Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Tottenham’s new stadium. An update. Of sorts.

By Tony Attwood

We’ve covered the story about Tottenham’s new stadium a number of times, about the uncertainties and delays, and indeed the changes of plans.

Of course there have been some sniggering from the Arsenal end at the club’s delays and misfortunes, and outrage at their having a compliant local authority (which Arsenal most certainly did not have for its bid to grow Highbury, nor for its bid to build the new stadium.)

But moving beyond the tribalism we’ve all got an awareness of just how convoluted the process was for Arsenal – and how it must be for Tottenham..  Our process that included the complex arrangements of playing Euro matches at Wembley (just to prove the club could sell 60,000+ tickets – a prime requirement of the funding), and the break up with David Dein, who opposed the building of the Emirates and wanted Arsenal to play at Wembley = something he is said to have propagated even after the board voted the other way.

Because we’re so settled at Stadium Wenger these days we can easily forget that Arsenal not only looked at Wembley but also at a site on the M25 (which would have suited me down to the ground, but would have been a shift as big as the move from Plumstead in 1913.)

I think most of us now also forget the delays when the price of the development suddenly went up and there was a real fear that the apartments built on the site of the old ground would not attract the prices hoped for – but of course it all turned out right in the end.

But what of Tottenham’s new ground? Of course whenever I start speaking of Tottenham there are always a few emails from people who’ve never bothered to read the banner at the top of the home page about this site being “Football news from an Arsenal perspective”.  But still….

Tottenham got their high court ruling a month or so back which which means they can purchase of the final piece of land required to build their new stadium.

There have been delays, but so there was with Arsenal as there was a long hiatus which stopped work until February 2004.  Overall the work cost £390m.

Which is interesting since the current estimates for Tottenham’s ground is a remarkably similar £400m for a stadium about 4000 seats smaller than Arsenal’s.

But there are two issues I’ve not heard much about for a while.  I say “I” because I have a great habit of missing some of the vital bits of information on topics like this, and then making a complete idiot of myself by getting it wrong, so I’m preparing the ground in advance.

The issues are, where Tottenham will play when they move out for a year to allow for the redevelopment, and where the money is coming from.

Tottenham had originally planned to move into the new stadium, while it was partially built, for the beginning of the 2012–13 season, and the stadium was to be completed by July 2014. This was to be their inaugural season.  But the Haringey Independent then said, issues that arose due to the need to submit revised plans and seek funding have delayed the project

The last documentation I can find on funding is a Tottenham press release dated April 2014 saying that it had sold some properties to the west of the High Road relating to phase 1 of the project to TH Property Limited, a subsidiary of ENIC, with the proceeds used to pay down debt secured against those properties.

The last announcement for Tottenham on its web site was on 6 November 2013 – 16 months ago – saying, “Sainsbury’s has opened a new 78,000 square foot store as part of the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium development – employing 280 colleagues from the local area and giving this dynamic and exciting community great new opportunities to Live Well For Less.”

Since then nothing.

Except for an article in the Daily Mirror on 18 September 2014 which said,

“Asking when it will happen is almost like asking how long is a piece of string,” says Martin Cloake of the Tottenham Supporters Trust. “ENIC and the club are very secretive, and while we understand the commercial sensitivities, we would like to see a much more open style of communication.”

But then on 2 January this year the Telegraph published a piece which quoted 2018 as the opening date, again came up with the £400m cost and saying the stadium is being looked at “by the NFL as a potential venue for a London-based franchise.”

They added, “It is widely anticipated that an NFL team will eventually relocate to London, with the Jacksonville Jaguars, owned by Shahid Khan, who bought Fulham in 2013, the favourites to make the move.”

But as the paper notes, “The biggest challenge for the NFL in wanting to use Tottenham’s new stadium would be ensuring the pitch was not damaged as a result.”

Mind you the article also spoke of “fresh optimism around White Hart Lane, with Spurs very much in the race for a top-four finish.”  (Sorry, cheap jibe.)

But what is missing from all the press releases, web pages and discussion is the source of the money.  When I have raised this in the past correspondents have written in and said, “It is coming from…” but with no information as to the source of that knowledge or, if the source is secret, some indication to suggest that teh writer really is a person close to the club.

The money is the key – not because it might not be there – of course they can raise the money.  But because if the club is borrowing much of the £390m it needs, then it will face exactly the same problem Arsenal has had, and which Arsenal has just emerged from.  All the money from sponsorship, property sales, and indeed profits from the club, went to pay off the debt.  There was no money to pay for the transfer of top stars, or to keep those players happy at the club.

Arsenal sank from its two doubles, Unbeaten Season and cup wins, to the year after year run in the Champions League, but no trophies, because of this problem – and the arrival of Chelsea and Man C and their unlimited wealth.  Do Tottenham have a way of avoiding this – perhaps by having the funding from the owner who then sells the whole package of the club, and the completed ground to another extremely rich person or oil company.  Or state.

So we wait to see.  And indeed to see quite where the club is going to play during its year away from the High Road, unless that plan to move out has now changed.

———————————

As can be found on Arsenal.com

Arsenal and Wenger secure the all-time semi-finals records

Anniversary of the day – showing how from seemingly insignificant games something wonderful can grow…

  • 11 March 1998: Wimbledon 0 Arsenal 1; after blackouts and security alerts for what should have been the 19th league match of the season, the game was finally played and marked the start of the 10 consecutive victories that ends with the title

 

68 comments to Tottenham’s new stadium. An update. Of sorts.

  • blacksheep63

    glad you are keeping one eye on this for us Tony 🙂

  • Bob

    Surely they have money to burn whenever they get into difficulties (see what I did there)!

  • RicoJ

    stadiummk, with the possibility of some games at wembley

  • dc

    joes lewis is on the forbes list at 4.8 billion so i’m sure funding will not really be an issue

  • WalterBroeckx

    LOL blacksheep 😉

  • SPT

    From a Spurs fan: nice to see an article which isn’t entirely disparaging! I think we’re putting steps in place to limit our spending in the future (focus on youth setup, starting a scouting network from scratch) and the money is there. We’ve actually made a transfer on profits in recents years, topped only by Newcastle.

    You’re well-informed, except that our revised, revised plans are for an increased capacity – I believe 62,000.

  • WalterBroeckx

    dc,
    having 4.8 billion or being worth it, does not mean you have 400 million in cash. And as far as I know most building companies like to be paid in real money.

  • ped

    don’t understand the cheap jibe at the top four finish?
    last time I looked I think spurs were 3 points of a top four place & 4 points off arsenal..

  • Royalspur

    Good article, thanks for your interest

  • dc

    hi walterbeing a banker myself do i see a small hint at something in your statement-i’m sure his guarantees will be fine and knowing levy at least half will be raised from naming rights. don’t think there is any need to panic after all if blackpool can make a profit then we should be fine-have a nice day

  • billysboots

    I think you may find that it is widely beig talked about to make the capicity 62000.

    Also once it has all been tied down final planning, Archway etc.. a new owner is being lined up. Now you can bleat on as much as you like “who would want to buy you lot” etc etc, but City and Chelsea got buyers who were in a much worse state than Spurs, but that also brings up a problem for Spurs in who will be the beneficial owner, the Qatar govt ( corruption and scandal) AEG USA sports giant ( low boredem threshold) or one of Putins mad benefactors. strange times.

    Billy

  • judge

    Haha @dc (The ‘Banker’)
    Comparing your clubs situation to Blackpool…
    Top marks!!!
    It’s a good comparison though, as they didn’t need to rely on playing in the champions league to make a profit either. Horses for courses I guess. 😉
    Enjoy your clubs ‘success’ over the next few years ‘Banker’ !!! Haha!

  • Dan Mac

    I don’t have an issue with you writing about us (Spurs)… but unless there’s a hidden banner somewhere I can’t see I can understand the confusion. There is a very prominent banner at the top of the page that says

    “Untold Arsenal: Arsenal News; Supporting the club, the players and the manager
    “I believe the target of anything in life should be to do it so well that it becomes an art.” A Wenger”

    It clearly says ARSENAL NEWS… not football news from an Arsenal perspective. It may be that there is a banner somewhere on the site that says that but the most prominent one points to this being a site for Arsenal News… hence the few emails you get from people that DID read the banner I’m seeing.

    anyway, gonna read the rest of the article now because in all fairness it was panning out into an interwsting read and nice to read it from someone without a Spurs bias

  • nicky

    On the subject of where Spurs will play while their new ground is being built.
    During WW2 when Highbury was bombed early in the War, Arsenal shared White Hart Lane with Spurs as their home ground.
    Notwithstanding the howls of protest from Arsenal’s head groundsman, should we now reciprocate and offer Spurs a temporary home at the Ems?

  • Niceonecyril

    The High Court hearing addressed the availability of funding and the judge was satisfied that funding was available

  • Joseph Koye

    I hope Arsenal fans who moan and whine about lack of silverware will appreciate the enormity of building a stadium when Tottenham finally complete theirs.What the Board and Wenger have done within the Transition Period-the build up to the Emirates and coming of more revenue- is nothing short of astuteness.

  • Niceonecyril – I am sure the funding is there – it would be crazy to get into this situation without it being there. My interest is whether the source of the money will involve Tottenham in facing the sort of financial privation that Arsenal suffered for eight years or so, or whether they have the money ready as investment now without it affecting the club’s ability to bring in and pay for new players.

  • Paul

    Nice read. THFC have already spent close to £100m in relocating homes and business’s, clearing the site ready for building work along with the new University. So the project is very much moving forward and piling/foundation work will start soon one they relocate the last business (Archway). Wembley is now favourite for home games during the build with capacity capped at 50k so as not to breach the covenant on usage of Wembley Stadium.

  • TTID

    Levy has always stated that the impact of building a new stadium would not impact the transfer kitty available. So no, we won’t be under financial constraints with the new ground. Although a good article, you’re time would be better spent writing one on why with all the money available over the past 2 season you have been unable to get even close to challenging for the EPL? Thanks for taking an interest (obsession once again) Are you sure you are not related to that gooner chick that writes about us and is constantly popping up on our Newsnow feed?

  • 49Unbeaten

    Aren’t there only a handful of clubs that have moved to a new stadium and NOT been relegated the following season?

  • TailGunner

    nicky

    That will definitely not happen. What occurred in wartime and between two clubs with a mutual respect is far removed from todays situation where ill feeling is regularly ramped up by the likes of Levy ( attempting to interfere in our transfer dealings ) and the hatred between the two fan groups and their sick chants.

  • Clockendrider

    Tony,
    Further, the Arsenal funding was provided through debt. In order to meet the covenants on the debt, money had and continues to have to be set aside annually. It is a combination of the debt covenants and need to meet interest payments that created the annual cash flow situation whereby cloth had to be cut to suit our needs. Despite the fact that Levy is worth x billion, it is unusual for any beneficial owner to make zero percent loans. At the end of the day, this would just be increasing his exposure to the club. These men don’t become billionaires by making poor business decisions. Nor do they tend to give away money for nothing (philanthropic trusts notwithstanding). With the best will in the world, it is hard to see that Levy regards THFC as a philanthropic venture. Therefore I would posit the funding will be provided from other sources eg banks. Which will seek to put in place covenants limiting their risk. These in turn are likely to create similar issues to those faced by Arsenal.

  • TailGunner

    Is it true that funding for football clubs infrastructure is exempt from FFP sanctions? Man City spent multi millions ( on their new world class complex ) from their owners, so could Spurs do the same?

  • Clockendrider

    TailGunner. That is correct. However this is purely accounting. You stil need to fund the works. And you still need to qualify for the CL for FFP to be a concern.

  • Stephen

    During the last appeal process like yourself, one of the reasons Archway opposed the CPO was because they thought the funding was not in place, what came out in the court case was two things, HSBC had written to say they would underwrite the project themselves, but it’s more likely bonds will be used. The second thing more interestingly is that Tottenham have naming rights already in place. Big rumours Nike with a huge package deal including shirts. It’s also interesting that the club has already spent a sizeable amount already on getting the area ready, some say over 100m., therefore it’s thought the remaining costs is less than the advertised 400m. Remember the Olympic stadium cost was 150m only, the rest of the costs was the surrounding area and getting the area cleaned up. Also worth noting Arsenal had to move something like well over 50 CPOs, whereas Tottenham had 1. During the build some have said MKDons but Tottenham fans seem against this. Olympic stadium would seem more likely.

  • WalterBroeckx

    Dan Mac,
    On the main page it says: “Football news from an Arsenal perspective” http://untold-arsenal.com/

  • Wanger

    Amongst the things disclosed during the recent High Court hearing, were points from the Spurs legal team that both funding and naming rights for the new stadium had been agreed, with a further guarantee from HSBC for a loan for any shortfall in the funding of upto £250m.

    I suppose one of the fundamental differences between the Emirates development and the proposed development of WHL is the growth of revenue within the Premier League. The new TV deal effectively guarantees clubs a minimum of £100m per season once it takes effect. This means that the amount in question for development, is a far less daunting figure to consider and recoup than it was a decade ago.

  • Stephen

    Tottenham will easily pay for the stadium, since starting the process the income from TV rights has rocketed, with the current TV deal and the previous deal that the original plans were written against all Premier League clubs get a lot more, in Tottenhams case on average it will be 60m a season more. This is without thinking in the next leap when the next tv deal kicks in which is double. So in short, Tottenham with naming rights deal + new TV deals since project started pre 2010 means this will easily be paid. Of course with this TV money it would now assume gate money is not as needed as pre the last deal as TV money is making gate money meaningless. So Emiratess and new WHL will not be the advantage people believe down the line apart from a nice place to play football.

  • Galway Gooner

    Its a pretty safe bet to assume that the funding is there but it is there in the shape of a loan and as anyone of us who has bought a house can testify these loans unfortunately have to be paid back.
    I think Spurs have a lot of young players coming thru who could make it onto their first team and limit the need to make big signings but there is no way that the team will not be severely impacted by building a stadium. Their big players (Lloris, Erikson and maybe even Verts) are unlikely to want to hang around as part of a team that uses youth rather than experience.
    They will face all the same problems that we have faced but they will have it far worse as they are starting at a lower base (no recent success) and generally a far weaker squad without the attraction of the CL.
    It will be very tough for them to remain anyway competitive during the next 5-7 years.

  • Mandy Dodd

    Think Tottenham and indeed Liverpool will find funding this much easier than we did. Much more money coming into the game now through TV rights alone than when we started the stadium venture. That said, guess the money coming in will still be relative and cost them at least some hardship. But just an opinion, don’t have any facts or data to back it up.
    Have read a few rumours Spurs owner may sell?

  • nicky

    @TailGunner,
    Agreed. But I couldn’t resist stirring. 😉

  • gouresh

    In the news a few weeks ago, the steel business which was blocking the purchase of the land, went up in flames. any news about the investigation. also this company claimed that the court have issued a letter that they have to sell their land without proper hearing. the company have blamed the council for doing something behind their back. is this all true?

  • Andy k

    A well balanced report which is nice to read a rivals views that are factual and objective.

    I have always worried that Levy ./ Enic never had any intentions of building stadium. It wil be interesting to see if they do or sell before construction commences

  • jod

    Good article but kind of ignores the economy. At the moment interest rates are as close to zero as they can get and look likely to stay there for a while. So if you are going to borow money to build a stadium now would be a very good time to do it.

  • para

    I welcome Spurs improvement as a club, after all we need a good rival.
    (Every super hero has a nemesis).

    Seriously, they will have seen the problems they face and are willing to go at it, so kudos to them. The PL does need all of it’s clubs to be top class in facilities if football is to progress and stay a top sport in UK.

    So, i hope Spurs can continue to be a worthy rival for years to come.

  • Devonshirespur

    Two key things have changed since work on the Emirates began back in 2002. Firstly TV money is now more than 4 times what it was back then. The TV deal at that time was worth about £1.2bn and now its closer to £5.2bn. WHoever comes bottom of the league in the 2016/17 season will earn £100m. This is substantially more than Arsenal were achieving way back when they were unbeatable.

    The other thing is the naming rights and associated Shirt deal. Arsenal originally did a deal with Emirates worth about £100m for the Stadium until 2020/21. These are relatively low figures compared to what can be achieved now. Like Arsenal, naming rights will be totally new sponsorship money so can almost be ‘ring-fenced’ without touching other sources of income.

    Therefore the ability to pay off a stadium in much greater now, although the costs of running a football club (mainly wages) has also soared so there will be limits on Spurs spending, dictated more by wages than transfer fees.

    During the court case it was confirmed that a Stadium Sponsor was in place, although not disclosed who or for how much as it is sensitive commercial information. Plus a contract for the grounds works has been signed & a bridging loan facility in place with HSBC.

    Levy is one seriously shrewd operator and there is no doubt that whatever financial deal is in place will be as good as it can possibly be…and without trying to sound like some sort of cheap dig at Arsenal, it will undoubtedly be on more favourable terms than Arsenal achieved in their stadium development.

    If there is one thing you do not have to worry about with Levy’s ownership of Spurs, it is the finances. We’ll be fine.

  • TTID – please, please please, can you give me a source for that comment about what Levy has stated. That is what I am really after, so I can follow it through. Not an obsession – just research.

    As for the money – Arsenal have indeed now got more than ever before, that’s quite true, but of course only a tiny fraction of what Chelsea and Man City have had for the past few years. It is an interesting idea that two years is enough to overhaul such vast sums of money, but I don’t think it’s valid. Ten years more like. The fact that we have just become the most successful club ever in the history of the FA Cup is rather nice though. Not all we want, but a step in the right direction.

  • Vintage Gooner

    The discussion on terms of trade differences between Arsenal ten years ago and Spurs now is quite interesting. The extra TV money is not with us yet and is spread over three years but still is a very beneficial broadly guaranteed future income stream. Interest rates are also generally significantly lower which must help, although Spurs must expect them to be on the high side because the income and asset value of a stadium is commercially poor – look at how little the Olympic stadium was worth in the end on a resale basis. Further the banking problems have led to much more cautious lending and the cash reserve Arsenal have had to maintain is likely to be much higher for Spurs clearly affecting transfer funds available. The final variable is the value of ancillary assets which are intended to help toward the funding. Arsenal experience was that residential property even in sprauncy Islington was not as valuable as they hoped. It is difficult to believe that either residential or commercial property in darkest Tottenham will give much comfort.

    But good luck to our neighbours, they may need it.

  • dixta

    wasnt it widely accepted that the naming rights for emirates were sold a bit cheaply? cant see levy making that mistake for us. on the other side of the coin think all that talk about “it wont affect transfer spend” is the same as the gooner board came out with and clearly it did affect spending. but borrowing rates are at record low so that works in spurs’ favour. and the latest rumour is that the capacity is going to be 61k which is obviously enough to annoy gooners and also nod to the number “61” which has special meaning to us. anyway like all spurs fans I will believe it when I see it.
    good luck in Monaco.

  • jambug

    TTID

    “Although a good article, you’re time would be better spent writing one on why with all the money available over the past 2 season you have been unable to get even close to challenging for the EPL?”

    A bit un called for and ignorant of some facts if I may say.

    As alluded to by Tony it will take a bit more than 2 years to turn over net spends of over £500 Million a piece by the Oilers.

    Also, it didn’t happen instantly for those 2 either, despite the immense investment, investment that far outweighed the net spend of Arsenal over the last 2 seasons.

    ARSENAL

    13/14 Net Spend of £32M, Won FA Cup.

    14/15 Net Spend of £65M

    So, 1 Year and a Net Spend of £32 Million to win 1 FA Cup.

    MAN CITY

    Acquired by the Abu Dhabi United Group August 2008.

    08/09 Net Spend of £90M

    09/10 Net Spend of £122M

    10/11 Net Spend of £143M, Won FA Cup

    So, 3 Years and a Net spend of £355 Million before winning the FA Cup.

    CHELSEA

    Acquired by RA June 2003.

    03/04 Net Spend of £131M

    04/05 Net Spend of £126m, Won Premier League.

    So, 2 Years and a Net Spend of £250 Million before winning the Premiership.

    And lets not forget Chelsea didn’t have to overhaul 2 massively sponsored Clubs (Chelsea and City) to reach the summit. Ok, they had to overhaul Man Utd, but even they did not, do not, have the financial muscle that Chelsea had/have acquired.

    So your cheap little dig was way way wide of the mark.

  • omgarsenal

    It is a mystery to me that any Gooner would wish ill on the THFC stadium rebuild and for that matter, their entire organization. Arsenal went through hard times during their new stadium years but thanks to Wenger’s genius and our scouting network, were able to generally maintain their CL place and play enjoyable Football. Let’s face it:

    1)The Spurs play entertaining Football, very similar to Arsenal’s style.
    2)Upgrades and improvements to stadiums can only be a good thing for Football in general.
    3)Like it or not our North London rivals provide an excellent Juliette to our Romeo.
    4)Who really cares where they get the money from, as long as they get the deed done.
    5)If we didn’t have them to villify, we’d need someone else and no other club offers such entertainment and excitement as they do, for AFC.

    I personally wish them well in their stadium project and may they always be in our shadow!

  • jambug

    omgarsenal

    Very sporting of you if I may say.

    I mean, I don’t doubt for one second Spurs fans far and wide wished us nothing but the best in our endeavours to build our New Stadium.

    I cant imagine for a second any of them where laughing at our trials a tribulations over the last 9 years, and the accompanying media hate fest. I bet they really felt sorry for us.

    Yeah right.

    So please forgive me if I wish them nothing but plague and pestilence, as well as Fire and flood to fall upon them.

    Or is that a bit harsh ?

  • WalterBroeckx

    After seeing mostly fair minded Spurs supporters on here we do have the usual idiots who think that calling us names is the way to go forward. So thank you for those who could comment in a decent way.
    And to those who couldn’t and started swearing and abusing: “the same” to you.

  • JLJLJL

    “…There have been delays, but so there was with Arsenal as there was a long hiatus which stopped work until February 2004. Overall the work cost £390m. Which is interesting since the current estimates for Tottenham’s ground is a remarkably similar £400m for a stadium about 4000 seats smaller than Arsenal’s…”

    Just an FYI – taking into account inflation:

    £390m in 2006 = £504.03m in 2014.

    And just for good measure, £400m in 2014 is eqiuvalent to £309.5m in 2006, so technically Tottenham are building a stadium of relatively equivalent stature of the Emirates at a real price difference of around £100m.

    [All sources from the Bank of England website]

  • jambug

    Come on Walter, I didn’t swear once !

  • jambug

    Walter

    I had a look back and Could’nt find any of the ‘abusive’ posts to which you refer. The closest to a real dig was TTID @ 9:25am, and my rather ‘tongue in cheek’ comment @ 1:54pm, but nothing really. All seems very amiable to me, maybe too amiable?

    The next thing you know is we’ll all be round there giving them a hand with the foundations !!

    Have you been blocking the ‘name callers’ ?

  • Michelle

    I think that both clubs’ supporters all too often assume that the morons in their paddock are representative of the true general feeling of supporters. This IMO is not true. While I do rise to the occasion and bite savagely back on what I find to be pathetic comments by some AFC supporters, I think that most of us hate Chelsea far more than the Woolwich vagrants… errr AFC ( : ) I am human). My personal dislike list has AFC well below the like’s of Mafia money, oil good luck, LFC(for the many thrashings) and whatever feeds the MU owners. Despite the enmity from 1919 etc., most of us see AFC as a very well run club who have been so lucky to have such a decent and thoughtful manager for so long. I really do bite when I see AFC supporters howling for his blood as they do at least once per season. As for the WW2 ground share, it was inverted in WW1 when THFC used the AFC stadium for the duration of the war (IIRC..always a problem) With respect to WB, most of us wre envious rather than malicious in out thoughts and comments about the new AFC stadium. My real hope is that oil money does not contaminate THFC.

  • Interesting article and good responses. I believe in the recent court case the HSBC bridging loan was £350m. There were two articles written in the Daily Telegraph over the last couple of years by Jeremy Wilson (a gooner) to the effect that what Spurs were looking for was an all embracing sponsorship deal ie stadium naming rights, shirt sponsorship and crucially selling a portion of the club, likely to be around 25%. The figures mentioned by Jeremy Wilson were a 20 year deal worth £400m. When you consider that Arsenal were valued at £400 pre-new staduim, and £800m when the stadium was built this is not outlandish. Currently Spurs are valued just below £400m.So you could sell 25% of the club for around £150m, given that the club’s value will rise when the stadium is complete.The likely investors have always been rumoured to be either Qatar Airways or perhaps AEG.Most of the Olympic funding was raised by Sir Keith Mills, and he joined the Spurs board after the Olympics to raise the funding, and he seemed to confirm some of these rumours by saying the key was the stadium naming rights deal.The devil is in the detail, as many Arsenal supporters would probably agree with me, that their club made mistakes. The Emirates deal undervalued Arsenal, and perhaps more damning the 7 or 8 main owners of the club didn’t put their hands in their pocket with a rights issue, even though they profited massively with their shares worth an extra £400m more. The fans have effectively paid for Ashburton Grove, not the owners. Also the housing crash didn’t help Arsenal.

  • jambug

    Michelle

    Nice post and broadly agree with all you say. I especially liked your final comment:

    “My real hope is that oil money does not contaminate THFC.”

    Because the oilers just wont have it that that’s the way some of us feel. Personally I think EVERYTHING they win is tarnished.

    Why?

    Because any, and I mean ANY club would win what they have, given the un limited funds they have had at there disposal.

    Yes of course they enjoy it, but there incessant denial that that isn’t the case, and that they have somehow achieved something special, along with there accusation that anyone who disagrees is somehow ‘jealous’ really does them no favours.

  • craig

    Hi there, at the appeal hearing regarding the CPO for Archway Ltd, it was revealed THFC have a bridging facility from HSBC for something on the order of £350m-400m to ensure finance exists for the build to be completed. It was also revealed that the stadium sponsor is already in place – though it was not revealed who that was.

    There has been a revision of the design, with some sources quoting an increased capacity of 61,000 – I don’t know if that means the design has been adjusted so that a 5,000 increment would be easy to implement later (“designed for, but not with”) or whether it’d be 61,000 from the get-go.

    Insofar as where we will play during the season that we can’t at WHL, the latest options I have heard mentioned are: MK Dons’ ground, Wembley, Olympic Stadium and Upton Park – all have their issues but I guess it is only for 1 season.

  • porter

    and perhaps more damning the 7 or 8 main owners of the club didn’t put their hands in their pocket with a rights issue, even though they profited massively with their shares worth an extra £400m more. The fans have effectively paid for Ashburton Grove, not the owners.

    True , oh so true . they took the money and then didn’t run very far.

  • Ben

    Spurs fans always go by the Joe Lewis is worth such and such and will fund because he is a fan. That’s not how business works. Fan or not he will expect something in return. He will not take a hit and accept the money is gone just like that. He needs a return in investing that money since he built up that money.
    If he was a fan and won the lottery MAYBE he will be willing to throw away the money like that as he will have no real sense and value of money earned by working his way up.

  • Ambrose

    During the recent court case against Archway Steel, Tottenham stated that they have secured a bridging loan of £350 million from HSBC.
    http://m.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/11802279.Spurs_stadium_hearing_closes/
    As for the relocation it hasn’t been announced.

  • Ambrose thanks for that, I didn’t see that. Tony

  • azas

    spurs fan here and thankgod there is a decent writer out there. Good article and as far as i know spurs have always insisted the finance package required wont effect wage or transfer budgets. I am guessing Mr Lewis and co will probably lend the money to tottenham as its a great way to avoid tax. Either way there is alot of money invested in the project already and i would be surprised if spurs borrowed money from an outside source when you look at the financial background of the current owners and their other business’s as well as the projected increased revenue clubs will be getting for tv coverage. Didnt BT just pay £900 million for all the uefa cup and champions league games? Thus making the lure of european football more attractive and incentivising owners to invest in their current teams even more. If your a billionaire owning a premiership club has never been more lucrative than it is now

  • azas

    and before i forget..porter your spot on

  • Notoverthehill

    Tony, I have details of a Haringey BC report, indicating that a 56,000 stadium, is still on the table (February 2015).

    I have looked into Haringey BC Planning Applications re the new Stadium, zilch regarding upgrading to 61,000 pax.

    “Mr Justice Dove refused permission for the landowners to appeal his decision. However, the landowners have the right to request permission to appeal directly from the Court of Appeal within 21 days of the judgment.”

    It would seem that Archway Metals can still “scupper” THFC?

  • Malcolm

    One ting that you have wrong. The plans for the stadium interior have been re-worked to now include 61,000 seats. The stadium will, in fact be bigger than the Emirates

  • Bazza

    The £400M was always a project estimate, not the stadium estimate. Phase 1 land acquisition now complete bar last business (21 day appeal time period is now over)
    Phase 2 university and supermarket complete.
    These two phases are at a cost of some £140m. Leaving about £260m balance.
    Phase 3 building 3\4 of the new stadium around the old is well under way with groundwork started during the court case and the piling rig starting work on the 1st day of the judges decision.
    The additional property’s bought up around tottenham have been sold to an offshore company to reduce spurs overall debt and will be used as part of the funding.
    Spurs are now turning over a lot more money than arsenal where at the start of their project and increases in turnover are virtually gauranteed while Spurs wage bill is less than its been for a long time as they have the youngest squad in the league.
    But apart from all that Spurs have one thing no other club has got and that a certain Mr Levy, who along with his ENIC powers are a major force in sporting investments and property investments.
    The northumberland development project is in very good hands..

    Things to look out for:
    Safe standing, 62,000 capacity, (higher for other events), steep gradient seating. A return to the original build plan without moving out..

  • Colin SCC

    I thank all the contributors to this blog. It is refreshing to see a writer that maintains a good perspective, sense of humour, honesty and is fair. I have been a Spurs supporter for over 40 years, and rarely have I enjoyed a good piece of writing like this from ‘an Arsenal perspective’. Almost all of the comments seem to be similar in context and without all the usual abuse and animosity, great to read.

  • Kiri

    Nice read.

    I read somewhere that we (Spurs) have all of our finances in place for h stadium.

    We haven’t speny a dime on player transfers IN FIVE YEARS (incredible how cheap Levy is eh? Or smart… We’ll see), in fact we’ve made £5mil over that period.

    If there’s one thing we don’t have to worry about its how we’ll finance the stadium.

    Good luck to the Gunners, I love our rivalry. Hope you stuff Monaco, we need those pts to keep up our four CL places lol

  • Micheal Ram

    I can see a lot of Totty fans here, unhappy, defensive and naive. Your say is as strong as your trust towards your club. However, you don’t run your club, your GM or CEO does. If you want to trust Mr Daniel Levy, please get to know him more, his business skills and moral stand. Many of his business and moral decision brought your club down the drain before. I know for a fact that businessmen like Levy are very cunning, manipulative and selfish. If you ever think that Levy will do as the fans please, think again my friends. It’s a dirty old trick of saying all the right things in the beginning and end up destroying things in the end.

  • Anon

    There is no need for Tottenham fans to be naïve, as for defensive, over what, the money is there and the works have already started. As for Levy whilst he is in some quarters a hate figure, he has brought Tottenham up from almost bankrupt to challenge the so-called big four, if he is selfish as you suggest then he will be selfish for ENIC not for himself directly. I think that your comments about Tottenham, Levy and the destruction of Tottenham are just about the worst post on this article. From my experience with businessmen at Canary Wharf and in the City, yes they can be manipulative, self seeking and at times downright nasty but I think I have just described human nature in the majority. Don’t make statements that cannot be substantiated, it makes you appear to be a biased fool — and there was so much sense being put forward up till you.

  • Pmosely

    It was disclosed in court funding for Spurs new ground had been secured as had sponsorship what was not detailed was who it is or where it’s coming from. Although judge was told in privacy. Stadium size is increased to 61500 as per new plans!

  • Pmosely – I’d disagree slightly on the detail. The club announced it had secured a bridging loan should the planned funding fail. that is not quite the same as “secured”

  • Bazza

    Mr Ram, really?
    Do you honestly think levy is going to half build a stadium and then crash the club?
    ENIC are already aware the club is worth a lot more with the developement completed than it is now and they specialise in developing sports clubs and property. There isn’t a better business to be associated with right now than ENIC.
    With the age of the squad, it’s quality in depth and low wage bill (some £60m a year less than arsenal) Spurs will not be suffering anything like the finacial torment that arsenal have.
    Think about this:
    Arsenal have been in the new stadium for 10 years. In that time they have taken an estimate £2m extra per home match at about 28 matches a year, they have also had an average of about £50m a year in prize money and TV rights more than clubs outside the CL places. That’s £1.060billion more than a non CL I.e. Spurs club over the last 10 years. The stadium cost £380m . It was financed a 8% so the whole package would not be more than £500m. The reason arsenal got into trouble is the massive wage bill they have been servicing. They spend more than all the additional money they get being in the CL just keeping themselves in the top four. The numbers look good but there really is no benifit other than bragging rights being in the top four unless you can improve your squad.
    In that same time period Spurs have moved up the league an average of 10 places while arsenal have dropped a couple of places. Spurs have built the best training facility in the country, proven by the fact that it’s already turning out several premiership players. Spurs have tripled the value of their squad while at the same time reduced the average age to the one of the youngest in the league and have self financed at least £150m of the new development project.
    I’m not trying to put arsenal down here, just to point out that I think ENIC know what their doing. And their doing it very well.

  • Stephen

    D-Day for Archway is tomorrow. Last day to submit to court of appeal. If no appeal Archway will have a certain time to move out of the premises and Tottenham can begin works properly.

    Yes tomorrow is Friday 13th haha

  • Ray from Norfolk, Virginia

    I would rather have ten Tottenham teams rather than one Stoke City team in the Prem.