Category Archives: Spurs & the NFL

Building a brighter future, on and off the pitch: Analysis of THFC’s accounts for the 2016 financial year

By Charles Richards / @spurs_report

(Update 21/04: Per ESPNFC, the £10m figure identified in this piece as a potential upfront NFL contribution to the stadium project has been confirmed. The mysterious £45m in accruals and deferred income remains in question. Answers on a postcard!)

Tottenham Hotspur’s newly published accounts for the 2016 financial year show a club in transition, still hamstrung by the constraints of White Hart Lane but moving clearly towards the altogether grander future that beckons.

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has described the club, in its current state, as essentially two businesses — a football club, and a stadium development. This appears to be a useful mechanism for digesting the swathes of information contained in this annual insight into Tottenham’s finances.

In this analysis, I’ll focus on the football first, and then talk about the stadium. I’ll also talk about the NFL partnership — and ask whether the financial terms have finally been revealed.

For those new to this blog, I wrote a similar analysis last year. You can read my recent piece on stadium costs here, and my analysis of club spending through the construction phase here.

The club’s statement with the key figures is here, and you can find the full accounts in the Investor Relations section of the club website. Bear in mind, the accounts cover the 2015/16 season only — they end on June 30, 2016 and anything that has happened since then will be included in next year’s edition.



Cost controls

Spurs achieved something rare in 2015/16, particularly in the inflationary environment of the Premier League: the club lowered football costs and improved on-field performance.

However, if Spurs were hoping for any credit for finishing third in the Premier League on a budget dwarfed by the five wealthier clubs, this was dashed by Leicester’s remarkable title win and the limp finish.

What Spurs achieved in 2015/16 was highly impressive. While Leicester have fallen back to earth and mounted a title defence even limper than Chelsea’s in the previous season, Spurs have kicked on another gear since. There is a sustainability to what Mauricio Pochettino, Daniel Levy and others in the Spurs brainstrust have built, and that’s why the mood among Spurs fans is so positive. We see it, even if others don’t.

Once again, these accounts show Daniel Levy’s tight grip on the club’s finances. Net profit increased from £9.4m to £33.0m.

Spurs managed to reduce wages slightly, from £100.8m to £100.04m. Revenue, meanwhile, increased from £196.4m to £209.8m, an increase of 6.8%. As a result, wage to turnover ratio dropped from 51.4% to 47.4%. This continues the sharp downward trend — in FY 2014 it stood at 55.6%.

How did Spurs achieve this? A look at transfer activity and new contracts in the period shows how:

PLAYERS OUT: Paulinho, Holtby, Capoue, Kaboul, Stambouli, Chirches, Soldado, Lennon, Adebayor

PLAYERS IN: Wimmer, Trippier, N’Jie, Alderweireld, Son

NEW CONTRACTS: Dembele, Onomah (x2), Winks (x2), Alli, Dier, CCV, McGee, Pritchard, Bentaleb

Spurs managed to get rid of a lot of high earners — including a lot of flotsam from the failed Bale money splurge — while of the new signings, only Alderweireld and Son commanded “big” wages.

Meanwhile, Dembele was the only senior player to sign a new deal in the period — the rest were part of the “contract escalator” Spurs have in place for young players to increase their earnings as their role grows. Both Alli and Dier, for example, have signed new contracts in the current financial year, and will soon join the very top earners.

Crucially, with the old Premier League deal in its final season, Spurs were able to hold off on pay rises for all other senior players. This prevented “double dipping” — players seeking new contracts, then demanding another new one the next year citing soaring revenues.

Here are the players who have signed new contracts in FY 2017 so far: Lloris, Kane, Dier, Eriksen, Rose, Walker, Alli, Vertonghen, Winks, CCV, Wimmer, Carroll and Vorm.

That’s a lot of new deals — probably in the region of £15-20m of additional salary, by my estimates. But with Premier League TV income jumping by around £40m next season, it’s the perfect time to do it.

Looking at the ins and outs, you may be wondering why wages didn’t decrease further. Without transparency on player contracts, it’s hard to know — there may well have been some Champions League-related bonuses that kicked in.

Meanwhile, transfer spending ticked down. The “net spend” picture is confusing from accounts: the accounts reported a £27.1m profit from the “disposal of intangible assets”, but this isn’t a true picture of player trading.

I prefer to look at amortisation, the measure of the cost of new signings spread over the length of their contracts and reported on annual basis. A full explanation is in the notes of this story, but in the simplest way: If Spurs sign a player for £10m on a five-year contract, that equals £2m in annual amortisation cost.

For Spurs, amortisation dropped from from £38.6m to £31.8m, thanks to a large number of expensive failures leaving the club and mostly cheap replacements coming in.

If you combine wages and amortisation, you get a good measure of “real football spend” — how much clubs are actually investing in their playing squads. For Spurs, this decreased from £139.4m to £131.8m.

Here’s how Spurs compare with selected other clubs:

image (4)

As you can see, not only is the gap between Spurs and the wealthier five clubs growing, the gap between Spurs and the clubs below is narrowing. Spurs, simply put, are defying gravity — and no club better demonstrates the value of homegrown talent.

Revenue roadblocks

Revenue was a mixed picture, and further underscored what by now barely needs stating — Spurs need a bigger stadium and new sponsorship deals.

Matchday revenue was essentially flat, down from £41.2m to £40.8m, while commercial revenue dipped from £59.9m to £58.6m. If there is one area that will disappoint, it is the latter.

Spurs are stuck in the tail-end of the Under Armour kit deal (expiring at the end of the 2016/17 season) and are midway through the AIA deal, which ends in 2018/19. With each year, these deals grow less competitive. But success on the pitch failed to boost merchandise sales (which declined slightly from £12.3m to £12.0m). Lack of Cup success also hit commercial and matchday income.

As far as I can tell, Spurs did not sign any major new sponsorship deals in FY 2016. The partnership with Kumho Tyres started in FY 2017, and certainly, just comparing the “Partners” section of the club website compared with similar sections for other clubs, and you can see that Spurs are far less active.

Does it matter, given how tacky this stuff gets? Ultimately, if Subway want to offer £2.5m a year to be official sandwich partner, that’s the easiest money a football club will ever make. There’s significant room for growth in this area.

The bulk of the revenue growth came thanks to the increase in Europa League prize money. Previously an irritation, the Europa League is far more valuable now. Prize money increased from £4.7m to £15.5m due to the largesse of BT Sport. That’s a lot of money for not very many viewers, but Spurs aren’t complaining.

Premier League revenue also increased thanks to improved on-field performance. 21 games were selected for UK broadcast, compared with 18 in the previous season — under the old TV deal, each extra selection above the minimum 10 was worth around £750,000, while performance-based prize money jumped by around £2.5m for finishing 3rd compared with 5th.

In a previous piece, I noted a development whereby revenue and spending, previously moving in concert, were starting to diverge.

image (2)

As you can see, this divergence was amplified in FY 2016. I like this chart as I think it tells a story, of Spurs shifting from the “wheeler dealer” mentality to a more sustainable approach as the club enters the stadium build phase.

In the coming three years, this trend is only going to increase. Next year, Premier League revenue should increase to around £140m, while the brief Champions League campaign should bring in around £35m. In the following year, pending the official announcement, Spurs will have much higher gate receipts due to playing home games at Wembley. The financial year after that, we’ll be into the new stadium.

These are exciting times for Spurs: it feels like things are falling into place. We’ve got the right manager, the best core of players in years, and a boardroom focused — almost to the point of obsession — with delivering a world-class stadium. It’s going to be fascinating to see how we manage to screw this up.



Stadium developments

Arguably the most important disclosure in the annual report concerned the stadium: the borrowing has officially started.

The first £200m portion of the bank finance Spurs have sought is in place, £100m of which was drawn as of June 2016. Interestingly, this facility was entered into on December 10 — six days before Spurs secured planning permission for the new stadium from Haringey council.

This is the “bridge” portion of the £350m loan Spurs will seek to cover a chunk of the construction costs. There has been public posturing over the finance of the project amid negotiations on public sector contributions and infrastructure delivery, but the annual report shows that financing is moving forward broadly as the club said it would in the planning process.

This £200m facility cost £855,000 in arrangement fees, but we don’t yet know the annual finance cost. The first £100m is repayable in December 2017 — or to put it another way, in December this year it will be refinanced into a bigger and longer-term facility. It may be that Spurs are able to borrow more than the planned £350m, given the increasing revenue and rising construction costs.

Overall, spending on the project has increased from £59m to £115.3m, per the club.

Meanwhile, two other unusual items, a long way down the accounts, caught my eye.

The first was a payment of exactly £10m, received from “a company, which is not a related party, as a contribution towards future construction expenses related to the Northumberland Development Project.”

Who is this money from? Public sector contributions have been a matter of contention, and do not extend to the stadium itself — certainly no agreement was reached before June 2016. If it were Tavistock Group — Uncle Joe — injecting money, it would be listed as a related party contribution.

The second, found in the non-current liabilities section, was a disclosure of £45m, again an exact amount, in “accruals and deferred income”. In 2015, the club recorded £0 in the same category, likewise in 2013 and 2014.

Screenshot 2017-04-02 at 8.22.51 AM

Deferred income is income received for services that will take place beyond the period covered in the balance sheet. Season ticket income and payments received for commercial deals that stretch beyond the reporting period are listed in the current liabilities section.

While it has been reported that Spurs have agreed a deal with Nike as the next kit supplier, this has yet to be officially announced, and certainly wasn’t announced during the previous accounting period.

So what is it?

While no major new sponsorship deals were announced during the period, there was one major new commercial partnership: the 10-year, 20-game NFL deal. If there was a payment, it would be reported in these accounts — with stadium completion date yet to be confirmed, it would be deferred income.

No financial terms were announced, but it seems likely that Spurs would seek money “up front” from the NFL to at the very least cover the additional costs of installing NFL facilities within the stadium. Likewise, expect Spurs to see at least a portion of naming rights income up front to help with cash flow when a deal is agreed, and advance ticket sales income.

A concern has grown among some Spurs fans that the NFL may be “using” Spurs, in the same way the organisation brazenly exploits local taxpayers in the USA. But, in reality, trying to gauge the additional costs incurred by the NFL elements is hard.

Once the project stalled amid the legal dispute with Archway, the stadium design was always going to be tweaked so that Spurs could get as much into the site as possible. To make it a true NFL stadium, additional work had to be carried out to basement areas, plus there was the need to reconfigure the interior to allow for enlarged locker rooms and media facilities. The sliding pitch sums up how tricky it is to put a value on the NFL additions: it is a new and expensive piece of technology that, while useful to Spurs when hosting concerts and other sporting events, feels like an extravagance too far if there were no NFL contribution.

So can we now put a price on this partnership? A one-off £10m payment, plus a 10-year, £45m hosting arrangement that has been paid up front. In total, a £55m ($69m) contribution to the £800m or so total cost.

It certainly sounds reasonable, and realistic. For the NFL, it gives them the stadium they desire in London for future growth plans. For Spurs it is money that can be used to turn the stadium into the world-class venue the club has always hankered to build.

I can’t confirm this — any journalists looking for a story could do worse than run this up the flagpole — but it certainly seems possible. Certainly, there have been suggestions that the NFL is putting money into the stadium — including recently by MMQB journalist Albert Breer.

I welcome any other suggestions on where this £10m construction cost and £45m in deferred income may have come from. But my hunch says NFL.

Other business

Away from the stadium, Spurs are continuing to invest in the training centre with construction of a new player accommodation facility. The £16m loan facility for the training centre was expanded to £25m, at a cost of £265,000.

Spurs being Spurs, there is a commercial element to this. In addition to providing accommodation for the first team and youth teams, and players visiting for medicals ahead of signing, the facility will also be used by other teams. An agreement is in place with England to use it before games at Wembley — all those times England train at Hotspur Way isn’t an ad hoc arrangement — while it is also available to European sides ahead of midweek matches against other London sides. Both Barcelona and AC Milan even provided letters of support in the planning process.

The planning agreement makes clear this isn’t a hotel, but no doubt visiting teams and England will pay handsomely for the privilege. Speculation that NFL teams may use the facility is wide of the mark — at 45-rooms, it is simply too small.

There are a couple of other lines of note.

The first is exceptional items of £9.6m in “commercial and employment contract costs”. In the previous year, £6.5m was reported in “redundancy costs and onerous employment contracts”.

My assumption was that at least a part of last year’s exceptional items referred to Emmanuel Adebayor, who at some stage stopped being a footballer. More likely any payoff was included in this set of accounts. But as for commercial costs, it is hard to understand what that may be. £9.6m out of £209.8m total revenue is not an inconsiderable sum, and I’d welcome any suggestions. If there is an inference from the new description, I’m missing it.

Second is £500,000 paid by Spurs to Melix Financial Services, another Tavistock Group company, for “commercial advice on global sponsorship opportunities”. Melix, like much of Tavistock (the investment umbrella for Joe Lewis of which Spurs is just one part), is Bahamas registered — but beyond that, there is no public profile. If you Google the name, you’ll get a few links to a late 2000s Romanian property scandal, and that’s about it.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but it beats me. Answers on a postcard – preferably with a nice picture of the Bahamas on it.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat. Comments welcome, either below or to spursreport at

Spurs stadium update: New information on capacity, design and other details, plus analysis of timeline and finances


stadium screenshot

Image by @ACEinBEDFORD

In recent months, huge progress has been made on the Spurs stadium project.

Key approvals have been gained, allowing construction to hit maximum pace. The stadium, as the timelapse video for May shows, is starting to emerge from the ground. An agreement has been reached for Spurs to play at Wembley in 2017/18, and Champions League games will also be played at the national stadium next season. Demolition work has started on the northeast corner of the ground.

By the final match of next season, the new stadium will be starting to emerge out of the old one, and the future of the club will be visible for all to see.

It will also look as weird as all hell, as this video from @ACEinBEDFORD shows.

It was a small thing, but I particularly liked how Spurs have added club logos to the giant cranes on site. To me, this bodes extremely well for the final finish of the stadium, and highlights the attention to detail in the planning phase. Spurs will be spending hundreds of millions on the stadium, but sometimes it is the tiniest of details that make the biggest difference when it comes to making a new “house” feel like a home.

In this update, I will discuss timeline, project finances and the NFL, and also provide some additional details of the project in terms of final capacity, colours, pitch and in-stadium connectivity.

You can read my previous reporting on the stadium here.

Attention to detail

While the club is doing a good job providing images, videos and updates on construction, there is really no end to the amount of information Spurs fans want.

I put a few questions to the club about the minutiae of the project, and to their great credit, a club spokesman gave me some answers

First, I asked about the final capacity of New White Hart Lane. In the planning documents, the “gross total” of all seats is 61,461, or 61,131 if you strip out seats allocated to media and players. However, this total was done before Mace, the construction contractor, had done its assessment. Are there any revisions to this number?

A club spokesman said the final seating number was not yet decided, but would be close to the 61,461 number.

“The capacity of the stadium will be approximately 61,000 and the exact figure continues to move slightly as we refine the detailed design, although we shall operate within the tested capacity established through the planning process,” the spokesman said.

My second question was about the pitch. The playing surface at White Hart Lane has been excellent for many years, greatly helping attractive football.

How were Spurs going to go about finding a new pitch, and were there plans in place to ensure an equally good playing surface and to avoid the issues Wembley experienced in its early years? Would it be hybrid or grass?

The spokesman confirmed the club was currently working on this issue and carrying out testing of various playing surfaces.

“We currently use a hybrid surface at White Hart Lane and we are in the process of examining and testing a number of different systems to ensure we achieve the highest possible quality surface at our new stadium,” the spokesman said.

My third question was a pretty basic one, but I’m not sure I’ve actually seen it confirmed beyond the mock-up images: What colour are the seats going to be? Will they be the “royal” blue currently at White Hart Lane, or will it be a switch to a “navy” blue?

“We shall be using traditional Spurs colours,” the spokesman said.

So there you have it.

Fourth, I asked about atmosphere, and specifically if there were any stadiums, for example the wonderful (and Populous designed) Grande Stade de Lyon, that Spurs/Populous are “learning from” in the design.

“Atmosphere has always been at the heart of our designs and we have studied some of the finest stadia in Europe best known for this,” the spokesman said. “We are looking at all aspects in terms of how we can create and retain an incredible atmosphere including the distance of the pitch from the stands, the tightness of the bowl and the introduction of a single tier south stand.”

Finally, I asked about connectivity. Much play gets made of how technology such as in-stadium wifi is incorporated into these projects, but, to be brutally honest, it doesn’t always work as well as intended. Would the club outsource this sort of technical aspect?

“We are working hard to ensure we deliver on our desire to make this stadium one of the most technologically advanced in Europe. We are currently in discussion with specialist contractors,” the spokesman said. “Technologies are updated continuously so we shall look to future proof too.”

Tight timeline

It is no secret that the timetable for this project is tight, and minutes published by the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust of a meeting with club executives last month confirmed this.

Mace, the company overseeing construction, is now working 15 hour days, seven days per week. According to Daniel Levy, construction is on schedule, “but it remains a hugely complex project.”

Levy confirmed that Spurs had requested two matches at the end of the 2016/17 be played away from White Hart Lane to give more time for demolition and construction. This isn’t quite the “last resort”, as a block of fixtures could also be requested away from New WHL at the start of 2018/19 season. But it shows just how tight it is that every bit of extra time is being sought.

The club has announced a Wembley deal for 2017/18, but reading between the lines of reports into the deal, a “second-year option” has in all probability been discussed in case of delays. And with approvals still needed for associated works, and the myriad logistical challenges that come with building a 61,000 capacity stadium in a dense part of North London, we shouldn’t kid ourselves that delays are possible.

I’m sure if you zoomed in on the webcams on site you’d see Kevin McCloud wandering around, as this is the ultimate episode of “Grand Designs”. And you know if you watch the programme, the contractors never deliver the bloody glass on time.

The good news for Spurs, in terms of Wembley availability, is that Chelsea appear quite bogged down in their plans for redeveloping Stamford Bridge. As I reported in April, Chelsea have yet to secure key consents and will have to go through another public consultation due to changes to the design.

Money and Naming Rights

In the minutes published by THST, Daniel Levy provided an update on the financial side of the project. He confirmed that the amount invested so far had risen to £150 million.

Meanwhile, contrary to ITK chatter, naming rights have not yet been put to market, but will be “shortly”.

It will be fascinating to see what Spurs can achieve in this regard. Personally, given the way the club is falling behind the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal in commercial deals, I’d be cautious in expecting too high a figure. However, with the upswing in on-field performance and exciting homegrown core of players, not to mention the NFL tie-in, Spurs should be a far better commercial proposition now than in recent seasons.

A concern of mine is that Spurs may seek to bridge any gap in funding by simply piling up more debt on what will already be a pretty large load — £350 million has been promised by banks. In the minutes, Levy addressed this concern, loosely, noting he was “aware of the level of debt the Club could sustain and there were lots of options open at this point.”

Levy also hinted at the possible structuring of the stadium from an ownership perspective, with the establishment of an SPV (a special purpose vehicle, which sounds more like something you need to get across the construction site than a financial arrangement).

According to filings with Companies House, Spurs registered two companies recently which point to such a structure: Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Development Limited (April 26) and Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Limited (April 27).

There are no details on these companies yet, but nonetheless, it indicates that the financial and legal structuring is also being put in place alongside the steel and concrete.

Spurs and the NFL

I wrote in detail recently about the NFL and how its plans for a team in London appear to be kicking into a higher gear.

In writing this story, I learned from an NFL UK source that the NFL is having regular meetings and conversations with Spurs through the construction phase, and feels “fully engaged”. The relationship between the NFL and the UK was characterised as “excellent” and “ongoing”.

This is hardly revelatory, but nonetheless I thought it was interesting that the NFL remains involved. No doubt, the NFL is keen to ensure the facilities for American football — the retractable pitch, the locker rooms and media facilities — are installed to specification.

This is a “first of its kind” project in the UK, meaning a lack of local expertise, so it is understandable the NFL is keeping a close eye that, for example, the artificial turf is the correct sort.

Thanks for reading. I welcome any comments, and please give me a follow on Twitter for more Spurs and stadium chat. The video is by Asil Purcell, proprietor of Visualhorizon3D. You can see more of his work here: 

As Spurs stadium rises, NFL moves closer to announcing London team

You can read my previous coverage on Spurs and the NFL here. My “deep dive” on the gamble being taken by Spurs with the NFL is here.  You can follow me on Twitter here.

Is London ready for some (American) football? The NFL appears to think so.

Comments in the off-season from Commissioner Roger Goodell, who described a London NFL franchise as a “realistic” prospect, and public support from the league’s powerful owners, indicate a decisive shift taking place, in which an idea is starting to turn into a reality.

If the NFL has not quite “pushed the button” on launching its first international franchise, the Commissioner’s finger is hovering above it.

Meanwhile, in recent weeks clearly visible progress has been made on the potential new home of a London NFL team, with Spurs’ spectacular new stadium finally starting to emerge from the ground.

The sense of momentum was crystallized in a report last week by CBS “insider” Jason LaCanfora, who stated that a London franchise was a “major topic of conversation” in a meeting of NFL owners in late May.

According to LaCanfora, Mike Waller, the NFL executive in charge of international matters, gave owners a “detailed progress report and presentation” which “led many teams to come away more convinced than ever that this is something (the NFL) very much wants to happen.”

The presentation detailed concerns over timing and travel requirements for playoff games, particularly if a London franchise drew a team on the US west coast.

LaCanfora connected the dots:

“Yes, that’s how far down the line the NFL is in addressing London contingencies, and these are the types of things owners are being asked to consider as further preparations are made toward moving a team to England.”

Crucial to any forward progress for a London team was finally sorting out a franchise for Los Angeles. The league couldn’t seriously move ahead with a franchise in London before placing one in the USA’s second-largest media market. This anomaly was rectified in January when it was announced that the Rams would be moving from St Louis to LA.

(There is no pretty way to move a franchise, and the people of St Louis were royally screwed. The outrage if a team is taken from a US city overseas will be even more vociferous.)

With this resolved, attention at the league’s Annual Meeting in Florida in late March could turn to other things. Judging by the comments by owners, it is clear that London was a topic of conversation. I counted four owners — the Dallas Cowboys, Cincinnati Bengals, Baltimore Ravens and New England Patriots — who discussed London in positive terms with reporters.

Jerry Jones, the Cowboys owner who is considered one of the most influential in the league, was asked by SI’s Peter King where was “next” after LA.

Jones replied: “We don’t get many opportunities to say “this is what we give back to fans, this is a wow”. Los Angeles was that. What else could we do that with? London looks like that to me.”

Jones also mentioned Mexico City, which will host its first regular season game next season, as a possible destination.

The importance of these comments can’t be stressed enough given how decisions are made in the league. It is the 32 owners who will ultimately decide on a London franchise.

A few days later, at a townhall meeting with members of the Jacksonville Jaguars, Goodell stated, clearly, that he felt London was ready for a franchise.

“As a market, I believe they (London) can support a franchise,” he said.

“I actually believe that a franchise in London is realistic.”

According to Goodell, his concern was ensuring a London team wasn’t at a competitive disadvantage due to logistical issues such as flight times and scheduling.

“I think we can find solutions to those issues,” Goodell said. “The way we schedule and the way we do things, those are things we’re still focused on.”

I don’t think the importance of these comments can be stressed enough. Before a franchise is placed in London, the league has to be comfortable with several pivotal things:

  • The London market can support an NFL franchise
  • A London franchise has a stadium to play in
  • There is a suitable candidate for relocation to London, or viable plans for expansion
  • US broadcasters are happy (London games would never be played in primetime Sunday, Monday or Thursday evening slots)
  • A London team, with logistical issues, would be competitive and schedule integrity would not be affected

Stating that the London market is ready for a full-time franchise is a HUGE statement, as without it, the rest is moot. Again, if the question now is the brasstacks of how the games are scheduled, then it is hard to argue against the idea that we are “almost there”.

If the market was the most important, second is the stadium. An NFL standard facility is required, and Spurs are delivering it. The Spurs stadium will feature a retractable pitch as well as NFL-size locker rooms and media facilities.

Huge steps have been taken by Spurs in the past few months in terms of receiving key permissions and commencing full-scale construction.

The NFL is in regular contact with Spurs and feels fully engaged in the stadium construction process, an NFL UK source told this blog. The relationship was characterised as “excellent” and “ongoing”.

(And yes, if this had been “terrible” and “dead in the water”, I might have a story)

A couple of weeks after Goodell’s comments, ESPN ran a long primer discussing the remaining hurdles for London — for example whether an expansion or a relocation was more likely, the issues facing players, and logistical matters. It is worth a read.

The final comment from an unnamed team executive summed up the mood:

“It’s one of those things where I know all the problems,” said the team executive. “But one of the things you learn in this league is it doesn’t matter what the problems are, you better figure them out because if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen, tough crap.”

The setting for Goodell’s comments was interesting, given the Jaguars are widely assumed to be the most likely franchise to move to London. Goodell tweaked the franchise, stating the growth of the market in northeast Florida was “below expectation.” Another contender is the Oakland Raiders, although a move for them to Las Vegas seems more likely.

The “magic date” (albeit never an official target) for an NFL franchise has always been 2022. In January, Mike Waller was quoted as saying by the BBC that plans were “on track” for a London team by this date. In my Q&A with Sky Sports NFL presenter Neil Reynolds, he said 2022 was “very realistic”.

Is the league on course for 2022? It would seem so. Judging by the comments from owners in recent months, London is at the forefront of their thoughts and discussions. I can’t recall an owner trashing the idea of a London franchise, or at least not in recent years. (Please point out these comments if they do exist, I’m interested to learn)

“Pushing the button” on an NFL franchise in London doesn’t mean it will materialise overnight. Instead, it will trigger the start of an ignition sequence preparing for launch to the next footballing frontier.

If the NFL put it to a vote and announced the establishment of a London franchise by the time of its next Annual Meeting in 2017, that would give the league five seasons to launch in time for 2022/23. Five years to build the hype, five years to find a team, five years to resolve any lingering logistical issues, five years to experiment with new timeslots in London that appeal to US broadcasters.

I’m biased on this because I’m a huge NFL fan and would love to see a team in London. The fact that it would most likely use New White Hart Lane as its home only adds to the appeal.

But I’m pretty sure that interest would grow rapidly across the Spurs fan base and beyond once a London team was announced and became “real”. To quote Buddy Garrity in Friday Night Lights, everybody loves football, they just don’t know it yet.

If the league hasn’t formally decided on bringing the NFL to London on a permanent basis, it is getting close to the point of no return regardless.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs (and NFL) chat.

The state of the stadium naming rights market, and what it could mean for Spurs: An expert view


If there is one aspect of the new Spurs stadium scheme that generates more debate than any other, it is the question of naming rights.

This is understandable — the naming rights partner will become indelibly linked to the club, in the same way that, say, Emirates is now a piece of Arsenal’s fabric. It will become part of the daily conversation that we have as fans, and our matchday experience, and therefore it will matter profoundly to us.

As such, many Spurs fans dread that the naming rights partner may be somehow embarrassing (Pizza Hut Park), ethically questionable (say a badly behaved bank), or simply something that we don’t like, for whatever reason.

Ultimately though, there is no way that we are all going to be happy with the eventual partner, short of Harry Kane buying up the rights himself in lieu of taking a salary.

When I wrote extensively about the financing of the stadium earlier this year, the majority of comments I received were about my assertions on naming rights. I said that putting a value on a potential naming rights deal was like guessing the length of a piece of string, based on the wide range of income from previous deals that have been struck in the US and UK.

It is fair to say that a lot of people questioned this. Many claimed expertise in the sponsorship area — more, frankly, than I believed.

A frequent comment went: The NFL deal, and the potential of the stadium to be both an NFL and Premier League stadium, were a game changer in terms of securing a lucrative naming rights deal.

With naming rights a key part of the club’s funding strategy for the stadium scheme, Spurs will have conducted (or rather commissioned) a detailed analysis of the naming rights market, and come up with a figure that they can use in the projections for funding the project.

But how feasible is it really to put an accurate figure on what Spurs may get? How “real” will the impact of the NFL deal be when the club eventually puts the rights to market? And what is the state of the sponsorship market at the moment, particularly in the US where new stadiums are regularly built?

I wanted to get some expert opinion. So I got in touch with Michael Colangelo, the Assistant Director of the University of Southern California’s Sports Business Institute, and the Managing Editor of The Fields of Green, a website covering sports business. He very kindly agreed to answer my questions.


It appears that every year, there is a spectacular new stadium built for a franchise across the US major leagues. How crucial is a naming rights partner in terms of funding these projects?

Naming rights are extremely crucial, especially because they are used as a funding mechanism to build a stadium. Every time a new arena/stadium is built, one of the ways teams gain extra funding (through debt) is listing its projected income on naming rights. It’s all factored in. It would be very difficult to build a new stadium without projecting naming rights income into the capital structure.

How lucrative are these arrangements? For new projects, such as the Minnesota Vikings stadium, what sort of amount are NFL franchises bringing in from their naming rights deals?

Naming rights are the most lucrative form of sponsorship for most stadium construction projects. Naming rights deals are typically 20-25 years in length with a total of $100+ million at least for newer stadiums. The Minnesota Vikings deal with US Bank has been reported at 20 years at $220 million cost. Levi’s Stadium (49ers) is reported at $11 million/year. MetLife Stadium in New York is reported at $16 million/year.

Obviously the deals change on the size of the market, exposure, if the stadium will hold marquee events (Super Bowl, National Championships etc.)

How “easy” is it to strike these deals? By which I mean, is there a broad array of different businesses — not just finance industry, say — interested? And is there a “meeting of minds” between sponsors and franchises over how long these arrangements should last?

No deal with this much money involved is “easy.” There are multiple things to take into account when working with a naming rights partners. Many times teams want a naming rights partner who is also invested locally in their community. Levi’s has a San Francisco HQ. Target is HQ-ed in Minnesota and has naming rights for Target Field (Minnesota Twins). Gillette has the naming rights for the New England Patriots and is a local company.

As you can see there are a broad array of industries. Airlines, car companies, food/quick service restaurants, banks, financial institutions, and other companies see different benefits of being a naming rights sponsor. If there is room in the marketing budget then a major company could be a naming rights partner.

As for length of arrangements, they are generally long (20 years is typical). In some cases companies change names, are purchased, or no longer operate. Often times teams will then have to find another naming rights sponsor.

The new Spurs stadium will host two NFL matches per year initially. How appealing is this exposure to the US market to a potential sponsor, on top of exposure through association with a Premier League club? Or is two NFL games simply not enough?

Any company that is purchasing naming rights to the new Spurs stadium would be buying them for the entire benefit. Two games isn’t enough for a return on investment. It would make the most sense for a global company that wants exposure in the European market to partner with the stadium owners for naming rights. The more events/exposure the better for the naming rights partners. AT&T benefits from naming rights on Cowboys Stadium from every event held there, not just the 8 home NFL football games.

The stadium is widely seen as a home for a future NFL franchise, should the league opt to push the button on an expansion to London. How valuable a sponsorship opportunity would this be? And if so, how would this potential upside affect the club’s negotiations?

The NFL is doing the right thing by taking its time to expand outside of the U.S.. It has to make sure it has a viable market before putting a team in any major city, and the NFL is trying to build the game more every year by adding extra games in London. If it is financially viable (as well as competitively viable with travel etc.) the league will move to put a term permanently in London, but there is no rush to “push the button” so to speak.

NFL games at the venue still adds to exposure, so it should still be taken into account. Especially if its a Euro-based company trying to gain exposure in the US market. London games are often played early enough where it is the only game being shown on TV (or it is the nationally televised game). That potential upside could push the price of the naming rights higher than a normal stadium deal.

With audiences for the Premier League growing in the US, how appealing is the prospect of sponsoring a team such as Spurs? We’ve had Chevrolet, for example, spending big on Man Utd shirt sponsorship — is that considered a success, and sign of things to come?

This speaks more to the globalization of industry more than it does to just the world of sports. Every company is trying to gain exposure to international markets and sports is one of the easiest ways to do so. The Chevrolet deal is something people in the United States noticed. It is also helpful that Man Utd is one of the most well known teams in the world. Fans in the U.S. knew about Man Utd before the Chevy deal was signed.

Obviously the expansion of soccer fans in the U.S. is something Tottenham should take into account with any deal. The team has been shown more on NBC this year because they have been at the top of the table. As with anything in sports, teams get more exposure the more they win. If Tottenham is going to continually be at the top of the table it is better for their sponsors that want exposure in the U.S. market. It would not be surprising for more global companies to get involved in sponsorship/partnership deals outside of their market if they see a return on investment.

Spurs have talked about bringing in around £30 million per year in additional commercial income from the stadium, much of which will be from a naming rights deal. How realistic does this seem to you?

It’s important to note that not all of the deals will come directly from naming rights. A new stadium generates income in multiple ways outside of the just naming rights, although that will definitely be a part of it. New LED screens allow for more effective partnership deals and brand exposure. Boards around the stadium can have signage for the official car, bank, beer, soda, etc. of the team. Those partnership deals will also create revenue.

New stadiums also have more options for food, beverage, concessions, and apparel. There could be an increase in average ticket prices. The £30 million is achievable but the team will have to work hard with its partners to find the right deals.

About mechanics of these deals: The club has said that naming rights deals are normally struck mid-way through construction. Is this accurate, or are naming rights deals in US often struck before ground is broken?

It often depends on the market, but it is more likely that the deal is in place during construction than before the venue is built. There are multiple reasons for this — the design of the stadium may change, it is easier to price out a deal while the stadium is being built as naming right prices fluctuate (aka closer to the actual deal signage/activation happening), it allows for negotiation of the deal — and it isn’t rare for a deal be put into place a year before the stadium actually open.

Finally, just a bit of fun: can you give some names of potential sponsors who may have an interest? The two biggest naming rights deals in the EPL currently are Etihad and Emirates, but it’s surely time for something different. Can you think of any US corporations that may look it at it and think it of interest?

I try and stay out of the prognosticating business with deals like this. It’s tough to know where the global economy is going to be once the stadium is done being built. If banking is struggling those companies are less likely to sign deals. If the energy sector is down due to cheap oil prices it could take out energy companies.

In any case there will surely be interest. The Spurs new stadium will be hosting multiple events that provide sponsors with great exposure.


Thanks to Michael for taking time to answer my questions. For those interested in the business of sport, do check out The Fields of Green. For more Spurs chat, please give me a follow on Twitter, email or share your thoughts in the comments section.


New Spurs stadium the “front-runner for an NFL franchise”: Q&A with Sky Sports presenter Neil Reynolds


Of all the aspects about the new Spurs stadium scheme that interest me most, it is the NFL connection. I’ve written extensively about it: just why on earth are Spurs, a club with no knowledge or experience of American football, going to considerable effort and expense to install NFL facilities in the new stadium?

Since publishing my last piece, there has been a steady stream of news underlining the effort the NFL is making towards international expansion. Just this week, it was reported that the NFL is seeking to take games to Germany and China in the coming years. At the annual meeting of NFL owners and powers-that-be, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was asked “what’s next” for the league, and said it would be a London franchise, or one in Mexico City. This is important: ultimately, the NFL is run for its owners, and Jerry Jones will be one of the people who decide when a London team happens.

On the Spurs stadium itself as an NFL venue, there hasn’t been much news of late. The stadium is still a large hole in the ground, and until it is completed we are unlikely to hear much. But I’m curious to find out more, and so decided to seek out some expert opinion.

When you are British, and you have questions about the NFL, there is only one man to ask: Neil Reynolds, Sky Sports NFL presenter and host of the Inside The Huddle podcast.

I got in touch with Neil and sent him some questions about Spurs and the NFL. And being a quality bloke, he came straight back to me with answers.

First some links: To see the stadium scheme, click here. To subscribe to the Inside the Huddle podcast, click here. My latest stadium news piece is here, and you can hear me talk about Spurs and the NFL in glorious detail on the Football and Football podcast here.


What are you views on the new stadium Spurs are building, and how does it compare with other new NFL facilities? Does it “look” like an NFL stadium to you?

The new stadium absolutely looks like a first-class NFL facility and I think its size and design will be very attractive to the NFL, as well as the fact that Spurs are committing to giving the NFL their very own field. That shows a real commitment and desire for Tottenham Hotspur to be involved with the NFL in the long term and that is exciting.

Spurs and the NFL signed a 10-year, two-game per year arrangement. Do you think this is likely to be the extent of the hosting arrangement, or do you feel that, ultimately, the Spurs stadium is viewed as the home of an NFL franchise in London?

This is only my opinion as a reporter covering the NFL, but I think this is a partnership that is going to grow considerably over the years. As the NFL adds more games to its London schedule in the coming seasons, having multiple stadia will be useful so expect to see contests spread across Tottenham, Wembley and Twickenham.

But if we are fortunate enough to get to the point where we have an NFL franchise in London, I would expect one stadium to be used extensively in order to create a level of comfort for the players and to create some form of homefield advantage.

With Spurs offering an NFL-specific field and a capacity in the region of 60,000, I would say that venue would be the front-runner for an NFL franchise. It is certainly easier to sell out a 60,000-seat stadium eight times per year as opposed to a venue in excess of 82,000 seats.

Do you think, at this point, an NFL franchise in London is a matter of “when” not “if”? And what sort of timeline do you feel we are working on — 2022 is often is batted around. Is that realistic?

I think it is a matter of ‘when’ and the NFL will build towards that in the coming years with four, five and even six games per year being played in London. And I would say that 2022 is a very realistic time frame given the growing fan and government support, as well as outstanding stadia availability.

Momentum for the NFL in the UK continues to grow and I wrote a few years ago that I felt we would have a London franchise before a star player like Aaron Rodgers retired. Rodgers looks good for playing another six or seven years so he could end up making me look very clever on that front!

How would adding a team in London work? It is normally assumed that a team such as the Jaguars will relocate — is this the most likely scenario? Or will the NFL add an expansion team?

I personally think the talent pool would be spread too thin if the NFL added a couple more teams so had initially been leaning towards a re-location of a team like the Jaguars or the Oakland Raiders, who are having some issues in their home market at the moment.

But money talks in the NFL and if adding two more teams adds billions of dollars to the coffers, the league probably wouldn’t shy away from that. In turn, more dollars flooding into the league eventually finds its way into the pockets of the players so I would imagine them being in favour of expansion, especially as it essentially opens up an additional 106 roster spots through two new teams.

In the club’s planning documents, it was stated that Spurs may seek to secure an NFL franchise. The language was intriguing: do you think a clear relationship between a Premier League soccer club and NFL franchise makes sense from a marketing and commercial standpoint?

It would certainly help in terms of promoting the NFL in the UK and in promoting Tottenham Hotspur in the United States but I had not previously heard of such talk and I don’t think such a partnership is one hundred per cent necessary in order to secure a London NFL franchise.

How is the prospect of a London franchise viewed in the US? Is it just an inevitable next step for a league that needs to broaden its global appeal, or some sort of quixotic misadventure that frustrates many fans?

There are certainly some narrow-minded fans and media who want their game of American football to stay strictly ‘American.’ But there are also a growing number of media who recognise that the game is growing internationally and that the future of the sport – which couldn’t be more popular if it tried in the United States – is overseas.

At the end of the day, money talks and if the current NFL owners feel expanding into the UK is best for their business, they are going to do it, regardless of the blowback in the United States.

Let’s talk fan experience: a lot of Spurs fans who hadn’t previously thought about attending an NFL game will be tempted to try it out. How would you compare the experience of watching an NFL game in London, and a Premier League team?

I would say that there is not much in it in terms of noise and atmosphere, which is impressive from an NFL point of view because the league sends different teams into the London market year after year. If London had its own franchise, the passion for that team would build even more over time.

Personally, as a father of three, I think there is a much nicer family atmosphere at an NFL game and they are great days out. I have worked at every single NFL regular season game in London and have enjoyed seeing how the fans mingle without a hint of trouble or aggression. I have happily worked either in a TV studio or down on the field, knowing my entire family is sitting in the stands in a perfectly safe and enjoyable environment.

I would certainly encourage Premier League fans with families to give the NFL a shot – they won’t be disappointed.

Harry Kane, star striker for Spurs and England, is a huge NFL fan. How useful is that in terms of promoting the NFL to the Spurs fanbase? And on a related note, are there any NFL players you know who are Spurs fans? So far, the only one that we know about is Tim Masthay of the Packers (and he’s a punter, which is hardly too exciting).

Punters are people too, you know! But I take your point. I don’t know of any Spurs fans but I will be asking that question as I make my rounds at NFL training camps this summer. The best I can offer is that the head of public relations for the Green Bay Packers is a big Spurs fan and maybe he can work on Aaron Rodgers!

As for Harry Kane, it’s great that he is a New England Patriots fan and can help promote the NFL to Spurs fans. I’m sure he could become a very valuable marketing tool for the NFL in the coming years.

Finally — do you have a Premier League team? Or is it oblong football for you only at this point?

I grew up marvelling at the likes of Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush and revelling in all the silverware they picked up year after year. It’s been pretty slim pickings since I was a teenager but that will serve me right for being a glory hunter as a kid… YNWA!

Thanks for reading, and thanks to Neil for taking time to answer my questions. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat, and follow Neil for NFL news.

Stadium update: Local tickets, NFL hosting, cheap beer, timeline and Wembley groundshare

A couple of days ago, Haringey Council published what is known as the “Section 106” agreement it has reached with the club over the redevelopment of White Hart Lane.

This document — or rather, three documents — is essentially a long list of commitments that the club has agreed to meet through the course of this massive project. You can read it here — scroll down to the bottom.

Much of it is incredibly tedious — we’re talking real minutiae of the British planning system here — but there are one or two points of interest for the average Spurs fan.


Local ticketing policy

The S106 agreement sets out Spurs’ commitment in terms of the number of tickets it must offer local residents. I’d not previously seen this in detail — but there is an awful lot of documentation out there so the likelihood is I missed it.

Nonetheless, here are the key points:

Season tickets: the club must offer 2,500 season tickets for residents of Haringey, and 2,500 season tickets for residents of Enfield. This includes those residents already on the season ticket waiting list (just in case you were concerned that, by being on the waiting list, you may somehow be outflanked). The season tickets are for “first-team football” — so Premier League, but potentially also cup competitions. This is of course on top of existing season ticket holders.

Priority Premier League tickets: the club must establish a priority booking system for local residents, offering 2,500 tickets for residents of Haringey, and 2,500 tickets for residents of Enfield. This only covers Premier League matches — per the agreement, there is no obligation for the club to offer priority tickets to European or domestic cup football.

So in total, that is 10,000 tickets for local residents on Premier League match days. Note, the club cannot levy any waiting list fee, or priority booking fee, on qualifying residents.

The local ticketing provisions do NOT extend to the NFL and other non-THFC events that may take place in the stadium, as far as I can tell. This may simply be “beyond the gift” of the club, as it wouldn’t be the issuing entity for these tickets: The same issues of transportation and access apply to the stadium in NFL mode.

And speaking of the NFL…


Greater flexibility for an NFL franchise

In the club’s initial planning statement, the intention was stated that the new stadium host up to 10 major non-THFC sports events, and six major non-sporting events per year.

However, per the S106 agreement, there has since been a subtle change in wording:

“No more than 16 major non-association football events shall be held per annum, no more than six of which shall be music concerts”

This is a small change – it’s still up to 16 non-THFC major events — but it will make a big difference to the stadium as the potential home of an NFL franchise.

Under the earlier limit of 10 matches, this posed a headache: an NFL season has eight home games, but there is also the requirement for pre-season and post-season matches. There was a potential problem if, heaven forbid, a London NFL franchise was actually decent and made the playoffs.

This is now alleviated. This small change in wording will allow the stadium to host other non-Spurs, non-NFL sporting events — Europa League finals, World Cup matches, monster truck rallies, boxing, etc.

I have been trying to see when this change of wording happened, purely out of curiosity. The more flexible major events agreement is contained in a document entitled “Appendix 3 Revised Schedule of Conditions (2)” that was part of the main bundle, and also in the minutes published for the main planning meeting by the council (which run to 418 pages). I know, how did I miss it?

Not that it matters — what is in the S106 agreement is what counts.


Matchday experience

A major focus in the S106 agreement is the movement of people. Not just because of the size of the venue — 61,000 — but also because of its location in a residential part of the capital with relatively poor accessibility by public transport.

Therefore, there are a number of provisions aimed at getting people to the stadium early, and encouraging people to stay late, which could mean a slightly different matchday experience.

The club is committing to a comprehensive pre-match and post-match entertainment service — complete with manager interviews, man of the match awards and such like. Will this be radically different from what is already on the big screen at White Hart Lane? I doubt it — but nonetheless, the commitment has been made to make enhancements.

For NFL games, the agreement suggests that later NFL games in the US should be broadcast in the stadium to encourage people to stay. This sounds like a lot of fun. When I went to Wembley a few years back to see the NFL, I ended up in a bar watching the later slate of games, and had such a good time that I ended up missing the tube home (goddam Sunday service).

There is one more commitment that you may like: early bird prices.

It doesn’t SPECIFY beer, but I’d say if the THST is looking for an issue to galvanize the fanbase now season ticket prices have been frozen, pushing the club to meet its S106 obligations through the provision of cheap lager ahead of kick-off would be a good place to start.


Update to the timeline

Spurs made another step forward at the end of February (Feb 25 to be exact) when it secured approval from London Mayor Boris Johnson. Next up is approval from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: a decision should come in a couple of weeks.

This isn’t quite the final hurdle though — there is a six-week judicial review window that follows Secretary of State approval. After that, things should be able to proceed at full speed, at least to the best of my understanding. I hope then we’ll get announcements on financing, which will be of great interest to fans given the huge amount of debt the club will be taking on.

Nothing with this project is quick, or easy.

In many ways it is reassuring that you can’t just build a massive stadium in London because you want to — but reading through all these exhaustively detailed documents, you can certainly understand why the prospect of moving to the Olympic site seemed so appealing a while back. Chelsea’s stadium project must raise serious questions given its scale and location.


Wembley groundshare

Speaking of Chelsea, buried behind The Times paywall this week was an important update on the prospect of Spurs sharing Wembley.

Per Martyn Ziegler (as reliable a source as they come), senior FA figures are now convinced that a groundshare between Chelsea and Spurs is possible, after spending time studying the ramifications.

Ziegler put the cost per season at £20 million for Spurs and Chelsea. With Chelsea wanting it for three seasons, and Spurs wanting it for one, that will be £80 million coming the FA’s way — more than enough to encourage them to take England games around the country.

Previous reports suggested an arrangement whereby Spurs play league games at Wembley, and cup matches in Milton Keynes — which is certainly an interesting idea, but I’ve heard no more about that.


Thanks for reading, and please follow me on Twitter for more updates. If anyone has spotted anything important in these documents, or if you feel I’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick on anything, please don’t hesitate to contact me. I previously wrote about the stadium finances here, and my last update can be found here.



New stadium update: Mayoral approval, timeline, headcount and finance

Senior Spurs management, including Daniel Levy, met with the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust this week, and minutes published on Friday contained a number of interesting updates on the new stadium project.


  • The major remaining bureaucratic hurdle is approval from the Mayor of London. This isn’t expected to be a problem, with Boris Johnson a supporter of the project. However, plans have not yet been submitted, with the club spending time “ensuring that every detail was correct”. Plans are expected to be with the mayor within a month.
  • Construction consultants Mace have been working on the project for six weeks, and were making detailed timetables. Completion is still aimed for August 2018.
  • The funding is not yet finalised as Mace is still conducting work in terms of costing the project. In the viability report, it was stated that the £200 million “bridge” portion of the finance may have been in place by the end of 2015, but it is not yet. I asked the club for more information on the finance, but it would not comment citing commercial sensitivity (which was fair enough).
  • The club is continuing to discuss a possible ground share at Wembley during the year the club will be away. The FA was “positively engaged” and any agreement will be communicated as soon as it is completed. There was no mention of Milton Keynes or other stadia, per the minutes.



Levy made a couple of interesting comments in terms of how the club was approaching the stadium project.

Currently, there over 70 staff working on what is described as an  “extremely complex project with many variables.”

I recently wrote about headcount at Spurs and other Premier League clubs. It will be interesting to see if this increase is reflected in the next set of accounts, due to be published in March.

Levy also came out with a line that I expect we will hear a lot in the coming years whenever transfer spending is brought up

“DL reiterated that money remained available for transfers for the right players. THFC was effectively running two different businesses at present – the Football Club and the Stadium.”

I think this idea of two separate businesses, with the football side walled off with its own set budget, is helpful to visualise in the years, and debates, to come.



I recently did a US podcast on the stadium and was asked about the club selling “options” on long-term tickets, or debentures as they are known in the UK.

I wasn’t aware this was a serious possibility as a potential financing tool for the stadium, due to the challenges of ensuring existing season ticket holders get rewarded and that they are not required to fork out excessive sums. Cosmetically it seemed a stretch.

But a “Founder Member Scheme”, essentially debentures, has been previously been raised, and Spurs management said it had received some support in a recent fan survey. The club noted it was still at the “considering our options” stage.

This will be an interesting discussion point — one of several no doubt. Certainly, selling long-term options on seats is common practice in the US, and must appeal to the club as it seeks to complete the financing of the project. I think it is one of those things that is slightly alien to a British fan base, who are used to buying season tickets on an annual basis. It will be a good test of the club’s communication ability as, if priced correctly, this may actually be an appealing option for Spurs fans who have been attending for years and intend to do so long into the future.



Minutes of meetings need not be boring, as the following exchange on ticket prices proved.

With some of the Trust leadership, from what I’ve picked up on my Twitter timeline at least, firmly of left-wing persuasion, and Daniel Levy a businessman who no doubt believes strongly in free market economics, I couldn’t help but laugh at this part:

DL said he questioned the principle of prices being set centrally, asking for an example of another industry where there was a central control over pricing. There was concern that once a precedent was set with away pricing, home pricing would be next and given THFC’s position with the stadium build, a ceiling on ticket revenue would be very harmful to financial modelling

DL also explained that he was concerned that away fans visiting WHL should pay less than home fans. There was a feeling home fans would be angered by away fans sitting across the divide from them having paid less money

KL pointed out that all away fans were home fans too and expressed her opinion that that argument had no proof or substance…




For anyone interested in some hot stadium chat, I’ve done a podcast with the chaps from Football and Football.

You can listen to the show here (I start waffling 18 minutes in). And the full interview, in all its glory, is here.

Loads of interesting topics discussed, and also an incredible “it’s a small world” story. It turned out that the host, Ian Smith, and I knew each other — we used to watch NFL in the same crappy bar in Paris half a decade ago! To then stumble upon each other via my tiny little blog is bizarre in the extreme.

Thanks for reading — please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat. My previous piece on stadium finance is here.