Seems a bit odd that a new stadium is to be built right next to, and in fact over parts of, the current stadium rather than simply extending it, no? There's clearly space there to do so.
The new stadium is only one element of the overall development of the site. The layout has been configured to maximise use of the land for the stadium, supermarket and residential units.
It's not designed to help the community mate, although the supermarket will create a lot of jobs. It's designed to help fund the stadium!
IF I am talking out of my arse then you will be able to clearly demonstrate exactly why. Note, I'm not looking for your opinion I'm looking for supported arguments. Just to start you off. I gave the 2 NOs because nobody has that kind of money as "loose change' and because the value of naming rights has little or nothing to do with the stadium itself and far more to do with the profile (in global terms) of the club. Now if you know better I'd be delighted to see the facts that you can forward. If not then I will expect your apology.
Apart from the odd share issue to themselves, which hasn't happened for a few years, I'm not sure that's the case. What they have done is sacrifice a fair bit in dividends in order for the club to reinvest in a £80mill new training facility, players throughout the years and the development of this stadium plan. The last time we were linked with a takeover I seem to remember the speculation on price was around the £350mill mark which aint bad considering they first bought a significant stake around 2001 when the company was worth £90mill. It's been a good deal for both sides really, the fans are happy we don't have anyone bleeding the club dry and they're happy they can still make a lot of money out of us. White Hart Lane has already been expanded a few times and has not scope for anymore without knocking the whole thing down. Also, since it's a very out of date style these days there's not much point going around redeveloping one stand at a time at similar cost, I think our current plan involves building three quarters of the stadium before we even have to take a sledge hammer to the old one.
I think the reason for the cynicism from some LFC fans is that we've been on a promise for quite a while now and I'll believe it when I see it. Good luck to Spurs if you can pull it off.
If you're 'on a promise' and she changes her mind you'll have to 'pull it off' yourself saint or remain vexed and very frustrated. Hope that helps.
Joe Lewis is conservatively liquid at £4billion. He could fund that stadium in cash if required. FAKHT as a FSW once said! It may piss you off that John Henry is having to beg, borrow and steal to try and redevelop Anfield but that's your problem. It's also your problem that Liverpool don't have any real potential to exploit residential and commercial developments in and around their stadium whereas Spurs do. As for naming rights, you seem to view Spurs as some little club who most people around the world have barely heard of. The fakht is that they have been in and around European football for a few years now. They are in a strong position to secure a good naming rights deal, particularly as it will be a new stadium. Sponsors don't want to put their name against an existing stadium as it will always be known by its traditional name. Most people know Ashburton Grove as the Emirates, whereas had Emirates sponsored Highbury it would still be referred to as Highbury by at least a generation of fans. Chelsea can't get a decent naming rights deal on Stamford Bridge as it will always be Stamford Bridge, they didn't have any trouble getting Samsung to spunk a fortune on the shirt deal though so there's nothing wrong with their global brand. I'd happily swap the Glazers for Joe Lewis as the owner of Manchester United. Lewis puts money into the club (or at worst leaves it there Yid Vicious) rather than taking money out. So no apology Dave as you're talking out of your arse because you're angry with Spurs for some reason.
What a completely facile analysis. Go back and look at Joe Lewis in more detail and perhaps especially in how he appears to make his investment decisions. It's not hard as there's lots of commentary freely available. It does not matter at what level he is liquid, it really is a question of how he chooses to make his investment decisions. Even you would have to agree that his history does not support your 'loose change' claim. As for John Henry, he has not even figured in any of my comments. Neither has Liverpool's considerations regarding their stadium proposals. So rather a stupid attempt to divert the argument there NOF. Now, go and look at the listings, in terms of global support, reputation, shirt sales, etc. etc. and come back with a rather more supported argument than " been in and around European football for a few years now". Deal in facts sonny not what you want to think may support your argument. Interesting that you have such an inside track on the difficulties or otherwise that Chelsea may or may not have with naming rights. Once again care to share any real information? When considering Chelsea's shirt sponsorship and global reach you are looking at a very different animal in comparison to Spurs! The ONLY thing that I can agree with you on is the prefernce for Lewis over the Glazers. So until you can validate your arguments then it's you sonny-jim who's talking out of their very biased arse. Just for your information, I have no problem with Spurs as a club. I only have a problem with certain posters.
Very cogent argument that is right up there with your usual level of utter tripe. Come on NOF you must be capeable of doing better - surely?
Interesting that you think a United fan would be biased about the viability of Spurs' new stadium! I think sometimes you get muddled by all the hate! Am I going to be on your list now Dave?!
Get over yourself! If I had a list, which I don't, you would not even figure. Now if you can't defend your statements just go away.
"John Henry is having to beg, borrow and steal to try and redevelop Anfield but that's your problem. It's also your problem that Liverpool don't have any real potential to exploit residential and commercial developments in and around their stadium" Tottenham/Seven Sisters area is a **** hole, the way you describe it anyone would think it was like mayfair. As for your 'beg, borrow and steal' comment, link? You also paper over the fact that Anfield like WHL is in the middle of a large built up residential area, you overlooked that local politics have played a large part in delays over the years, that the residents want a big say in the future development of their area, that local and national government are trying to get the club to agree to part of its property to be used for local amenities as part of being given permission to progress with development of the ground etc. And you said that sponsors wont be interested in naming rights, any proof with that NOF?.
Tottenham is a ****hole but it's in London and therefore property in the area already has a premium attached to it. As the regeneration of the secondary areas of London continues, areas like Tottenham will see prices increase at a faster rate than the prime areas where prices are already over inflated. The average property price in prime London is now one million pounds. To buy a million pound flat you need to have roughly a £300k deposit and a £200k salary. As there are some people in London who don't fit into that demographic they are forced to look at secondary areas to get on the property ladder. If you're on c.£30-£50k per annum and want to own a place in London then you're looking at areas like Tottenham where you can get a starter flat for £150-£200k. So it may not be Mayfair but the residential developments around the new Spurs stadium will bring in a tonne of money and as Boris has targeted 50,000 new homes per annum in London, local government support for new developments is pretty strong (they're not targeting 50,000 new homes in the prime parts of London!). With regards to naming rights, how many clubs have successfuly sold naming rights for existing stadiums compared to the clubs that have sold naming rights for new stadiums? Almost every new stadium that is built nowadays has naming rights attached to it. Arsenal, Brighton, Coventry. Chelsea have been trying to sell the naming rights to Stamford Bridge since 2009 with no success despite their worldwide fan base growing massively. Mike Ashley changed the name of St James's Park and even journalists refused to use the new name. He didn't give a **** as it was his club and his company who did the naming rights deal. No sane marketing director would think it's a good idea to attach their brand to a deal that would offend the majority of supporters of a high profile club. Don't you think there would be uproar amongst the Liverpool fans if Henry was to announce that Anfield was no more and the stadium was now called the McDonalds Arena? I suspect sales of McDonalds would plummet in certain parts of Liverpool, Gloucester and Norway! If you moved to a new stadium and Anfield was laid to rest, then the new stadium would be a new stadium with a new name and therefore no controversy attached to the name of it. If it was easy to get naming rights for an existing stadium then Fratton Park would have a new name by now.
