• 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

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

The EL money is not enough to make a significant difference and I doubt a big sponsor would care enough.

We have just submitted a planning application that says there are no changes elsewhere. This needs to be approved before we can submit a new plan involving changes. Having two plans saying two contradictory things is asking for trouble.
 
What is going on, I am genuinely confusused, once again club has let down the fans massively with very little communication. Really feel disappointed once again.

Remember people, these rumours "are just options".
 
Challenges over new Spurs stadium discussed by Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust

There have been some significant developments in the long-running saga of Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium. And as the prospect of this much-talked-about project finally materialising becomes more likely, fans’ hunger for information about and input into our Club’s new home grows. That presents the club, and the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust, with some challenges.

The Club and its fans need the stadium – to meet demand for tickets and to help keep up with the competition. Building that stadium means meeting a complex set of regulations, and financing it means taking on risk and keeping demanding financial institutions happy. The Trust has been acutely conscious of this since we relaunched two years ago. We’ve sought information and input into the new stadium, but tried to balance this with making sure we don’t add to the risk around the project. We believe that’s the responsible stance Spurs fans want us to take.

One of the many difficulties the project throws up is balancing the interests of a number of different communities, who themselves often have different and conflicting demands and concerns. Our primary responsibility is to Spurs fans, but local residents and local businesses are also affected by what happens – as of course are the club’s current owners. Some might call us naïve, but we believe it is worth working to ensure all interests are properly represented so that the club continues to draw its strength and identity from the area in which it is located.

We’re happy to set out our position here.

• Fans would like to know when work on the new stadium will begin, and what exactly is being built. They would also like clarification on the naming rights issue and rumours of a tie-up with NFL or another sport.

• The Club has confirmed it will be necessary to move away from White Hart Lane for at least one season while rebuilding occurs, and we’ve accepted this is the course the Club is committed to. The overwhelming preference of Spurs fans is to relocate temporarily to Wembley.

So we would like confirmation that Wembley has been approached and that meaningful negotiations are happening. We do not believe such confirmation will jeopardise any chance of a deal.

• The Club has indicated Stadium MK is still on the agenda. We have stated our strong opposition to any such move because of the threat to THFC’s heritage and identity, the travel problems it will present for many fans, and the association with franchise football. We have said we will not enter discussions about theoretical situations, but while MK remains on the agenda there are two questions fans would like answered.

1 Has any approach been made to Stadium MK?

2 Is MK likely to be the only alternative because it is the cheapest alternative?

That second question is vital because we believe the interests of a 133-year-old institution override the interests of any temporary owner. A situation in which a move out of London to Milton Keynes really was the only option left open to Tottenham Hotspur, with all the damage that could do to the club’s identity and the inconvenience it would pose for supporters, would raise serious questions about how that situation was arrived at.

• A new stadium with a bigger capacity provides a perfect opportunity to address the concerns about the high price of English football tickets, while also ensuring the stadium is regularly full. We want to see a progressive pricing policy put in place, which means employing stretch pricing to ensure top-level corporate packages enable prices to be reduced in a significant section of the ground.

We welcome THFC’s support for safe standing and believe this provides one key way to both reduce prices and increase income. Against the background of unprecedented income for the game, and the latest set of healthy financial figures for the Club, we say there is no excuse for failing to relieve the financial burden on fans.

We accept that issues around player wages and the financial structure of the game affect every Club’s financial position, and that is why we work alongside other football organisations for reforms in the way the game is run. But as far as increasing the financial burden on fans goes, we say enough is enough.

• The Club has repeatedly stressed the benefits the stadium can bring the local area. There is a complex argument in the sports business world about what benefits stadium projects bring to the surrounding areas and how those benefits can be measured – with no conclusion yet reached. We still believe the stadium represents the best available chance for regenerating an area sorely in need of regeneration. Whatever the arguments, some regeneration is better than none.

But the Club, like Haringey Council, has to recognise there is still a great deal of genuine suspicion in the local community about the plans. The Club’s current owners, remember, wanted to move the Club to Stratford. So we would like to see the Club build on the work it is already doing in its highly-regarded community projects to rebuild community confidence in a project that could make our Club a beacon for world football. We would be happy to play whatever part we could in this.

The new stadium project is an opportunity to write a new chapter in the Club’s history. One which benefits the Club, its fans and the local communities. For this to happen, there needs to be a fresh approach to working together.

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.u...Tottenham_Hotspur_Supporters_Trust_statement/
 
The Washington Post, although reporting the Tottenham / NFL rumours, doesn't seem to think it holds much attraction for an NFL owner.

When news broke recently that the London football club (that’s soccer to us Yanks) Tottenham Hotspur was thinking of designing its new stadium to be fit for American football (that’s football), several thoughts no doubt ran through the minds of NFL fans. Like, “Does this mean that the NFL will soon become the first trans-Atlantic sports league?” and “Will West Coast fans have to starting setting their alarms for 6:30 a.m. on Sundays?” and “Will Coach Lasso finally have to learn how to say Tottenham Hotspur’s name?”

At first blush, this is just part of the NFL’s relentless march toward world domination, now that it’s officially taken over as America’s number one sport. The league has been playing at least one game a year in London since 2007, drawing decent crowds of enthusiastic if oddly dressed fans. And every time there’s a new development across the pond, there’s renewed talk that an existing franchise could soon relocate to London — say, the Jacksonville Jaguars, who currently decamp to the U.K. for one game a year, and who play in one of the league’s smallest U.S. metro areas.

Which all makes sense — until you stop to think about the particular peculiarities of NFL finances. If you were, say, an NBA team, London would be an alluring market: more than 8 million people, many of them awash in spending money, and tons of opportunities to rake in the dough selling everything from TV rights to souvenir jerseys. The chance to get rich in a big market in basketball is the reason why Steve Ballmer was willing to drop $2 billion on the Los Angeles Clippers last year (that, and because when you’re the ex-CEO of Microsoft, price tags are a mere abstraction).

In the NFL, though, things are different. There are no local cable deals: All TV money flows through the national networks, so market size doesn’t give you much of a financial advantage. (That’s one reason the Green Bay Packers have survived all these years: They get the same yearly Fox checks as everyone else.) And with only eight home games a year, sellouts are common, so you can’t expect to double your ticket sales by moving to a bigger city.

Besides, Tottenham’s new stadium — which under the latest plan would get a nifty roll-out fake-turf field for American football — would be owned by the soccer team, with any NFL franchise being relegated to tenant status. That means no chances for an NFL owner to cash in by selling naming rights, ad space on video boards or personal seat licenses for the mere right to buy tickets, like owners in big U.S. markets are doing to fatten their wallets.

So for any individual NFL team owner, London doesn’t seem that much better than any American market — even Jacksonville.

But for the league as a whole, London can serve a bigger purpose: It can be the new Los Angeles.

Ever since the Rams and Raiders split for St. Louis and Oakland two decades ago, L.A. has been a bizarre anomaly on the NFL landscape, the nation’s second-largest city but without a pro football team to call its own. The reason is part political — L.A. officials have balked at the kind of lavish stadium subsidies that St. Louis and Oakland lured their former teams away with — and partly thanks to those curious NFL finances: It wasn’t worth it for any owner to build an L.A. stadium on his own dime with no local cable riches to be won. And with Angelenos happy enough to watch whatever national games were on TV that week, having a long-term L.A. vacancy was no skin off the NFL’s nose, either.

However, that may soon be changing. Last year, the owners of the San Francisco 49ers discovered that their new stadium in Santa Clara, Calif., could pay its own way and then some, thanks to all those seat licenses and ad boards and upscale restaurants to dislodge money from wealthy tech moguls. And now, the owners of no fewer than three teams — the San Diego Chargers, plus the prodigal Raiders and Rams — are talking about trying to replicate the 49ers’ success with a pair of new $1.5-billion-plus stadiums in L.A.

While any moves are still very much a maybe — the L.A. stadium financing plans still have more holes than a retired NFL lineman’s brain — filling the L.A. vacuum with even one team would have huge repercussions for the league as a whole. That’s because during its 20 years in the football wilderness, Los Angeles has served a valuable role as a threat, for other team owners to take out and brandish whenever local legislators got cold feet about opening their checkbooks for new stadiums. In Minnesota, all it took was a one-day visit from commissioner Roger Goodell and some sports columns warning that L.A. was waiting with open arms, and next thing you know, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf was walking away with more than $1 billion in cash subsidies and tax breaks, courtesy of the citizens of Minnesota.

Without L.A. in play, NFL team owners would need to find a new bogeyman. Enter London. If the league plays its cards right, it can spend the next two decades dangling London as a threat to silence any U.S. stadium naysayers — while still using the distant promise of a team to plump up British interest in the NFL, in a kind of “watch us and we will come” strategy aimed at the 64 million bereft souls who have never known the joy of buying a $10 foam finger.

This might seem needlessly cruel to British fans who’d be getting their hopes up, or to fans in U.S. cities who would start clamoring to reenact the Boston Tea Party at the prospect of losing a team to another continent. (No taxation without the shotgun formation!)

To the NFL, however, it’s not rapacious greed, it’s just good solid business strategy. Though these days, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...27/the-nfls-stadium-game-is-heading-overseas/
 
jaysea67 said:
The Club has indicated Stadium MK is still on the agenda. We have stated our strong opposition to any such move because of the threat to THFC’s heritage and identity, the travel problems it will present for many fans, and the association with franchise football. We have said we will not enter discussions about theoretical situations, but while MK remains on the agenda there are two questions fans would like answered.

1 Has any approach been made to Stadium MK?

2 Is MK likely to be the only alternative because it is the cheapest alternative?

That second question is vital because we believe the interests of a 133-year-old institution override the interests of any temporary owner. A situation in which a move out of London to Milton Keynes really was the only option left open to Tottenham Hotspur, with all the damage that could do to the club’s identity and the inconvenience it would pose for supporters, would raise serious questions about how that situation was arrived at.
Click to expand...
I think they're laying it on a bit thick here, there's a threat to our heritage and identity by playing a season in MK, by having an "association with franchise football"? Can't they just say they don't much fancy having to travel further.
 
Seedy Ron said:
I think they're laying it on a bit thick here, there's a threat to our heritage and identity by playing a season in MK, by having an "association with franchise football"? Can't they just say they don't much fancy having to travel further.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also seems a bit strange to claim that "We do not believe such confirmation will jeopardise any chance of a deal" in regards to a potential Wembley deal. How could one possibly claim to know something like that from the outside?
 
needy bunch of tossers, i'm sure everyone with a financial stake in this knows exactly whats going on, as for the rest of us, its none of our fudging business
 
Seedy Ron said:
I think they're laying it on a bit thick here, there's a threat to our heritage and identity by playing a season in MK, by having an "association with franchise football"? Can't they just say they don't much fancy having to travel further.
Click to expand...

tickle my balls with a feather.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Indeed.

It's 19 games and everyone knows the reasons (local by-laws etc.) why Wembley has always been a non-started.
Click to expand...

And, in my opinion at least, if Wembley is a potential target those by-laws would have to be worked around for a season. Making such an attempt public at this time could generate opposition that could jeopardize a potential deal.
 
jaysea67 said:
The Washington Post, although reporting the Tottenham / NFL rumours, doesn't seem to think it holds much attraction for an NFL owner.

When news broke recently that the London football club (that’s soccer to us Yanks) Tottenham Hotspur was thinking of designing its new stadium to be fit for American football (that’s football), several thoughts no doubt ran through the minds of NFL fans. Like, “Does this mean that the NFL will soon become the first trans-Atlantic sports league?” and “Will West Coast fans have to starting setting their alarms for 6:30 a.m. on Sundays?” and “Will Coach Lasso finally have to learn how to say Tottenham Hotspur’s name?”

At first blush, this is just part of the NFL’s relentless march toward world domination, now that it’s officially taken over as America’s number one sport. The league has been playing at least one game a year in London since 2007, drawing decent crowds of enthusiastic if oddly dressed fans. And every time there’s a new development across the pond, there’s renewed talk that an existing franchise could soon relocate to London — say, the Jacksonville Jaguars, who currently decamp to the U.K. for one game a year, and who play in one of the league’s smallest U.S. metro areas.

Which all makes sense — until you stop to think about the particular peculiarities of NFL finances. If you were, say, an NBA team, London would be an alluring market: more than 8 million people, many of them awash in spending money, and tons of opportunities to rake in the dough selling everything from TV rights to souvenir jerseys. The chance to get rich in a big market in basketball is the reason why Steve Ballmer was willing to drop $2 billion on the Los Angeles Clippers last year (that, and because when you’re the ex-CEO of Microsoft, price tags are a mere abstraction).

In the NFL, though, things are different. There are no local cable deals: All TV money flows through the national networks, so market size doesn’t give you much of a financial advantage. (That’s one reason the Green Bay Packers have survived all these years: They get the same yearly Fox checks as everyone else.) And with only eight home games a year, sellouts are common, so you can’t expect to double your ticket sales by moving to a bigger city.

Besides, Tottenham’s new stadium — which under the latest plan would get a nifty roll-out fake-turf field for American football — would be owned by the soccer team, with any NFL franchise being relegated to tenant status. That means no chances for an NFL owner to cash in by selling naming rights, ad space on video boards or personal seat licenses for the mere right to buy tickets, like owners in big U.S. markets are doing to fatten their wallets.

So for any individual NFL team owner, London doesn’t seem that much better than any American market — even Jacksonville.

But for the league as a whole, London can serve a bigger purpose: It can be the new Los Angeles.

Ever since the Rams and Raiders split for St. Louis and Oakland two decades ago, L.A. has been a bizarre anomaly on the NFL landscape, the nation’s second-largest city but without a pro football team to call its own. The reason is part political — L.A. officials have balked at the kind of lavish stadium subsidies that St. Louis and Oakland lured their former teams away with — and partly thanks to those curious NFL finances: It wasn’t worth it for any owner to build an L.A. stadium on his own dime with no local cable riches to be won. And with Angelenos happy enough to watch whatever national games were on TV that week, having a long-term L.A. vacancy was no skin off the NFL’s nose, either.

However, that may soon be changing. Last year, the owners of the San Francisco 49ers discovered that their new stadium in Santa Clara, Calif., could pay its own way and then some, thanks to all those seat licenses and ad boards and upscale restaurants to dislodge money from wealthy tech moguls. And now, the owners of no fewer than three teams — the San Diego Chargers, plus the prodigal Raiders and Rams — are talking about trying to replicate the 49ers’ success with a pair of new $1.5-billion-plus stadiums in L.A.

While any moves are still very much a maybe — the L.A. stadium financing plans still have more holes than a retired NFL lineman’s brain — filling the L.A. vacuum with even one team would have huge repercussions for the league as a whole. That’s because during its 20 years in the football wilderness, Los Angeles has served a valuable role as a threat, for other team owners to take out and brandish whenever local legislators got cold feet about opening their checkbooks for new stadiums. In Minnesota, all it took was a one-day visit from commissioner Roger Goodell and some sports columns warning that L.A. was waiting with open arms, and next thing you know, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf was walking away with more than $1 billion in cash subsidies and tax breaks, courtesy of the citizens of Minnesota.

Without L.A. in play, NFL team owners would need to find a new bogeyman. Enter London. If the league plays its cards right, it can spend the next two decades dangling London as a threat to silence any U.S. stadium naysayers — while still using the distant promise of a team to plump up British interest in the NFL, in a kind of “watch us and we will come” strategy aimed at the 64 million bereft souls who have never known the joy of buying a $10 foam finger.

This might seem needlessly cruel to British fans who’d be getting their hopes up, or to fans in U.S. cities who would start clamoring to reenact the Boston Tea Party at the prospect of losing a team to another continent. (No taxation without the shotgun formation!)

To the NFL, however, it’s not rapacious greed, it’s just good solid business strategy. Though these days, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...27/the-nfls-stadium-game-is-heading-overseas/
Click to expand...

Some interesting points and a fairly well reasoned article, but I think it misses a couple of things.

1. The NFL is interested in becoming a global league. London is the test case. The all important TV revenues can be raised significantly if there is more interest elsewhere. The PL is an example where it gets big money from foreign sources because it is global in players, while the NFL is considering becoming global in franchises. Testing the water for one foreign franchise is an important step. They can always move the franchise back if it doesn't work.

2. The appeal of the revenues of a shared stadium would be much greater if they same people owned both teams.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Indeed.

It's 19 games and everyone knows the reasons (local by-laws etc.) why Wembley has always been a non-started.
Click to expand...

So it's your view that the 37 event per year restriction at Wembley applies to all events - including those where the upper tier isn't used?
 
Gutter Boy said:
Indeed.

It's 19 games and everyone knows the reasons (local by-laws etc.) why Wembley has always been a non-started.
Click to expand...

They are currently restricted to 37 events in a year. 31 scheduled this year. It is possible for us to stage a few big games there.

Capital One Cup final
London Half Marathon
Johnstone's Paint Trophy final
England - Lithuania
Saracens vs Harlequins
FA Trophy
FA Cup semi
FA Cup semi
FA Vase final
Conference promotion final
League Two playoff final
League One playoff final
Championship playoff final
FA Cup final
Capital Summer Time Ball
Foo Fighters concert
Foo Fighters concert
AC DC concert
Ed Sheeran concert
Ed Sheeran concert
Ed Sheeran concert
FA Women's Cup final
Challenge Cup final
England - Switzerland
Rugby World Cup
Rugby World Cup
Jets vs Dolphins
England - Estonia
Bills vs Jaguars
Lions vs Chiefs
England - France
 
Tottenham and Chelsea could move to Wembley on a temporary basis thanks to a loophole that allows it to be used for additional games as long as the capacity is reduced to 50,000.

Standard Sport can reveal the details of the agreement between Wembley and Brent Council, which provides the London rivals with an unexpected boost in their hopes of using the national stadium.

Both clubs are planning stadium works and are considering their options should they be forced to leave their homes temporarily.

It had been widely thought Wembley was a non-starter because Brent Council only allows 37 major events there a year. A busy Wembley schedule already includes England games, the FA Cup Final, both semi-finals, play-off finals, the Capital One Cup Final and three NFL games.

Both Premier League clubs, regularly playing in European competition, would expect 25 home games per season, making it impossible to fit in with the quota.

However, Standard Sport has discovered the limit does not apply for games where fans are restricted to the two lower tiers. Even in the restricted format Wembley can still hold close to 50,000 fans, which is almost 14,000 more than White Hart Lane and around 8,000 more than Stamford Bridge

England Ladies played at Wembley for the first time against Germany last November in front of a 45,619 crowd. As the game was in a restricted stadium, it was not classified as one of the 37 major events.

Brent Council has confirmed there are no planning issues to prevent additional games with a reduced capacity.

The unexpected loophole removes a significant barrier if either club decided to negotiate a move to the national stadium — a move that could prove popular with fans, Brent Council and local businesses. A temporary move to Wembley would also boost the FA’s revenues through additional rent. However, it is understood that the cost of renting Wembley, as well as trying to fit games into an already packed calendar at the stadium may prove difficult.

Spurs continue to keep all options open and have admitted that a season at the MK Stadium in Milton Keynes is an option — a move that has been opposed by some fans given that it is 53miles from White Hart Lane.

Chelsea have held talks with the RFU over the possibility of a short-term move to Twickenham.

Spurs are inching closer to building a new stadium next to White Hart Lane while Chelsea are considering ways to expand Stamford Bridge to 60,000, having struggled to find a new site for a ground in west London.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...and-make-wembley-temporary-home-10028281.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back