New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan

[Leeds Spur]

On top of that, the stadium is a temporary structure, just a big Meccano kit. It's not designed to last more than ten years and that may make it difficult to alter.

The Eiffel tower was meant to be temporary. These things can be worked around.

 

[Howard Webb]

The Eiffel tower was meant to be temporary. These things can be worked around.

sos the hogarth flyover. all things are possible

conversley, the spagetti junction is permanent and cost ?ú10m to build in the 60s. it now costs ?ú1m a year to maintain because concrete has a lifespan of 30-40 years before it dries out.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Hopefully west ham move in and that's the case here!!

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

Can't believe how long they're taking to finish off the entrance work to the new Training Ground - it's looked the same for about 2mths now, and yet we're supposed to be moving in imminently. Still no external branding and/or landscaping :/

Deeper into the site, a new fenced bit went in a couple of weeks back - very much like what you'd see down a 5-aside centre.

 

[WookieD]

Can't believe how long they're taking to finish off the entrance work to the new Training Ground - it's looked the same for about 2mths now, and yet we're supposed to be moving in imminently. Still no external branding and/or landscaping :/

Deeper into the site, a new fenced bit went in a couple of weeks back - very much like what you'd see down a 5-aside centre.

You'd be surprised mate. I live round the corner from Potter World and they still hadn't done any landscaping during preview week, then all of a sudden *Whoosh* it was all there.

 

[billyiddo]

yeah landscaping is generally like that, they tend to leave it until the very last moment, i guess because you may still have the odd lorry/big delivery turning up right up until the end of the job

 

[Notmegov]

yeah landscaping is generally like that, they tend to leave it until the very last moment, i guess because you may still have the odd lorry/big delivery turning up right up until the end of the job

and the fact that 90 % of builders are thick as pig brick....so if you landscape while there are still lots of them kicking around they just drive diggers and dumpers etc over it...oh and a bush just becomes a nice place to have a brick.....

So glad i have nothing to do with big builds any more....

 

[Thebarbarian]

Once the Olympics have finished I wonder if the feel good factor will wear off and we'll see the media start asking the sort of questions that should have been asked a long time ago regarding the stadium. It all seems so badly designed and handled.

it's pretty obvious to all concerned that once the olmpics have finished there will be a major outcry again regarding the use of the stadium. I have been reliably informed that the answer to be provided by local government is that many tens of pounds will be saved by recycling as many letters fromthe Official Sign on the stadium:

THE NEW STADIUM

anagram of

WEST HAM UNITED

it's a conspiracy, I tell you!

 

[rosenthal]

Hope we're thinking of adding equipement to our stadium that will allow the use of one of those flying camera on strings that is used in EURO2012

 

[Southcote Spur]

I know the design of the new stadium is probably done and dusted by now, but I am watching the Greece vs Czech Republic game and I must say how impressed I am with the Stadion Miejski (Wrocław). It looks clean and I like the big seating blocks that encircle the pitch.

 

[Kenyan Spur]

it's pretty obvious to all concerned that once the olmpics have finished there will be a major outcry again regarding the use of the stadium. I have been reliably informed that the answer to be provided by local government is that many tens of pounds will be saved by recycling as many letters fromthe Official Sign on the stadium:

THE NEW STADIUM

anagram of

WEST HAM UNITED

it's a conspiracy, I tell you!

 

[Superhudd]

Just to point out I am continuing this in the stadium thread as its been alluded too that the topic was taken of track, this discussion was originally in this thread (incidently I did ask a mod to move the specific posts here)

http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showth...verage-weekly-pay-what-we-re-up-against/page3

It depends how you define input. It's not just about how much money is invested in a club by its owner. "Input" also takes the shape of management expertise.

And that, in many respects, is far more important than financial contributions. Take Portsmouth, for instance. Sacha Gaydamack put a significant amount of his own money into the club. Yet he made a complete dog's dinner of properly managing the club. Look at it now.

As to what ENIC have paid thus far, I can't say for certain since they have grown their shareholding over the years, in different ways and from multiple sellers.

At the time that they bought 27% of the club off Sugar, they already owned about 3%. They paid Sugar 80p per share, which translated into a little under ?ú22 million. Let's say that they paid a similar amount (although it was probably less) for their initial 3%. So they had paid a total of about ?ú24 million for the 30% of shares that they owned back in 2001.

They subsequently increased their shareholding to about 56% after the 2004 rights issue. That cost them in the region of ?ú11 million.

They then bought Sugar's remaining 12% for ?ú25 million in 2007, taking their shareholding to about 67%.

They contributed the entire ?ú15 million to the 2009 share placement, by which time, they owned some 86% of the company.

Various other purchases from shareholders large and small ensued. I have no idea what price was paid. At a guess, in the region of ?ú25-30 million.

So the total is likely to be a little over ?ú100 million. But who knows? Could be as much as ?ú120 million.

To point out Jimmy, unlike you to start a post bigging up Enic, before giving the info how much money they have input, (You a politician )

I think everyone by now knows what input, specifically Levy has given this club the past decade. No one at all is disputing this fact. One might dispute the value of that input is anywhere around 500m to 700m though. This is my gripe with it all.

This is why I think the stadium costs could or should come from Enic or more specifically Lewis.

So for me,

-120m input
pay for stadium -350m

Profit on flats 100m
Sell club 800m

Therefore..

Enic walks away with 430M profit.

Even if you think the club should sell for 600m, Enic walk away with 230m.

 

[Superhudd]

Does Joe Lewis just have ?ú400m lying about?

Well, 6 months back Joe Lewis offered 230p a share for Mitchells and Butlers pub chains who own brands such as Harvester, Toby Carvery and O'Neill's. Depending where you read, it would have been an outlay of well north of 500m, closer to 800m, who knows whether it was his money, he already owns around 25% and the company bidding was his own Piedmont, basically a company like ENIC.

Besides, it doesn't have to be a large chunk, he can himself take out the loan, and repay over 20 years and not the club. Basically be the guarantor.

 

[Superhudd]

There's a big difference between Hicks & Gillette's takeover of Liverpool, the Glazers at MU and ENIC at Spurs.

The takeovers of Liverpool and Man Utd were funded by loans against assets of the club thus giving the club's massive debt which the owners then creamed off in dividends, the ENIC takeover was funded by ENIC's own cash, no loans and no creaming off of profit. How can you say they are the same when it is clear that they are not?

Please quote what I said fully next time. It kinda makes your reply redundant.

 

[Superhudd]

Superhudd:

1. Do you agree that a stadium build paid for by the club is an asset to the club and to the owners? A bigger, better stadium would mean the club would generate substantially more money every year.

What asset to the club was added by the Glazer or Hicks/Gillett takeover? None? Ok. So discussion over then? Not the bloody same.

2. You say the risk is only there for the club, not for the owner. Well, the owner owns the club so that makes no sense on the face of it. Of course there is a risk for the owner. The risk that is there for the club, like us doing a Valencia or that the costs of the stadium mean on the pitch problems that cost us long term then the value of the club drops, that is real risk for the owner.

3. What club in the world has ever had a serious business man as an owner that has then spit in several hundred million pounds to build a stadium for the club? My guess would be that this never happened. To expect Lewis to do what no one has done before seems a tad demanding to me.

1. Another who did not read the point fully.

2. There is much more chance of the Valencia scenario happening with a loan paid back by the club, than Joe Lewis paying for the stadium or taking out the loan. As stated by jimmy, the input that Enic have at risk would be 120m. Thats probably there risk if it went the way of Rangers, but I honestly do not see that as a feesable scenario. Mainly because of the stature of the club, the money rich fans of the club willing to pay 120m to buy the club tomorrow with there pocket change. Besides the Valencia scenerio is one that cannot be matched because there problems arose basically because the owners lied how much they owed, and the banks fell for it.

3. My point is this, they sell the message that ENIC are fans, I say would a fan buy a club for 120m, sell for 700m and leave it with 20 years paying of the debt of 350m, or would you expect a fan, to buy the club for 120m, build a stadium for 350m and sell the club for 700m.

 

[braineclipse]

1. Another who did not read the point fully.

2. There is much more chance of the Valencia scenario happening with a loan paid back by the club, than Joe Lewis paying for the stadium or taking out the loan. As stated by jimmy, the input that Enic have at risk would be 120m. Thats probably there risk if it went the way of Rangers, but I honestly do not see that as a feesable scenario. Mainly because of the stature of the club, the money rich fans of the club willing to pay 120m to buy the club tomorrow with there pocket change. Besides the Valencia scenerio is one that cannot be matched because there problems arose basically because the owners lied how much they owed, and the banks fell for it.

3. My point is this, they sell the message that ENIC are fans, I say would a fan buy a club for 120m, sell for 700m and leave it with 20 years paying of the debt of 350m, or would you expect a fan, to buy the club for 120m, build a stadium for 350m and sell the club for 700m.

1. What I read was:

"I do not see anything different in that scenario than what the Glaziers have done, or Hicks and Gillette."

I do see something different.

2. Yes, and as pointed out in the other thread of course it would be better for Spurs if Lewis just gifted us a stadium. I don't think anyone is arguing that it wouldn't be, I'm just saying that expecting him to seems unrealistic at best.

If Spurs is currently worth more than 120m (and I think it is) then that's their risk, not just what they put into the club, but that's a side point, at least you agree that they also have a risk.

3. Has Joe Lewis sold himself on the message of being a fan? If so, in any way a hardcore fan? Honestly I wouldn't expect a fan to give up 350 million pounds to Spurs just because he's a fan, no more than I expect people on here to start donating 10% of their income to Spurs.

 

[chancer]

I think on the outside of the stadium where we're meant to have a huge image of the Tottenham c0ckeral, we should instead have a massive, enormous picture of a great big lasagne. Under it, the new Spurs motto: "Honestly, fudging brick and so fudging unlucky ALWAYS". We'd abbreviate that on the collar of our shirts to, simply: "ALWAYS". So we never forget. Beautiful. Instead of a sponsor, we again have a lasagne image on the shirt for league games, but a picture of Fulop for European nights in the all-white. Reappoint Ossie. On a lifetime contract. Crack out the cigars and let it burn.

 

[Superhudd]

1. What I read was:

"I do not see anything different in that scenario than what the Glaziers have done, or Hicks and Gillette."

I do see something different.

2. Yes, and as pointed out in the other thread of course it would be better for Spurs if Lewis just gifted us a stadium. I don't think anyone is arguing that it wouldn't be, I'm just saying that expecting him to seems unrealistic at best.

If Spurs is currently worth more than 120m (and I think it is) then that's their risk, not just what they put into the club, but that's a side point, at least you agree that they also have a risk.

3. Has Joe Lewis sold himself on the message of being a fan? If so, in any way a hardcore fan? Honestly I wouldn't expect a fan to give up 350 million pounds to Spurs just because he's a fan, no more than I expect people on here to start donating 10% of their income to Spurs.

1. Went asked to expand on that quote the full quote was..

But the endings are the same for the owners of Hicks,Gillete,Glazer & Enic... both walk away having put in minimal input whilst gaining a huge asset. This is what is the same about these owners, yes some have screwed over for money, one has given a foundation to prosper.. the endgame for the owners are exactly the same, take out loans in order to increase own standing.(Should Enic take out loans or Bonds for new stadium)

2. We agree, but it seems some do not think this.

3. When Enic took over they sold themselves to us as fans. I would expect a fan to give up 350m of its profit, maybe it needs a poll.

two choices

As a fan would you

1. Buy the club for 120m, let the club pay off 350m over 20years, sell the club for 700m taking home a profit of 580m

2. Buy the club for 120m, spend 350m on the stadium, sell the club for 700m taking home a profit of 230m

And to say, alot of people already give the club 10% of there wages through season tickets and other such costs.

 

[Superhudd]

At the end of it all, its whether you feel 230m is enough, or you want to be greedy and take the fooking lot.

The world we live in, greed is all too prevelent.

 

[braineclipse]

1. Same with all business owners of all football teams, I don't think Henry took over and paid Liverpool's debts out of the kindness of his heart or because he's a Liverpool fan. Even if he never gets them a new stadium he's in this to make money. There is a difference between his way and what Glazer did though.

3. I don't care what a poll says, I would still like even a single example of someone actually doing this before even thinking about expecting Joe Lewis to do it.

People give the club 10% for season tickets and other costs, sure. But they get something for that money, they get the season ticket and they get to go to games. That's quite different from a donation.