Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

[Naughton16]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

The original KSS design was drawn up in 2008 and scheduled for completion last year. Those plans would be a decade out of date by the time the stadium is finished. Hopefully they go for something with more character than the generic, corporate tiered bowl.

 

[SteveAWOL]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Hopefully the new stadium proves to be worth the lengthy wait, as every season that we remain in the current ground means that the club misses out on about £50m of additional matchday revenue.

Ground issue is giving Gunners double the power of Tottenham - Football - London Evening Standard

Tottenham's urgent need to build a new stadium has been highlighted in a report today that shows their matchday revenue is less than half that of Arsenal’s. Spurs finished only a point behind the Gunners last season as they were pipped for a top-four spot but Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance shows how vast the gulf is between the north London rivals off the pitch.

White Hart Lane, with a capacity of 36,230, brought in £1.6million a game and £41.1m overall during the 2011-12 season but Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium, boasting 60,361 seats, generated £3.3m a match and a total of £95.2m. As a result Spurs’ total revenue of £144m was much less than Arsenal’s £235m, hindering the club’s chances of becoming an established top-four team and overhauling Arsene Wenger’s side.

...Given that White Hart Lane was at 99.5 per capacity for games — the best of London’s Premier League sides — there is clearly a demand for tickets and Dan Jones of Deloitte’s Sports Business Group has spelt out the importance of fulfilling that demand.

Jones said: “It is a competitive disadvantage being at White Hart Lane compared to Emirates Stadium. A more modern stadium helps with what you do with corporate hospitality, what you can do on a non-matchday, for example concerts and events, and obviously gives you a bigger capacity for spectators. And therefore gives you more money. Tottenham are prioritising a move into a new stadium and being able to enjoy the same benefits that Arsenal enjoy at their stadium.”

Spurs’ wage bill of £94m was the sixth highest in the Premier League for 2011-12 — when they did finish in the top four — but it was still much less than the £143m spent by Arsenal, another sign of the difference between the financial musclepower of the two clubs. Crucially, though, both clubs were under the Premier League average for the percentage of revenue spent on wages, which Deloitte believe is a good indicator of a club’s financial strength. This figure is also a guide to whether a club will meet UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules because the 2011-12 season is the first to come under the new regulations.

The average wages/revenue ratio in the top flight was 70 per cent and that is seen as a target figure. As well as Arsenal (61 per cent) and Tottenham (65 per cent), Chelsea, who broke even at an operating level for the first time in the Roman Abramovich era, were also under the top flight average by four per cent. However, Queens Park Rangers spent 91 per cent of their revenue on wages with £58m going on salaries in their first season back in the Premier League...

 

[P.D.]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

65% is quite high and worries me, should be aiming for the 50s.

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Get it done already.. FFS

50m a year more raised they say on matchday alone. Can someone please give me a legit reason why building work has not started.

If they don't announce the start soon, then IMO ENIC are officially holding us back as owners.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Because it costs hundreds of millions to build?

Rushing into it could seriously set us back if things go wrong. The latest released plans would still leave us a bit behind Arsenal in terms of revenue.

Just like with transfers, none of us really have a clue as to what is happening with the design or financing, so why keep jumping to conclusions?

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Costs was set at 450m

The stadium build is nearer 250m.. the other 200m originally forcast was for infrastructure to help pay for the 250m build by building housing etc. Remember the Olympic stadium cost was actually 100m

50m matchday
25m+ added prizemoney from TV deal
15m naming rights

90m income above what we have now. If they cannot do it on that, then we need someone that can.

 

[Spursalot]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Because it costs hundreds of millions to build?

Rushing into it could seriously set us back if things go wrong. The latest released plans would still leave us a bit behind Arsenal in terms of revenue.

Just like with transfers, none of us really have a clue as to what is happening with the design or financing, so why keep jumping to conclusions?

Exactly. I think the situation we are currently in tells you everything you need to know. Arsenal has a vastly superior revenue, however it has helped them what? Finish one point above us two seasons in a row?


Sensible spending and wise decisions will help us far more.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

65% is quite high and worries me, should be aiming for the 50s.

65% is fine these days. In fact, anything under 70% is acceptable.

Back in the days when our annual revenue was £100 million or less, it was important to keep the wages to turnover ratio below 60%. If we'd had a wage bill of £65 million when we had a turnover of just £100 million, there would have been a danger that the remaining £35 million left us little wriggle room to cover all the remaining costs while still investing in the team.

As from this season, though, the new TV deal means that our annual revenue will be up around £180 million (even without Champions League income or the income from a new stadium). And a wages to turnover ratio of 65% from annual revenues of £180 million would leave us with £63 million to cover all remaining costs. And since other costs haven't risen at anything like the same rate as wages, there'd be plenty of wriggle room.

Get it done already.. FFS

50m a year more raised they say on matchday alone. Can someone please give me a legit reason why building work has not started.

If they don't announce the start soon, then IMO ENIC are officially holding us back as owners.

How many clubs in this country have built big, top quality new stadiums without getting themselves into serious financial difficulty? Answer - one............Arsenal. And they had the advantage of perennial Champions League qualification and nigh on two decades of success behind them when they embarked on the project. It also took them a good 6-7 years of planning and arranging funding before the start of construction.

Make no mistake, this is a massive undertaking for a company of Spurs' size. It has to be approached with extreme caution.

Liverpool are in the same boat. They, too, desperately need a much bigger capacity to cope with demand and to be able to compete financially with the richest clubs. Yet despite being a club with significantly greater resources than Spurs and despite being based in a city where construction costs are considerably cheaper than they are in London, they are no closer to getting their new stadium than we are. In fact, they have abandoned plans to build a new stadium altogether - choosing instead just to redevelop Anfield.

So we are not alone.

We get one chance at this - both from the perspective of making sure that we build the best stadium that we possibly can to serve us for the next fifty years or so and from the perspective of not endangering our very future. So, however frustrating it might be, I'd rather we took our time and got it right.

As to ENIC "holding us back", I haven't noticed multi billionaire philanthropists queuing up around the block to buy us and chuck hundreds of millions at our new stadium.

Costs was set at 450m

The stadium build is nearer 250m.. the other 200m originally forcast was for infrastructure to help pay for the 250m build by building housing etc. Remember the Olympic stadium cost was actually 100m

50m matchday
25m+ added prizemoney from TV deal
15m naming rights

90m income above what we have now. If they cannot do it on that, then we need someone that can.

Spurs couldn't possibly base their business plan on a forecast of increased revenues of £90 million per annum. They can't assume that we will make as much from match day income as Arsenal. Maybe we will, but Levy and Lewis will have to base their business plan on a far more pessimistic forecast. As to naming rights, you have no way of knowing what sort of figures Spurs are being quoted. £15 million per annum seems very high.

In the meanwhile, wages will continue on their steep trajectory, ever higher, and we will have to pay our players ever more if we are to compete. That'll take care of the extra £25 million from the new TV deal.

Besides, it seems to me that this latest twist in the tale might not be so much about cost as it is about the quality, size and uniqueness of the proposed new stadium. I think it very possible that Levy is now convinced that the new stadium needs to be truly special (much as the new training ground is) and that that will set us apart from other clubs which might otherwise have been more attractive - to players, of course, but more especially to corporate "customers". This is all the more important in the context of West Ham and Chelsea (it's inevitable, eventually) settled in big, new stadia.

And the thing about the KSS design is that, while good, it is by no means special.

 

[jts1882]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

The point on the increased TV deal is worth repeating. Everyone gets the extra £25 million so we either spend it on players to stand still or fall behind.

The comparison with Arsenal's revenues is a problem for us. Our location is no where near a attractive for corporates as Arsenals, one reason the OS appealed so much to Levy as would have been a better location than even Arsenal's. In the redesign with the Kop we reduced the number of corporates, which I suspect was more an assessment of likely demand than a sacrifice to appease fans. At the moment we can match Arsenal for ticket prices, but that is because we have limited supply. There is no guarantee that we can keep the same high prices and fill the new larger stadium. As Jimmyb says, we can hope for the same but must plan for less.

 

[Rorschach]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Will a new design mean going back to the drawing board (literally) and all the planning approval that goes with that?

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Will a new design mean going back to the drawing board (literally) and all the planning approval that goes with that?

We'd certainly have to submit the new plans for approval.

But given that a) we've already done the hard bit by gaining approval for a new 56K stadium (and all that that entails) and b) there is now significant momentum towards the regeneration of Tottenham as a whole, I can't imagine that there will be many, if any, obstacles put in our way.

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

How many clubs in this country have built big, top quality new stadiums without getting themselves into serious financial difficulty? Answer - one............Arsenal. And they had the advantage of perennial Champions League qualification and nigh on two decades of success behind them when they embarked on the project. It also took them a good 6-7 years of planning and arranging funding before the start of construction.

Make no mistake, this is a massive undertaking for a company of Spurs' size. It has to be approached with extreme caution.

Yes that Champions League money they were getting above what we were getting is now covered with the new TV deal.. at least that is more reliable too. You don't get to use that excuse now.

Liverpool are in the same boat. They, too, desperately need a much bigger capacity to cope with demand and to be able to compete financially with the richest clubs. Yet despite being a club with significantly greater resources than Spurs and despite being based in a city where construction costs are considerably cheaper than they are in London, they are no closer to getting their new stadium than we are. In fact, they have abandoned plans to build a new stadium altogether - choosing instead just to redevelop Anfield.

So we are not alone.

Damn straight its the same situation.. both set of owners wanting to do it with as little outlay or risk to themselves. Hence why Tottenham finished 5th and Liverpool 7th.

We get one chance at this - both from the perspective of making sure that we build the best stadium that we possibly can to serve us for the next fifty years or so and from the perspective of not endangering our very future. So, however frustrating it might be, I'd rather we took our time and got it right.

We want the same things.. but there comes a point in ones life where you have to do it eventually or you are in a revolving door of always thinking this is out of date.. Poor excuse in my book for not getting it done.

As to ENIC "holding us back", I haven't noticed multi billionaire philanthropists queuing up around the block to buy us and chuck hundreds of millions at our new stadium.

Why would you know?

Spurs couldn't possibly base their business plan on a forecast of increased revenues of £90 million per annum. They can't assume that we will make as much from match day income as Arsenal. Maybe we will, but Levy and Lewis will have to base their business plan on a far more pessimistic forecast. As to naming rights, you have no way of knowing what sort of figures Spurs are being quoted. £15 million per annum seems very high.

Why is it high. Utd are getting 19.6m a year over 8years for Carrington. We want it for a new Stadium.

In the meanwhile, wages will continue on their steep trajectory, ever higher, and we will have to pay our players ever more if we are to compete. That'll take care of the extra £25 million from the new TV deal.

Don't think that is true at all, IMO there will be a concerted effort to build infrastructure with the added money.. something Richard Scudamore alluded to when announcing the new TV deal. I see no reason at all for that money to go on wages.

Besides, it seems to me that this latest twist in the tale might not be so much about cost as it is about the quality, size and uniqueness of the proposed new stadium. I think it very possible that Levy is now convinced that the new stadium needs to be truly special (much as the new training ground is) and that that will set us apart from other clubs which might otherwise have been more attractive - to players, of course, but more especially to corporate "customers". This is all the more important in the context of West Ham and Chelsea (it's inevitable, eventually) settled in big, new stadia.

And the thing about the KSS design is that, while good, it is by no means special.

I think everyone wants the very best.. but what happens in two years again.. will it be out of date.. round and round we go.

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

The point on the increased TV deal is worth repeating. Everyone gets the extra £25 million so we either spend it on players to stand still or fall behind.

The comparison with Arsenal's revenues is a problem for us. Our location is no where near a attractive for corporates as Arsenals, one reason the OS appealed so much to Levy as would have been a better location than even Arsenal's. In the redesign with the Kop we reduced the number of corporates, which I suspect was more an assessment of likely demand than a sacrifice to appease fans. At the moment we can match Arsenal for ticket prices, but that is because we have limited supply. There is no guarantee that we can keep the same high prices and fill the new larger stadium. As Jimmyb says, we can hope for the same but must plan for less.

I disagree about the 25m, as said.. Richard Scudamore made a big point about the new money hopefully being used on infrastructure.. training grounds, stadia, youth academies etc

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

We'd certainly have to submit the new plans for approval.

But given that a) we've already done the hard bit by gaining approval for a new 56K stadium (and all that that entails) and b) there is now significant momentum towards the regeneration of Tottenham as a whole, I can't imagine that there will be many, if any, obstacles put in our way.

Lets face it Haringey have laid down like a dog having its belly scratched for us. The polar opposite to what happened over at Arsenal. We even just agreed with English Heritage about the houses to get this through.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Yes that Champions League money they were getting above what we were getting is now covered with the new TV deal.. at least that is more reliable too. You don't get to use that excuse now.

Okay, if you really insist.....

Can I use the excuse, then, that the value of Arsenal's enabling developments was far, far higher than ours?

Can I also use the excuse that, after nearly two decades of success prior to their move, they had a far more solid supporter base than Spurs do and could therefore more confidently charge high prices and still predict full houses?

Regardless, I repeat: it still took Arsenal 6-7 years of planning and securing funding before they were ready to start construction.

Damn straight its the same situation.. both set of owners wanting to do it with as little outlay or risk to themselves. Hence why Tottenham finished 5th and Liverpool 7th.

Why should the owners put their money into the project? Owners paying for their clubs' new stadiums is very much the exception rather than the rule. Why pretend otherwise?

By the way, Spurs finishing only two places above Liverpool.....I'm not sure what your point is but if it's a stick with which to beat ENIC, perhaps you'd like to look through the history books to see how often it happened in the thirty years prior to ENIC buying the club?

We want the same things.. but there comes a point in ones life where you have to do it eventually or you are in a revolving door of always thinking this is out of date.. Poor excuse in my book for not getting it done.

They will do it eventually. And when they do it, it's vital that they get it right. That's not a "poor excuse". It's just the only way that any sane person would proceed.

Why would you know?

I could just as easily ask - since you argued that ENIC are holding us back - what the alternative is? Presumably, you must believe that there are potential billionaire owners out there who ARE prepared to pay many hundreds of millions to buy the club and hundreds of millions more to pay for the stadium? If so, where are they? Why have they not made themselves known?

Why is it high. Utd are getting 19.6m a year over 8years for Carrington. We want it for a new Stadium.

Are you comparing Man Utd's commercial clout with ours? Seriously, there is no comparison. And that deal isn't just for the training ground. It's also for the training gear. And I guarantee that there will be many more pictures / minutes of footage in the papers, on TV and all over the internet of Man Utd players in training gear than there will of Spurs' new stadium. That deal also encompasses Man Utd's pre season tours, by the way. It will make AON highly visible around the world.

In terms of stadium naming rights, £15 million per annum for our new stadium would make it the second biggest deal in stadium naming rights history. Only the MetLife stadium (home to both the New York Giants and Jets) is higher. Is our commercial value at world leading level? I'm not so sure.

Don't think that is true at all, IMO there will be a concerted effort to build infrastructure with the added money.. something Richard Scudamore alluded to when announcing the new TV deal. I see no reason at all for that money to go on wages.

It would be naive to believe that wages won't continue their steep, upward trajectory. Especially for the biggest clubs and the best players.

I think everyone wants the very best.. but what happens in two years again.. will it be out of date.. round and round we go.

It's not a question of the stadium ever being "out of date". It's a question of ensuring that we build the best possible stadium to see us through the next 50 years or so.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Lets face it Haringey have laid down like a dog having its belly scratched for us. The polar opposite to what happened over at Arsenal. We even just agreed with English Heritage about the houses to get this through.

What do you mean, "the polar opposite to what happened over at Arsenal"?

Islington council worked closely with Arsenal and assisted them with a raft of CPO's to turf out businesses and thereby allow Arsenal to profit from property development.

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

What do you mean, "the polar opposite to what happened over at Arsenal"?

Islington council worked closely with Arsenal and assisted them with a raft of CPO's to turf out businesses and thereby allow Arsenal to profit from property development.

Polar opposites as in we have pretty much had a free ride to get it done.. yet Arsenal had many holdups.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Polar opposites as in we have pretty much had a free ride to get it done.. yet Arsenal had many holdups.

Arsenal's hold ups were nothing to do with the council. They had everything to do with various small businesses challenging Arsenal and Islington.

We certainly got planning permission relatively quickly. That's because Levy et al did a good job of getting Haringey on board from the very beginning.

Not sure where you're going with this......?

 

[Superhudd]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Okay, if you really insist.....

Can I use the excuse, then, that the value of Arsenal's enabling developments was far, far higher than ours?

Can I also use the excuse that, after nearly two decades of success prior to their move, they had a far more solid supporter base than Spurs do and could therefore more confidently charge high prices and still predict full houses?

Regardless, I repeat: it still took Arsenal 6-7 years of planning and securing funding before they were ready to start construction.

Arsenal turnover in 2004 when the stadium build started was 115.1m

Tottenham turnover in 2012 when the stadium has not started is 144.2m

Why should the owners put their money into the project? Owners paying for their clubs' new stadiums is very much the exception rather than the rule. Why pretend otherwise?

IMO, there is a difference between putting money in and not see it again and a loan. Done to death on the other thread. Cost to Lewis imo is miniscule in terms of the bigger picture.

By the way, Spurs finishing only two places above Liverpool.....I'm not sure what your point is but if it's a stick with which to beat ENIC, perhaps you'd like to look through the history books to see how often it happened in the thirty years prior to ENIC buying the club?

My point is more about Liverpool really. Without investment in the right areas, clubs will go only one way. Why I keep saying I don't want any new 30m players if it interferes with the stadium policy.. I even want, should we sell Bale in 2014, every single penny go to the stadium, with a stand named in his honour. Players come and go.. infrastructure enables you to have the superstars.. well it was until the sugar daddies arrived. But for us that is not an option.

They will do it eventually. And when they do it, it's vital that they get it right. That's not a "poor excuse". It's just the only way that any sane person would proceed

Play fair, no need for the sly dig. I have all my marbles.

I could just as easily ask - since you argued that ENIC are holding us back - what the alternative is? Presumably, you must believe that there are potential billionaire owners out there who ARE prepared to pay many hundreds of millions to buy the club and hundreds of millions more to pay for the stadium? If so, where are they? Why have they not made themselves known?

You could, but I asked first. What I will say is, if they don't do the stadium and try to shut the revenue gap, the club will not be worth millions to buy as you suggest, as we will be an also ran.. valued with the other 100m clubs

Are you comparing Man Utd's commercial clout with ours? Seriously, there is no comparison. And that deal isn't just for the training ground. It's also for the training gear. And I guarantee that there will be many more pictures / minutes of footage in the papers, on TV and all over the internet of Man Utd players in training gear than there will of Spurs' new stadium. That deal also encompasses Man Utd's pre season tours, by the way. It will make AON highly visible around the world

Of course not, but its a starting point. A basis to start negotiation. Our naming rights would be for the Stadium and the training ground. I'd be very disappointed if it ended up being less then double figures put it that way.

In terms of stadium naming rights, £15 million per annum for our new stadium would make it the second biggest deal in stadium naming rights history. Only the MetLife stadium (home to both the New York Giants and Jets) is higher. Is our commercial value at world leading level? I'm not so sure.

Well, the longer the deal the less it will become, I'd be more than happy to accept a similar deal like the Houston Texans who got $300m over 30 years, with the stadium called Reliant Stadium.

It would be naive to believe that wages won't continue their steep, upward trajectory. Especially for the biggest clubs and the best players.

I don't think its naieve to think that owners are going to make a concerted effort to bring wages down, to adhere to EPL rules over finance and Uefa's FFP rules. When they agreed to the EPL rulings many of them spoke about building infrastructure.. to protect football, and never to do a Portsmouth. IMO those settled in the Premiership will use that money to build infrastructure and not on wages. The Tottenham training ground and the new FA excellence centre will inspire the same for every club IMO.

It's not a question of the stadium ever being "out of date". It's a question of ensuring that we build the best possible stadium to see us through the next 50 years or so.

If the KSS design did not fulfil the above criteria then it should not have been put forward in the first place.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Northumberland Development Project

Arsenal turnover in 2004 when the stadium build started was 115.1m

Tottenham turnover in 2012 when the stadium has not started is 144.2m

Once again:

1. The value of Arsenal's enabling developments was far, far higher than ours.

2. After nearly two decades of success prior to their move, they had a far more solid supporter base than Spurs do and could therefore more confidently charge high prices and still predict full houses.

3. It still took Arsenal 6-7 years of planning and securing funding before they were ready to start construction.

IMO, there is a difference between putting money in and not see it again and a loan. Done to death on the other thread. Cost to Lewis imo is miniscule in terms of the bigger picture.

Does Joe Lewis have £450 million or even £250 million in cash or liquid assets that he can easily lend? I think not.

My point is more about Liverpool really. Without investment in the right areas, clubs will go only one way. Why I keep saying I don't want any new 30m players if it interferes with the stadium policy.. I even want, should we sell Bale in 2014, every single penny go to the stadium, with a stand named in his honour. Players come and go.. infrastructure enables you to have the superstars.. well it was until the sugar daddies arrived. But for us that is not an option.

Liverpool's decline has nothing to do with not having a big enough stadium. It has everything to do with appalling management and being saddled with £400 million of debt for four years after the leveraged buyout by Hicks and Gillette.

Play fair, no need for the sly dig. I have all my marbles.

It wasn't intended as a dig at you.

You could, but I asked first. What I will say is, if they don't do the stadium and try to shut the revenue gap, the club will not be worth millions to buy as you suggest, as we will be an also ran.. valued with the other 100m clubs

They will do the stadium. They are doing the stadium. They just aren't doing it recklessly or thoughtlessly.

Of course not, but its a starting point. A basis to start negotiation. Our naming rights would be for the Stadium and the training ground. I'd be very disappointed if it ended up being less then double figures put it that way.

£10 million per annum is probably not far off the mark.

Well, the longer the deal the less it will become, I'd be more than happy to accept a similar deal like the Houston Texans who got $300m over 30 years, with the stadium called Reliant Stadium.

£7 million per annum? Now you're underselling!

I don't think its naieve to think that owners are going to make a concerted effort to bring wages down, to adhere to EPL rules over finance and Uefa's FFP rules. When they agreed to the EPL rulings many of them spoke about building infrastructure.. to protect football, and never to do a Portsmouth. IMO those settled in the Premiership will use that money to build infrastructure and not on wages. The Tottenham training ground and the new FA excellence centre will inspire the same for every club IMO.

I hope you're right. And I believe that many clubs will do just that. But the top clubs? The clubs that already have the infrastructure in place? Or the clubs that can build all the infrastructure they like without troubling their own coffers? Those are the clubs against which we aspire to compete. And the wages that they pay will continue to rocket skyward.

If the KSS design did not fulfil the above criteria then it should not have been put forward in the first place.

Why not? Things change. Conditions change. Priorities change. So plans have to change accordingly.