Yes, the stadium could have been cheaper, with lower spec and finish quality. And, sure, that could have knocked a few million off Spurs' annual interest and repayment charges. But that would also have been shortsighted. The kind of option that Alan Sugar would have taken. London is a highly competitive market for corporate hospitality. There are so many major events and venues to choose from - be it Wimbledon, Twickenham, Wembley, Lords, O2, Emirates, Stamford Bridge, London stadium etc. In addition to which, the Tottenham area has little to recommend it other than the stadium and associated developments.
Levy's aim appears to have been fourfold:
- To ensure that Spurs' offering beats the pants off all other venues in London currently.
- To future proof the stadium so that it will remain up there among the best even after new venues are built.
- To make the stadium so amazing that non football events and corporate clients will want to go there regardless that other venues are better located.
- To make the stadium truly versatile (grass and artificial surface).
The cheaper option you suggest wouldn't have achieved these aims and would thus have limited future revenue generation.