the ground

[mis-e-one]

Any new news on the ground, in reference to increasing its capacity?

This is something that concerns me. If we're to consolidate ourselves as a top 4/5 team we need a larger ground so we can generate the resources to compete.

Arsenal probably have an edge over us in that regard, since they'd soon have the ability to get larger gates than us. Even if they only fill emirates stadium to 4 or 5 sixths that's still amongst the highest in the Premiership.

[Spur_Forever]

Well, I can imagine that at this point the board is waiting to see how the Scum fare in their transition.

It's basically a made to measure experiment as to whether it's better for a North London team to stay put and expand or move and build a bigger stadium.

With the Ar5e gone, maybe the council will finally wizen up and realize that unless they improve transportation to the Lane, they'll be forcing our hand.

[DigitalTron]

Good point Spurs_Forever, but I don't put much weight behind any real help expanding the Lane. IMHO, it'll eventually force us to move away from the Lane. With Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal all set to reap much better gates, their incomes will allow for a much better future. As long as Abromovich continues to use Chelsea as his wealth-shelter from the Putin & Co., they'll clearly be the top dog financially. To keep Spurs competitive something does need to be done, but I suspect nothing will be done until Arsenal have had at least 1 season under their financial belts in their new home.

-Digital

[pookspur]

i understand the dynamics involved, and i don't wish to imply that anything stated above is wrong. but i would like to take a moment to point out that we're not exactly punching above our weight right right now. we're a fairly big club, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to compete regularly for champions' league positions.

the issue is that we've woefully underachieved over the last 10-15 years. yes, if we want to be able to compete for the league trophy year in and year out, we'll need more seats. but the arse have been very competitive over the last 8, or so, years - and without a fan base any significantly larger than ours. one could easily contend that it's their effort to become bigger than they are that's hindering them now, and NOT the limitations of highbury.

my point is that we can - without adding a single seat - be a very competitive team with regularity. our problems are not, and never have been, revenue streams. our problems have been upstairs, and on the pitch.

[PoshSpur]

i understand the dynamics involved, and i don't wish to imply that anything stated above is wrong. but i would like to take a moment to point out that we're not exactly punching above our weight right right now. we're a fairly big club, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to compete regularly for champions' league positions.

the issue is that we've woefully underachieved over the last 10-15 years. yes, if we want to be able to compete for the league trophy year in and year out, we'll need more seats. but the arse have been very competitive over the last 8, or so, years - and without a fan base any significantly larger than ours. one could easily contend that it's their effort to become bigger than they are that's hindering them now, and NOT the limitations of highbury.

my point is that we can - without adding a single seat - be a very competitive team with regularity. our problems are not, and never have been, revenue streams. our problems have been upstairs, and on the pitch.


...great point.


If we can in the next 7 years completely demolish the East & West stands and build high-rise cantilever stands, I am sure we can also push the 55,000 mark, plus we'll keep the atmosphere. We won't have the dead atmosphere of the new grounds.

[DigitalTron]

I'm not disagreeing that Spurs are a big club. It's just that money seems to play a bigger part today in defining 'big' than it did in the past. The game has changed rather significantly in the last 20 years. It's very global and fluid now. Fewer and fewer clubs are actually promoting the majority of their players through their own youth systems, instead, a good young talent (i.e. Rooney, Walcott) will now either leave for a bigger team or force a sale to a bigger team.

While Spurs do have a strong history and following, the two things that define a 'big' team these days are 1) success on the field in the last few seasons, and 2) money.

Tradition, size of fan base, and other things used to contribute to 'big' club status, but I fear that is lessening. Today revenue is king, and TV revenue is shared. Sure, a larger fan base can sell more shirts, but that's just not as significant as it used to be because it's dwarfed by TV revenues. Plus, have a couple of good seasons and your appeal world-wide (fueled by being on TV more often) can compensate for low shirt sales. That's why you see so many clubs taking trips to Asia and the United States ... to boost their international fan-base. Having a strong home fan-base isn't the only thing. But, if you can translate that home fan-base into significant revenues like gate-receipts, you can improve your financial standing.

While a 60,000 seat stadium is more impressive to a recruit than a 30,000 seater, I don't think it makes that much of a difference bringing in a new player. However, the extra $100,000 a year he makes from those extra seats definitely will influence his decision, and the extra transfer fee m oney will definitely influence his club when deciding to whom to sell him.

I don't think it's necessarily best to compare against Arsenal, because the core of Wenger's successful Arsenal team has been used by most as the model of team-building success ... not the typical success rate bringing in new players. And looking at that team, there weren't many that came up through the ranks at Arsenal. So, even that example is one of purchasing talent. This is where revenue streams come into play. Good players don't leave their old clubs to come to a new club unless they can get a good wage. Their old clubs will not sell them unless they can recover a good transfer fee.

I fear we will seldom be preferred over Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool or even Arsenal unless we can at least match the money they are offering ... and really, right now only Manchester United has the revenue streams we're talking about. Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal all had less money a few years ago than they will a few years from now. Chelsea got Abromovich, and his money translated into near-instant success. Both Arsenal and Liverpool are building new grounds with higher revenue streams. While Spurs could compete with them financially before, that will no longer be the case IMHO. Players know that too. I don't want to see Spurs considered a 2nd tier team, but we need to boost our revenues to avoid it.

Right now we're fortunate. The buy-young policy is working wonderfully, but those players will mature and demand significantly more money. Just to keep the core of this team in tact will cost a lot more in the near future. And, now that we've shown how successful you can be with the correct buy-young policy, I'm sure there will be more competition for those young players, including from the aforementioned 4 teams. Other clubs, such as Newcastle, have the stadium to out-finance us too, and if/when their coaching and results start panning out, the crowd at the top will be even harder to muscle our way through. :( A solution needs to be found, and I don't think it can wait another 10 years.

-Digital

[Colm]

http://footballgroundguide.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10332

[DigitalTron]

http://footballgroundguide.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10332

Nice catch Colm. :)

I'd love to somehow partner with the London 2012 Olympic Committee to find us a ground and help fund it. That would be the ideal win-win situation. We could take the stadium off the OC's hands, help them finance it up front, let them build a good stadium for the Olympics, and finally get the stadium we want and IMHO need ... 60,000+ with potential to expand beyond that. :) Anything less than 50,000 really shouldn't be considered at this point.

In any event, I'd say that the timetable for the 2012 Olympics is about right for us. They'd need the plans finalized by 2010 at the latest I'd think, and I doubt we'd wait much longer than that to start on a solution. By then we'd have plenty of time to assess the good and bad points of Liverpool's and Arsenal's new stadiums, and see how their increased revenues give them an advantage in the transfer market.

If it becomes clear that Spurs cannot get in on a deal with the 2012 OC, then I sure hope we have some sort of plan B.

I'm surprised that sendorange hasn't chimed in yet, he usually has good input on the new stadium discussion. Hopefully he'll post some new tidbits soon.

-Digital

[SpursGlory]

I'm not ready to trade the intimate atmosphere and history of WHL yet for a big seater. Expanding it has to be the first sensible consideration. Spurs management has handled the money well... fix the problems on the pitch first and everything else will fall into place.

Also don't forget about Wembley... if the need arises for more seats for say CL games... they can always play there (provided it gets finished soon!) as has been done with other London teams in the past.

And I wouldn't want an Olympic leftover either. Granted they tend to handle stadium architecture better in Europe... so maybe it could work with the right approach but I'd be skeptical.

[OrlandoSPUR]

..IMO the present transport links could support a gate of 45k, only 8,000 more that the present capacity, I just can't really see why at this point we'd need more than that.

Does anyone go by train to the ground? I used to catch the overline at Liverpool St and go to WHL when I didn't live in the area, I never really felt that it was too overcrowded, and unable to support a load of people desending onto and area and I cant see how already in the melee that is WHL on a matchday an 8k increase would really make worst the problem, anything nearing 50k would probebly start really cause an issue........ with the amount Spurs charge on a matchday we'd move on from being the 13th richest club even w/45k. which in itself is staggering considering our lack of Euro action.

Who say's we're not a big club?

[PoshSpur]

.................

[Spur_Forever]

I'm not ready to trade the intimate atmosphere and history of WHL yet for a big seater. Expanding it has to be the first sensible consideration. Spurs management has handled the money well... fix the problems on the pitch first and everything else will fall into place.

Even beyond considerations of atmosphere and history, the whole area depends on the club being there. I was born and lived 10 mins away from WHL and each time I go back it saddens me to see how things look. IMO, Levy is doing a good thing in trying to encourage the Council to step up on its end before he does anything. If Spurs moves, it'll wrench the heart out of Tottenham and the surrounding area, which is (debatably) more important than gate receipts.


Also don't forget about Wembley... if the need arises for more seats for say CL games... they can always play there (provided it gets finished soon!) as has been done with other London teams in the past
Good point.

[musicl]

With the Ar5e gone, maybe the council will finally wizen up and realize that unless they improve transportation to the Lane, they'll be forcing our hand.Seven Sisters isnt to far away. I enjoy the walk up the road to the lane from the station.

[Spur_Forever]

Seven Sisters isnt to far away. I enjoy the walk up the road to the lane from the station.
It's been a while since I last made that walk.. probably about 10 years, but as I recall, it's at least a 20-30 mins. Am I completely off? (This may well be the case...)

[pookspur]

It's been a while since I last made that walk.. probably about 10 years, but as I recall, it's at least a 20-30 mins. Am I completely off? (This may well be the case...)

that's correct. i clocked it last november, and it took between 20 and 25 minutes.

[musicl]

Really? I thought it was about 15 mintues.

[pookspur]

Really? I thought it was about 15 mintues.

i did, too. but i noted the time as i left seven sisters as i was going to meet someone at the lane. i looked at my watch twenty minutes later, and i was still a block or so away.

[SpursGlory]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/4729454.stm

I noticed an article on the BBC about Spurs considering renaming WHL as part of a sponsorship deal. I really hope they don't do this. It's a bit of a contradiction to do this new retro/heritage crest and then prostitute the name of WHL to the highest bidder.

[ox utd]

According to my gaffer, Premier League clubs don't really rely that much on gate receipts anymore. Well, not like they used to.

Broadcasting Rights, Sponsoring and certain business deals are the real money makers now.

Does that sound right to any of you??

I think you're spot on. The gate is a small piece of the income of the club - TV, sponsors and merchandise seem to be the big revenue producers.

[OrlandoSPUR]

Really? I thought it was about 15 mintues.

Bruce Grove is about 15 minutes walk. I used to live behind seven sisters on Hermitage Rd and it took about 25 minutes down the High rd.