New stadium thread

COYSC!

Next up: an English version of "Making the Team," which chronicles the heart stopping drama and hard hitting social issues involved in try outs for the Dallas Cowboys cheerleader squad.

 

So we increase our stadium capacity by finding a business partner who is willing to invest in order to make money on his own venture.

West Ham picks up a gift from tax payers.

Old habits die hard.

 

And now the NFL knows what it is to be Levy'd.

 

Since there's talk about the grass pitch being retractable, I can't help but notice this picure appears to show an empty space next to the East Stand

please log in to view this image

We're not going to go the full Sapporo Dome and have a pitch that can move outside the stadium are we?

 

Whats with the NFL deal? Obviously its pointless and will have minimal if any benefit for Spurs (might help the NFL franchise in getting the awful sport more attention). I mean, the stadium will likely be named something ridiculous and have very little relationship to Spurs when Yankball teams are involved?

Most Yanks will assume its Arsenals, Chelseas or Wembley stadium (excluding those few Spurs fans in the US) anyway. How does this help spurs at all bar a tiny amount of cash for the two games?

Look, if this was actually a good idea, dont you think a big club would have done it? One with an American owner. Perhaps one that already owned an NFL franchise? The fact Spurs are 'pioneering' it.... Should be cause for concern.

Also, do you expect it will cause you on field problems during construction and the years after. Much like Arsenal struggled after building the Emirates. What happens if you were relegated during this period? What would the implications be?

Its a great (albeit generic) looking stadium. Just dont see the point in the NFL link.

 

Can't tell if you are wumming or not. The suggestion of relegation suggest so. What happens if Utd get relegated?

There is a strong rumour that an NFL franchise may move to London.
Wembley seems to think that 2-3 games a year from the NFL is worth ruining the pitch for, so it must be worth a pretty penny

 

But how would the Glazers get you all to pay for the new stadium, as you're already paying for them to buy the club?

 

UnitedinRed
It not just two games though. It is a minimum of 20 games over 10 years. It is the bit of investment that means our stadium will have more capacity than Woolwich so that in itself makes it worthwhile

 

How does it benefit Spurs though? Just dont see it bar a small amount of revenue for 2 games per season.

And not wumming, relegation was a worst caee scenario example.

 

A conservative estimate would put the gate receipts alone at £60m over the 10 years. Assuming its just the MINIMUM of 2 games/year.

Don't Utd go on mickey mouse tours for less?

 

The reason no one else is doing it is because they already have stadiums that aren't suited to hosting NFL games. Wembley doesn't suit it either which is why the NFL were keen to partner with us.

Knowing Levy there's plenty of money to be made out of this so don't worry about us

 

"In what is could be perceived a cheeky attempt to outdo rivals Arsenal, Spurs also confirmed that their capacity for the new stadium will hold roughly 1000 more supporters than the Emirates."

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. It’s not the kind of thing that would put a smile on a Spur’s face, or annoy a Goon.

The simplest answer I can give to skeptics is that despite the fact that we can’t really know how it will pan out, and the certainty that there will be drawbacks, both anticipated and unforeseen, I would have been furious if it had fallen through. Ambitious clubs who want to rise in the world have to take some chances by doing things in new ways, and this strikes me as the sort of chance that’s worth taking.

Despite the fact that it involves collaborating with Americans. I would rather get paid by Americans to build a stadium tjat for both their team and ours, then pay them to buy our team, but that’s just me.

NFL stadiums are the most under-used structures in sport. Teams only play eight scheduled games each season, plus one or two exhibitions. An NFL-football collaboration hasn’t happened before because the NFL has never tried to play more than once a year in a place where football is the big sport. It’s a very sensible collaboration, given that the fields are similar shapes, so the seating can work well for both.

Tbf, of course, it is a new idea, and, like all new ideas, we shall see. However, there’s another experiment going on. West Ham will try playing in a stadium which has been modified, but which was built for another purpose entirely--as opposed to our plan to modify grounds slightly to accommodate another use.

I would rather get paid by Americans to build a stadium that works for both their team and ours than pay them to buy our team, but that’s just me.

To sum it up, despite the fact that we can’t really know how it will pan out, and the certainty that there will be drawbacks, both anticipated and unforeseen, I would have been furious if it had fallen through. Ambitious clubs who want to rise in the world have to take some chances by doing things in new ways, and this strikes me as the sort of chance that’s worth taking.

Despite the fact that it involves collaborating with Americans, which we can all agree is a bad thing.

NFL stadiums are the most under-used structures in sport. Teams only play eight scheduled games each season, plus one or two exhibitions. An NFL-football collaboration hasn’t happened before because the NFL has never tried to play more than once a year in a place where football is the big sport. It’s a very sensible thing, on the face of it, given that the fields are similar shapes, so the seating can work well for both.

Finally,

"In what could be perceived a cheeky attempt to outdo rivals Arsenal, Spurs also confirmed that their capacity for the new stadium will hold roughly 1000 more supporters than the Emirates."

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. It’s not the kind of thing that would put a smile on a Spur’s face, or annoy a Goon.

 

A number of grounds have hosted american football in the UK. We used to host european american football matches in the UK regularly. I know Hampden was the home ground of one team.

Are spurs going to create their own AF team? That would make sense.

 

Wouldn't surprise me. Levy probably thinks having a stadium that's not in use every other weekend is a massive waste.
I'd expect the club to be looking at other uses too, especially as it doesn't appear to be an issue for the pitch.

 

American football will never be big here. Ever. Its competing with Football, Rugby, Cricket and the likes of F1 and Tennis, all of which have huge followings. Its too similar to Rugby to ever drag people away and it lacks the passion of football.

The reason others havent done it is becauae it makes no sense too. Trust me, our owners may havr bought the clun controversially but they know how to make money. If this was a money spinner, it would have been looked at. I mean they are better placed than most with their NFL side Tampa Bay and us being the biggest football brand. We've actually got a massive US following too boot.

The NFL fans are strongly against it too. They dont want games played outside of the states much like we dont want ganes outside england.

 

Old trafford gets used a lot for other sports amd concerts. Its common now for large venues to be multifunctional. I think Super League finals are still played at old trafford, our younger sides also play their. Its very rarely unused.

I suppose as long as you make the stadium yours, as in, when people say the name, they think of Spurs it will be ok. If people think of the nfl or other ventures, it wont be so good.

Building it over whl was a great idea. Whilst it wont be whl it will retain some of the old grounds history.

 

Yes and they were still unsuited to hosting those games. NFL teams have 50 players and about 20 coaches(according to an article I read earlier) making normal football stadia unsuitable as they don't have big enough changing rooms, then there's the pitch damage and the location(they want it in London).

European teams aren't anywhere near as popular so that doesn't fit as a comparison either as unlike NFL sides they don't have the money so have to make do with whatever they can get.

You're just scrabbling around for reasons to write it off and if you want to do that then fine but lets not pretend you know better than Levy

 

American side are not popular over her. A few full Wembleys doesnt change that.

The Yank fans are not going to travel all the way to London for a game either. Effectively you are catering for a niche.

How does it benefit spurs? The nfl connection?

 

Okay...

Why don't you tell us what you're actually basing this on? Each NFL game at Wembley has been very popular and the NFL are clearly keen to get more games played here so please explain, what is this information that the NFL are missing that makes you so sure it isn't popular and won't work?

We're building a stadium so all extra income is welcome and hosting NFL games will create revenue, increase the value of stadium sponsorships and, yes, potentially improve Spurs as a brand.

 

Money and profile. It's a couple of paydays and an advertising boost every season.
I don't see what the downside is.