• 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

Jord, a question, since you seem to be very well up on the NDP - did we at any point ever publicly comment on the possibility of a future expansion?

I don't recall anything specific, unless it's been answered at one of the meetings with the trust. They've said a retractable roof wasn't financially viable and my guess is that that would be the case for any expansions as well. If standing is allowed again I think we can get as high as 67K. Adding more rows at the back would take us outside the footprint of the current build, which means it will be ridiculously expensive, messing up the external look of the stadium (poor architects) and less than optimal sight lines (there are actually laws and guidelines for this brick. The higher you build, the steeper the rake). The roof would have to come off as well.
 
I don't recall anything specific, unless it's been answered at one of the meetings with the trust. They've said a retractable roof wasn't financially viable and my guess is that that would be the case for any expansions as well. If standing is allowed again I think we can get as high as 67K. Adding more rows at the back would take us outside the footprint of the current build, which means it will be ridiculously expensive, messing up the external look of the stadium (poor architects) and less than optimal sight lines (there are actually laws and guidelines for this brick. The higher you build, the steeper the rake). The roof would have to come off as well.

Ah, it would be a hell of a job to do, then. More so since the stadium has (or will have, when those residential buildings come up) building complexes at two ends and roads on the other two sides. That's a shame - and the thing is, I did think the same way with regard to safe standing possibly increasing the capacity to 66-67k, but apparently the current idea is that the space allotted to a standing supporter will be the same as that which is allocated to a single seat. To prevent overcrowding, if I remember correctly. So I don't know if we'll get a capacity increase as large as that. :(
 
Ah, it would be a hell of a job to do, then. More so since the stadium has (or will have, when those residential buildings come up) building complexes at two ends and roads on the other two sides. That's a shame - and the thing is, I did think the same way with regard to safe standing possibly increasing the capacity to 66-67k, but apparently the current idea is that the space allotted to a standing supporter will be the same as that which is allocated to a single seat. To prevent overcrowding, if I remember correctly. So I don't know if we'll get a capacity increase as large as that. :(

The south stand will be built to accommodate two rows of standing per one row of seating, though the actual ratio will be lower than 2:1. Possibly 1.8.

It's a shame we're building the stadium at the narrowest part of the land as both Worcester Avenue and the High Road curve inwards there. There's some room left on the west side, but the east will have an overhang over the sidewalk I think. In the olden days we would have filled the corners with rows as high as the rest, but that's frowned upon now.
 
The south stand will be built to accommodate two rows of standing per one row of seating, though the actual ratio will be lower than 2:1. Possibly 1.8.

It's a shame we're building the stadium at the narrowest part of the land as both Worcester Avenue and the High Road curve inwards there. There's some room left on the west side, but the east will have an overhang over the sidewalk I think. In the olden days we would have filled the corners with rows as high as the rest, but that's frowned upon now.

Oh, okay. Well, that's the sort of good news I was looking for. :) As for the stadium being sited where it is, I'm just continually a bit amazed that we're able to fit the thing in the space allocated to it at all - the aerial views show how snug it is, and for someone accustomed to the sprawling North American style of stadium development typified by BMO Field.....

CAK8Z1kUwAIq5OB.jpg



...the fact that we're doing what we're doing in such a compact space is continually somewhat astonishing to me. :)
 
LM81 on SSC came through:

How Tottenham's Daniel Levy had the last laugh on West Ham over the Olympic Stadium

Tottenham Hotspur's Stadium TV webcam is the most watched construction site in the world with 1.2million viewers a month and there is at least one man who logs on without fail at 6am every morning.

Chairman Daniel Levy is the station’s most regular viewer, checking that work has started at the crack of dawn each day before making his breakfast or reading the latest headlines on West Ham United’s struggles at their new London Stadium.

Levy is leaving nothing to chance over the rebuilding of White Hart Lane and it is little wonder when the cost of seven tower cranes alone exceeded £6m because a lack of supply meant they had to be bought instead of rented.

The resale value, which Levy is so careful to protect when it comes to Tottenham’s players, has taken a hit by his decision to paint large Spurs badgers on the cranes although the 54-year-old will still probably try to negotiate a profit on them.

On the fourth floor of the old ground’s west stand, Levy may well find it hard not to utter the words ‘I told you so’ when he is joined by West Ham co-chairmen David Sullivan and David Gold, along with vice-chair Karren Brady, in the directors’ lounge for the final derby meeting between the two clubs at either of their traditional homes on Saturday.

Levy was widely derided for, in 2011, proposing that Tottenham would knock down the Olympic Stadium, build a new dedicated football arena on the site and refurbish Crystal Palace as a 25,000-capacity home for athletics. The plan largely clinched the Stratford venue for West Ham.

But five years later, the proposal does not look so crazy even though, despite the 6am starts to check Tottenham’s ‘Stadium TV’, Levy will now be relieved that it never came to fruition.

There was a warning from stadium expert Paul Fletcher that the only way to solve the mounting problems at the London Stadium would be to pull it down and rebuild it following the trouble between West Ham and Chelsea fans.

London mayor Sadiq Khan has ordered an independent inquiry into the conversion bill of the stadium that has risen by another £51million, due in large part to problems regarding the so-called retractable seating that has been installed.

The fact the seats take around 15 days to be manually removed and the same amount of time to be reinstalled means West Ham may not be able to play their first home game of next season until September because of the 2017 World Athletics Championships that take place in August.

Tottenham will not have any such worries when their new White Hart Lane home is complete. While the seats will not need moving, the plan is for a retractable pitch that will potentially allow NFL games to be played on the same weekend as Premier League matches.

As anchor tenants West Ham were only liable for £15m of their conversion costs and are paying £2.5m a year in rent for a stadium that is on course to cost £753m with the rest largely borne by the taxpayer.

In contrast, Deloitte has estimated that the new Tottenham stadium, which is scheduled to open at the start of the 2018-19 season, will be worth £370m in gross value added revenue to London.

While Spurs continue negotiations with a number of companies over a naming rights deal that will be worth upwards of £20m-a-year, West Ham are currently unlikely to find anybody willing to put their name to the London Stadium for around £6m-a-year of which the Hammers would pocket £1m.

Chairman of British Athletics Ed Warner had labelled Tottenham’s plan for Stratford as “woefully inadequate”, while Lord Coe, then chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, threw his support behind West Ham’s bid.

There is a theory inside Spurs that Coe’s stance amounted to an expensive job application for the presidency of the International Association of Athletics Federations.

Vinci, the company responsible for maintaining the London Stadium, have denied suggestions they have already examined the possibility of pulling out of their 25-year contract because of the issues raised since West Ham moved in.

But there have been disagreements over the criticism of the stewarding and West Ham’s apparent reluctance to fund security improvements or the cost of extra policing at games.

The Hammers have provided a handy guide on ‘how not to move into a new stadium’, but Levy will tell you he saw it all coming and his 6am starts ensure nothing escapes his watch on the White Hart Lane rebuild.
 
The south stand will be built to accommodate two rows of standing per one row of seating, though the actual ratio will be lower than 2:1. Possibly 1.8.

It's a shame we're building the stadium at the narrowest part of the land as both Worcester Avenue and the High Road curve inwards there. There's some room left on the west side, but the east will have an overhang over the sidewalk I think. In the olden days we would have filled the corners with rows as high as the rest, but that's frowned upon now.
Where did you hear/read about that Jordinho?

I'm sure the article I read only stated that safe standing would up the capacity by something like 1,700. So either they are only designing it to make a small portion of the new South stand easily convertible to rail seating or it is nothing like 1.8 to 1.
 
Last edited:
Where did you hear/read about that Jordinho?

I'm sure the article I read only stated that safe standing would up the capacity by something like 1,700. So either they are only designing it to make a small portion of the new South stand easily convertible to rail seating or it is nothing like 1.8 to 1.

I've seen it mentioned. You can probably find lots of different numbers floating around. 1,700 seems really low to me as it's (more or less) a single tier stand. The official word is simply 'parts of the stand/stadium can be converted'. If it's being designed to accommodate rail seating later, then it would be really poor planning to end up with a 1:1 ratio, though that might be what's required by law at first.

Dortmund lose 16k when they're in European mode, but that doesn't quite add up with a stand that has a capacity of 25k in standing mode. Looks like they just have rails and manually put in rows of seats for the necessary games. Could be they leave some rows empty.

edit: Found some pics.

055.jpg

FIL-WESTFALENSTADION-GENERAL-VIEWS-01.jpg
 
Someone the other day was talking about camera angles... saying how they used to love the really high angle looking down on the pitch. A few years ago they switched to a much lower angle for Euro games or something... now I'm a bit confused, has it stayed low or did it go back high?

I was just watching Madrid vs Madrid and they have one of those cameras on wires that zips around above the play, so they can bring replays from right above the action, pretty interesting. I also remember a system proposed that had 40 cameras (or whatever) all around the perimeter of the pitch so you could switch angle seamlessly at any point, kind of like VR... I wonder if Spurs have any tricks like this up their jacksy
 
Someone the other day was talking about camera angles... saying how they used to love the really high angle looking down on the pitch. A few years ago they switched to a much lower angle for Euro games or something... now I'm a bit confused, has it stayed low or did it go back high?

I was just watching Madrid vs Madrid and they have one of those cameras on wires that zips around above the play, so they can bring replays from right above the action, pretty interesting. I also remember a system proposed that had 40 cameras (or whatever) all around the perimeter of the pitch so you could switch angle seamlessly at any point, kind of like VR... I wonder if Spurs have any tricks like this up their jacksy

captains%201(1).jpg


It started with the 3D productions, they had the cameras at the back of the lower tier to maximise the 3D effect. Now they're at the front of the upper tier I believe, where there's a gap in the UA signs. The gantry under the roof is only used by Redknapp/Carragher for inane analysis these days.
 
It started with the 3D productions, they had the cameras at the back of the lower tier to maximise the 3D effect. Now they're at the front of the upper tier I believe, where there's a gap in the UA signs. The gantry under the roof is only used by Redknapp/Carragher for inane analysis these days.
I thought so. It dropped super low and ended up somewhere inbetween.
Hopefully it will be good and high in the new stadium, particularly since the ground is going to be so much higher.
 
<<Bale and Modric tearing apart Atletico... would be great to get those guys back at TheSuperLane in 3 or 4 years>>
 
Back