However, all of our charity/foundation work considered, you will recall that the stock answer from the leader of Haringey council, was that the council had absolutely no money. Indeed, and do correct me if I'm wrong, but the money we've since received has actually come from the Mayors office, ie: nothing to do with Haringey council at all.
Wrong. Haringey have committed ?ú9 million to public works for which Spurs had previously been ordered to pay.
Oh yeah, we've remained competitive - that's for sure, but that's an incredibly short-term view. The simple fact is this: many of those around us already have larger capacities. We're then forced to be incredibly creative with other revenue streams, in order to just maintain our level. But you can only do that for so long, and for so long as your brand is competitive; therein, either a virtuous or vicious circle, whichever cycle you happen to be in. Longer term, the only way to remain truly competitive, is to drive and guarantee growth in your fixed revenue, ie: the stadium which pulls the punters in.
.....Which is precisely why Levy is doing all he can to get the stadium issue resolved in a manner which will best serve Spurs' interests, not merely for the next few years, but for the long term.
He was clear, from the very first moment that he took over the club, that the priorities were, in order:
1. The first team.
2. The Academy and training ground.
3. The stadium.
Priorities one and two addressed. Priority three, work in progress. Spurs didn't need to increase the stadium capacity for the first few years of Levy's tenure anyway. Only since 2005, when results started picking up, have we steadily grown the waiting list. And it's no bad thing, creating demand by restricting supply. It's a common strategy in many other sectors. It's only in the past couple of years that the new stadium has become an imperative.
And I'm sorry, but I don't accept extremely risk averse behaviour purely on the evidence that 'we might do a Leeds Utd' - because if that's the weakness of the management, then - with respect - they'd better move aside. Risks are about calculations; Arsenal took one by saddling the club with a lot of short-term debt, and that's paying off handsomely. In a couple of years time - financially - they're going to be right at the very top. That's where we need to be too, if - in the long-term - we're to not just stay competitive, but actually continually raise our own standards.
With respect, I'm confident that Levy knows and understands at least as much about risk as you do. Besides, it's quite wrong to claim that he is risk averse. He couldn't have possibly got to where he is without taking carefully considered risks. Prudence and risk taking are not mutually exclusive.
As to Arsenal bravely taking the plunge to build their stadium, you should be aware that theirs too was in the planning for many, many years. It didn't happen overnight. And besides, their situation at the time is only marginally analogous to ours now. They had been serial title challengers for 15 years and more, under both Wenger and Graham. They were regular trophy winners. And, crucially, they were (and seemed certain to remain) perennial Champions League qualifiers. As a result of all that, and their smallish stadium, they had something like a 60K waiting list. Furthermore, they were based in a desirable area of London and could depend upon healthy property sales to help pay off their debts.
Spurs, by contrast, haven't been title challengers in the past 25 years. We've rarely won trophies. We've only ever once qualified for the Champions League. We have only very recently grown a big waiting list. And we are situated in one of the least desirable areas of London.
The long and the short of it? Building a big, new stadium is a massively more risky undertaking for Spurs than it ever was for Arsenal. So Levy is absolutely right to prioritise minimising the risks.
