Daniel Levy - Chairman

[chicken_badge]

It didn't because he left. He got it in 2001. It was valid for 5 years. Levy said he did nothing on those plans for the East Stand because he didn't want to do anything piecemeal*. Which was a fair point..... in 2003! We could have gone with those plans and got up to 44k by circa 2003. This would have left a similar redevelopment of the West, leaving us with something like a 55k-57k capacity today. That could have been done by about 2005. The cost of this would be nearly all paid off by now. Not many clubs have this advantage of being able to build on what they have rather than build a new stadium. It has helped a club like Manchester United tremendously that they have not *had* to move, whereas Arsenal had no choice in the matter. They were penned in. Really, we could have redeveloped where we were by now, up circa 55k or 44k minimum very easily and would be all paid off. We could then be still considering the current project, whilst our coffers would have grown considerably.

* Arguably the real truth here is that is nothing to do with it being piecemeal but that redeveloping just the East and West stands doesn't give any extra scope for corporate boxes and so forth. Which in turns makes us less of prospect for being sold on.

The East Stand is a total shambles. So much wrong with it, from the disasterous start of the 1988 season, to the two pillars that should have been left back in the 1950s. Stacks of wasted space, it would appear the only reason that stand was built was to incoporate new executive boxes. The West Stand was state-of-the art when it was built and you can see, still to this day, how it would be a perfect quarter of any stadium (bar the poor legroom). But I don't think you can really increase it's capacity, the Upper Tier goes up quite a long way as it is. North and South Stands are functional but the roads behind them have limited us up till now.

Tearing down that East Stand and building a monster is one way forward. But a brand new stadium is probably the most sensible route to go. Old Trafford is a clear example of this, its big sure but nothing amazing. Not when you compare it to Wembley, which isnt a great deal bigger (10-15k) but so much magestic. Old Trafford has the history, granted, but its not a particularly comfortable stadium.

I like our plans, a stadium as close to the pitch as allowed; compact; 55000 would sell out most weeks; great lines of sight. We might lose some of the history but the artist impressions of the new ground still look reminiscent of White Hart Lane.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

The East Stand is a total shambles. So much wrong with it, from the disasterous start of the 1988 season, to the two pillars that should have been left back in the 1950s. Stacks of wasted space, it would appear the only reason that stand was built was to incoporate new executive boxes. The West Stand was state-of-the art when it was built and you can see, still to this day, how it would be a perfect quarter of any stadium (bar the poor legroom). But I don't think you can really increase it's capacity, the Upper Tier goes up quite a long way as it is. North and South Stands are functional but the roads behind them have limited us up till now.

I'm not saying we could have built on the West Stand as it is I think it could have been redeveloped outright. It holds just 6,800. This was strongly considered in the early days under Levy but they were nervous about the potential of PPV at this stage (as was Sugar before) and some other issues.

Tearing down that East Stand and building a monster is one way forward. But a brand new stadium is probably the most sensible route to go

It probably is now but as I say, we could well have taken the 'piecemeal' approach in the short term and have it paid off by now. It would leave us in a strong position to then go on with the project now being considered. Sheikh has a point on them being 11 years at the club and only minor progress being made on this issue.

On Old Trafford - it depends, I suppose. Would you rather a majestic stadium or the success they've had? I think they made the right decision to stay where they were rather than build anew!

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

So Sheikh, I think you are choosing to pick the facts that you want

- We didn't get final ownership (and I believe that went to court order) for all the land required for the stadium until either late last year or this year.
- We have had well documented issues with transport links and local goverment support, that again has only been resolved this year (after Levy basically threaten to fudge off out of Tottenham)
- Similar to the above, they were delays, challenges with approval for the stadium plans, not as familiar with dates/timelines on that.
- Between 2009 -2011, and even now, financing a 400M project is a lot more difficult and potentially not on the terms you want to have, due to global economic issues.


To pretend we have owned the land, had approved plans, local goverment support, approved funding for the last 5 years and Levy has just been dingdonging around is a disservice to him and pretty much a cheap shot.

My understanding is the current plan is for the stadium to start at the end of the next season, perhaps if that doesn't materialize you have some grounds for the above points.

What facts have I chosen?

1. You've misunderstood this. I was addressing this notion that acquiring land = significant progress in the stadium build. No, it's merely acquiring land. Land that you can do whatever the hell you want with, ie: you don't have to build a stadium on it.

2. Wrong. Levy's brinkmanship actually fell completely and utterly on deaf ears my friend; Haringey were not the slightest bit interested, and David Lamey was lobbying against the club to the press.

What changed, was the riots and the political capital to make profit out of Tottenham by being seen to throw money at it. So, that's why they did. That had fudge all to do with Levy trying to play pokerface.

Regarding the transport issues: what's been "resolved" there, prey tell?

3. The biggest delay of the lot, was actually taking the fudging decision to stay in Tottenham! Are you honestly that surprised, if our planning application attracts criticism and delays if, at the root of it, there's a lack of commitment? That lack of sincerity was shown for all, when Levy saw a pound to be made by pursuing Stratford - even though, reputationally, it was a fudging embarrassment for the Club.

4. Okay, so ?ú400m is a lot of dough to find - I don't think anyone would argue with that. So, change the plans then. Make them more affordable. Do it piecemeal. Spread the costs. Do...well, something - don't just sit on your arse crowing about how amazing we are for selling out a fudging tiny 36,000 stadium. Look around you, look at the capacity of the stadiums; other Chairman make it work, because they're willing to take a decision and commit on it.

That capacity hasn't changed since Levy came here, and it's with that crucial thought in mind that I laugh when I read all this smoke-blowing about Levy being some sort of business genius. Are you having a fudging laugh? The stadium is the biggest fixed revenue steam, and yet he's done fudge all about growing it? With respect chaps, that is not the work of a genius; that's the work of someone who hasn't got the balls to grasp the bull by the horns.

So where are we now on it? As I said, we don't even have a bloody firm statement from Daniel Levy that he's committed to building the stadium; no, instead he's STILL banging on about costs. Okay, yeah we get that - so why fart around spending all this money on the planning exercise and land acquisition then? Each to their own, but I think Daniel Levy would do with the land whatever made him the most money in the long term, and that's why there's no firm commitment to build a stadium there. Until such time as both the diggers roll in AND Levy makes a personal statement to the effect that he explicitly states that we'll build a stadium on that land, I'll keep an open mind on what I think Daniel's priorities are.

Your little closing statement is a total strawman, so I won't even waste my time with it.

 

[milo]

I think that it is interesting that a lot of the people who are saying that Levy is the best chairman in the league are the some of the same people who are most critical of our transfer activity over the last few years. How do people square this circle?

 

[ArcspacE]

I think that it is interesting that a lot of the people who are saying that Levy is the best chairman in the league are the some of the same people who are most critical of our transfer activity over the last few years. How do people square this circle?

Because he is not solely responsible for transfers. Management and scouting need to be heavily involved and form a crucial part of the process

 

[milo]

Because he is not solely responsible for transfers. Management and scouting need to be heavily involved and form a crucial part of the process

So why do you think that Redknapp is rarely given the same benefit of the doubt?

 

[ArcspacE]

Not in my books - I think the responsibility should be shared around 50 / 50

List of of well- informed affordable targets supplied by management, combined with great knowledge and connections with agents / directors from Levy = good balance

 

[milo]

Not in my books - I think the responsibility should be shared around 50 / 50

List of of well- informed affordable targets supplied by management, combined with great knowledge and connections with agents / directors from Levy = good balance

I agree but there are many who are saying Levy is a fantastic chairman who take a different line

 

[thfcsteff]

What facts have I chosen?

1. You've misunderstood this. I was addressing this notion that acquiring land = significant progress in the stadium build. No, it's merely acquiring land. Land that you can do whatever the hell you want with, ie: you don't have to build a stadium on it.

2. Wrong. Levy's brinkmanship actually fell completely and utterly on deaf ears my friend; Haringey were not the slightest bit interested, and David Lamey was lobbying against the club to the press.

What changed, was the riots and the political capital to make profit out of Tottenham by being seen to throw money at it. So, that's why they did. That had fudge all to do with Levy trying to play pokerface.

Regarding the transport issues: what's been "resolved" there, prey tell?

3. The biggest delay of the lot, was actually taking the fudging decision to stay in Tottenham! Are you honestly that surprised, if our planning application attracts criticism and delays if, at the root of it, there's a lack of commitment? That lack of sincerity was shown for all, when Levy saw a pound to be made by pursuing Stratford - even though, reputationally, it was a fudging embarrassment for the Club.

4. Okay, so ?ú400m is a lot of dough to find - I don't think anyone would argue with that. So, change the plans then. Make them more affordable. Do it piecemeal. Spread the costs. Do...well, something - don't just sit on your arse crowing about how amazing we are for selling out a fudging tiny 36,000 stadium. Look around you, look at the capacity of the stadiums; other Chairman make it work, because they're willing to take a decision and commit on it.

That capacity hasn't changed since Levy came here, and it's with that crucial thought in mind that I laugh when I read all this smoke-blowing about Levy being some sort of business genius. Are you having a fudging laugh? The stadium is the biggest fixed revenue steam, and yet he's done fudge all about growing it? With respect chaps, that is not the work of a genius; that's the work of someone who hasn't got the balls to grasp the bull by the horns.

So where are we now on it? As I said, we don't even have a bloody firm statement from Daniel Levy that he's committed to building the stadium; no, instead he's STILL banging on about costs. Okay, yeah we get that - so why fart around spending all this money on the planning exercise and land acquisition then? Each to their own, but I think Daniel Levy would do with the land whatever made him the most money in the long term, and that's why there's no firm commitment to build a stadium there. Until such time as both the diggers roll in AND Levy makes a personal statement to the effect that he explicitly states that we'll build a stadium on that land, I'll keep an open mind on what I think Daniel's priorities are.

Your little closing statement is a total strawman, so I won't even waste my time with it.

LOL, your anger and indignation is something to behold...answering the first boldfaced bit...Tottenham are absolutely, 100% the MAIN suppliers of community programs. This was a key-factor in everything. We go, the whole fudging place goes. Remember mate, we are talking about Edmonton/Haringay here; it's a tough fudging sell to anyone other than the local community/supporters. Chelsea will be an easy sell if they can find space close-by, Arsenal was an easy sell because quite simply it is not Haringay!

As for Stratford...and commitment...and "sincerity"...let me simply say this.
We have managed to remain competitive in the Premiership despite not yet having the stadium, and we have not put our club in dire financial straits by over-committing to a stadium project without the important, and necessary, elements in place. The hold-ups have been down to some very awkward, and somewhat absurd, things, not the least of which listed buildings which I'm sure few people could actually pick-out on the High Road, and Lammy's macaronic lack of support/balls in bringing the fight to the government when we needed him most.

When the diggers start rolling, when the whole thing is moving forward, will you be prepared to give him some credit? It takes bigger balls not to throw the club under the financial bus with a series of emotional, ego-driven decisions which see a stadium start to be built but a club encumbered with a millstone around it's neck which eventually makes it the next Leeds Utd. In fact, given the impatience we ALL display from time to time, the fact that we have NOT become the next Leeds Utd is solely down the big balls of a chairman who doesn't give a brick whether people think he's a eunuch or not!

All IMHO and an interesting discussion for sure...

 

[ArcspacE]

I suppose we ll never know why we ve done what we have in the last few transfer windows - so depending on your agenda, people choose to swing / interpret it either way

 

[thfcsteff]

The East Stand is a total shambles. So much wrong with it, from the disasterous start of the 1988 season, to the two pillars that should have been left back in the 1950s. Stacks of wasted space, it would appear the only reason that stand was built was to incoporate new executive boxes. The West Stand was state-of-the art when it was built and you can see, still to this day, how it would be a perfect quarter of any stadium (bar the poor legroom). But I don't think you can really increase it's capacity, the Upper Tier goes up quite a long way as it is. North and South Stands are functional but the roads behind them have limited us up till now.

Tearing down that East Stand and building a monster is one way forward. But a brand new stadium is probably the most sensible route to go. Old Trafford is a clear example of this, its big sure but nothing amazing. Not when you compare it to Wembley, which isnt a great deal bigger (10-15k) but so much magestic. Old Trafford has the history, granted, but its not a particularly comfortable stadium.

I like our plans, a stadium as close to the pitch as allowed; compact; 55000 would sell out most weeks; great lines of sight. We might lose some of the history but the artist impressions of the new ground still look reminiscent of White Hart Lane.

Have to say, personally, if I was the chairman I'd have likely made some awful decisions as I would've rebut (at a disgraceful cost I don't doubt!) a massive East Stand and Paxton...I am delighted we're next door to the stadium, but there's a nostalgic in me that would love to see this happen (it won't)...I actually think if Man U had a proper support, that stadium is brilliant for vibe; the few times per game it buzzes, it's excellent. Rest of the time it's like a library, but everything about it is ready for vibe IMHO...

 

[billyiddo]

Old Trafford is a million times better than Wembley - i don't know how anyone who has been to both could say otherwise, Wembley is brick (well obviously not brick in certain aspects, but as a supporter i totally hate it)

 

[milo]

I suppose we ll never know why we ve done what we have in the last few transfer windows - so depending on your agenda, people choose to swing / interpret it either way

Why does everyone have to have an agenda? I think that both Levy and Redknapp have their faults but that on balance they have both done a good job.

 

[parklane1]

I think that it is interesting that a lot of the people who are saying that Levy is the best chairman in the league are the some of the same people who are most critical of our transfer activity over the last few years. How do people square this circle?

I would say there is responsibility on both sides, Levy will not break the bank on wages and Redknapp has dithered on some of the targets we have spoken to.

 

[ArcspacE]

Why does everyone have to have an agenda? I think that both Levy and Redknapp have their faults but that on balance they have both done a good job.

I suppose the same can be asked about this place - why do people come to debate their different opinions every day? Thats what makes interesting at the end of the day, right.

 

[milo]

I suppose the same can be asked about this place - why do people come to debate their different opinions every day? Thats what makes interesting at the end of the day, right.

It's the suggestion that you have to have an agenda that I was questioning. It is possible to want to come on here and talk about Spurs without having an agenda.

 

[thfcsteff]

Old Trafford is a million times better than Wembley - i don't know how anyone who has been to both could say otherwise, Wembley is brick (well obviously not brick in certain aspects, but as a supporter i totally hate it)

An empty, soul-less, corporate fluffy bunnies cuddling-box...it's aesthetically pretty but has as much to do with atmosphere as the effeminates...

 

[ArcspacE]

It's the suggestion that you have to have an agenda that I was questioning. It is possible to want to come on here and talk about Spurs without having an agenda.

Yes of course but you d still harbour an opinion of some kind towards key people, players, results, etc.

You yourself feel Arry is by and large unappreciated - i wouldn't call it agenda per se, merely your stance on certain matters

 

[milo]

You yourself feel Arry is by and large unappreciated - i wouldn't call it agenda per se, merely your stance on certain matters

I'd drop Harry tomorrow if I was confident of replacing him with a manager who could improve on our results under him.

 

[ArcspacE]

I'd drop Harry tomorrow if I was confident of replacing him with a manager who could improve on our results under him.

But you arent confident because you clearly feel that man would be very hard to find due to the fact that in your opinion Arry has done a brilliant job ( which he has by and large)