Rumour? What new stadium is Spurs getting?

[AllWhitebeliever]

Tottenham are considering buying the new Wembley Stadium?

eurosport news source (http://www.eurosport.com/football/premiership/2006-2007/sport_sto963868.shtml)

Spurs could launch a bid to take the expensive project off the hands of the Football Association if the costs continue to spiral.

The stadium could be lease back to the FA for England matches and prestigious Cup games.

But it's a long shot as it would leave Tottenham deep in debt for sometime. Our preferred option remains a move in to the Olympic Stadium in East London in 2012.

However we are facing competition from West Ham, :( who could soon have major financial backing should a potential takeover bid prove successful.

So what should Spurs managment do?

1. New Wembley Stadium?
2. Olympic Stadium in East London 2012?
3. Stay and redevelop White Hart Lane?
4. Look for another Stadium?
5. Build another Stadium?

IMHO, Wembley is a long term option that could really reap huge benefits if managed well. We got proven business management over the years and this would probaby help us higher in the wealthier clubs in the world as well as getting higher appeal status with potential players, new global supporters/visitors, new shareholders, simply because the Wembly name is historically a flagship stadium and is closely link to the football events itself. But can we ride the financial storm before daybreak? Is it risky or it is huge benefit?

Wembley would have;

All England Senior Internationals
- The FA Cup Final
- Both FA Cup Semi-Finals
- The FA Community Shield
- The Football League Cup Final
- The Rugby League Challenge Cup Final

World Athetics Championship
Olympics
Music Concerts
Other major events

Stadium Stats:

1. With 90,000 seats the new Wembley will be the largest football stadium in the world with every seat under cover. There will be NO obstructed views.

2. The arch is 133 metres above the level of the external concourse. To read more about the Arch Fascinating facts click here.

3. The stadium roof rises to 52 metres above the pitch. This compares to the 35 metres tall Twin Towers of the old stadium.

4. The new Wembley has a circumference of 1 km.

5. The London Eye could fit between the top of the arch and the pitch.

6. The new roof will be over 11 acres. Four acres are moveable.

7. The rows of seating, if placed end to end, would stretch 54 kilometers.

8. 4,000 separate piles will form the foundations of the new stadium. The deepest of these, at 35 metres, is as deep as the Twin Towers were tall.

9. There will be 35 miles of heavy-duty power cables in the stadium.

10. With a span of 315 Metres, the arch will be the longest single span roof structure in the world.

11. With a diameter of 7.4 metres the arch is wide enough for a Channel Tunnel train to run through.

12. 90,000m3 of concrete and 23,000 tonnes of steel will be used in the construction of the new stadium.

13. The roof alone will weigh almost 7,000 tonnes.

14. At peak construction there will be 2,000+ people working on site.

15. The new pitch will be 4 metres lower than the previous pitch.

16. Each of the two giant screens in new stadium is the size of 600 domestic television sets.

17. The new Wembley encloses 4,000,000 m3 (cubic metres) inside its walls and under its roof. This is the equivalent of 25,000 double decker buses or 7 billion pints of milk.

18. The total length of the escalators will be the same as a 400 metre running track.

19. There will be 2,618 toilets - which WNSL estimate is more than any other stadium in the world.

20. There is more leg room in EVERY seat in the new Wembley Stadium than there was in the Royal Box of the old stadium.

Stadium Comparison

Stadium
(Capacity/Accommodation Area(sq. m)/Area per seat(m2)/Total Cost/Cost per seat)
Wembley 90,000 173,000 1.92 £352,603,000 £3,918
Stade de France 80,000 70,000 0.88 £266,597,067 £3,332
Telstra Stadium (Australia)

83,500 100,000 1.25 £278,897,627 £3,468
Munich (new) 66,000 - - £248,239,862 £3,761
Arena Aufschalke 51,000 58,796 1.15 £180,432,432 £3,538
Sapporo Dome 42,122 53,800 1.28 £245,959,091 £5,839
Washington State 72,000 - - £359,642,567 £4,995
Denver 76,125 - - £338,503,518 £4,447
Cincinnatti 66,000 - - £275,875,744 £4,180

So what future looks good for Spurs?

:cool:

Hang loose

[PoshSpur]

Tottenham are considering buying the new Wembley Stadium?

eurosport news source (http://www.eurosport.com/football/premiership/2006-2007/sport_sto963868.shtml)

Spurs could launch a bid to take the expensive project off the hands of the Football Association if the costs continue to spiral.

The stadium could be lease back to the FA for England matches and prestigious Cup games.

But it's a long shot as it would leave Tottenham deep in debt for sometime. Our preferred option remains a move in to the Olympic Stadium in East London in 2012.

However we are facing competition from West Ham, :( who could soon have major financial backing should a potential takeover bid prove successful.

So what should Spurs managment do?

1. New Wembley Stadium?
2. Olympic Stadium in East London 2012?
3. Stay and redevelop White Hart Lane?
4. Look for another Stadium?
5. Build another Stadium?

IMHO, Wembley is a long term option that could really reap huge benefits if managed well. We got proven business management over the years and this would probaby help us higher in the wealthier clubs in the world as well as getting higher appeal status with potential players, new global supporters/visitors, new shareholders, simply because the Wembly name is historically a flagship stadium and is closely link to the football events itself. But can we ride the financial storm before daybreak? Is it risky or it is huge benefit?

Wembley would have;

All England Senior Internationals
- The FA Cup Final
- Both FA Cup Semi-Finals
- The FA Community Shield
- The Football League Cup Final
- The Rugby League Challenge Cup Final

World Athetics Championship
Olympics
Music Concerts
Other major events

Stadium Stats:

1. With 90,000 seats the new Wembley will be the largest football stadium in the world with every seat under cover. There will be NO obstructed views.

2. The arch is 133 metres above the level of the external concourse. To read more about the Arch Fascinating facts click here.

3. The stadium roof rises to 52 metres above the pitch. This compares to the 35 metres tall Twin Towers of the old stadium.

4. The new Wembley has a circumference of 1 km.

5. The London Eye could fit between the top of the arch and the pitch.

6. The new roof will be over 11 acres. Four acres are moveable.

7. The rows of seating, if placed end to end, would stretch 54 kilometers.

8. 4,000 separate piles will form the foundations of the new stadium. The deepest of these, at 35 metres, is as deep as the Twin Towers were tall.

9. There will be 35 miles of heavy-duty power cables in the stadium.

10. With a span of 315 Metres, the arch will be the longest single span roof structure in the world.

11. With a diameter of 7.4 metres the arch is wide enough for a Channel Tunnel train to run through.

12. 90,000m3 of concrete and 23,000 tonnes of steel will be used in the construction of the new stadium.

13. The roof alone will weigh almost 7,000 tonnes.

14. At peak construction there will be 2,000+ people working on site.

15. The new pitch will be 4 metres lower than the previous pitch.

16. Each of the two giant screens in new stadium is the size of 600 domestic television sets.

17. The new Wembley encloses 4,000,000 m3 (cubic metres) inside its walls and under its roof. This is the equivalent of 25,000 double decker buses or 7 billion pints of milk.

18. The total length of the escalators will be the same as a 400 metre running track.

19. There will be 2,618 toilets - which WNSL estimate is more than any other stadium in the world.

20. There is more leg room in EVERY seat in the new Wembley Stadium than there was in the Royal Box of the old stadium.

Stadium Comparison

Stadium
(Capacity/Accommodation Area(sq. m)/Area per seat(m2)/Total Cost/Cost per seat)
Wembley 90,000 173,000 1.92 £352,603,000 £3,918
Stade de France 80,000 70,000 0.88 £266,597,067 £3,332
Telstra Stadium (Australia)

83,500 100,000 1.25 £278,897,627 £3,468
Munich (new) 66,000 - - £248,239,862 £3,761
Arena Aufschalke 51,000 58,796 1.15 £180,432,432 £3,538
Sapporo Dome 42,122 53,800 1.28 £245,959,091 £5,839
Washington State 72,000 - - £359,642,567 £4,995
Denver 76,125 - - £338,503,518 £4,447
Cincinnatti 66,000 - - £275,875,744 £4,180

So what future looks good for Spurs?

:cool:

Hang loose



....again, it's just ENIC trying to scare Haringey into action. They need to improve transport around the ground and the Tottenham area. It's pathetic that Tottenham (central) doesn't have a tube station.

But then again, something like that would cost well into the hundreds of millions of pounds to introduce.

So I suppose it's a catch-22 situation.

Will Haringey council ever stump up that much cash? Or will ENIC be prepared to move?

[Colm]

If we are ever to leave it will we'll be building are own one, not the olympic stadium or Wembley.

Most likely be expanding WHL...if that ever happens.

[tomas_brolin]

do you think that spurs could fill wembley??

i think spurs are better off refurbishing the lane..

i voted for wembley, for the pipedream that there could be as many spurs fans tho...

i remember rumors of doing a man city and taking the olympic stadium.. anyone know how they will convert it into a field like the commenwealth stadium? i could never understand that... or how someone converted a football field into a baseball field...

i also remember a rumor that spurs and arsenal were gonna share the grove... (thats waht im gonna call it from now on, hopefully it will catch on.) but obviously that never happened.

[Dave_M]

Non-Spurs fans should hate them getting either Wembley OR the olympic stadium. Both stadia represent significantly large tax burdens for the working class man, and personally I would be pretty pissed at ANY club getting the weekly use of them (unless of course a substantial portion of the development costs was offered).

Spur fans (or at least match attending ones) should be pretty pissed at moving to Wembley too. Depending on the route (and assuming travel from the Tottenham/Edmonton/Enfield areas) they would be looking at 1:00 to 1:30 on the journey. Pretty sucky for a midweek game!

[soccernutter]

Tottenham are considering buying the new Wembley Stadium?

eurosport news source (http://www.eurosport.com/football/premiership/2006-2007/sport_sto963868.shtml)

Spurs could launch a bid to take the expensive project off the hands of the Football Association if the costs continue to spiral.

The stadium could be lease back to the FA for England matches and prestigious Cup games.

But it's a long shot as it would leave Tottenham deep in debt for sometime. Our preferred option remains a move in to the Olympic Stadium in East London in 2012.

However we are facing competition from West Ham, :( who could soon have major financial backing should a potential takeover bid prove successful.

So what should Spurs managment do?

1. New Wembley Stadium?
2. Olympic Stadium in East London 2012?
3. Stay and redevelop White Hart Lane?
4. Look for another Stadium?
5. Build another Stadium?

IMHO, Wembley is a long term option that could really reap huge benefits if managed well. We got proven business management over the years and this would probaby help us higher in the wealthier clubs in the world as well as getting higher appeal status with potential players, new global supporters/visitors, new shareholders, simply because the Wembly name is historically a flagship stadium and is closely link to the football events itself. But can we ride the financial storm before daybreak? Is it risky or it is huge benefit?

Wembley would have;

All England Senior Internationals
- The FA Cup Final
- Both FA Cup Semi-Finals
- The FA Community Shield
- The Football League Cup Final
- The Rugby League Challenge Cup Final

World Athetics Championship
Olympics
Music Concerts
Other major events



A couple of points:
1 - Wembly seats 90K. Not sure that Spurs could consistantly draw that. I like the 60K to 70K range and expandable. But I think 90K is too much
2 - I think waiting until 2012 is too far. Spurs have been talking about a new stadium for several years, and now have new force due to The Grove being built.
3 - As everybody in London, Spurs want to remain as close to Tottehnam as possible. Neither Wembly or the Oly stadium are that.
4 - Due to the expansion of London (both size and population), it may become necessary to add a Tube line in the direction of Tottenham anyway.
5 - If Spurs do get Wembly, We would not play a cup semi-final there.
6 - Spurs would have to fund alot on the upkeep of the ground/field if all those other matches are played there. I seen a number of matches at Old Trafford after a rugby match - horrible pitch.

I voted build another stadium.

[pookspur]

every option but the lane blows, in my honest.

spurs have no business in a 90k seat stadium. spurs have no business being outside north london. and building a new stadium would be madness.

look at arsenal. i swear, i don't think the financials could have gone any better for them in their move - and they're still not out of the woods. surely we already know what they're just now learning - that one cannot take champions' league revenues for granted. not to mention they've sold their damned souls (assuming, of course, they had some to begin with) in the process. have you seen what their season tickets cost, and how they've absolutely screwed long-standing gooners? they're commited to becoming something they're not - and whether it works out the way they want or not, they will succeed in that regard. frankly, why they'd want to is baffling to me. they'd shown under wenger that they can win damn near everything with the revenue streams that a well-organized big - but not huge - club can develop. but they want to be Man U, Madrid, or Milan. well, hell, if i'd wanted to support Bohemouth Football Club, i would have! if longstanding arsenal fans want to eat their shit sandwich and keep right on smiling, that's up to them. "ooh, it's shiny and new!", but let's see if they win as much over the next ten years as they did over the last.

any american sports fan can tell you, when a club (or a sport) decides that it must go after new revenue streams (fans), the established ones are going to get screwed. that they'll keep right on coming for it is simply presumed.

well, i do not want spurs to become something we're not. revenue streams are not, and never have been, our problem. it's been crap management, and we're already setting that right. the high road accomodated 50k+ in the days before all-seaters, and it can do so, again. will there be congestion and inconvenience? sure. but that's the city's problem, and whether they deal with it or not is up to them. the fans are going to come with the transport upgrades or not.

the club has clearence to expand the lane, and will (i believe) do so. if they want to play out little scenarios to try to get the (admittedly helpful - but not necessary) transport upgrades, fine. but we're quite functional at the lane as it is, thank you very much. expansion, just so much the better. and i swear, if tottenham hotspur football club ever actually leaves white hart lane, i will be absolutely apoplectic.

[AllWhitebeliever]

O.K. I'm going to play devil advocate to soccernutters points here but be gentle to me cause I don't have the local knowledge and never been to the Northern Hemisphere.

A couple of points:
1 - Wembly seats 90K. Not sure that Spurs could consistantly draw that. I like the 60K to 70K range and expandable. But I think 90K is too much

It is possible to close certain higher seat off when a number of tickets is sold and have a counting system to open areas up on the day's gates sales. Also there would be flexiblity to make available tickets cheap for numbers and max out crowd numbers and get the same return. Having specials for vital matches can be promoted on certain days.


2 - I think waiting until 2012 is too far. Spurs have been talking about a new stadium for several years, and now have new force due to The Grove being built.

The best thing is to develop a financial system tuned towards a new project and you need the element of time to build up a portfilo as base for some decision making.


3 - As everybody in London, Spurs want to remain as close to Tottehnam as possible. Neither Wembly or the Oly stadium are that.


True, nothing beats a stroll to a game. But a new tude systems or travel plans can be pieced together then it could only a trip with countless of other fans that would be a great memory especially the trip back after a win.


4 - Due to the expansion of London (both size and population), it may become necessary to add a Tube line in the direction of Tottenham anyway.


I suppose an increase of the tottenham region and fan coverage would be on the cards for the next 100 years as well.


5 - If Spurs do get Wembly, We would not play a cup semi-final there.


Sorry for my ignorant but why not? Is there a special Wembley conditions applied againest Spurs home advantage, even though we are at a reasonable travel distance? Anyway it's only for one game and some deal can be brokered at another Stadium, exchanging matches so another club could get a greaterr gate taking at a match at Wembley.


6 - Spurs would have to fund alot on the upkeep of the ground/field if all those other matches are played there. I seen a number of matches at Old Trafford after a rugby match - horrible pitch.


Turf Managers are a dime in a dozen and it has been done before with pitch preparation and glass exchange etc. But the money should be there for the high upkeep since it is the real high flyer games that are likely to on the Wembley pitch and hence the big sponsership, TV rights and gatetakings are at a higher volume end. Selling a piece of used Wembley dirt even be thought of.


I voted build another stadium.

I see but where?

:cool:

Hang loose

[AllWhitebeliever]

Non-Spurs fans should hate them getting either Wembley OR the olympic stadium. Both stadia represent significantly large tax burdens for the working class man, and personally I would be pretty pissed at ANY club getting the weekly use of them (unless of course a substantial portion of the development costs was offered).

Spur fans (or at least match attending ones) should be pretty pissed at moving to Wembley too. Depending on the route (and assuming travel from the Tottenham/Edmonton/Enfield areas) they would be looking at 1:00 to 1:30 on the journey. Pretty sucky for a midweek game!

The tax burden is there already isn't it?

I suppose not all games be at Wembley. Perhap only the Weekend games and European Champions/UEFA games will be played there. And have WHL for the midweeks. I suppose it depends on what amount of cash that Spurs would like to splash out and what percentage of the overall ownership equity they get to control. It could be a good business deal or a horrible one.

:cool:

Hang loose

BTW looking at the stadium Stats is very scary, that a big monster and it's really an very long term look at it. How long are they expecting it to run for? 150 years or what? The old Wembley have been around for how long? Certainly a long financial plan involved. But maybe a reasonable partnership deal can be struck and asking other clubs to get on board as minor partners and still get enough to refunished WHL?

What is the estimated shortfall for the FA on this Wembley? It would help me decide the polls at least.

[pookspur]

...I suppose not all games be at Wembley. Perhap only the Weekend games and European Champions/UEFA games will be played there. And have WHL for the midweeks...

are you suggesting that spurs play home games at both wembley and white hart lane?

[AllWhitebeliever]

are you suggesting that spurs play home games at both wembley and white hart lane?

Just thinking outside of the square. Would it be a problem having a refurnlished WHL and a some clever equity business deal with Wembley rather than a new Stadium all together?

:p

Hang loose

[DigitalTron]

I think Spurs need a stadium solution. I've said it for a few years now. The Lane only suffices currently because not every club with a big stadium and good coaching have found their feet yet. Really, there is only one club that has both the stadium and the management right now ... Manchester United. Remember them, the club that just bought Michael Carrick from us and most likely is going to make a bid for Aaron Lennon in the future?

To keep our key players, we need certain things. One is a very high wage scale. We cannot currently afford that wage scale. Once Liverpool and Arsenal join Manchester United at the high end of the revenue scale, it'll be very difficult to crack the top 3. As long as Abromovich is funding Chelsea above any revenue requirements at all, that means the top 4 will be extremely difficult to crack. I wish it weren't true, but that's how I see it. :(

Spurs will not be able to pluck the gems of the U20 England team forever. Given Spurs success in that area, I'm sure Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal will become increasingly active in that area. With more money to offer recruits, more glamour which results from a huge new stadium, and the media exposure that goes along with those things ... Spurs will have a very very difficult time keeping our players. Carrick has gone, and Lennon will be wooed heavily as he nears the end of his contract.

Newcastle is waiting in the wings, a veritable sleeping giant as well. IMHO, Spurs need a stadium with a capacity of about 60,000 but expandable to 80,000. I can't see White Hart Lane ever being expandable to 80,000, so I think eventually we'll have to leave. Where to, I dunno.

I'd love to have Wembly ... but I just don't see us filling it, nor do I see how we could afford it unless we got a really good deal. I'd imagine the best deal would be to rent it rather than own it.

Olympic stadium definitely sounds promising, but I just don't know enough about it to be able to give a sound opinion.

-Digital

[LedleybetterthanSol]

We need to own a stadium, not rent it. We definately do need to near double our capacity in the next 5-10 years. Whether we expand or whether we move depends on what the board consider the best for the club. We all know that doing nothing is the worst thing we can do though.

[DigitalTron]

Own in the long term yes. But, I can see some very good things coming out of renting Wembly for 2-3 years. The initial push for tickets would be huge, so lots of people--even non-Spurs fans--would show up just to experience the new Wembly. This would make new fans and give us more exposure. The media attention would be phenomenal, again, pushing Spurs into the thinking of young fans. Internationally, it would instantly cement Spurs as a 'big' club in the minds of casual Premiership fans.

Additionally, England team players would love it, as they'd have the advantage when playing England matches of knowing everything about the pitch and stadium, as well as an added confort zone. I wouldn't underestimate this when looking to hang onto the Lennons and Huddlestones in a few years.

It also adds leverage to get what we want. If what we want is expansion of the Lane, it is highly unlikely that the Tottenham area is going to make the tube expansions while we sit at the Lane. Leaving sort of forces their hand, and we learn whether it's possible or not. If it's not possible, then we needed to move on anyway, so best find out sooner rather than later. Then, who knows, maybe West Ham or Fulham move in and we need a new spot anyway.

In reality, Arsenal have had a dream move. The stadium is fantastic and it's next door to the old one ... and they had very few financial missteps comparatively. All in all, that's a best case scenario. If Spurs could find something like that--anywhere in North London--that would be perfect. But, I don't imagine there are too many sites available. Finding one, securing it, lining up the finances, and surviving the construction as a club ... those are all major obstacles. I'd love to see it, but I'm unsure when or if it'll happen.

-Digital

[pookspur]

I think Spurs need a stadium solution. I've said it for a few years now. The Lane only suffices currently because not every club with a big stadium and good coaching have found their feet yet. Really, there is only one club that has both the stadium and the management right now ... Manchester United. Remember them, the club that just bought Michael Carrick from us and most likely is going to make a bid for Aaron Lennon in the future?

To keep our key players, we need certain things. One is a very high wage scale. We cannot currently afford that wage scale. Once Liverpool and Arsenal join Manchester United at the high end of the revenue scale, it'll be very difficult to crack the top 3. As long as Abromovich is funding Chelsea above any revenue requirements at all, that means the top 4 will be extremely difficult to crack. I wish it weren't true, but that's how I see it. :(

prescribing a new stadium is very strong medicine - so strong it could kill the patient. but is the 'disease' really that bad?

players wanting away is a reality of football. in fact, it's been less of a problem for us than for most. compare us, again, to our neighbors. carrick wanted out - but so did cole. obviously campbell wanted away, but so did anelka around the same time. i've got to go back to sheringham to remember another spurs 'star' who we couldn't hold onto, and that's getting back ten years. throw vieira in the mix, and i think they've lost more who they've wanted to keep than we have (granted, they've had more stars to lose). hell, milan couldn't hold onto sheva!

the only way we'd be able to avoid losing virtually any player would be for us to become a Bohemouth FC, ourselves - and that's just not going to happen. hell, even the huge clubs have a hard time keeping everyone, since there aren't enough minutes to go around. granted, they lose players they want to keep for a different reason, but it's still just a part of the game.

i understand and appreciate the point you've (very well) articulated, tron. it's by no means flawed logic. but - and i don't mean to sound argumentative, here - i really think the problem's been overstated.

i emphatically do not believe that we need (or could use) 70-80k seats. we can get the lane to 50-55k, maybe even 60k, and function very, very well.

[Colm]

I think we should stay at White Hart Lane and try and increase it instead of moving.

[mis-e-one]

I think we should either stay at the Lane and re-develop or move to a new ground nearby, like Arsenal have done.

I don't think re-development is unfeasible like it was at Arsenal. White Hart Lane isn't really surrounded by housing like Highbury was. If we can expand to about 50-60,000, then that's acceptable.

[RichardL]

....again, it's just ENIC trying to scare Haringey into action. They need to improve transport around the ground and the Tottenham area. It's pathetic that Tottenham (central) doesn't have a tube station.

But then again, something like that would cost well into the hundreds of millions of pounds to introduce.

So I suppose it's a catch-22 situation.

Will Haringey council ever stump up that much cash? Or will ENIC be prepared to move?
I asked this on a different thread, but how is the transport network supposedly unable to cope with 40,000-50,000 crowds when it used to do so (if not every week) in the 1980s, and up to 60,000 in the 1970s?

As I recall from trips up that way in those days, WHL station was round the corner, and Seven Sisters tube station was only a 15 minute walk or so (with regular buses going past the ground from directly outside). I know I haven't been to white hart lane since the late 1980s, but have things changed that much? Are the fans of today such lazy sods that they think the walk from Seven sisters is of a distance that should see them sponsored for charity?

[DigitalTron]

I think we should either stay at the Lane and re-develop or move to a new ground nearby, like Arsenal have done.

I don't think re-development is unfeasible like it was at Arsenal. White Hart Lane isn't really surrounded by housing like Highbury was. If we can expand to about 50-60,000, then that's acceptable.

My understanding is that WHL could be expanded to approximately 50,000, but no more. Meaning yeah, we could do the expansion for today, but always be behind Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle, Everton, Sunderland, etc. in stadium size.

I think in 10 years time Spurs may want to expand to 60,000 or perhaps more. If we expand WHL, then that's it, there's really nothing more we can do for a major expansion other than leave and find/build another stadium. Is it worth pouring lots of money into a temporary solution?

-Digital

[arak0r]

My understanding is that WHL could be expanded to approximately 50,000, but no more. Meaning yeah, we could do the expansion for today, but always be behind Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle, Everton, Sunderland, etc. in stadium size.

I think in 10 years time Spurs may want to expand to 60,000 or perhaps more. If we expand WHL, then that's it, there's really nothing more we can do for a major expansion other than leave and find/build another stadium. Is it worth pouring lots of money into a temporary solution?

-Digital
thats kind of how i look at the red sox situation with fenway, as much as i love teh stadium, and the history behind it, the atmosphere is amazing and wonderful, but because of its size, ticket prices are insane, the seats are kinda cramped and whatnot. they can only expand so much, and it isnt that much. the yankees are gettin a new stadium, and they already have more seating, and thus higher revenue than the sox. they really need a new stadium. same applies for spurs id guess.