http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new...s-230617/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral Updated photos from last week. Demolition of the South Stand seems to have been halted temporarily. My guess is that the East came down so quickly they are still working overtime to clear the rubble - hence the mountains of the stuff in the middle of the old pitch alongside what I can only describe as a fleet of haulers. Oh, and as usual @"Thanks for that Brian" if you don't want to know the score, look away now.
Anyone know if the rubble is going anywhere special? For example, those "hills" that they made from the rubble of old Wembley.
Can probably use the bricks/concrete etc as "hardcore" for other building projects going on nearby (Lea Valley etc) . Scrap metal value is probably paying the THFC tea bill for next season.
As it's a slow news day... New Spurs stadium roof to be manufactured offsite Buckingham is planning to make use of offsite manufacture to construct the £20m roof for Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium in north London. The firm has been contracted to install a series of cladded cassettes over the main roof area, which also includes a ’Sky Walk’ experience for visitors and fans, which includes view across the capital from the new ground. According to Buckingham’s results, which were filed last week, the firm said: “We have been working with the Spurs construction team for several years on various aspects of this prestigious project and it is very gratifying to secure this contract. “We are commencing offsite manufacture of the roof cassette units that ultimately will be suspended from a cable net structure (constructed by others) early next year.” The Sky Walk will allow the public to walk out to the roof edge of the new stadium and enjoy views from 60 m in the air, secured with a harness and cable. Along with the rooftop experience, Buckingham also revealed that it is in negotiations to supply the cladding for the ’Sky Bridge’, a luxury restaurant that will be suspended from the roof of the stadium. The Spurs stadium contract is the latest in a string of stadium wins for the firm, which is also working with newly promoted Premier League side Brighton on upgrades to their ground. The firm is also understood to be vying with McLaughlin & Harvey and Sir Robert McAlpine to replace ISG on the £50m new stadium for York City FC. The three contractors are lining up to build the project, which has been without a main contractor since ISG walked away in December last year. Costs are also estimated to have gone up again on the scheme, which comprises a 8,000-seat stadium, leisure facilities and a cinema complex, with the project now set to cost £50m. Buckingham posted turnover of £408m in the year to December 2016, and has targeted revenues of half a billion by 2018.
For a project this size, THFC would have employed a construction site manager. It's the site manager's job to make sure no short cuts are taken. He would answer to THFC's project director and no one else. On the plan there'd be a critical path (that controls the whole build) and milestones. Each met milestone results in part-payments No need to worry
As with much to do with this project, this build is 'highly Americanised'. They don't mess about on major building projects. Given that we've borrowed £400m, have to play at Wembley (at an additional cost of £15m per season) until it's done, don't get any naming rights or advanced ticket money and have the NFL chomping at the bit until it's built, I expect the build to be ongoing on Christmas Day. It cannot overrun. I expect players will let a possibly somewhat underwhelming season at Wembley slide if we go into our new home the next season. Staying at Wembley for longer would be a disaster.
While I agree that staying at Wembley longer is not good from the football point of view, surely it is approx break even on money? It has nearly 30,000 more seats than the new stadium so that should about cover the £15m costs over a season?
I'm guessing you didn't go to any of last season's games at Wembley? I went to three. I don't want to spend a second season there. It's a souless bowl of a stadium that change difficult to get in and out of where we face being the away team at home. Yes, we take in more money but it's not moving forwards. We are a business but not a franchise. Progress is the new stadium as soon as possible.
I went to three too and completely agree with you. It's the atmosphere and its possible effect on the team that is the issue, not the money
I reckon our support will go with one season at Wembley. It may even increase our numbers after we leave by attracting new attendees. Beyond that? I'm really not sure, especially if it goes badly. I'm guessing that a lot of other money issues are tied up with performance on the field - stuff like shirt suppliers and sponsors pay more based upon success. Success is much more likely at the new stadium, back on our own turf. Chelsea face 4-5 years away from their ground. Maybe it'll increase gate receipts but overall it's a bad thing, I'm pleased to say.
It is a poor stadium in the wrong place. I'm sorry to say it should be in the Midlands near the NEC or somewhere like that. It cost massively more than it should have that set other FA expenditure (like promoting grass roots footie and the national football centre) back considerably. I don't know exactly how our new stadium will work out, but on paper (!) it looks far superior as a footballing venue.
Astonishing to believe that the home of national football has been built to not have an "atmosphere" conducive to the home team. That aside, the burden falls on all those Spurs supporters attending the home games to make the noise as close to WHL in spite of the stadium.
