• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan

Gutter Boy said:
I think it's to do with the value of the club. The value of the club as a PLC was determined by the values of its shares, which were artifically low because ENIC owned 85% of them. But now as a private company the club's value is more to do with its assets. Therefore the amount they can mortgage themselves for is much greater.

Something like that anyway.
Click to expand...

Here the detail about this:

Collecott said: "It has been pointed out to us that we have a value of about ?ú80-?ú90m. When you compare that to other clubs, they are talking about ?ú600m or ?ú1.5billion, so clearly, we are not valued by the market and it's a huge inconsistency.

"When I sit down with banks, it's a very difficult conversation, because you're talking about a stadium that will cost hundreds of millions when the club are valued at ?ú80-?ú90m."

The reason for the value was liquidity - because a single shareholder owned 85% of the company, there was no incentive for other serious investors to buy.
 
Spursalot said:
Hopefully we won't have the issues Saudi Sportswashing Machine are having.. although with it being a new stadium it shouldn't be too much of an issue...

"City council bosses have said they will be appealing to the media to continue to refer to the Saudi Sportswashing Machine ground as St James' Park."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-16656754

Not entirely sure how much pull the city council should really have in this, seeing as the stadium doesn't belong to them...
Click to expand...

i think the council own the land that SJP is on, they all still call it SJP here anyway. totally pointless exercise at least we will be offering the rights to a new build
 
Gutter Boy said:
Here the detail about this:

Collecott said: "It has been pointed out to us that we have a value of about ?ú80-?ú90m. When you compare that to other clubs, they are talking about ?ú600m or ?ú1.5billion, so clearly, we are not valued by the market and it's a huge inconsistency.

"When I sit down with banks, it's a very difficult conversation, because you're talking about a stadium that will cost hundreds of millions when the club are valued at ?ú80-?ú90m."

The reason for the value was liquidity - because a single shareholder owned 85% of the company, there was no incentive for other serious investors to buy.
Click to expand...

?ú80-?ú90m? We've just put a price tag of ?ú150m on Bale alone!
 
The ?ú80-?ú90m market cap really was ridiculous, especially when you consider 51% of Reading has been sold for ?ú40m!
 
At a development management forum held at Northumberland Park Community School last Wednesday, Spurs’ project director Paul Phillips said they would create a “365-days-a-year stadium rather than 30-days-a-year,” increasing the number of visitors by half a million per year.

At the north end of the site by Northumberland Park, the 24-hour supermarket would remain at ground level but club offices and a space for educational use would sit above it, instead of the original plans for a “sky bar”.

Hopes for a four-star, 150-bed hotel to the south of the stadium near Park Lane were scotched as the club could only attract two-star hotel operators.

The single, sweeping residential block also planned for the south end will now be divided into four “finger blocks” comprising 285 flats, up from the original 200, which will share communal space.

There will also be three storeys of commercial space created underneath the blocks.

If it gets approval, Spurs hope to begin work on the northern development by the end of the year, with the southern development unable to be started before the new stadium is built in around three years’ time.
 
It is one heck of a project: a build over 4 or 5 years, starting with the supermarket. The odd seasons will be the ones where the ground is part demolished, if that is still the intention. Getting tickets will be impossible!!
 
lurker of old said:
It is one heck of a project: a build over 4 or 5 years, starting with the supermarket. The odd seasons will be the ones where the ground is part demolished, if that is still the intention. Getting tickets will be impossible!!
Click to expand...

Getting tickets should, in fact, be marginally easier than it is now.

For the one season that the new stadium will only be two thirds complete, capacity is expected to be very slightly higher than the current stadium's 36K.
 
There will in the near future be separate plans submitted that will entail changes to the stadium and podium, regarding changes to the stadium itself there will along with various other changes, be an increase to the stadiums capacity from the previously agreed 56,250 to over 60,000.

Regarding changes to the the podium, the biggest news is that their are plans to remove the FOUR listed buildings, that have caused the club so much trouble both aesthetically and financially, it seems the club has got it's way over this, and the removal of those Four listed buildings will give the front of the development an uncluttered look, and free up public space that was lost by the extra 85 apartments.


See link below ......... Open link below then just below attachments, click on Covering Letter and scroll down.


http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=252825


See link below ..... In the images on the right hand side, which entail the proposed changes, the Four listed buildings have been removed.

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=425113
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the links. That's interesting but also confusing. The listed buildings are missing from some drawings but included on others (eg. Appendix 3.1 402 P1 - BUILDING FOOTPRINTS.pdf and Appendix 3.1 409 P1 - SITE ACCESS.pdf). If there was a proposal to demolish them surely there would have to be an application for listed building consent / conservation area consent, which I don't see?
 
If you look at the Planning Statement submitted with the December 2011 application, section 3.12 says "The southern of two terraces of heritage assets on High Road adjacent to the NDP site consists of No. 744 Warmington House (listed Grade II), No. 748 The Dispensary, No. 750 The Red House and No. 752 the Former White Hart Public House, all of which are locally listed and make an important contribution to both local, and Club history. This terrace is to the west of the current application site boundary and is to be retained and incorporated within the approved NDP scheme."

I think any drawings showing those buildings missing are errors and/or copied from earlier drawings when those buildings were proposed to be demolished.

Also I noted that section 3.10 of the application says "The existing stadium is to be replaced by a new 56,250 seat stadium located immediately to the north of the present stadium." So that is still the official position although it should have course be revised in future.
 
No reason to limit ourselves to 56K. Although Arsenal are a slightly bigger draw right now, I feel our potential is much bigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back