• 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

never red!

I assume the lack of floodlights is so Levy can use the cover off darkness to load all the money he's fleecing out of the club into unmarked vans which ferry it to his scrooge mcduck style chigwell money pool
 
The Football Association expect to pull off a £55million cash bonanza by negotiating deals that would see Chelsea and Tottenham ground share Wembley from 2017-18.

Negotiations with the clubs continue, with sources close to the FA reporting that they are looking to find a way for both to make the temporary move.

The Wembley board are under pressure from the Premier League to allow at least one of the clubs to use the stadium, a move that would boost FA’s revenues.

Chelsea would require the stadium for a minimum of three seasons while they build a 60,000 capacity stadium costing £500m. Tottenham will need to relocate for at least one season — possibly two — while they build their new 61,000 multi-purpose stadium that will also host NFL.

The FA could expect to bank about £11m a year from each club, bringing in a total of £55m to FA coffers.

It is understood Tottenham are prepared to share Wembley with their Premier League rivals but Chelsea are less receptive. As such, the FA’s hopes of maximising their cash windfall hinge on persuading them that the ground share can work.

If not, the FA would miss out on additional revenue, with Spurs also considering Milton Keynes and the Olympic Stadium as alternatives.

FA chief executive Martin Glenn admits it is possible both clubs could play at Wembley without overlapping and there are no restrictions to how often the stadium is used when the capacity is restricted to 50,000.

A £50m windfall from the two clubs would soften the blow if there are shortfalls from the sale of the 17,500 corporate seats, which expire in 2017. Speaking at Soccerex recently, Glenn said: ‘We are there to provide help. We can run the FA for less costs and we can raise more. There’s a range of things. Wembley is primarily a football stadium; football matches are more profitable to run than concerts and other things.

‘It’s in our interest for clubs to redevelop their grounds, make superb facilities and if it’s possible to help them in that transition by using Wembley, we are absolutely supportive of that.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Wembley-talks-Chelsea-Tottenham-continue.html
 
Jordinho said:
The Football Association expect to pull off a £55million cash bonanza by negotiating deals that would see Chel53a and Tottenham ground share Wembley from 2017-18.

Negotiations with the clubs continue, with sources close to the FA reporting that they are looking to find a way for both to make the temporary move.

The Wembley board are under pressure from the Premier League to allow at least one of the clubs to use the stadium, a move that would boost FA’s revenues.

Chel53a would require the stadium for a minimum of three seasons while they build a 60,000 capacity stadium costing £500m. Tottenham will need to relocate for at least one season — possibly two — while they build their new 61,000 multi-purpose stadium that will also host NFL.

The FA could expect to bank about £11m a year from each club, bringing in a total of £55m to FA coffers.

It is understood Tottenham are prepared to share Wembley with their Premier League rivals but Chel53a are less receptive. As such, the FA’s hopes of maximising their cash windfall hinge on persuading them that the ground share can work.

If not, the FA would miss out on additional revenue, with Spurs also considering Milton Keynes and the Olympic Stadium as alternatives.

FA chief executive Martin Glenn admits it is possible both clubs could play at Wembley without overlapping and there are no restrictions to how often the stadium is used when the capacity is restricted to 50,000.

A £50m windfall from the two clubs would soften the blow if there are shortfalls from the sale of the 17,500 corporate seats, which expire in 2017. Speaking at Soccerex recently, Glenn said: ‘We are there to provide help. We can run the FA for less costs and we can raise more. There’s a range of things. Wembley is primarily a football stadium; football matches are more profitable to run than concerts and other things.

‘It’s in our interest for clubs to redevelop their grounds, make superb facilities and if it’s possible to help them in that transition by using Wembley, we are absolutely supportive of that.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Wembley-talks-Chel53a-Tottenham-continue.html
Click to expand...
Unnamed 'sources close to the FA.' H'mm.
 
tricky for the FA, help us whilst we build a stadium which take away a couple of Wembleys most profitable days of the year

unless of course the NFL start sending 5 games a season over
 
galeforce said:
tricky for the FA, help us whilst we build a stadium which take away a couple of Wembleys most profitable days of the year

unless of course the NFL start sending 5 games a season over
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned before, the games we're getting having nothing to do with Wembley. They have a separate deal that is due for renewal soon.
 
Jordinho said:
As has been mentioned before, the games we're getting having nothing to do with Wembley. They have a separate deal that is due for renewal soon.
Click to expand...

yes, but they can only play so many games over here and any renewed Wembley deal is likely to be reduced from 3 guaranteed games now
 
The FA aren't going to make any deal that does us favours, especially if there is potential conflict over NFL games. However, as the governing body, they can't be seen to be doing Chelsea favours. Chelsea can force us to offer what they offer, but then the are committed to the same amount for the three years.

There would have to be legitimate reasons for denying a groundshare (pitch condition, objections by residents, etc) and for picking Chelsea. The obvious compromise and possible likely result is us in 2017-18 with Chelsea the following three seasons. There must be some rare newts and orchids on the railway line they want to build over.
 
galeforce said:
tricky for the FA, help us whilst we build a stadium which take away a couple of Wembleys most profitable days of the year

unless of course the NFL start sending 5 games a season over
Click to expand...

the NFL are planning to use multiple venues in London for their games. WHL, Wembley, Twickenham and the Olympic Stadium are the ones i heard about on the news the other day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back