I disagree. Area regeneration makes it more attractive to foreign investors interested in owning a prestige asset, since it wouldn't be situated in a relatively deprived area anymore. Level of detail would be necessary to distinguish our club's unique features from other clubs on the market. Money spent on the training ground improves our prestige (which again makes us attractive to foreign investors) on-pitch performance and our ability to generate youngsters for the first team, which ensures that we should be able to maintain a level of competitiveness regardless of what the owners do with us once they've bought us (to some extent) - which would only add to our attractiveness, and thus reflect in the additional price requested.
Not sure why that would be the case, because, as I mentioned, they're doing this with the club's own money for the most part - their current day job pending the sale of the club to somebody else is running it, and since the stadium is being built mainly with our own money and loans taken out in the club's name, there's little risk involved for them in ensuring that we get the best possible results with our spending. Why *not* ensure a great stadium (not the best in Europe, but a great one nonetheless) when you're not on the hook for it?
I'd suggest, in other words, that they would be *more* inclined to do a barely-acceptable job if they had their own skin in the game, because the ballooning costs from every extra bit of quality added would cut into their own funds. As it stands, they can afford to pursue excellence because they're doing it on our dime, for the most part. Which, as I've mentioned in the previous bit, adds to our attractiveness as a prospect on the market - and we will need to be very attractive indeed to merit the huge price that will likely be asked for us when we *are* put on sale.
If you want to make the most profit, you would sell when the club reaches its peak value. That is *with* a new stadium, with all the bells and whistles that merit charging the maximum price possible. Not before. But, having reached that point, there's no point holding on to the club longer than that if your intent is to maximise your profit, because there's little gain involved for our owners in the way they've set us up - almost entirely independently of them. We will run on our own, maybe win a title or two in the next couple of decades, with no input from them and no demands from them on our own finances, while they have an entirely self-sustaining asset sitting there. Which is great if your aim is to own Tottenham Hotspur and brag about it at topless billionaire bingo or whatever it is unimaginably rich people like Joe Lewis get up to - less so if your aim is to generate the maximum profit on your investment, which is how unimaginably rich people like Joe Lewis got that way in the first place.
