Topic: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.

[paulrazor]

I think they will end up doing what Arsenal did... charging £90 a ticket and fleecing the support. Arsenal have been going backwards for a while despite having the world class stadium.

london you can nearly name your price

i would like to see the spurs stadium mind you

[Mighty_Red]

london you can nearly name your price

i would like to see the spurs stadium mind you

Arsenal is proof that splurging on a big expensive stadium can harm you massively. The years they spent scrimping and selling players harmed ambitions on the pitch to the extent that the rot has set in and they are now playing catch-up and now even that extra revenue isn't enough. Of course it doesn't help them that the management of the club has also been woeful since Dein left.

Spurs have made similar mistakes - they have let the squad rot to such an extent that it will cost much more to revitalise than had they spent a bit more 2 years ago. Whilst they obviously needed a far bigger stadium, I wonder if they can continue to pack out 62k if the team falls away again for a few years. It's easy to sell cheese boards when the team is successful.

Everton take note, will they create something realistically within their means that truly restores them as a force or will they overreach and fuck themselves trying to keep up with the Joneses & Alexander-Arnolds

[paulrazor]

Arsenal is proof that splurging on a big expensive stadium can harm you massively. The years they spent scrimping and selling players harmed ambitions on the pitch to the extent that the rot has set in and they are now playing catch-up and now even that extra revenue isn't enough. Of course it doesn't help them that the management of the club has also been woeful since Dein left.

Spurs have made similar mistakes - they have let the squad rot to such an extent that it will cost much more to revitalise than had they spent a bit more 2 years ago. Whilst they obviously needed a far bigger stadium, I wonder if they can continue to pack out 62k if the team falls away again for a few years. It's easy to sell cheese boards when the team is successful.

Everton take note, will they create something realistically within their means that truly restores them as a force or will they overreach and fuck themselves trying to keep up with the Joneses & Alexander-Arnolds

yep, spurs needed to invest the last while and havent been able too

it took us a long time to get it right but we did

2002 we were all in for a new ground, god knows what it would have cost and it may not have been the cash cow todays grounds are with hospitality etc. Probably would look a touch dated already.

same capacity too as we are planning to have soon for a fraction of the cost relatively. Great too that we dont even have to reduce capacity for a year

[BaZ87]

Arsenal is proof that splurging on a big expensive stadium can harm you massively. The years they spent scrimping and selling players harmed ambitions on the pitch to the extent that the rot has set in and they are now playing catch-up and now even that extra revenue isn't enough. Of course it doesn't help them that the management of the club has also been woeful since Dein left.....

The stadium was an excuse for Arsenal's lack of spending rather than a reason. For years Arsenal had mountains of cash sat in the bank, with increased matchday revenue more than covering their financing costs.

Re Spurs, have they made a mistake? Spurs punched well above their weight for a number of years and it was never sustainable, especially once Pep come along and we got our act together. They had to make sacrifises on the pitch in order to build their stadium but without it they would have always been facing an up hill struggle to compete for the top 4 let alone any higher. Spurs are now financially set to challenge Arsenal and Chelsea on a level playing field. If they miss out on the CL this season (and that's far from certain) it will hurt them but it will be far from the end of the world either. The costs of servicing the stadium debt will be somewhere in the region of £30m per year and as of the 17/18 season, Spurs EBITDA (very loosely speaking the excess cash the business makes before any capital (player) investments, tax bills etc) was over £160m. Even without the CL Spurs could more than cover their interest payments and have plenty of cash available to improve their squad.

[Eeyore]

The fact of the matter is that, once built, we would have increased our capacity to 61,000 for a combined £175m. Spurs increased theirs from 39,000 to 62,000. For £1bn.

So Spurs have 1,000 extra seats for a premium of £725m more than us.

That money could have gone on players. They signed hardly any players due to finance limits. We bought Fabinho, Allison and Van Dijk (amongst others) and won the Champions league and are going to win the league.

That's the difference.

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me £5k. Some idiot down the road has spent £1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra £1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

[Uncle Ronnie]

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me £5k. Some idiot down the road has spent £1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra £1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

[Something Worse]

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me £5k. Some idiot down the road has spent £1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra £1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

Do you think the club should have built a new stadium?

[Eeyore]

I am not doing anything just pointing out that Liverpool and Tottenham are going after two different markets. Tottenham because of their location are going after the higher end corporate London market. Their Stadium is all about maximising revenue from the corporate market. The ARE will quite rightly have far less high end facilities and will be about increasing the capacity.

So I think it frankly a bit silly comparing the relative costs of both builds. 

[Agent99]

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me £5k. Some idiot down the road has spent £1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra £1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

Why use a caravan or a tent as an example? Why not just a regular extension built on to a house?

[CraigDS]

Why use a caravan or a tent as an example? Why not just a regular extension built on to a house?

Or a very large iconic house having a state of the art modern addition whilst keeping all the historic elements of the old.

Wouldn’t be as dramatic for his comparison though.

[Eeyore]

Or a very large iconic house having a state of the art modern addition whilst keeping all the historic elements of the old.

Wouldn’t be as dramatic for his comparison though.

Except large doesn't really fit with this example especially if you are sitting in the lower Kenny. Personally I think it is hugely flawed to make direct comparisons between a brand new purpose built Stadium that was built to cater for the London corporate market as well as NFL games and a Stadium that is a mix of old and new.

Both Stadiums have their pros and cons but to make comparisons on cost simply isn't comparing like with like.

[CraigDS]

Except large doesn't really fit with this example especially if you are sitting in the lower Kenny.

Of course large fits. Leg room in lower Kenny doesn’t mean the capacity of the stadium is any less, and a 45k stadium as it was then was still very large, especially when also considering the historical value of it too.

[Eeyore]

Of course large fits. Leg room in lower Kenny doesn’t mean the capacity of the stadium is any less, and a 45k stadium as it was then was still very large, especially when also considering the historical value of it too.

The point is about trying to make direct comparisons between Spurs new Stadium and it's cost and the redevelopment of Anfield. If you are doing that then leg room does matter as does the facilities.

A perfect comparison would be to buy an old medium sized aeroplane and refurbish part of it with first class facilities. Then to try and compare that to a brand new large plane that comprises of only first class facilities. Both planes could have the same capacity but one is going to cost more and generate more income.

Now one of the examples might be a better business model, might offer better value and better suit the clientele who will frequent it but to simply compare the capacity of the two and the cost is frankly absurd.

[Hij]

I think you can compare based on what the relative football budgets might be for both teams over the medium term - which was the crux of his argument.

[El Lobo]

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me £5k. Some idiot down the road has spent £1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra £1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

[BaZ87]

I think you can compare based on what the relative football budgets might be for both teams over the medium term - which was the crux of his argument.

Spurs matchday revenue when at the old White Hart Lane was approx £55m. We won't know for sure what they're making from the new stadium for another 12 months but all reports are that it will be the highest in the League so a conservative estimate will be £110m. The yearly cost of financing their stadium will be in the region of £25m per season. So even before you factor in any possibly naming rights deal, Spurs will be around £30m per season better off which can then be put back into the football club.

Our matchday revenue from our last season in the CL pre Main Stand extension (so we're comparing like for like) was £59m. That's grown to £83m as of last season and if we look forward to when the Annie Road is done, we'll hopefully be in the £90-95m per season range. Finance costs of around £3-5m per season so net gain for around £30m, pretty much the same as Spurs. Spurs may argue that they have the potential of gaining another £20m per season from a possible naming rights deal but that's countered by the risk of carrying such a high debt.

There's no right or wrong way of doing things. It's all dependent on the circumstances each club finds themselves in and you can take two completely different approaches and end up with nearly the same results as ourselves and Spurs probably have done.

[Eeyore]

Spurs matchday revenue when at the old White Hart Lane was approx £55m. We won't know for sure what they're making from the new stadium for another 12 months but all reports are that it will be the highest in the League so a conservative estimate will be £110m. The yearly cost of financing their stadium will be in the region of £25m per season. So even before you factor in any possibly naming rights deal, Spurs will be around £30m per season better off which can then be put back into the football club.

Our matchday revenue from our last season in the CL pre Main Stand extension (so we're comparing like for like) was £59m. That's grown to £83m as of last season and if we look forward to when the Annie Road is done, we'll hopefully be in the £90-95m per season range. Finance costs of around £3-5m per season so net gain for around £30m, pretty much the same as Spurs. Spurs may argue that they have the potential of gaining another £20m per season from a possible naming rights deal but that's countered by the risk of carrying such a high debt.

There's no right or wrong way of doing things. It's all dependent on the circumstances each club finds themselves in and you can take two completely different approaches and end up with nearly the same results as ourselves and Spurs probably have done.

That is a really good summary.

The two things I would add is that over time Spurs Stadium costs are likely to flatline whereas their match day revenue is likely to go up. The other point is that Spurs will have to spend almost nothing on their Stadium over the next couple of decades. We are unable to say the same.

As you say it is far more nuanced than looking at a cost per seat. Look at Peter McGurk who eulogised over United's gradual redevelopment of Old Trafford. Funny enough now shambolic Old Trafford has a leaking roof and a vermin problem he doesn't post any more.

[BaZ87]

That is a really good summary.

The two things I would add is that over time Spurs Stadium costs are likely to flatline whereas their match day revenue is likely to go up. The other point is that Spurs will have to spend almost nothing on their Stadium over the next couple of decades. We are unable to say the same.

As you say it is far more nuanced than looking at a cost per seat. Look at Peter McGurk who eulogised over United's gradual redevelopment of Old Trafford. Funny enough now shambolic Old Trafford has a leaking roof and a vermin problem he doesn't post any more.

I'm not sure how Spurs matchday revenue is likely to increase much beyond any natural inflation or any greater than ours may do. Building a new stadium, in the design they have, they've limited the possibility of any further expansion later on. This is actually one of the advantages that we have by expanding, rather than building from scratch - it might not seem likely soon but there's always the potential to further expand in the future and by doing so we could take advantage of the latest tech and facilities each time. Who knows what the future holds in terms of design and facilities in 10-15 years time - maybe a new Centenary will be light years ahead of what Spurs have built. As for their costs flatlining, interest rates are at a near all time low and if Spurs choose not to eat into the £600m odds worth of debt they have (and if they do then the short to medium financial benefits are lost) then when it comes to be refinanced their interest payments could potentially be much higher.

I also have no idea why Utd's failure to maintain Old Trafford detracts from what they done 20-30 years ago. If Spurs fail to maintain their new stadium then at some point in the future they too will be left with a leaking roof and other issues.

You seem to be trying to put forward a very one sided argument that building a brand new stadium is better. It was better for Spurs, it wouldn't have been for us. A 70k seater stadium may have earned us an extra £10-15m in revenue beyond where we will end up post Annie Road redevelopment but it would have cost us an extra £20m in interest payments.

[ScottScott]

That is a really good summary.

The two things I would add is that over time Spurs Stadium costs are likely to flatline whereas their match day revenue is likely to go up. The other point is that Spurs will have to spend almost nothing on their Stadium over the next couple of decades. We are unable to say the same.

As you say it is far more nuanced than looking at a cost per seat. Look at Peter McGurk who eulogised over United's gradual redevelopment of Old Trafford. Funny enough now shambolic Old Trafford has a leaking roof and a vermin problem he doesn't post any more.

Fuck me you chat some absolute wham. How is Spurs matchday revenue going to increase any more than it will from this season? It's already ridiculously expensive and they are currently in the CL so they won't get many more matches, if any. Their debt will decrease so overall they will get the maximum revenue but that isn't what you meant

And Old Trafford is probably the best example of achieving a massive capacity without saddling yourself with massive amounts of debt. Just because the owners have let it fall into disrepair doesn't now mean it was the wrong thing to do and that United should have waited and built a purpose built stadium for a billion pound

[El Lobo]

Fuck me you chat some absolute wham. How is Spurs matchday revenue going to increase any more than it will from this season? It's already ridiculously expensive and they are currently in the CL so they won't get many more matches, if any. Their debt will decrease so overall they will get the maximum revenue but that isn't what you meant

And Old Trafford is probably the best example of achieving a massive capacity without saddling yourself with massive amounts of debt. Just because the owners have let it fall into disrepair doesn't now mean it was the wrong thing to do and that United should have waited and built a purpose built stadium for a billion pound

Would have thought that’s pretty obvious  The cheese room has yet to be built. And as per Als genius example, they could put this up in a tent outside the stadium and still make millions. Or a caravan or something? Leg room?

[Eeyore]

Fuck me you chat some absolute wham. How is Spurs matchday revenue going to increase any more than it will from this season? It's already ridiculously expensive and they are currently in the CL so they won't get many more matches, if any. Their debt will decrease so overall they will get the maximum revenue but that isn't what you meant

And Old Trafford is probably the best example of achieving a massive capacity without saddling yourself with massive amounts of debt. Just because the owners have let it fall into disrepair doesn't now mean it was the wrong thing to do and that United should have waited and built a purpose built stadium for a billion pound

Suggesting that the price of something isn't going to go up because it already expensive is probably the very definition of wham. Just look at Apple products as an example. We live in a society in which the gap between the rich and poor continually grows. Let's face it the people who can afford the prices Spurs charge are highly likely to be able to afford price increases in the future.

Regarding Old Trafford it is a simple fact of life that older buildings and structures are likely to need more maintenance. Even moreso when you have to make compromises when you refurbish old structures and add on new additions. The biggest issue though is that of space. You either persist with less space or you reduce capacity.

Personally I think Spurs have done the right thing for them and their catchment area and we have probably done the right thing for us in the short term. What is annoying though is the tribal notion that what we have done is perfect and what everyone else has done is stupid.

[Fromola]

What United achieved with OT was outstanding. We'd kill for that capacity. Difference is they had a lot more space other than the railway line behind the older stand. The Glazers failing to provide maintenance on the ground in 15 years doesn't detract from that

Spurs stadium is a great legacy for the club but very expensive.

[Eeyore]

What United achieved with OT was outstanding. We'd kill for that capacity. Difference is they had a lot more space other than the railway line behind the older stand. The Glazers failing to provide maintenance on the ground in 15 years doesn't detract from that

Spurs stadium is a great legacy for the club but very expensive.

It is not really maintenance that is required, by definition maintenance just preserves the existing condition. What is required is continual improvement and modernisation and that costs far more than maintenance. That is often what is missed when people compare a new Stadium to a partially redeveloped one.

Even with maintenance Old Trafford would still be miles behind Spurs new Stadium in terms of facilities and the ability to generate revenue. A good example is the amount of money the Spurs Stadium generates simply from food and drink. Spurs are generating 800k a game just from the restaurants and food outlets on-site.

The other thing is how much each Club will have to spend over the next few decades on their Stadium to keep pace with their rivals. Spurs Stadium looks hideously expensive at first glance but it is far more nuanced than that.

[BaZ87]

While it would be benefitial to Utd if they modernised the stadium, they don't need to do it from a financial point of view. Spurs matchday revenue won't be much more than Utd this season so the idea that they'll be miles behind Spurs in terms of generating revenue simply isn't true. Spurs are generating revenue in a different way to Utd but not (much) more and at a far higher cost.

This idea that new stadiums don't need to be continually improved and modernised is a strange one. Are you saying in 30 years Spurs' stadium will still be cutting edge in terms of facilities? Through gradual redevelopment a club can have the latest facilities at least partially around the ground every stage of the redevelopement - a new stadium is only new on day 1, every year after it is falling behind in terms of design and facilities. Who is to say that the Annie Road won't have superior GA facilities than Spurs stadium? Or in 15 years time if the club completely redevelope the Kop or Centenary, do you think the facilities wouldn't have moved on since when Spurs built their stadium?

[FlashGordon]

While it would be benefitial to Utd if they modernised the stadium, they don't need to do it from a financial point of view. Spurs matchday revenue won't be much more than Utd this season so the idea that they'll be miles behind Spurs in terms of generating revenue simply isn't true. Spurs are generating revenue in a different way to Utd but not (much) more and at a far higher cost.

This idea that new stadiums don't need to be continually improved and modernised is a strange one. Are you saying in 30 years Spurs' stadium will still be cutting edge in terms of facilities? Through gradual redevelopment a club can have the latest facilities at least partially around the ground every stage of the redevelopement - a new stadium is only new on day 1, every year after it is falling behind in terms of design and facilities. Who is to say that the Annie Road won't have superior GA facilities than Spurs stadium? Or in 15 years time if the club completely redevelope the Kop or Centenary, do you think the facilities wouldn't have moved on since when Spurs built their stadium?

Exact post I was going to make, expect a few strawman arguments and waffle back. You've far more patience than I have when he's like this 

[Too early for flapjacks?]

Spurs matchday revenue when at the old White Hart Lane was approx £55m. We won't know for sure what they're making from the new stadium for another 12 months but all reports are that it will be the highest in the League so a conservative estimate will be £110m. The yearly cost of financing their stadium will be in the region of £25m per season. So even before you factor in any possibly naming rights deal, Spurs will be around £30m per season better off which can then be put back into the football club.

Our matchday revenue from our last season in the CL pre Main Stand extension (so we're comparing like for like) was £59m. That's grown to £83m as of last season and if we look forward to when the Annie Road is done, we'll hopefully be in the £90-95m per season range. Finance costs of around £3-5m per season so net gain for around £30m, pretty much the same as Spurs. Spurs may argue that they have the potential of gaining another £20m per season from a possible naming rights deal but that's countered by the risk of carrying such a high debt.

There's no right or wrong way of doing things. It's all dependent on the circumstances each club finds themselves in and you can take two completely different approaches and end up with nearly the same results as ourselves and Spurs probably have done.

Won't Spurs be subject to significant financial benefits related to their retractable pitch and link up with the NFL?

[Eeyore]

While it would be benefitial to Utd if they modernised the stadium, they don't need to do it from a financial point of view. Spurs matchday revenue won't be much more than Utd this season so the idea that they'll be miles behind Spurs in terms of generating revenue simply isn't true. Spurs are generating revenue in a different way to Utd but not (much) more and at a far higher cost.

United may not currently need to modernise the Stadium in terms of generating income but that misses the point. A better question would be should they of invested in a new Stadium when they were at the height of their success. Their current business model is overly reliant on filling a huge Stadium and on huge commercial revenues. Those two factors were fine when Ferguson was there and they were winning trophies year in year out.

They are now missing out year in year out on the Champions League and are currently 9th in the League.

This idea that new stadiums don't need to be continually improved and modernised is a strange one. Are you saying in 30 years Spurs' stadium will still be cutting edge in terms of facilities? Through gradual redevelopment a club can have the latest facilities at least partially around the ground every stage of the redevelopement - a new stadium is only new on day 1, every year after it is falling behind in terms of design and facilities. Who is to say that the Annie Road won't have superior GA facilities than Spurs stadium? Or in 15 years time if the club completely redevelope the Kop or Centenary, do you think the facilities wouldn't have moved on since when Spurs built their stadium?

Firstly the space to expand either the Kop or Kenny simply isn't there, they are complete non starters. The only way you could bring them up to modern standards on the current footprints would be to reduce the capacity of the stands.

Secondly I haven't said that new stadiums don't need to be continually modernised and improved after a certain time. The thing is those improvements will be cheaper easier to accomplish in a modern purpose built Stadium. A stadium that has been designed from the ground up and isn't a mish mash of old and new. You only have to look at the problems old stadiums have with joining up different sections of roofs and stands.

As I have said all along for me there is no right or wrong path and both new and old stadia have their advantages and disadvantages.

[BaZ87]

Won't Spurs be subject to significant financial benefits related to their retractable pitch and link up with the NFL?

I'm not aware of any financial details of the NFL deal being released but given the level of competition there is to host these events, I wouldn't imagine that it was highly profitable. Iirc it was reported that Spurs were paying as little as £300k per game to hire Wembley. Even if we assume Spurs are getting double that plus a cut of food & drink sales, I'd be surprised if they were bringing in more than £1m per event and they will have costs to deduct off that. Obviously every little helps and Spurs have and will exploit any opportunity to generate revenue from their stadium that they can however it's very small percentage of overall matchday revenue.

[Eeyore]

Won't Spurs be subject to significant financial benefits related to their retractable pitch and link up with the NFL?

If an NFL franchise ends up at Spurs Stadium then it will be a game changer for their revenues. I think it is clearly part of their planning and would propel their revenues in to another League. I think that is why you have to look at each case individually and not make blanket judgements over whether new or old is better in terms of Stadiums.

[Eeyore]

I'm not aware of any financial details of the NFL deal being released but given the level of competition there is to host these events, I wouldn't imagine that it was highly profitable. Iirc it was reported that Spurs were paying as little as £300k per game to hire Wembley. Even if we assume Spurs are getting double that plus a cut of food & drink sales, I'd be surprised if they were bringing in more than £1m per event and they will have costs to deduct off that. Obviously every little helps and Spurs have and will exploit any opportunity to generate revenue from their stadium that they can however it's very small percentage of overall matchday revenue.

It won't be a small part of their overall revenue if London gets a full time NFL franchise.

[BaZ87]

It won't be a small part of their overall revenue if London gets a full time NFL franchise.

Sorry, I missed the part where Spurs stadium became the home of any new NFL franchise. And yes it would still be a small part of their overall matchday revenue even if they did. An extra 14 events (remembering that they already host 2 per season) may generate an extra £50m or so in revenue but the majority of that would end up in the NFL franchise's pocket, not Spurs'. Spurs would agree a deal with said franchise to host their games and I'd imagine that it would probably be less per event that they're currently getting for the 2 games they host now.

[Alan_X]

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me £5k. Some idiot down the road has spent £1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra £1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

Are you sure that's the analogy you're looking for Al?  Are you agreeing with the FSG strategy?

The £1.5m mansion would attract a far higher rental than the caravan it's true. And for a stadium the 'rental' is the ticket revenue. The Spurs stadium cost a billion and the result is higher ticket prices for the fans.

[Eeyore]

Are you sure that's the analogy you're looking for Al?  Are you agreeing with the FSG strategy?

I have already stated that FSG's strategy for us was probably the correct one in the short term.

The £1.5m mansion would attract a far higher rental than the caravan it's true. And for a stadium the 'rental' is the ticket revenue. The Spurs stadium cost a billion and the result is higher ticket prices for the fans.

Sorry Al but I am not sure that is true. If you look at the match day revenue Spurs were generating from White Hart Lane given the pitiful capacity then they were already charging extortionate prices.

[El Lobo]

Sorry Al but I am not sure that is true. If you look at the match day revenue Spurs were generating from White Hart Lane given the pitiful capacity then they were already charging extortionate prices.

No...it is

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/steveprice/2018/03/14/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-prices-show-the-spiraling-cost-of-london-soccer/amp/

[Eeyore]

Sorry, I missed the part where Spurs stadium became the home of any new NFL franchise. And yes it would still be a small part of their overall matchday revenue even if they did. An extra 14 events (remembering that they already host 2 per season) may generate an extra £50m or so in revenue but the majority of that would end up in the NFL franchise's pocket, not Spurs'. Spurs would agree a deal with said franchise to host their games and I'd imagine that it would probably be less per event that they're currently getting for the 2 games they host now.

Given the fact that Spurs have installed a retractable pitch and separate NFL dressing rooms I don't think it is much of a stretch to say they are overwhelming favourites to host a NFL team.

As for the NFL franchise what is stopping Spurs becoming the NFL franchise.

[Eeyore]

No...it is

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/steveprice/2018/03/14/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-prices-show-the-spiraling-cost-of-london-soccer/amp/

Except that isn't really true.

From the article you posted. The majority of the ‘cheap seats’ are actually priced at £975  ($1,361) and £995  ($1,389) for the season. This compares to £695 ($970) for the cheapest season tickets at Wembley this season, which are about ten percent cheaper than the cost of season tickets for Spurs’ final season at the old White Hart Lane stadium.

So two years ago the majority of cheap seats at a dilapidated White hart lane were going for £770. Now two years later the prices are £985 for a state of the art Stadium, with bigger seats, more legroom and far better facilities. I would say that was akin to comparing a 3 star hotel to a 4 star one.

[El Lobo]

Except that isn't really true.

No....it is

It’s from this bit of the post from Al 666 when he confirms the majority of ‘cheap seats’ are more than £200 more expensive at the new ground.

So two years ago the majority of cheap seats at a dilapidated White hart lane were going for £770. Now two years later the prices are £985 for a state of the art Stadium, with bigger seats, more legroom and far better facilities. I would say that was akin to comparing a 3 star hotel to a 4 star one.

[BaZ87]

Given the fact that Spurs have installed a retractable pitch and separate NFL dressing rooms I don't think it is much of a stretch to say they are overwhelming favourites to host a NFL team.

As for the NFL franchise what is stopping Spurs becoming the NFL franchise.

Given the fact that Shahid Khan tried to purchase Wembley, reportedly with the view of moving the Jaguars there, it shows you that everything is up in the air regarding if, when, who and where an NFL Franchise is in London.

And now Spurs are going to form their own NFL side? We've gone from a NFL franchise moving to London, Spurs new stadium being the host venue for this franchise to now Spurs being the franchise. I'm worried about continuing this conversation any further, next you'll be turning Spurs into the Harlem Globetrotters too.

[Eeyore]

No....it is

It’s from this bit of the post from Al 666 when he confirms the majority of ‘cheap seats’ are more than £200 more expensive at the new ground.

So per game they have gone from £40 in 2018 at a dilapidated White hart lane to £50 at probably the best Stadium on the planet in 2020. So the increase in price has has been replicated by the increase in facilities. So in real terms there has been no real increase in prices.

[El Lobo]

You’ve literally proven the point you said wasn’t really true

I like you Al Funny as fuck