanyama and Dembele already left. There will be space to add players, and we desperately need to do so. Right now we have a core of 6 players who are top class in my view; Lloris, Verthongen, Sanchez, Alli, Son, Kane. Looking at that we have a big hole in fullback and midfield that we are desperate to fill.

If I am to play football manager I would look to sell Aurier and/or Davies/Rose and spend on two athletic fullbacks with good engines to be rotated with Trippier and Rose/Davies with Walker Peters as backup, and honestly this is where I would prioritize spending. I would also be willing to listen to offers for Lamela and Moura, because although I like them both as players I don't think they offer enough. If Eriksen leave we also need to buy two quality midfielders, Winks is okay, but we need more quality options. Finally we can iron out our squad with academy players or cheap backup signings. We need a third choice keeper, 4th/5th choice central defender and another attacker.

I honestly think that if we add to our core we can have a great season and be contenders for the title, but failing to do so would leave us in a battle for 4th. I honestly have no idea what the club will do or what money is available though.

edit: Do anyone have any idea what budged we may have this summer?
 
GlastonSpur said:
It's quite simply not possible for us to have done that and at the same time to have gone out and spent lots of money on new players. Those who say otherwise are not living in the real world.
Click to expand...


I agree these people live in an alternate universe, where Spurs' world domination is inevitable.

Yes, of course there is/will be debt to pay off.

What I mean is that the funds (including borrowed money) for completing the stadium are already in our bank account, so construction to completion is financially guaranteed and we obviously were never relying on player-sales for such funding.
Nor will we need to sell players to fund debt repayment/servicing post-construction .. not when our income will soon be approaching the £400m mark annually. In fact, I expect a big surge in net-spend on transfers this summer.
Click to expand...

You say that Poch was "promised proper money", but actually you don't know what he was promised. In any case, some new money has already been committed - on improved contracts for key players, with more such announcements to come: securing what we have is the top priority, to prevent our better players being poached away.
And I'm sure new money will also be spent on signings beyond Grealish (the "one or two players" that I've mentioned), so isn't the time to complain (if the results lead you to complain) after the transfer window has closed rather than now?
Click to expand...


Pochettino is too canny to admit publicly that a lot more money will be made available, because he knows that would affect Levy's negotiating position and drives prices up ... so instead he refers to it more obliquely. I stand by my point that he would not have said "I think Daniel will listen" unless he already knew what the position is.
Click to expand...
 
How much are Spurs yearly repayments on the stadium? I googled and found this and it estimates £45m after accounting for extra income but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

The last reported figures are that the stadium will cost £1bn (not £400m like Arsenal’s).

According to articles the increased money from the new stadium is estimated at £28m per year. Not being one to take figures on face value, if we consider that the stadium capacity will go from around 36,000 to 62000, that’s an extra 26,000 tickets.

Let’s say tickets average around £1100 per season, that’s £28m per year. Yes there will be boxes and hospitality which will bring in a few more million but there will also be increased operating costs so £28m per year is about right.

A £1bn loan, if we assume they manage to get an interest rate of 4% which is typical for business loans (property bonds tend to be 7% so 4% is conservative) and if we assume they want to spread the costs over 20 years to reduce the effect on transfer spending, the annual cost of repayment is still £73m.

So their spending power will be reduced by £45m per year for 20 years, more if they want to repay the debt quicker.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
How much are Spurs yearly repayments on the stadium? I googled and found this and it estimates £45m after accounting for extra income but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

The last reported figures are that the stadium will cost £1bn (not £400m like Arsenal’s).

According to articles the increased money from the new stadium is estimated at £28m per year. Not being one to take figures on face value, if we consider that the stadium capacity will go from around 36,000 to 62000, that’s an extra 26,000 tickets.

Let’s say tickets average around £1100 per season, that’s £28m per year. Yes there will be boxes and hospitality which will bring in a few more million but there will also be increased operating costs so £28m per year is about right.

A £1bn loan, if we assume they manage to get an interest rate of 4% which is typical for business loans (property bonds tend to be 7% so 4% is conservative) and if we assume they want to spread the costs over 20 years to reduce the effect on transfer spending, the annual cost of repayment is still £73m.

So their spending power will be reduced by £45m per year for 20 years, more if they want to repay the debt quicker.
Click to expand...

Good question, and I'd love to know the same.

One thing though, I'm fairly certain that we're not borrowing the entire sum of the stadium since some would already be funded. There would also be naming rights for the stadium.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
How much are Spurs yearly repayments on the stadium? I googled and found this and it estimates £45m after accounting for extra income but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

The last reported figures are that the stadium will cost £1bn (not £400m like Arsenal’s).

According to articles the increased money from the new stadium is estimated at £28m per year. Not being one to take figures on face value, if we consider that the stadium capacity will go from around 36,000 to 62000, that’s an extra 26,000 tickets.

Let’s say tickets average around £1100 per season, that’s £28m per year. Yes there will be boxes and hospitality which will bring in a few more million but there will also be increased operating costs so £28m per year is about right.

A £1bn loan, if we assume they manage to get an interest rate of 4% which is typical for business loans (property bonds tend to be 7% so 4% is conservative) and if we assume they want to spread the costs over 20 years to reduce the effect on transfer spending, the annual cost of repayment is still £73m.

So their spending power will be reduced by £45m per year for 20 years, more if they want to repay the debt quicker.
Click to expand...

If the truth is within 10% of your figures then they really are going to suffer in the short to medium term. The miracle Wenger pulled off off keeping Arsenal in the top 4 during those years and this dwarfs that as a challenge. If Levy goes anytime soon It's hard to imagine anyone not tighter than a ducks arse pulling it off!
 
When you consider Arsenal did it for 500M and had to be very very smart for almost 10 years i can't see how Spurs can be relaxed about their project that is reaching the Billion mark :confused: There's trouble ahead for them and they might feel the repercussions for even longer than Arsenal.
 
RedorDead21 said:
If the truth is within 10% of your figures then they really are going to suffer in the short to medium term. The miracle Wenger pulled off off keeping Arsenal in the top 4 during those years and this dwarfs that as a challenge. If Levy goes anytime soon It's hard to imagine anyone not tighter than a ducks arse pulling it off!
Click to expand...

The plus side for them is TV revenues are much higher than when Arsenal did it.

When Arsenal did it, we had to sell players to break even and we couldn't afford 2 seasons outside of the CL. With more PL and CL money it maybe different now. The deeper they go into Europe the more revenue they pick up too.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
The plus side for them is TV revenues are much higher than when Arsenal did it.

When Arsenal did it, we had to sell players to break even and we couldn't afford 2 seasons outside of the CL. With more PL and CL money it maybe different now. The deeper they go into Europe the more revenue they pick up too.
Click to expand...
So are all their other costs too.
 
GlastonSpur said:
a retractable pitch will allow us to hold many more major events at the ground than do other clubs, because the football pitch will not be damaged in anyway.
Click to expand...

You've said this several times and it's not correct. You need approval from the local council for additional large-scale events, generally negotiated in packages. Clubs are not limited by potential pitch damage, they're limited by council rules due to the impact on local residents.

As an example in 2018 Liverpool agreed with their council to host up to 6 concerts per year having been refused permission for 10.
 
Donk87 said:
You've said this several times and it's not correct. You need approval from the local council for additional large-scale events, generally negotiated in packages. Clubs are not limited by potential pitch damage, they're limited by council rules due to the impact on local residents.

As an example in 2018 Liverpool agreed with their council to host up to 6 concerts per year having been refused permission for 10.
Click to expand...

In other words, Glaston's claims have as much credibility as a Spurs' title charge. Shocking.
 
Not sure Spurs have made the right decision going essentially the Arsenal way. They may have felt compelled to do so because of us, but I cannot help thinking this was not the way forward for them. Maybe 25 years ago this was a logical expansion. Our brand has not grown vis a vis our competition over the good part of the decade and a half since we got the new stadium. There is little doubt in my mind that it came at the expense of trophies and our star players often bolting for the top teams. Chelsea went a completely different route, kept their old stadium, but there is no doubt their brand has grown. Of course it is not comparable because of Abramovich and sustainability is an issue, but they grew revenues in a much different way... They did it with players. In fact most teams did. Until recently out kit deals were imo utter rubbish compared to the others. Just that itself cost us well over 150 mil i think....but that is what you get when your brand is shrinking because of lack of production on the pitch and shipping out your top players. We lost imo at least 10 to 15 years out of it and this was at a time we were truly competitive. Spurs are now at that junction continuing along a similar path, but they have won nothing of note for decades, so it is a weaker starting position. We will see, but I suspect it could be 2 decades before this move pays dividends and it is possible most of the revenues are further cannibalized by their competition by that time.
 
Donk87 said:
You've said this several times and it's not correct. You need approval from the local council for additional large-scale events, generally negotiated in packages. Clubs are not limited by potential pitch damage, they're limited by council rules due to the impact on local residents.

As an example in 2018 Liverpool agreed with their council to host up to 6 concerts per year having been refused permission for 10.
Click to expand...

In a way you're both right - at least from memory I believe in the planning documents there was permission to stage unlimited events of up to a certain capacity, but for larger events, then, as you stay, you would need approval from the local council. I can't find it, so can't say what the cutoff point was. It's a bit like Wembley, where Tottenham have only been able to have a few matches at full capacity because of local planning constraints (not that that has really been much of a concern recently...), but the guidelines are much more relaxed for events at, say, 2/3 capacity.

I'm sure Spurs will obviously look to push this as much as possible in terms of staging full capacity events, but even with lower capacity events, the retractable pitch clearly offers advantages here in terms of all year round usability.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
How much are Spurs yearly repayments on the stadium? I googled and found this and it estimates £45m after accounting for extra income but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

The last reported figures are that the stadium will cost £1bn (not £400m like Arsenal’s).

According to articles the increased money from the new stadium is estimated at £28m per year. Not being one to take figures on face value, if we consider that the stadium capacity will go from around 36,000 to 62000, that’s an extra 26,000 tickets.

Let’s say tickets average around £1100 per season, that’s £28m per year. Yes there will be boxes and hospitality which will bring in a few more million but there will also be increased operating costs so £28m per year is about right.

A £1bn loan, if we assume they manage to get an interest rate of 4% which is typical for business loans (property bonds tend to be 7% so 4% is conservative) and if we assume they want to spread the costs over 20 years to reduce the effect on transfer spending, the annual cost of repayment is still £73m.

So their spending power will be reduced by £45m per year for 20 years, more if they want to repay the debt quicker.
Click to expand...

The problem with using any of the figures quoted is that they've all been massaged and tweaked for various means and ends, and the £1b figure that get's bandied around isn't necessarily as straight forward as it sounds, because it is taken to mean the whole of the Northumberland Development Project (NDP), which started off some years ago including a supermarket/Lilywhite House (all complete for some years), and a hotel and housing development on part of the site of the old WHL (which has been put on hold - quite possibly this will be sold off to a developer if the club doesn't want to finance this itself), and includes all the land acquisition costs going back 10s of years. What can be said is that Spurs had a £400m loan facility, which was extended to about £640m in October. There is also likely to be a naming rights deal which would pay off a chunk of the costs.

In terms of extra income from the stadium, from a purely footballing point of view, whilst the extra capacity will obviously bring in a bit of extra cash, the main increase will be down to increased corporate hospitality, as well as from increased match day revenues - which with the number of outlets on site, this is something the club has clearly thought about maximizing. I think Arsenal moving stadium saw an increase in around £100m in revenues, so conservatively Spurs would be looking at similar boosts to the revenue.

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't an substantial increase in Spurs' spending power once the dust has settled, otherwise the club just wouldn't have done it.
 
The_Captain said:
In a way you're both right - at least from memory I believe in the planning documents there was permission to stage unlimited events of up to a certain capacity, but for larger events, then, as you stay, you would need approval from the local council. I can't find it, so can't say what the cutoff point was. It's a bit like Wembley, where Tottenham have only been able to have a few matches at full capacity because of local planning constraints (not that that has really been much of a concern recently...), but the guidelines are much more relaxed for events at, say, 2/3 capacity.

I'm sure Spurs will obviously look to push this as much as possible in terms of staging full capacity events, but even with lower capacity events, the retractable pitch clearly offers advantages here in terms of all year round usability.
Click to expand...

The unlimited aspect surely refers to events that have minimal increase in footfall and noise for the surrounding area such as private hire, corporate and charitable occasions. Concerts and equivalent large-scale events require separate licencing.

Of course Spurs will push for the maximum number of dates possible and the retractable pitch will certainly be helpful in terms of logistics but these events will not be a regular occurrence nor will there be enormous revenue generated as has been implied.

The stadium looks absolutely magnificent and there's plenty for Spurs fans to be proud of and discuss but this particular aspect has been continuously misrepresented.

Edit - and welcome to the forum.
 
Changeisgood said:
Not sure Spurs have made the right decision going essentially the Arsenal way. They may have felt compelled to do so because of us, but I cannot help thinking this was not the way forward for them. Maybe 25 years ago this was a logical expansion. Our brand has not grown vis a vis our competition over the good part of the decade and a half since we got the new stadium. There is little doubt in my mind that it came at the expense of trophies and our star players often bolting for the top teams. Chelsea went a completely different route, kept their old stadium, but there is no doubt their brand has grown. Of course it is not comparable because of Abramovich and sustainability is an issue, but they grew revenues in a much different way... They did it with players. In fact most teams did. Until recently out kit deals were imo utter rubbish compared to the others. Just that itself cost us well over 150 mil i think....but that is what you get when your brand is shrinking because of lack of production on the pitch and shipping out your top players. We lost imo at least 10 to 15 years out of it and this was at a time we were truly competitive. Spurs are now at that junction continuing along a similar path, but they have won nothing of note for decades, so it is a weaker starting position. We will see, but I suspect it could be 2 decades before this move pays dividends and it is possible most of the revenues are further cannibalized by their competition by that time.
Click to expand...

This is a more a problem with the uneven balance of money in football. The oil money has meant that it's very hard for a properly sustainable club to be able to compete. Spurs, and other clubs on the fringes like Everton were probably the big losers when Abramovich came along to rescue Chelsea, effectively establishing a 4 club cartel in the Champions League that made it hard for any other club to be able to compete financially. The increased money that the TV deal brought the Premier League, however has lessened that to a degree. I'd say that Arsenal, and to a lesser extent because of their sheer size, United, were the biggest losers of the City Oil money. Whilst it would be fair to say that Arsenal may not have seen huge levels of increased transfer spending, their wage bill is considerably higher, which has allowed them to keep players that they might otherwise have lost. Without City in the mix it's certain that United and Arsenal would have been more succesful, and without the money from moving stadiums Arsenal would be far worse off now, unless they had outside investment or took on considerable debt - in fact they'd probably be in a similar position to Spurs, in having to overachieve in order to keep up with the big teams.

Now of course Arsenal may have made mistakes on and off the pitch too, with some of their commercial deals, and player choices, but that's not really just because of the stadium change.

Spurs' biggest risk with the stadium move is if attendances drop off the cliff and it's no longer able to pay for itself.
 
Donk87 said:
The unlimited aspect surely refers to events that have minimal increase in footfall and noise for the surrounding area such as private hire, corporate and charitable occasions. Concerts and equivalent large-scale events require separate licencing.

Of course Spurs will push for the maximum number of dates possible and the retractable pitch will certainly be helpful in terms of logistics but these events will not be a regular occurrence nor will there be enormous revenue generated as has been implied.

The stadium looks absolutely magnificent and there's plenty for Spurs fans to be proud of and discuss but this particular aspect has been continuously misrepresented.

Edit - and welcome to the forum.
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

I've dug out the planning documents and it states "No more than 16 major non-association football events (greater than 10,000 visitors) shall be held per annum in the stadium of which no more than 6 shall be music concerts.". I'm guessing this is number is probably based around the possibility of hosting a team in the NFL, which is probably 8 regular season games and possible playoffs (I'm not really an NFL fan so that's just what I can surmise from a quick google), and 6 music concerts.

I think the NFL is probably the key to whether the stadium is just a step to become competitive, financially or a real game changer, in terms of the commercial opportunities, such as the size of a naming rights deal that being the home of the NFL outside of America would open up. I suspect this is a bit of a punt on behalf of the club, in terms of the extra investment made on the retractable pitch, because I'm sure that the deal for just 2 games a season and the odd pop concert wouldn't really pay for itself.
 
The_Captain said:
Spurs' biggest risk with the stadium move is if attendances drop off the cliff and it's no longer able to pay for itself.
Click to expand...

I feel if they needed to generate funds quickly a player fire sale would generate them a lot of cash. Kane, Alli, Son, probably 250mil+ right there, a quarter of the stadium costs covered. They would find themselves mid table but at least not drifting into administration with costs piling up. That and the fact Joe Lewis who owns Spurs is far from a pauper, he could easily throw some cash into the project if he so chose.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
How much are Spurs yearly repayments on the stadium? I googled and found this and it estimates £45m after accounting for extra income but I'm not sure how accurate it is:

The last reported figures are that the stadium will cost £1bn (not £400m like Arsenal’s).

According to articles the increased money from the new stadium is estimated at £28m per year. Not being one to take figures on face value, if we consider that the stadium capacity will go from around 36,000 to 62000, that’s an extra 26,000 tickets.

Let’s say tickets average around £1100 per season, that’s £28m per year. Yes there will be boxes and hospitality which will bring in a few more million but there will also be increased operating costs so £28m per year is about right.

A £1bn loan, if we assume they manage to get an interest rate of 4% which is typical for business loans (property bonds tend to be 7% so 4% is conservative) and if we assume they want to spread the costs over 20 years to reduce the effect on transfer spending, the annual cost of repayment is still £73m.

So their spending power will be reduced by £45m per year for 20 years, more if they want to repay the debt quicker.
Click to expand...

It's not right, by a long chalk.

For example, in 2016-17 Deloitte said that Arsenal made £55m more in gate receipts than Spurs. But in the new stadium our capacity will be the same as Arsenal and ticket prices will be much higher than at WHL. For example, there are premium packages for 8,000 seats which will reportedly cost between £2,500 and £15,000 each.

This is before you take into account the planned sale of stadium naming rights, income from entertainment events, the two NFL games per year, greatly increased income from corporate boxes and extra income from the various food, drink and other many facilities contained with the stadium complex compared to that available at WHL
 
Last edited:
I really hope they can get Eriksen to re-sign.

He's irreplaceable for them.

I want the top 4 battle to remain as ultra competitive as it is now. It makes for great entertainment.

Unfortunately, it's hard to look passed him joining Real where he will make a ton more money on top of everything else.
 
GlastonSpur said:
It's not right, by a long chalk.

For example, in 2016-17 Deloitte said that Arsenal made £55m more in gate receipts than Spurs. But in the new stadium our capacity will be the same as Arsenal and ticket prices will be much higher than at WHL. For example, there are premium packages for 8,000 seats which will reportedly cost between £2,500 and £15,000 each.

This is before you take into account the planned sale of stadium naming rights, income from entertainment events, the two NFL games per year, greatly increased income from corporate boxes and extra income from the various food, drink and other many facilities contained with the stadium complex compared to that available at WHL
Click to expand...

Why couldn't Spurs sell 'premium seats at between £2,500 and £15,000' at WHL but they suddenly can at the new stadium? Corporate boxes, I'll give you, they're more desirable as executive packages.

Because realistically, using the economic demand curve, the average price per seat if anything should go down with more seats. Unless you think Levy was purposely pricing seats lower because of his love of the fans.

And using Arsenal as an example is all well and good but do Spurs have the same waiting list for season tickets? We currently have a 10 people waiting for every season ticket from what I've read.

As for the entertainment events and couple of NFL games, realistically there's hardly allot in that. You could do the same with more pre-season friendlies.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
Why couldn't Spurs sell 'premium seats at between £2,500 and £15,000' at WHL but they suddenly can at the new stadium? Corporate boxes, I'll give you, they're more desirable as executive packages.

Because realistically, using the economic demand curve, the average price per seat if anything should go down with more seats. Unless you think Levy was purposely pricing seats lower because of his love of the fans.

And using Arsenal as an example is all well and good but do Spurs have the same waiting list for season tickets? We currently have a 10 people waiting for every season ticket from what I've read.

As for the entertainment events and couple of NFL games, realistically there's hardly allot in that. You could do the same with more pre-season friendlies.
Click to expand...

I suggest you ask the club, but I'd guess the reason is that the stadium, the seats concerned and the facilities attached to them are all so much better than at WHL.

I don't see that the season ticket waiting list is especially relevant to ticket prices, because demand for tickets will exceeds supply in any case. But for what it's worth, as of 1 year ago the club said the waiting list had increased beyond 62k.

So if our seating capacity will be the same as the Emirates and our ticket prices at least comparable, then it seems obvious that the match-day receipts gap that was £55m in 2016-17 will be reduced to zero, if not swing in Spurs favour.
 
KingMinger22 said:
I really hope they can get Eriksen to re-sign.

He's irreplaceable for them.

I want the top 4 battle to remain as ultra competitive as it is now. It makes for great entertainment.

Unfortunately, it's hard to look passed him joining Real where he will make a ton more money on top of everything else.
Click to expand...

Hes as good as gone for me, RM id imagine, both him and Alderweireld not interested in signing a new contract.

Eriksen has played it smart for his career. Chose Spurs over City when he moved to the prem for game time rather than bench warming behind Silva. Walked into the Spurs starting 11. Signed a long contract at Spurs to take him to 26-27, then he could assess where he was in his career and make that big move if a team was interested.

Spurs do not have a ready made replacement, I guess the closest they have is Alli, I feel they may actually spend some money and bring in some prospects, a creative player, a CB and a CM.
 
Scroto Baggins said:
Hes as good as gone for me, RM id imagine, both him and Alderweireld not interested in signing a new contract.

Eriksen has played it smart for his career. Chose Spurs over City when he moved to the prem for game time rather than bench warming behind Silva. Walked into the Spurs starting 11. Signed a long contract at Spurs to take him to 26-27, then he could assess where he was in his career and make that big move if a team was interested.

Spurs do not have a ready made replacement, I guess the closest they have is Alli, I feel they may actually spend some money and bring in some prospects, a creative player, a CB and a CM.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I don't think he's 100% gone yet though. He definitely is waiting till the summer to see what options is available to him, and if Real Madrid or Barca wants him he's off (in my view). If they are not I can see him sign a slightly shorter contract on similar money as Kane is on. Most likely he will have interest from Barca or Real though so I think he's probably off.

CB is the last position we need to strengthen imo though, with Verthongen, Dier, Sanchez and Foyth that's probably our strongest position right now.
 
It's all good, Spurs still have the great stadium in the inner solar system.
 
I’d be embarrassed to even support them. Absolute state of the club, appalling.
 
how the feck do you miss so many chances and then..you know what. nevermind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.