And, we’re off.......2018/2019

[Lord Tyrion]

I'm not sure it matters hugely whether you lease or own a stadium. Leasing is fine if the rent levels are low enough. Owning can be a benefit or a burden.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I know europe has been a let down, but they, like arsenal in the past need top 4 now. Progress in Europe is largely irrelevant as long as they get there.

I agree with the sentiment that without investment they will struggle, but i think them being ambitious was a good thing. They are trying to unsettle the top clubs the right way.

The “right way” ? What’s the right or wrong way ?

So are Spurs not a top club ?

And progress in Europe is massively relevant - if a club isn’t going to progress far in the CL then players will just walk away.

Surely they should have shown the ambition first on the pitch and get the players in to bolster a very good starting 11 and look to win trophies , get big sponsorship deals , build up a long standing level in the Top 4 and then look at a stadium move.

The ambition they are showing now is looking like it’s going to financially cripple them

Seems to me they have gone from crawling to 100m sprinting without being a consistent walker first

 

[Tashyboy]

Probably cost City £55m to move into the Etihad and redesign it to it's current state. They did also spend £200m on the initial training facility at the Etihad Campus with that spending continuing. Not anything close to the level of Spurs' spending, but still a significant outlay, though imagine City haven't taken on any debt due to the ownership. For clubs to grow they need to do these things.

I think it's a big risk for Spurs but fair play to them for doing it. For a club like them to get to the next level they probably do need move to a more modern stadium. The initial outlay may be a significant spend and addition of debt, but the reduced running costs and potential revenue boost could end up becoming more than worthwhile over time. Spurs fans just need to hope the club haven't hamstrung themselves too much financially and can not only have the funds available to improve the squad but also the necessary finances and on-pitch performance to keep their star players.

Dan. Not really sure what the financial situation is at City. I know they spent ?200 million buying the club and have spent probably what you have quoted on top of that. But i read somewhere they got £200 million back selling 10% to a chinese group. The investment in the acadamy has been fantastic for the club and not just the first team. They have produced some fantastic kids. However that is now producing its own problems. If they dont get in the first team they are off. Happy problems.

 

[Papas1982]

The “right way” ? What’s the right or wrong way ?

So are Spurs not a top club ?

And progress in Europe is massively relevant - if a club isn’t going to progress far in the CL then players will just walk away.

Surely they should have shown the ambition first on the pitch and get the players in to bolster a very good starting 11 and look to win trophies , get big sponsorship deals , build up a long standing level in the Top 4 and then look at a stadium move.

The ambition they are showing now is looking like it’s going to financially cripple them

Seems to me they have gone from crawling to 100m sprinting without being a consistent walker first

In regards the right way, i simply mean that they are trying to grown organically. Play well, increase their profile and use that to raise funds and try and crack into the top clubs.
Success in europe isn't relevant to them making money via the cl. Arsenal lost a player a year due to a lack of success but still got top 4 and paid the money they needed to cover the stadium.

The money in the prem is crazy, they also have playing assets that could easily fetch a couple of 100m if they got desperate. If they are 8th come january they may worry, but they've been the most consistent team in the prem for last few years, and i'll fancy them to get top 4 again.

It seems tjhat clubs can't win. Get money from a sugar daddy and they're cheating their way to the top, or take a calculated risk and all of a sudden they are trying to run beforr they can walk as you put it. Clubs showing ambition is a good thing.

Levy has shown in the past he's very astute, i would expect him to have planned for delays.

 

[Tashyboy]

Seems the spuds cannot keep outta the news at the moment. Alli has signed a new contract which is good news. Bad news, The NFL said four games are to be played in London next year. Two at Wembley and two at White Part lane. I say part coz it might only be part built. And if it is built, the pitch will be a dump again.

 

[Papas1982]

Seems the spuds cannot keep outta the news at the moment. Alli has signed a new contract which is good news. Bad news, The NFL said four games are to be played in London next year. Two at Wembley and two at White Part lane. I say part coz it might only be part built. And if it is built, the pitch will be a dump again.

I think they will have the games schedule worked out slightly better. I doubt spurs would have a game 2 days after each other. Lat night was just a shambles due to the fact that Spurs were't expecting to be playing there at this time.

 

[USER1999]

Seems the spuds cannot keep outta the news at the moment. Alli has signed a new contract which is good news. Bad news, The NFL said four games are to be played in London next year. Two at Wembley and two at White Part lane. I say part coz it might only be part built. And if it is built, the pitch will be a dump again.

The pitch will be fine. WHL has a retractable pitch, so the footy on is not used for NFL.

Like any investment it is a gamble, but with the way the prem is going, you have to gamble to stay still. There can only be one top 4, and it is hard to get into, and even harder to stay in.

City apart, the other 5 teams all have the potential to be pretty much in any order over the last, and indeed next few years. Everton are knocking on the door too, as are others.

Spurs may invest 600m to stay in the top 6. Is this success? May be not for the fans, but as a business, not doing so is a disaster.

 

[Slime]

I firmly believe that Spurs are a busted flush, I fear for them long term.
If only they'd spent the stadium money on players, they'd have been a formidable team.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I firmly believe that Spurs are a busted flush, I fear for them long term.
If only they'd spent the stadium money on players, they'd have been a formidable team.

I'm not sure they are a busted flush yet but there is a real danger that without investment even in January the other top sides will move on and leave them behind. Still only a point behind Arsenal in the CL spots so not a crisis yet but you do wonder when the bubble will burst

 

[Liverbirdie]

The “right way” ? What’s the right or wrong way ?

So are Spurs not a top club ?

And progress in Europe is massively relevant - if a club isn’t going to progress far in the CL then players will just walk away.

Surely they should have shown the ambition first on the pitch and get the players in to bolster a very good starting 11 and look to win trophies , get big sponsorship deals , build up a long standing level in the Top 4 and then look at a stadium move.

The ambition they are showing now is looking like it’s going to financially cripple them

Seems to me they have gone from crawling to 100m sprinting without being a consistent walker first

Sorry Phil, but unless it's Liverpool the other "top" teams can't do anything right in your view.

You make it sound like you can only back one horse - dont invest in the ground but in the team (what if you did that at Spurs in an age when City could dominate for years, Man U come good again, Liverpool are strong under Klopp and Chelsea are still well backed and doing very well) and you still dont get success? What then?

To me putting a level of investment in the stadium is best for the long term, especially if you nearly double your capacity and even more so in London and with all of the added corporate hospitality they will have. Remember that Arsenal (just down the road) has the most profitable football stadium in the world. Do you not think that Spurs will also rival that?

In 3 years time Poch may have gone, Kane too and they may be back to finishing 5/6/7 again, who knows? Then again in 3 years time when the extra money is coming in through the turnstiles they may have an even better team - could go both ways. Whatever happens, Spurs will be playing in front of 55-61 k gates for most league games - mark my words.

I'm sure that like most astute investors, they will have this debt serviced like a mortgage, whereby it may take 20 years to pay off, if not very successful and mainly in Europa league years. However, like Arsenal if they have 12-15 years of CL and some relevant success it may be paid off a lot earlier.

Arsenal's problem was they had a manager who didnt want to spend it and wanted to pay the debt off as early as possible - great accountancy, poor football management.

Isnt this what our owners are doing - just built our main stand, put an extra 8k on the gates and are scheduled to pay it off ahead of schedule, so next will be the Anny road. They are also investing in the team, and if we do get to 61k, and possibly even more if they do the other stands - isnt this what we wanted?????? Spurs probably couldnt have done it this way, so have started from scratch - fair play to them.

I had a mate who wanted us to keep Anfield as it was (45K) - he said we won everything when it was like that. I said, so ok you want Man U, city, newcastle, west ham, arsenal, Chelsea, everton to have bigger stadiums than us. Imagine Liverpool having the 8-10th biggest stadium in the prem. If you want to be a big club, act like a big club.

Spurs are doing it the right way, only time will tell if successful, but if they dont and stay in a 36k stadium, everyone will go past them.

 

[Kellfire]

Spurs have their best ever start to PL season and yet the doommongers are out.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Sorry Phil, but unless it's Liverpool the other "top" teams can't do anything right in your view.

You make it sound like you can only back one horse - dont invest in the ground but in the team (what if you did that at Spurs in an age when City could dominate for years, Man U come good again, Liverpool are strong under Klopp and Chelsea are still well backed and doing very well) and you still dont get success? What then?

To me putting a level of investment in the stadium is best for the long term, especially if you nearly double your capacity and even more so in London and with all of the added corporate hospitality they will have. Remember that Arsenal (just down the road) has the most profitable football stadium in the world. Do you not think that Spurs will also rival that?

In 3 years time Poch may have gone, Kane too and they may be back to finishing 5/6/7 again, who knows? Then again in 3 years time when the extra money is coming in through the turnstiles they may have an even better team - could go both ways. Whatever happens, Spurs will be playing in front of 55-61 k gates for most league games - mark my words.

I'm sure that like most astute investors, they will have this debt serviced like a mortgage, whereby it may take 20 years to pay off, if not very successful and mainly in Europa league years. However, like Arsenal if they have 12-15 years of CL and some relevant success it may be paid off a lot earlier.

Arsenal's problem was they had a manager who didnt want to spend it and wanted to pay the debt off as early as possible - great accountancy, poor football management.

Isnt this what our owners are doing - just built our main stand, put an extra 8k on the gates and are scheduled to pay it off ahead of schedule, so next will be the Anny road. They are also investing in the team, and if we do get to 61k, and possibly even more if they do the other stands - isnt this what we wanted?????? Spurs probably couldnt have done it this way, so have started from scratch - fair play to them.

I had a mate who wanted us to keep Anfield as it was (45K) - he said we won everything when it was like that. I said, so ok you want Man U, city, newcastle, west ham, arsenal, Chelsea, everton to have bigger stadiums than us. Imagine Liverpool having the 8-10th biggest stadium in the prem. If you want to be a big club, act like a big club.

Spurs are doing it the right way, only time will tell if successful, but if they dont and stay in a 36k stadium, everyone will go past them.

There are a significant amount of differences between Spurs and Arsenal when it comes to the stadium build

Arsenal used a significant amount of funds from selling Highbury and also regular CL football - they still had money to spend if they wanted too - it seems that Spurs have financially crippled themselves, they have spent a great deal amount of money first renting Wembley for a year and now extending that rent , at the same time costs for building the new stadium continue to rise ( they were talking this morning it could end up costing £1bn ) - costs that are going to financially hamstring them for years , they appear to be unable to strengthen the squad beyond extending contracts,

Arsenal were able to keep going getting CL to keep the payments going - they started off with Title winning team and just kept plugging away. Spurs have got a team in the Top 4 but clubs around them are investing in the team -Spurs aren’t and how long before the players start to walk away like what happened with Arsenal ( and indeed the manager )

Yes Spurs in 2 years time will have a superb stadium - it will be used by the NFL , concerts, but the club will have a mountain of debt on it which will harm any potential investment into the team itself - they could very possibly end up like Newcastle - a superb stadium but not a great team, they have big gates but it doesn’t seem to be helping them ( it wasn’t that long ago they were regular CL and challenging ) Is acting like a big club saddling yourself up with a mountain of debt - we have managed to extend the stadium but at the same time the manager has still been able to bring in players and improve the team - investment into the team on the pitch.

Imo it’s highly likely that teams are going to go past Spurs whilst they are financially hamstrung by the stadium build and it’s a shame that it’s seen as necessary for clubs to act like this to try and keep up

 

[fundy]

There are a significant amount of differences between Spurs and Arsenal when it comes to the stadium build

Arsenal used a significant amount of funds from selling Highbury and also regular CL football - they still had money to spend if they wanted too - it seems that Spurs have financially crippled themselves, they have spent a great deal amount of money first renting Wembley for a year and now extending that rent , at the same time costs for building the new stadium continue to rise ( they were talking this morning it could end up costing £1bn ) - costs that are going to financially hamstring them for years , they appear to be unable to strengthen the squad beyond extending contracts,

Arsenal were able to keep going getting CL to keep the payments going - they started off with Title winning team and just kept plugging away. Spurs have got a team in the Top 4 but clubs around them are investing in the team -Spurs aren’t and how long before the players start to walk away like what happened with Arsenal ( and indeed the manager )

Yes Spurs in 2 years time will have a superb stadium - it will be used by the NFL , concerts, but the club will have a mountain of debt on it which will harm any potential investment into the team itself - they could very possibly end up like Newcastle - a superb stadium but not a great team, they have big gates but it doesn’t seem to be helping them ( it wasn’t that long ago they were regular CL and challenging ) Is acting like a big club saddling yourself up with a mountain of debt - we have managed to extend the stadium but at the same time the manager has still been able to bring in players and improve the team - investment into the team on the pitch.

Imo it’s highly likely that teams are going to go past Spurs whilst they are financially hamstrung by the stadium build and it’s a shame that it’s seen as necessary for clubs to act like this to try and keep up

Wow phil, it almost sounds like youre praising Arsenal and their approach, nah surely not, cant be

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Wow phil, it almost sounds like youre praising Arsenal and their approach, nah surely not, cant be

I think their approach was right but the issue was the manager , the money was there to spend as well as paying the stadium but at first the lack of spending and then spending on players that just were very similar leaving glaring holes within the team - he did superb to keep getting 4th and then at the end he finally spent the money on a top class player. I think with the money spent and the platform there Arsenal could have won another couple of titles since 04. From a business side Wenger was superb - football side held the club back IMO

 

[Pin-seeker]

Wow phil, it almost sounds like youre praising Arsenal and their approach, nah surely not, cant be

Spurs are his new Arsenal 😄

 

[Liverbirdie]

There are a significant amount of differences between Spurs and Arsenal when it comes to the stadium build

Arsenal used a significant amount of funds from selling Highbury and also regular CL football - they still had money to spend if they wanted too - it seems that Spurs have financially crippled themselves, they have spent a great deal amount of money first renting Wembley for a year and now extending that rent , at the same time costs for building the new stadium continue to rise ( they were talking this morning it could end up costing £1bn ) - costs that are going to financially hamstring them for years , they appear to be unable to strengthen the squad beyond extending contracts,

Arsenal were able to keep going getting CL to keep the payments going - they started off with Title winning team and just kept plugging away. Spurs have got a team in the Top 4 but clubs around them are investing in the team -Spurs aren’t and how long before the players start to walk away like what happened with Arsenal ( and indeed the manager )

Yes Spurs in 2 years time will have a superb stadium - it will be used by the NFL , concerts, but the club will have a mountain of debt on it which will harm any potential investment into the team itself - they could very possibly end up like Newcastle - a superb stadium but not a great team, they have big gates but it doesn’t seem to be helping them ( it wasn’t that long ago they were regular CL and challenging ) Is acting like a big club saddling yourself up with a mountain of debt - we have managed to extend the stadium but at the same time the manager has still been able to bring in players and improve the team - investment into the team on the pitch.

Imo it’s highly likely that teams are going to go past Spurs whilst they are financially hamstrung by the stadium build and it’s a shame that it’s seen as necessary for clubs to act like this to try and keep up

Negative / what ifs / hindsight - totally unbalanced view.

No-one is guaranteed CL football and Arsenal werent, which is why they paid off their debt early, but it was probably optional. They had an unprecedented yearly CL run, which would not have been accounted for. Im' sure Spurs will "budget" for non-CL football, and if they win trophies or achieve it year on year, MAY pay the debt off earlier. Its not as if they have to pay this bill in the next 5 years, is it? they can always restructure debt, as well, the way Man U have for years.

Lets say they make an extra 100mill with an increased capacity a season, do you think they have factored in to pay 120 mill off per year, no it will be to pay off 40 to 60 mill (figures are just an example).

Do you think that staying in a 36k capacity stadium was the way forward? Look what even one extension on a stand has done for our finances.

Granted, Levi has mis-calculated on this and with hindsight, Spurs should have spent 2 years at Wembley, but if they stayed at WHL they would be staying still and loads would be going past them and thats not good for the future of the club.

 

[Rlburnside]

I have had a read of Spurs financial statement from 4 days ago, whilst we will struggle to compete in the transfer market it’s certainly not all doom and gloom.

 

[Fade and Die]

The only new ground that is better than their old ground is Sunderland's....so i really can't see why everyone assumes the new Lane will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The transport links are still going to be a mare, the area is cack and of course it will take a couple of seasons to iron out all the problems.

Suppose it sums Spurs up...they always think they are going to be the next great thing

 

[PJ87]

The only new ground that is better than their old ground is Sunderland's....so i really can't see why everyone assumes the new Lane will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The transport links are still going to be a mare, the area is cack and of course it will take a couple of seasons to iron out all the problems.

Suppose it sums Spurs up...they always think they are going to be the next great thing

I think we are the last club who can say anything about spurs ... what was all that sleeping giant rubbish we were pushing before we moved

 

[Fade and Die]

I think we are the last club who can say anything about spurs ... what was all that sleeping giant rubbish we were pushing before we moved

Eh? I never heard any real West Ham fans claiming we was a sleeping giant....We have had Biscuit billionaires who went skint now porno merchants that dreamed of owning West Ham then for a few more quid they tore our ground down and moved us to a rented athletic stadium... We will never change no matter who owns us or where we play. BUT I know that!😁