By now you all would have read the hilarious article by the Daily telegraph titled Eight reasons Tottenham’s new stadium will make them bigger and better than Arsenal. I am not going to link to it, as it is so clearly click bait, aimed at just getting the hits to increase revenue, that it does not require further promotion. It is a brilliant piece of trolling of Arsenal fans, planted to wind us up. And it has done the job.
You could argue that I have been caught in it’s net, as I have taken my time to write this respond. However, I would say I am merely using my legal right to respond to the article, my freedom of speech, and creating a blog that, when Spurs fans bring up the awful article, Arsenal fans can respond with a link to this blog, highlighting the truth.
- It’s bigger than the Emirates
“The new Spurs ground will be exactly 0.9398993910510988% bigger – those extra seats will make a difference.”
In our 2014 accounts, Arsenal’s gate receipts and match day income was £93m. Now if Spurs fans mirror our pricing structure, mirror out ticket sales, and play the same amount of games, they will generate £93.88m in gate receipts. An additional £880,000. Barely enough to pay a top players wages for a month. Not exactly a difference.
And this extra revenue will be negated by Spurs failing to fill their stadium on a regular basis. Numerous times over the last 4/5 years they have had attendances under 25,000 – mainly for Europa League. These missing fans will result in a drop in the gate receipts and match day revenue. The only way Spurs can stop these low attendances is by reducing ticket prices. Which will again drop gate receipts.
I pretty much guarantee that when (and if) Spurs new stadium opens, the Emirates continues to make more annual in gate receipts and match day revenue than White Hart Lane.
- It’s better than the Emirates
I will admit, the Emirates was designed to create the best playing surface, and the maximum amount of cooperate revenue. The normal match day going fans and the atmosphere of the stadium was low on the agenda. Spurs 17,000 single tier stand is something that many will be jealous of.
However, it will only be of benefit if they fill the stadium. In 2012/13, their lowest attendance was 23,101. So we have 17,000 in a single stand, 6,101 dotted around the rest of the stadium, and then lots of blue seats. Not exactly going to create a great atmosphere.
“Arsenal famously fail to regularly fill it…the famous White Hart Lane atmosphere won’t disappear”.
Did the ‘journalist’ who wrote this just learn the word famous? I did not realise we FAMOUSLY fail to fill the stadium. We have one of the highest fill percentages in the league. And Spurs FAMOUS atmosphere? That’s a joke right? The loudest they get is booing their own team off at half time.
Lets not just create fallacies to support our strawman srticle.
- The NFL deal is a big deal
“Daniel Levy is a famously shrewd negotiator.”
Roberto Soldado and Erik Lamela anyone? He showed his brilliant negotiating skills there.
“The extra money coming in on this deal, Spurs shouldn’t have to suffer nearly as much financial austerity as Arsenal did.”
Wembley generates £3m a game per NFL game. Spurs is 2/3’s the size. So that is £2m. Over the two games, Spurs will generate around £4m in ‘extra money’. Remember, this is generate, not profit. By the time they pay for the design and upkeep of the artificial pitch, as well as the costs associated with putting on a match day event – stewarding, policing, utilities, etc, the profit for the actual event will be far below this.
And let’s not forget, Arsenal put on many events during the Emirates’ early years. Springsteen two nights, Coldplay three nights, Muse two nights & Greenday 3 nights. That is 10 extra revenue days for Arsenal. Add in the 7 times Brazil used the stadium as it’s English base, Arsenal have put on 17 additional events over 10 years. Spurs NFL deal is worth 20 additional events. Will an extra 3 events really ensure Spurs do not suffer financially?
“The increased exposure Spurs will have in the USA shouldn’t be underestimated.”
So let me get this right, earlier in the article, it was about atmosphere. Now the article talks about an increase in American fans. Which in turn will create more tourists going to games. Which in turn will reduce the atmosphere. Make your mind up. You either want a great atmosphere, or more tourists. Can’t have both.
- The best players won’t keep leaving
Do Spurs have any top players left?
“ A huge, impressive ground with a great atmosphere will mean the club makes far more of an impression on potential wantaways.”
Because that worked for Arsenal didn’t it.
- It will be a nice stable home for the kids to grow up in
“Academy players like Harry Kane, Ryan Mason, Nabil Bentaleb and (to an extent) Danny Rose, are all loyal to the club.”
I would be loyal too if I was an average player being paid millions a year. I am sure the likes of Henri Lansbury, Jay Emmanuel- Tomas, Emmanuel Frimpong & Jernade Meade would have ben loyal had we offered them 5 year deals worth £1.5-£2m a year. But loyalty does not mean you are good enough.
“And the Hotspur Way academy is still producing lots of young talent, who proved their quality by reaching the FA Youth Cup semis last year”
Well done Spurs on reaching the semi-finals of the FA Youth Cup. Tottenham have not win it since 1990 and not made the final since 1995. Meanwhile, Arsenal won it 3 times during the 00’s. Making a semi-final is no an achievement.
In the past 6 years, Fulham, Norwich City, Blackburn Rovers, Sheffield United & Aston Villa have all made the FA Youth Cup Final. In that time, Spurs have made 1 semi-final.
In that time, Chelsea have won the trophy 4 times, and been runners up once, and developed a grand total of 0 regular first team squad players. Being a good youth player does not translate into being a top senior player.
- The club is going to remain at home in Tottenham, proving loyalty (probably)
“While the ‘Woolwich Wanderers’ have moved house more times than an accident-prone hermit crab”
And there we have it. A dig at Arsenal. This point adds nothing to the article, except for making a dig at Arsenal being founded in Woolwich. The author has let himself down here, and shows he is a Spurs fan, attempting to big him his own team, and belittle Arsenal. It really is poor, biased, journalism.
- They might just have found a manager to stick with
“Victories over Chelsea and, of course, Arsenal as well as a cup final were good achievements.”
We always say that when Spurs play Arsenal it is there cup final, and by putting a victory against Arsenal alongside a cup final (defeat) proves the point.
As for a ‘manager to stick with’, last season, fans were already booing the manager, demanding #PochOut on twitter and phoning up TalkSport and 606 saying he was out of his depth and should go. This was after less than a season.
I will happily bet with any Spurs fan, when the stadium open in 2018 (or whenever it will open), Mauricio Pochettino will not be the manager. And I will happily double up by betting that his replacement will no longer still be in charge either.
- Daniel Levy has always had a masterplan, and the rest of us are only just starting to see it
This one is hilarious. Arsene Wenger and the Arsenal board had a long term plan that is now only starting to come to fruition. Whilst that plan was rolling on, the press hammered Arsenal and the club for a lack of success over a 10 year period, when we were clearly hamstrung financially.
Meanwhile, over at Spurs, Daniel Levy has overseen just 1 trophy (a League Cup) in the 14 seasons as chairman of Arsenal. And this is a master plan?
The fact is, Levy is often given a free ride by many of his friends in the media. Even Spurs fans over recent years have been highly critical and questioned his ability to drive the club forward.
“Since then he’s transformed it into a real business that turns a profit every year.”
This highlights how Levy and Spurs are held to a different level of scrutiny than Arsenal. Whilst a profit with no trophies is seen as an achievement at Spurs, at Arsenal, as mentioned, were continually criticised for focusing on profit over trophies.
“He’ll pop over to the bank of increased matchday revenue to pick up a cheque before settling up on the beautiful, sandy shores of regular Champions League football.”
Spurs have had Champions League football once in the history of the competition. Arsenal have shown that when building a new stadium, you need to take a couple of steps back. Apparently, that is not the case at Spurs, where they are going to be guaranteed Champions League football as a prize for building the new stadium. It also ignores the fact that Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United will still be generating more yearly income than Spurs, even after the new stadium.
In summary, the Telegraph article was a load of bollocks. you do not turn round 20 years of dominance just by building a new stadium and having friendly press right nice fluffy positive articles.
The truth of the matter is a new stadium will strain a club financially. It has taken Arsenal 10 years from moving into the new stadium, to having any sort of success again. If Spurs move into their new stadium in 2018, it will be until at least 2028 that some of the financial constraints are lifted. By which point they would only be back to where they are now. Continually battling to finish 5th.
So Spurs fans reading this, do not get too excited. A new stadium does not make you a big club.