Spurs new stadium | Loses NFL for 2020 but gains appearance in Gangs of London £££

Crowny said:
20 years ago where would you have considered Chelsea?
Click to expand...

Bigger than Tottenham, then and now. In 1998 alone Chelsea won as many trophies as Tottenham have from the 80s to current day, were MUCH bigger than Tottenham commercially at the time (3rd highest income in England that season), and comparatively to their times, still bigger than the Tottenham of today, had bigger attendances than Tottenham that season, and in the next year would come closer to winning the Premier League than Tottenham ever have and the year after that get as far in the Champions League as Tottenham ever have.

Any version of your beloved "history" that has Chelsea below Tottenham in the pecking order of English football until Abamovich came in is mental. CURRENT Tottenham isn't ahead of that Chelsea in a lot of tangible ways, let alone peak "lads, it's Tottenham" era Spurs, ffs!
 
Ooh2B said:
It’s the USB charging ports in the seats that are really giving me the green eye.. Hope they’re wired correctly at least.

There’s also a climbing wall I believe, which is something I’ve been after forever at a football venue.

You can shop there too, because that’s what peeps like to do on match days, along with taking a boo at the longest bar in the UK.

All of these things can be utilized while you wait for the pitch to flip to an NFL setup and then spend another 4 hours watching that drudgery.

No wonder there’s a hotel there as well, you’ll never want to leave.

It’s truly impressive what £800 + million will get you these days. It really would have been wise of Arsenal to spend upwards of £400 + million extra for all of that and another 2k seats..

Jeals indeed..
Click to expand...

All these things you mention, are to make use of the stadium when others are not being used..... I appreciate your attempt
At humour though, is that you Whitehall?
 
InLevyITrust said:
All these things you mention, are to make use of the stadium when others are not being used..... I appreciate your attempt
At humour though, is that you Whitehall?
Click to expand...

I try:angel:

It’s not Whitehall, don’t know who that might be.

I’m just having a go at the misconception that everyone’s jealous of your new stadium.

Even as an Arsenal supporter I’m actually quite impressed with that new ground, far from jealous though. It reiterates how much Spurs have felt the need to try catch us up and feel like peers of ours;)

You definitely beat us to the punch with the rock wall and USB ports!
 
Ooh2B said:
I try:angel:

It’s not Whitehall, don’t know who that might be.

I’m just having a go at the misconception that everyone’s jealous of your new stadium.

Even as an Arsenal supporter I’m actually quite impressed with that new ground, far from jealous though. It reiterates how much Spurs have felt the need to try catch us up and feel like peers of ours;)

You definitely beat us to the punch with the rock wall and USB ports!
Click to expand...

Read my previous posts, I don't expect the majority of opposition fans to give 2 fecks about our stadium.
 
InLevyITrust said:
Read my previous posts, I don't expect the majority of opposition fans to give 2 fecks about our stadium.
Click to expand...

Ooooh testy!

I have and you’re more practical about it than some, wasn’t directed at you, but you did reply so I replied in kind, but my point stands.
 
InLevyITrust said:
I your not right, the money made on match day isn’t tiny, but off you run with your tail between tour legs. Our you suggesting cubs shouldn't have a home stadium now :lol:.

Man Utd - Gate and match-day income £112m

Arsenal - Gate and match-day income £100m

Liverpool - Gate and match-day income £74m

Chelsea - Gate and match-day income £66m

Man City - Gate and match-day income £52m

Tottenham - Gate and match-day income £45m

Hardly tiny.
Click to expand...
In comparison to the amount these clubs earn from TV rights?? It's tiny. Plus other than Spurs you picked the teams that rely on ticket income.
Once again, I don't understand why spurs fans have to argue everything, you've got a new stadium, congrats.
But to think all of a sudden you've made a fortune is hilarious! You have to pay for the thing first, then carry on with your footballing progression.
Only then can you bring your figures into play.
I hate being right all the time in this thread, but alas, I am.
 
Champ said:
In comparison to the amount these clubs earn from TV rights?? It's tiny. Plus other than Spurs you picked the teams that rely on ticket income.
Once again, I don't understand why spurs fans have to argue everything, you've got a new stadium, congrats.
But to think all of a sudden you've made a fortune is hilarious! You have to pay for the thing first, then carry on with your footballing progression.
Only then can you bring your figures into play.
I hate being right all the time in this thread, but alas, I am.
Click to expand...

You said ticket and match day income was tiny, you then posted clubs with a modest net spend as clubs who can afford to do with out match day income. I'm not arguing this from a Spurs perspective but an all round football one. An extra income of £60-80M a year isn't chump change. If it was clubs would lower ticket prices. The cost of oir stadium doesn't come into it as a general football argument, your moving the goal posts.

The clubs with the best players, paying the biggest salarys have matchday revenue to match their needs, the rest don't.
 
Last edited:
FightDiegoFight said:
Bigger than Tottenham, then and now. In 1998 alone Chelsea won as many trophies as Tottenham have from the 80s to current day, were MUCH bigger than Tottenham commercially at the time (3rd highest income in England that season), and comparatively to their times, still bigger than the Tottenham of today, had bigger attendances than Tottenham that season, and in the next year would come closer to winning the Premier League than Tottenham ever have and the year after that get as far in the Champions League as Tottenham ever have.

Any version of your beloved "history" that has Chelsea below Tottenham in the pecking order of English football until Abamovich came in is mental. CURRENT Tottenham isn't ahead of that Chelsea in a lot of tangible ways, let alone peak "lads, it's Tottenham" era Spurs, ffs!
Click to expand...


Hahahahaha. You must be absolutely joking. Chelsea were a nothing club until Abramovich came along. You were having a little bit of a upsurge under Bates, but come off it. Let's talk about facts shall we?

20 years ago, that is in 1998, Chelsea had won the grand total of 2 FA Cups IN THEIR ENTIRE HISTORY. Spurs had won 8 FA Cups. Repeat that again. Chelsea 2. Spurs 8. We'd won the league cup 3 times, you'd won it twice. We'd won the UEFA Cup twice. Chelsea had never won it. Your only trophy pre-ambramovich was a Cup Winners Cup in 1971 and 1998. Something Spurs had also won in 1962.

And finally, you'd only won the first division title once, in 1955. Spurs had won it twice, in 51 and 61. There is absolutely no category whatsoever where Chelsea were a bigger club than Spurs were pre abramovich. Your success and trophy count has been remarkable under RA, but before that it was practically non existent.

How on earth you can look at your trophy count and compare it to Spurs and say with a straight face that Chelsea were bigger than Spurs? Delusion pure and simple. Chelsea were never classed as a bigger London club than Spurs.

Chelsea have overtaken Spurs in the last 20 years, but it is all down to Roman injecting hundreds of millions and buying his way to success. You have him to thank for overtaking Spurs and him entirely. Before that, Chelsea bigger than Spurs? haha, never in a hundred years before that.
 
If you're going down the league titles route, that means Sunderland are currently a bigger team than Tottenham, in reality there are other factors at stake.

Abramovich took over a Champions League club that had won more in the seven years beforehand than Tottenham had since the early 70s. Go back 30 years before that and trophy count all you want, Abramovich took over a team that was bigger and better than Tottenham.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm afraid you're mistaken. You need to check the year in which the football league was actually created.

Wiki: "Since the creation of The Football League, Tottenham Hotspur is the only non-league "giant-killer" to win the Cup"
Click to expand...

One thing I notice about your posts is that when someone questions or more to the point corrects something you post you move the goal posts.

Where in your original comment did you say “Since the creation of the FL”? It changes the whole context of your comment

The FL was created in 1888, that I knew likewise I knew that the SL in the era that was where the majority of Southern clubs played indeed Spurs were a full time professional outfit when they won the FA cup for the first time. Chelsea became a FL team before Spurs. Is that relevant?

Ok Southampton didn’t win the final but they reached the Challenge Cup final the year after Spurs in 1902 and they, Southampton didn’t become a FL team until 1920.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan
CapitalismSucks said:
The £1bn total cost estimate is from various reports in the press around the time of the delayed opening announcement.
For instance Poch is quoted saying the Stadium will cost "almost £1bn"
For comparison, the latest official cost estimate from the club was some £830m. Could it be Poch is just being inaccurate (£830m is pretty close to £1bn mind)?
Sure. But given that the stadium is now delayed, match revenue lost, brexit, electricians reportedly earning silly money, and you can put in argument you want here, I think it's more than likely the cost of the stadium has risen from our previous budget....

I was a bit unpresice in my last post, so to make it clear: WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE STADIUM FINANCE. (From memory, haven't read our accounts in a few months: Rotschild bank have put up a £400m loan + Tavistock's £500m guarantee alone should finance more or less all of it)

HOWEVER: I'm pretty sure Lewis/Levy would like as little as possible of that £500m guarantee to be used,(and right now they are in line having to pay most of that) so more than likely a plausable £150m in extra cost on the stadium will translate into £150m more in interest bearing debt. If we can't find that £400m naming rights sponsor.. well, then we are probably looking at even more interest bearing loans. These last 2 would be added to that £400m from Rotschild mind...

I think part of the reason we haven't spend anything this summer (other than on (I agree, very significant) contracts, but we still lack Eriksen, Alli, Alderweireld, Verthongen btw..) )is because our financing costs are rising.
We didn't sign new players, and then *bam* stadium delay...
If you think about it, and you're able to be honest, so do you....
Click to expand...


Isn’t the guarantee for £50 million not £500 million?
 
terraloo said:
One thing I notice about your posts is that when someone questions or more to the point corrects something you post you move the goal posts.

Where in your original comment did you say “Since the creation of the FL”? It changes the whole context of your comment

The FL was created in 1888, that I knew likewise I knew that the SL in the era that was where the majority of Southern clubs played indeed Spurs were a full time professional outfit when they won the FA cup for the first time. Chelsea became a FL team before Spurs. Is that relevant?

Ok Southampton didn’t win the final but they reached the Challenge Cup final the year after Spurs in 1902 and they, Southampton didn’t become a FL team until 1920.
Click to expand...

I haven't moved the goal-posts. I said Spurs are the only non-league team to win the FA Cup - and this is true.

Obviously it means since the creation of the FL, for the simple reason that the term "non-league team" is meaningless if the league hasn't even been created.
 
Gate ticket means nothing these days. And bigger stadium means bigger operating cost.

I wouldn't put a new stadium as anything grand other than statement of intent and a shiny new toy.

Look at arsenal and their state of the art stadium, it doesn't get them anywhere on the pitch.
 
FightDiegoFight said:
If you're going down the league titles route, that means Sunderland are currently a bigger team than Tottenham, in reality there are other factors at stake.

Abramovich took over a Champions League club that had won more in the seven years beforehand than Tottenham had since the early 70s. Go back 30 years before that and trophy count all you want, Abramovich took over a team that was bigger and better than Tottenham.
Click to expand...

You are quite correct to point out there are other factors at stake and then you go and ignore that very point in your next sentence when you cite a successful but short spell from the late 90's to the early 2000's as enough to overwrite the decades of being in the footballing wilderness that went before it:
  • Before 1996, you had won a total of 4 trophies in your entire history – 4!!!
    You had one spell of winning 2 trophies in the early 70’s. We’d won multiple trophies throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s
  • Since the 70’s, you’d been relegated several times, spending multiple seasons in Division 2
  • Your crowds in the late 70’s and throughout the 80’s and early 90s were a long standing joke to your London rivals. Crowds hovering around the 10k mark were regular in that utter dump of a ground that Stamford Bridge was throughout that period.
  • In the early 90’s we took 2 of your best players off you, Cundy (yes hard to believe he was that rated by you lot) and Gordon Durie. Bigger clubs don’t tend to lose their best players to smaller clubs.

  • To compare the players we’d had throughout our modern history vs yours pre Zola and Gullit, would have been an utter joke of an exercise.

  • This commercial and successful juggernaut of yours post 1996, nearly went bankrupt in 2003.

The above all lead to the well known fact in London football circles that Roman looked at Spurs first. We were the still the bigger draw + our jewish links. But of course Levy being the greedy and difficult person he is wanted too much money and didn’t need bailing out like Ken Bates did + Roman realised Chelsea was a better area to put his money in than Tottenham, one of the most run down areas in London.

There is absolutely no way in hell your club was ever bigger than Spurs pre Abrahomvich, so learn your history lesson and be grateful for the fact that one mans’s money, and that one man’s money alone is responsible for what you are today – a club who couldn’t remotely fill their end in the Charity Shield just gone.
 
Again, you're going back decades to dance around the facts that Chelsea were ahead of Tottenham by all those metrics I listed at the time. As many trophies in 7 years as Tottenham in the last 40+, higher attendances and MUCH bigger commercially.

But fine. None of those things matter. Sunderland bigger than Tottenham right now confirmed.
 
Crowny said:
You are quite correct to point out there are other factors at stake and then you go and ignore that very point in your next sentence when you cite a successful but short spell from the late 90's to the early 2000's as enough to overwrite the decades of being in the footballing wilderness that went before it:
  • Before 1996, you had won a total of 4 trophies in your entire history – 4!!!
    You had one spell of winning 2 trophies in the early 70’s. We’d won multiple trophies throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s
  • Since the 70’s, you’d been relegated several times, spending multiple seasons in Division 2
  • Your crowds in the late 70’s and throughout the 80’s and early 90s were a long standing joke to your London rivals. Crowds hovering around the 10k mark were regular in that utter dump of a ground that Stamford Bridge was throughout that period.
  • In the early 90’s we took 2 of your best players off you, Cundy (yes hard to believe he was that rated by you lot) and Gordon Durie. Bigger clubs don’t tend to lose their best players to smaller clubs.

  • To compare the players we’d had throughout our modern history vs yours pre Zola and Gullit, would have been an utter joke of an exercise.

  • This commercial and successful juggernaut of yours post 1996, nearly went bankrupt in 2003.
The above all lead to the well known fact in London football circles that Roman looked at Spurs first. We were the still the bigger draw. But of course Levy being the greedy and difficult person he is wanted too much money and didn’t need bailing out like Ken Bates did + Roman realised Chelsea was a better area to put his money in than Tottenham, one of the most run down areas in London.

There is absolutely no way in hell your club was ever bigger than Spurs pre Abrahomvich, so learn your history lesson and be grateful for the fact that one mans’s money, and that one man’s money alone is responsible for what you are today – a club who couldn’t remotely fill their end in the Charity Shield just gone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FightDiegoFight said:
Again, you're going back decades to dance around the facts that Chelsea were ahead of Tottenham by all those metrics I listed at the time. As many trophies in 7 years as Tottenham in the last 40+, higher attendances and MUCH bigger commercially.

But fine. None of those things matter. Sunderland bigger than Tottenham right now confirmed.
Click to expand...

MUCH bigger commercially? - you were going bankrupt.
Higher attendances? - you had a bigger capacity!! in a few months our crowds will be bigger than yours again.
Soooo it's about a moment in time then - Man City now beat Arsenal on nearly all of those metrics, so they are now a BIGGER club I take it. A club with a rich 130 year history, invincibles only 14 years ago, been in the 1st division for 100 years straight, overtaken just like that in a 7 year hot spell??
And if you argue that's the case, I don't need to point out that City's hot spell is much hotter than yours was 1997-2003.

I don't know where you're from or if you gone to many matches in your life and understand football away from TV punditry and social media. If you do, there is literally no way you could have been brought up in the 80's and 90's, gone to football matches up and down the country, and think that Chelsea was a bigger club than Spurs by the early 2000's.

I'm a lifelong Londoner and Chelsea were outcasts for a long time and that doesn't get rewritten with a few trophies and a bit of commercial success. However 5 league titles, umpteen FA Cups, a CHL win and then yes, all bets are off and Roman has blown us out the water.

We still have more fans in London than you and probably the country but hey, it's a global game these days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FightDiegoFight said:
Again, you're going back decades to dance around the facts that Chelsea were ahead of Tottenham by all those metrics I listed at the time. As many trophies in 7 years as Tottenham in the last 40+, higher attendances and MUCH bigger commercially.

But fine. None of those things matter. Sunderland bigger than Tottenham right now confirmed.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s true. Pre-Abramovich Chelsea and Spurs’ revenue was very similar.
 
The facts are out there, go and check. Chelsea's income was comparable with Liverpool and Arsenal's (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) from 98-through-03. Let alone Tottenham's.
 
JoaquinJoaquin said:
So when is the date they move into the toilet bowl?
Click to expand...
October, maybe November or worst case scenario: December. Let's say January just to be safe but definitely for sure before the start of next season !
 
FightDiegoFight said:
The facts are out there, go and check. Chelsea's income was comparable with Liverpool and Arsenal's (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) from 98-through-03. Let alone Tottenham's.
Click to expand...


1997-98
Man Utd - £87.9M
Liverpool - £45.5M
Arsenal - £40.4M
Chelsea - £37.1M
Tottenham - £31.2M

98-99
Man Utd - £110.9M
Arsenal - £48.6M
Liverpool - £46.6M
Chelsea - £44.1M
Tottenham - £42.6M

99-00
Man Utd - £116M
Arsenal - £61.3M
Chelsea - £59.2M
Tottenham - £48M
Liverpool - £47.1M


00-01
Man Utd - £129.6M
Liverpool - £82.4M
Arsenal - £62.9M
Chelsea - £51.3M
Tottenham - £48.4M

01-02
Man Utd - £146.1M
Liverpool - £99M
Arsenal - £90.6M
Chelsea - £75.2M
Tottenham - £65M

02-03
Man Utd - £173M
Arsenal - £103.8M
Liverpool - £103.1M
Chelsea - £75.1M
Tottenham - £66.5M

Slightly higher than Tottenham’s in most years to be fair but most of that would have been due to on the pitch performances not sponsors/commercial. Chelsea played in Europe more often than Spurs so prize money and more home games, higher PL finishes so larger prize money there too etc.
 
Damien said:
Click to expand...


That would really be an outrage if it affected other teams fans!

Can't at all see why our game on the Saturday would need to be changed at all though? Can only be so tv have a game.
 
Last edited:
Damien said:
Click to expand...


As mentioned on the ticketing thread, I sincerely hope that this is not the case! I’ve alread booked my hotel accomadation and train tickets. Both non-refundable. Will be extremely pissed off if this happens!
 
GlastonSpur said:
It doesn't matter much, whether a few weeks or a couple of months.
Click to expand...

I’m sure Levy and ENIC are feeling just as nonchalant about it. What’s a multi million pound over run anyway!?

Shrugs, says “meh”..

Oppo fans, and even the few domestic supporters who’ve booked travel and accommodation for previously arranged dates however..
 
Spurs should be docked points or something for this BS
 
GlastonSpur said:
Define "revolutionary".

How many other club-football stadiums are purpose built to host NFL football? How many other club-football stadiums are designed to be multi-use and multi-purpose?
Click to expand...

Why would you use the NFL thing as a source of pride? I'd hate Manchester United to share their stadium with an American football team.
 
Frank Grimes said:
Why would you use the NFL thing as a source of pride? I'd hate Manchester United to share their stadium with an American football team.
Click to expand...

If this is true then it must be really embarrassing for you that both The Rolling Stones and Billy Joel (Who?) shared your ground with you in June.
 
blue blue said:
If this is true then it must be really embarrassing for you that both The Rolling Stones and Billy Joel (Who?) shared your ground with you in June.
Click to expand...

Who? On Billy Joel is a funny one, he's a massive artist, hardly like we had the winner of The Voice playing Old Trafford.

Equally I think their point was more that Spurs are bragging about how they share it with a American football team. I.e. the staidum is being built for that purpose. Old Trafford wasn't built for a billy Joel or Rolling Stones gig, they just played there.

The stadium if it comes off like they're planning does look really good in fairness to Spurs. This delay is a shambles though and they're way behind, they'll be lucky to get it open for Christmas. It's having a nightmare effect on the rest of the construction industry to. It's impossible to source any labour as Spurs are paying big money for it all to be on their stadium getting it complete ASAP
 
@spbajko

Spurs away moved to Monday October 29 at Wembley for #MCFC. Club putting on free coach travel for anyone who buys a match ticket and will be contacting Spurs about impact of other costs
 
BREAKING: Tottenham's home Premier League game against Manchester City will be played at Wembley on Monday October 29. Spurs have also confirmed all three Champions League group stage home matches will be held at Wembley. #SSN

What a joke.
 
rB8CLFsOzSSAWDDSAAGxXbu0KAE922-1.jpg
 
Zebs said:
@spbajko

Spurs away moved to Monday October 29 at Wembley for #MCFC. Club putting on free coach travel for anyone who buys a match ticket and will be contacting Spurs about impact of other costs
Click to expand...

Now it’s started to affect other teams, and other fixtures, I’ve re-evaluated my opinion, Spurs should be charged by the FA and punished heavily. Not necessarily points, but a massive fine should be levied (pun intended) upon them.
 
How the feck did hey get the timing of the completion of a project so spectacularly wrong?
 
I'm surprised UEFA are letting them do this - so if they get past the group's they can change stadiums if it's ready? Bit of a farce isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.