Bullet
Andy Thompson
You asked "So how does the NFL deal help us on the pitch?" And then "I know it would be good financially but will it be enough money for us to improve as a team?"
The answer is; YES.
-
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
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
You asked "So how does the NFL deal help us on the pitch?" And then "I know it would be good financially but will it be enough money for us to improve as a team?"
The answer is; YES.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
Not so much a 'simple' question as a lazy one.
C'mon, Sparky, if you've paid even the most remote attention to this project and the sports world in general you knew the answer to that before you asked it.
You don't have to run the periscope up too far to figure out that this stadium will soon host more than four NFL games per season. There'll be a full season - 8 - 10 games - played there annually.
Charlie
Radek Cerny
I think it depends on whether the grass pitch needs to be slided back in between the events. The pitch slide for the Arizona Cardinals NFL stadium is a whole day event. If grass is not needed in between then it is just a matter of cleaning up and setting up the venue.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
The only question I want to know is what do the FA currently get from the NFL per game for using Wembley.
jaysea67
Erik Edman
Wembley is restricted on the number of annual events they can hold using all 3 tiers. For most, if not all, of any games that we might hold there we would not be able to use the upper tier. The lower and middle tiers add up to around 50,000 seats.
Under the approved permission for the KSS design the number of non association football events, attended by more than 10,000 visitors, is limited to a maximum of 4 per year. The club could seek a relaxation of this condition in the planning application to be submitted shortly.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Wow, that is literally snails pace. Surely we can beat that with advances in technology? I suggest we try that new hoverboard tech where the pitch is floating on magnets and the first 50 into the stadium have to get down and push it.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
That's gate receipt I believe
They also get club Wembley additional revenue as they certainly weren't included when I last looked and of course refreshments and food which have a huge margin
Probably make £1m minimum per game
Craig_J
Mido
Especially at the prices Wembley charge!
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Not to mention the effect on THFC being exposed to the lucrative US sports market. Soccer is starting to take off there and all yanks will know us from American Football. Then naming rights and other sponsorship propositions are worth that much more etc.
NorwegianSpursFan
Neil Ruddock
Will they really know our name? If the stadium is called, let's for the sake of argument say, the fedex arena. Will that help our brand at all?
When we've been in America, I know we've played at the x-box arena (or whatever it's called), but I have no idea who's home turf that is..
My personal oppinion is that the comercial side regarding the stadium will get a big boost due to the nfl connection, but Spurs as a brand won't feel the same effect.
When we've been in America, I know we've played at the x-box arena (or whatever it's called), but I have no idea who's home turf that is..
My personal oppinion is that the comercial side regarding the stadium will get a big boost due to the nfl connection, but Spurs as a brand won't feel the same effect.
mudshark
Chris Armstrong
That's because it's a world where people dress up to go to restaurants, don't wash or season their food properly, have no clue how to cook rice and consider it exotic to be eating it in the first place. I couldn't give a toss about the NFL personally. I can see that this may provide medium-term financial benefits to the club, and that's why there's all the tra-la-la, but I think it will ultimately be viewed as a failed experiment. I very much share DublinSpur's sentiments that the idea of the popularity of American football taking off big style in Europe is all a bit of a wet dream, and I have concerns that, in the meantime, our club identity (and that of the local area, being another in that minority) may become diluted and bastardised. Plus I never trust the yanks, especially when money's involved.
Last edited:
Superhudd
Simon Davies
Well I don't think people outside of London understand the traditions of us being a London club and are royally up there own arses.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
I didn't know this, that must change with us moving to a multi use stadium. There should be at least 30 non football experiences every year otherwise the benefit of retractable is pointless.
Once the stadium is open the club will be able to demonstrate the impact on the surrounding area, crowd flow etc. At that point it should be straightforward enough to get the number increased.
The other route is to apply for an event license on a case by case basis which is also pretty common.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
All these things are subtle. Henry Ford said "I know half my advertising doesn't work. I just don't know which half". Having Tottenham and Spurs mentioned countless times by US media, on TV, newspapers, radio etc. is better than advertising. You couldn't buy that kind of exposure. Such publicity may not change things over night but it will be big help to THFC brand recognition over there.
jts1882
Dean Richards
There is a lot of brown-nosing in that letter but he is a politician and lawyer. After all the preamble he makes two points. He requests help in getting Spurs use of Wembley and suggests the money could be used for grass roots football. Then he ends on what is essentially a legal threat, that the FA must behave impartially to all clubs and that the decision should both or neither. I think all the rest is leading up to this.
I'm really not a fan of this campaign to put public pressure on the FA. It suggests a bit of desperation that things can't be done in private.
It's pretty clear to everyone that if Spurs pay the right money then we will wrap up a deal for Wembley. If Spurs won't and someone else will then that's not a question of impartiality, that's business.
If the pitch can only sustain one team's fixture list around other events, then its a case of supply and demand, not impartiality. For grass roots football, the FA should take the best offer. The most revenue means most money for grass roots football.
Should Spurs manage to cut a great deal or one that effectively means the FA subsidised the move, then that's less money for grass roots football.
If Spurs can do a deal with a highly commercial organisation such as the NFL, why couldn't a deal have been agreed for Wembley at the same time? Were we just using MK for leverage to show we had options? Take away the NFL first to put Wembley in a weaker position? Perhaps Levy doesn't like that Spurs' position is not as strong as he thought with Chelsea in play.
So he acts sanguine in public, but gets his "friends" Lammy and the Trust to immediately make public statements supporting the Club's case? You may think that, but in my view both Lammy and the Trust are being populist and are acting on their own behalf, getting onside with their constituency.
The way you present the situation, Levy would be doing football a disservice by negotiating the best deal for the club. I dont agree with that. The idea that negotiating a good deal is somehow being subsidized beggars belief. Grass roots football gets money if a deal is agreed. It gets nothing if a deal is not agreed. That can in no way be viewed as the Club getting a subsidy. In my view, if Tottenham can do a deal for the use of Wembley for the 2017-18 season, that will be good for Tottenham and good for grassroots football, and grassroots football will be getting the subsidy.
How good it will be for the residents of the Wembley area is another matter, so I don't believe that it is necessarily true that "It's pretty clear to everyone that if Spurs pay the right money then we will wrap up a deal for Wembley". We've already seen with Archway how interested parties can be very awkward if they are so inclined.
The Chelsea involvement is, I believe, a red herring. Chelsea have made no public comment as far as I am aware. They are highly unlikely to be ready to vacate Stamford Bridge by 2017, because they've haven't yet even published the final scheme design, let alone got planning permission, bought up the necessary surrounding land, got all the Stamford Bridge owners to agree the scheme and sorted out a myriad other problems. It was only a little while ago that they were planning to use the Battersea Power Station as a location.
The timing of the Chelsea story is just a little too convenient for my thinking, while Tottenham are negotiating the use of Wembley and making announcements about the new stadium. I suspect it is part of the FA's negotiating tactics. That seems to me much more likely than Levy not liking Tottenham's position. I'd imagine he is very pleased at the moment. The idea that the use of Wembley should have been part of the NFL and NPD negotiations is naive, as is the idea that it is natural that they should all be completed at the same time.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
I hope you are right. The thought of us playing at Milton Keynes, even for just one season doesn't really excite me.