Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
FSG's Last Stand said:
Maybe, but that would mean Utd, us, Chelsea, City and of course Spurs would take that into consideration, which they obviously have, it's down to viewing figures and advertising.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FSG's Last Stand said:
OT was and still is the first multi-purpose stadium in the UK, pop concerts, Rugby League semi finals and finals, even a few Rugby Union games.:emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...
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.
 
FSG's Last Stand said:
OT was and still is the first multi-purpose stadium in the UK, pop concerts, Rugby League semi finals and finals, even a few Rugby Union games.:emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billy The Spur
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!!!!!?
 
bigsmithy9 said:
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!!!!!?
Click to expand...

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.
 
"Thanks for that Brian" said:
We've invested a lot of money in a new stadium whilst steadily improving as a team. We'd fallen a long way and it's a long road back from where Sugar left us. That investment has restricted wages and transfers but the stadium means that we are 'back in the game'.

Citeh and Chelsea have given the impression that building a successful club can happen instantly but it's not the only model. Our new stadium means that we'll be matching you and Arsenal and Chelsea on income which we've been a million miles away from over the last decade or so. It'll remain a '''Big 6' because of that investment.
Click to expand...

When will this come into affect? Does it mean we will have more in transfer funds?
 
Spurlock said:
When will this come into affect? Does it mean we will have more in transfer funds?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
"Thanks for that Brian" said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: maggie blanchflower and Spur of the Moment
Spurlock said:
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.
Click to expand...

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" .
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon and Spurlock
The RDBD said:
Doubt that. I will say 360m tops.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
Will have to do it without Koscelney!! Nasty injury by the look of it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back