• 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

T-C said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fvck grass roots football.

The best result for Spurs is the best result.
 
LesMedley said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if he was a Chelsea official, but someone associated with the Chelsea stadium plan responded to a question on both clubs requiring Wembley the same season with the line "Money talks".
 
We need a little recap after last week.

What do we know about the exterior cladding of the new stadium? Is it glass, fixed, or will the panels open and close to let in ventilation?

The 'sky walk' is interesting. A roof-top bar would have been awesome. Is there another stadium with anything like this?

When is the next round of planning applications? We might get more detail then. Moreover, are all the designs finalised? With a retractable pitch to incorporate there must be a serious amount of re-design work with detailed engineering involved. Do we think/ know if the pitch will slide (as one) under a stand?

Still a long long way to go. A massive ambitious project. I'm not impatient. It can take as long as it takes for me. I love the old Lane, and this drawn out process has already allowed for more innovation and refinement. If we'd had everything in place 5-10 years ago, we'd now be in a stadium similar to the Effeminates: which I drive past all the time, and is dead. Nothing going on outside games. Whereas this development is far more dynamic - potentially. With all the sports, housing, maybe some restaurants (?) it could be as DL painted it: the heart of a refreshed community. Did he do this for planning reasons? To smooth the way for planning approval, or because it makes financial sense for the development to be utilised not just on match days. Are NFL games referred to as 'matches'?

Massively excited, but we have to be patient. Chances are it will take longer than planned to complete.
 
Last edited:
Couple of other points: as things stand would we have the second largest capacity after united? The guaranteed 2 NFL games a year is really just a precursor to an NFL London franchise isn't it? From Spurs perspective, we needed something in writing to invest in the facilities, from the NFLs they are on-board for a London franchise but not ready yet.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Couple of other points: as things stand would we have the second largest capacity after united? The guaranteed 2 NFL games a year is really just a precursor to a NFL London franchise isn't it? From Spurs perspective, we needed something in writing to invest in the facilities, from the NFLs they are on-board for a London franchise but not ready yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NFL will give such a guarantee until the first few games in the new Lane have been played, and possibly not even then. It's why I think whatever we construct specifically for the NFL needs to be possessed of a 'triple-use' capacity: i.e, those facilities need to be built in a way that allows them to be easily switched around to host either football, the NFL or various other events (concerts, entertainment, weddings et al) at a minimal cost to the club.
 
We weren't part of an administrative London, but we were part of "greater" London in some aspects: London diocese, metropolitan police district, etc. When we were founded, Woolwich was also outside administrative London for most purposes, but Woolwich became part of the County of London just before Arsenal were founded. Using political administrative divisions would make Arsenal a London club just because they were founded later.

The NFL are cautious and commercially driven, so I suspect the two game deal is the extent of their guarantee. There is potential for more, but the stadium plans cannot rely on it long-term. This means the stadium will be "ours" and not a joint venture, which has some advantages for revenue generation. To make it viable there must be other uses of the lower surface that the club are keeping quiet.
 
Just fantastic news all around... Been away for a while and only reading the news as it's popped out, but had to comment now...

Can't wait to see this thing finished, and to see the building project progress for that matter.

Well done Levy! Fantastic achievement...
 
Bedfordspurs said:
we started playing in Tottenham before it was part of London. Quite a way before!!! We weren't a London club to start with
Click to expand...
Tottenham became part of the London Postal code N in 1857 (later subdivided in 1917, when Tottenham became N17). That's good enough for me to think we've always been a ( or rather "The" ) North London Club.
 
LesMedley said:
Tottenham became part of the London Postal code N in 1857 (later subdivided in 1917, when Tottenham became N17). That's good enough for me to think we've always been a ( or rather "The" ) North London Club.
Click to expand...

I have an MK postcode and live 25 miles away in a different county. Postcodes mean very little

But I get your principle
 
SpurMeUp said:
Couple of other points: as things stand would we have the second largest capacity after united? The guaranteed 2 NFL games a year is really just a precursor to an NFL London franchise isn't it? From Spurs perspective, we needed something in writing to invest in the facilities, from the NFLs they are on-board for a London franchise but not ready yet.
Click to expand...
Let's be realistic here. Do you really think the Gooners are just going to stand by and let us steal their thunder? They do not currently have planning permission to go beyond 60K but don't be surprised if they get Islington to agree to let them trump us even before our stadium is completed by shoehorning an extra 5,000 seats around the perimeter.
 
@Spur of the moment : I'm fairly sure that Chelsea's plans for their new stadium will also be modified to include a 62 - 65,000 seat capacity in the wake of our announcements. Hence my hope that we've future-proofed the designs enough to allow for a capacity expansion of our own in the future.
 
I think you're right. Its not a big deal in real terms whether you have 55k or 65k capacity. In some ways probably better to have less with a full stadium and lower overheads etc.

That said, second biggest capacity after manu, largest PL stadium in London does sound impressive, But then we have a big golden c0ck. No contest!
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
I think you're right. Its not a big deal in real terms whether you have 55k or 65k capacity. In some ways probably better to have less with a full stadium and lower overheads etc.

That said, second biggest capacity after manu, largest PL stadium in London does sound impressive, But then we have a big golden c0ck. No contest!
Click to expand...
I'm sure Chelsea's new stadium will hold more than ours. Also, aren't Liverpool doing something? I'm sure their capacity will be up there...
 
My understanding is:

Chelsea 60k
Liverpool 58k (once they expand the Anfield Road End)
Emirates Marketing Project 54k (with plans to make it 62k)

Come the next decade the Prem will boast a very impressive stadium list, it'll be like the Royal Navy and its Dreadnoughts back in the day, very impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back