From the amount of people is see watching football in bars over here, most want to watch Madrid, Barca, Citeh, Mousers and Spurs because of the quality of the football. Few are watching the chavs and even the Arsenal fans are not bothering to watch the goons matches.
I'm sure the same will happen at Tottenham. We've taken the precaution to develop the surrounding area so its unlikely that the neighbours are going to complain however frequently we have events.
Playing the odd rugby game there and a concert once a year isn't multi-purpose. That's like saying The Taxpayers Arena is. Spurs are looking to sell out 16 events per year, every year - NFL, boxing, concerts, E-Sports. From scratch, it's been built so that you remove the grass pitch and there is a solid surface beneath it. Boxing on Friday, football on Saturday and NFL on Sunday. Multi-purpose. The 16 is what we're initially licensed for. We have AEG as our events partner and are going to make the stadium work for its build cost. In London we'll clean up.
I think one of the reasons Spurs couldn't compete was the (?) 36,000 crowd maximum for umpteen years.Remember,before the seating only order,we could get 60,000. What was wrong with standing anyway? Hillsbro was a one off.....and sometimes the crowd was so tight the person in front of you wanted to marry you!! Just joking!!!!!?
Grounds like Dortmund have shown you can switch between standing and seating configs quite easily (AFAIK they have to do the latter for CL games) . The issue is that Hillsborough is so deeply burnt into the national psyche that no politnik will ever risk any vaguely standing-related incident occurring again in England.
Two years ago we published earnings £200m. This year it was £300m.and next will be £400m. What we spend will depend upon sponsorship for the stadium and what speed we want to repay our borrowing at. It isn't going to allow us to pay Toby £200k per week but Harry Kane should be on that and more with significant rises for others I'd expect us to start to have a net spend for the first time in a decade but wouldn't expect Gareth Bale.
I wish we would adopt the policy of 1 Gareth Bale instead of 2 Sissoko's for 30 mill, for example, and pay the one 180k a week instead of 90k a week to two average players. I think we need to break the mould to push us on.
But the Gareth Bales can go to a club where they : 1. can get the same/more money regardless of how their club performs 2. may also have a better chance of picking up some silverware The regular contract/wage upgrades has been a reasonable and meritocratic way of doing things for the revenues Spurs have. People who say otherwise are either financial morons or supporters of rival clubs with their "banter" hats on. And on the latter, let's see how the Chelsky/Goon revenues and wage bills go with their likely next season of "Spursday cup" .
An accountant on Skyscraper City reckoned just over £400m and broke it down with much higher match day income from Wembley, increased CL money, better shirt deal and AIA money, etc but if not, it'll be close to it. Apparently, the takings from Wembley have surprised everyone involved and if the sale doesn't go through, Chelsea are looking at a massively increased cost to rent it.......You're welcome comrades.
The passing so far had been dreadful. They look nervous, despite being at home and having the away goal advantage.
