Just more of the same anti-Stratford hysteria...

This is a link to an independent investigative and financial journalist's thoughts on the matter. No vested interests, no living or running a business in the proximity of the existing ground, no anything.

Mr Malark,

Not sure why you are referring to scepticism as 'hysteria'. Sounds, perhaps, like the word of a Stratford booster?

I was hoping that the title of the blog, 'The Battle for Statford', was a joke playing on the conflicting interpretations of statistical information.

Unfortunately it is a misspelling. Oh well.

If this blog is intended to be a corrective, I'm afraid it is riddled with ignorance. You need to check that the writer has credentials as an 'investigative and financial journalist'. I somehow doubt it. Furthermore, if it claims to have no vested interests, it certainly betrays its bias.

(1) It is no use getting steamed up by the £500m OS cost unless (a) you know how it breaks down and (b) you appreciate the politics and economics of a successful Olympics bid.

(2) The Crystal Palace athletics facility has been a problem for a long time. The athletics community in this country do not want to be fobbed off by this 'legacy' on the cheap,

(3) The blog, as is the way of the Spurs Stratford PR boosters, attacks athletics and its 'delusions of grandeur'. It forgets that we woud not have hosted the Olympics but for the activities of our athletics lobby. It also fails to appreciate that the Olympics will be a massive boost for athletics in this country, and that hosting athletics events at the Olympic stadium is the most natural way of taking advantage of this boost. Oh, and the reason why people other than this rather small PR cadre are not speaking against athletics is that they actually appreciate hosting the Olympics.

(4) Attacking David Lammy is rather silly. It overestinates the role he has played in the process, which has been quite helpful, if anything. There is also reference to Spurs getting 'beaten up' in the planning process. This shows a complete misunderstanding of what actually happened.

(5) Not only Lammy but also LBH and the local newspaper are very keen on keeping THFC in Tottenham. It is an important local employer, it helps support a lot of local pubs, cafes and eateries, even on the basis of just 25-odd games per year. The surveyor may have an alternative plan, but it is not one that local stakeholders agree with.

(6) It appears to forget that the NDP involves a 56k stadium, so there is no need to extol the benefits of a bigger Stratford stadium. The move to the next level will be achieved at WHL's larger stadium.

(7) It also fails to understand how far in terms of cultural geography the move to Stratford would be. The comparison with Man City or Arsenal's recent moves is ridiculous.

(8) The blog talks of the 'appallingly difficult journey' to WHL. What? It is actually rather well connected by railway lines running to the north and the south into the City. The Victoria Line is a fast line through London that has stations, Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale just a 20-minute walk (or a 5 - 10 minute bus ride) from the stadium. Clearly the blogger has no idea. For the average, regular ticket-buying fan, the journey to Stratford is no better or worse.

(9) There is the by now commonplace assertion from Stratford boosters -- completely unsupported by any facts -- that the NDP is now unviable.



'No anything' are your words to describe this blog. I agree.

I've already addressed your ill-founded points in a pending post.

And 'overestinates' has an 'm' in it. Oh well.

I've already addressed your ill-founded points in a pending post.

And 'overestinates' has an 'm' in it. Oh well.

An oxymoron, surely?

How can you already have done something that is still pending? You may well have written a reply that you haven't yet posted (though why you haven't yet posted it if it is already written is a complete mystery) but you cannot be said to have "addressed" the points until you have actually published them. For all we know, your replies might merely consist of "fuck off, you anti Stratford bastard" or "you smell". And though those would be replies of a sort, they wouldn't have addressed the points that Buckle made.

Judging by the fact that your best attempt at debate so far has been to point out a typo (seriously, did it seem like a clever thing to do?), I suspect that the "you smell" level of debate isn't too far from your comfort zone.

A D minus for your contributions thus far. Must do better.

An oxymoron, surely?

How can you already have done something that is still pending? You may well have written a reply that you haven't yet posted (though why you haven't yet posted it if it is already written is a complete mystery) but you cannot be said to have "addressed" the points until you have actually published them. For all we know, your replies might merely consist of "fuck off, you anti Stratford bastard" or "you smell". And though those would be replies of a sort, they wouldn't have addressed the points that Buckle made.

Judging by the fact that your best attempt at debate so far has been to point out a typo (seriously, did it seem like a clever thing to do?), I suspect that the "you smell" level of debate isn't too far from your comfort zone.

A D minus for your contributions thus far. Must do better.
Looking at your buddy's original post, I could quip there's only one moron involved in this debate...

For clarity, I have already submitted a response that counters Buckle's sophistry. However, it's apparently being passed for moderation before publication, so, you're not really in a position to comment on its validity, are you? Mr D-Minus? And you may not have noticed but Buckle begins his retort to the piece I posted by attempting to undermine it over a typo.

You've scored a re-sit.

Looking at your buddy's original post, I could quip there's only one moron involved in this debate...

For clarity, I have already submitted a response that counters Buckle's sophistry. However, it's apparently being passed for moderation before publication, so, you're not really in a position to comment on its validity, are you? Mr D-Minus? And you may not have noticed but Buckle begins his retort to the piece I posted by attempting to undermine it over a typo.

You've scored a re-sit.

You may not have noticed but, unlike you, Buckle wasn't trying to gain mileage through some tedious, puerile and small minded point about a spelling mistake (which wasn't even your spelling mistake, by the way). He was merely lamenting the fact that the spelling "Statford" hadn't been an intentional play on words.

As to your post sitting in some sort of holding area, awaiting moderation, it sounds highly unlikely. This forum doesn't, as far as I'm aware, operate such a policy. Inappropriate posts are moderated after the event. Not before.

So I suggest that you try again.

As to your post sitting in some sort of holding area, awaiting moderation, it sounds highly unlikely. This forum doesn't, as far as I'm aware, operate such a policy. Inappropriate posts are moderated after the event. Not before.

So I suggest that you try again.
Cos, obviously, you know everything, don't you? I explain to you that my post has been passed for moderation but this isn't good enough. I must be making it up, because you're not aware of such a policy.

Have you noticed there's a theme to your comments? Have you ever paused to think that there's not always an angle? That, sometimes, people are actually telling the truth?

I don't need to expose the flaws in your argument; you do it pretty well yourself.

Cos, obviously, you know everything, don't you? I explain to you that my post has been passed for moderation but this isn't good enough. I must be making it up, because you're not aware of such a policy.

Have you noticed there's a theme to your comments? Have you ever paused to think that there's not always an angle? That, sometimes, people are actually telling the truth?

I don't need to expose the flaws in your argument; you do it pretty well yourself.

Perhaps you would care to explain to us, then, why all your other posts are getting past the moderators without delay? Why would this one post be in limbo?

Seriously.......in good faith.......have another go at posting your reply to Buckle. You might find that there was a glitch first time round and that, this time, it goes through without a problem.

I've tried about eight times now and received the same referral message on each occasion.

If it hasn't been approved by this evening, I'll re-post it in bite-sized chunks. Even if it has now taken on a significance that I wasn't allowing for when I was rattling it out.

I've tried about eight times now and received the same referral message on each occasion.

If it hasn't been approved by this evening, I'll re-post it in bite-sized chunks. Even if it has now taken on a significance that I wasn't allowing for when I was rattling it out.

Definitely something wrong there.

You didn't, by mistake, include detailed instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb, did you? ;)

I've already addressed your ill-founded points in a pending post.

And 'overestinates' has an 'm' in it. Oh well.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I can't wait for this post.

Definitely something wrong there.

You didn't, by mistake, include detailed instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb, did you? ;)
There's an easier way to demolish the Olympic Stadium?

Anyway, the moderators aren't going to clear my post so I'm going to re-submit it, word by word.

I'm just back from the Fulham game.

I trust that those who watched on TV heard the...

"Say no to Straford. North London is ours"

and...

"You can stick you fucking Stratford up your arse.....'cos we are Tottenham from the Lane"

......chants loud and clear.

All those who insist that there are only a tiny minority of Spurs fans against the potential move to Stratford need to open their eyes and ears.

I'm just back from the Fulham game.

I trust that those who watched on TV heard the...

"Say no to Straford. North London is ours"

and...

"You can stick you fucking Stratford up your arse.....'cos we are Tottenham from the Lane"

......chants loud and clear.

All those who insist that there are only a tiny minority of Spurs fans against the potential move to Stratford need to open their eyes and ears.
Here's an interesting point though: we weren't even the first major club in North London. Tottenham was actually part of Middlesex until the boundaries were re-drawn in 1965. The 'Surrendering North London' argument therefore falls away to large extent.

Anyway, the excitement is palpable so let me begin posting snippets of my Socratic rejoinder to Buckle and friends...

While we further await Mr. Malark's much anticipated public relations post
in installments, allow me to share an idea I have concerning location.

It is plainly evident that a move to Stratford would alienate the
majority of Tottenham supporters and the board are not acting
in the interest of fans but overriding financial concerns based
on short-term potential profit.

My suggestion would be to move to Dalston which would be an ideal location for a new Spurs stadium. Why?

1. Dalston is situated in North London half way between Arsenal and West Ham in a superbly located central place in the Spurs' 'catchment' area.
Just as importantly, the 'North London derby' fixture would live on.

2 Enjoys excellent transport links (tube and rail) and is significantly closer to central London than at present.

3. Could just about 'get away with' being called 'Tottenham' in the area of Dalston so fan base 'club identity' would not be effected.

I know of some large brown field sites in the area but am not aware of their legal land ownership status.

Would land purchase in Dalton for the purpose of stadium-build be a completely unrealistic prospect?

While we further await Mr. Malark's much anticipated public relations post
in installments, allow me to share an idea I have concerning location.

It is plainly evident that a move to Stratford would alienate the
majority of Tottenham supporters and the board are not acting
in the interest of fans but overriding financial concerns based
on short-term potential profit.

My suggestion would be to move to Dalston which would be an ideal location for a new Spurs stadium. Why?

1. Dalston is situated in North London half way between Arsenal and West Ham in a superbly located central place in the Spurs' 'catchment' area.
Just as importantly, the 'North London derby' fixture would live on.

2 Enjoys excellent transport links (tube and rail) and is significantly closer to central London than at present.

3. Could just about 'get away with' being called 'Tottenham' in the area of Dalston so fan base 'club identity' would not be effected.

I know of some large brown field sites in the area but am not aware of their legal land ownership status.

Would land purchase in Dalton for the purpose of stadium-build be a completely unrealistic prospect?
Exciting, isn't it?

Anyway, I grew up in Dalston so which specific brown field sites are you referring to? But, either way, your points are a bit nutty. You don't want to move to Stratford but Dalston is still Tottenham enough? Even though you lose the North London postcode the moment you cross Crossways at the top of my old estate?

Because Dalston is East London. It's East London.

Okay, it's time. These was my response to Buckle's original post, recreated from memory.

The NDP site is ours, freehold. It is an amazing asset we already have. Of course we aren't going to move somewhere else if we don't get Stratford. It makes no financial sense to sell the land and buy what is likely to be much more expensive land elsewhere.

Why would an alternative site be more expensive? Tottenham may be one of the cheapest spots to buy property in the Capital but it’s still not cheaper than buying empty plots of land. And therein lies the problem. The current stadium’s land-locked so we have to pay for land at its developed price rather than its footprint. This increases costs exponentially.

The transport issue is another stroke of shallow spin. First, Stratford is sold to us for its transport connections, omitting to say that this is for the convenience of a relatively small bunch of tourists, corporates and others who can't be bothered, while in fact it won't make a significant difference to most people who go to matches now. Moreover, it makes no difference to people who would like to go to matches in the future but can't get hold of tickets now. This 35k-odd season ticket waiting list is for people who actually want to go to White Hart Lane.

Can you seriously argue that Stratford isn't better connected than White Hart Lane? And then, in the same breath, render those advantages moot because it’ll only make it easier for a small number of tourists and corporate types to pitch up to matches? That's patently absurd and, actually, a contradiction in terms. Why would more tourists be able to go to Stratford over White Hart Lane? Because it’s better connected?

And to argue that people are queuing up to see the stadium rather than the team simply doesn't bear witness. To evidence this, the stadium tours are currently booked up for the next three weekends. That's less than 1% of your purported 35k figure. It's less than 0.5%.

Leaving aside the fan-aimed PR, the spin meant for the OPLC is trying to say two incompatible things at the same time. We're a rich, well-supported club, so we're a safe bet for Stratford and the Treasury is bound to benefit. On the other hand we're not that rich: we can't afford the NDP (apparently) and we need the move to Stratford to make our finances work. The latter is like the West Ham argument, the former is intended to show a superiority over the West Ham position. Confusion.

Confusion? What’s confusing you? I’ll tell you what’s confusing me: your effort to predicate an argument on a wealthy club's refusal to be profligate with its money. Your angle seems to be that because we can offer greater returns to the OPLC, we can afford to proceed with the NPD. As if anyone would see a house for £250k in a well-connected part of London and then go away to buy an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £450k. Or even the same price. It just wouldn’t happen, unless you were, you know, confused or something...

The implausibility is highlighted by Levy's recent assertion (in the last letter to the supporters on the THFC web site) that Stratford was capable of being 'fully financed'. If he doesn't know that Stratford is going to be any cheaper than the NDP, how can he say this? Or, worse, is it that the NDP is also capable of being fully (or at least nearly) financed but that his spin machine is telling porkies? The naming rights deal shouldn't depend on location, by the way.

Unfortunately, location does matter. There's even a tv series named after it, thrice.

I mean, this claim absolutely doesn't hold water. Does anyone genuinely believe a company would pay the same amount to name a new stadium as it would a stadium built in the same location as an existing ground that’s universally known by a particular name? And has been for the past century?

West Ham has a pretty solid, loyal, localised support. Furthermore, if they can price their tickets correctly, they will fill the stadium for many matches and create a good atmosphere. Given the mad prices for the PL, they could reintroduce the idea of affordable football without damaging their revenues.

What about Leyton Orient’s solid, loyal, localised support? You don’t seem to have any qualms about the impact West Ham’s artificial pricing strategy will have on them. Because at least Spurs will charge market rates. West Ham will kill Orient stone-dead.

Or at least theoretically. Because the Hammers have already begun their 'Kids For A Quid' initiative and they’re still not getting full gates. They can’t even bribe their own fans to come. Add a running track to the equation and it doesn’t take a Maths genius to see which way that’s going.

That, combined with the genuinely community-oriented nature of the other events, makes the Spurs aim to attract in fly-by-night corporates from the City and Canary Wharf seem rather grubby. The West Ham plan is an inevitable compromise, for very good reasons: as well as putting on headline events that can attract in a wider public, it proposes a genuinely multi-use stadium that speaks of locality and community, something that Spurs is tearing up and throwing away.

Grubby? Money-grabbing? Yet, in the interests of fairness, there's no spotlight turned on the opposing bid made by a Club owned by two porn barons who only bought it with the sole intention of making a killing through the Olympic Stadium. But now it's all candy floss and community, so that's fine. Publicly-funded candy floss too, because they're not even going to put their own money into it.

Then there's the whole athletics legacy thing. Bullish journalists like Simon Jenkins have said, in essence, that athletics can go take a running jump (pardon me...). No matter how much Spurs spins the advantages of Crystal Palace, the athletics community don't want it, and Jenkins and his ilk forget that there is an obligation to provide a decent athletics legacy and that the mega-spectacle of the Olympics is the best chance in a generation of rejuvenating athletics in this country. The Spurs proposals are on the cheap at a place the athletics community don't want. I imagine that more money, further improvement of transport connections to Crystal Palace, and so on might sway some, but then the apparent financial advantages of Stratford to THFC disappear.

I’m not going to pretend there’s a perfect solution here but this is Seb Coe’s true legacy. A vanity project with nothing behind the looking glass. But at least we’re trying to make the best of a bad situation and give athletes a modern venue for use throughout the year. An opportunity to plan their own programmes and to perform in front of full houses.

Alternatively, they can just rattle around in the Olympic Stadium whenever West Ham’s ‘All Things To All Men’ proposal allows. Because make no mistake, each time Karen Brady widens the terms of reference it just pushes athletics needs further down the ladder.

That doesn't mean it won't work. That's the sad possibility. There's no accounting for laziness, ignorance, gullibility, and the sheer error-proneness of decisions based solely on money. I just hope that the OPLC and our own fan base can rise above all this.

Mercifully, I think most Spurs supporters are finally beginning to wake up to this incredible opportunity and I can only hope we don't drop the baton because one of our runners failed to turn up.

Anyway, that's it.

In closing, let me just say I am a lifelong Spurs fan and have been there in the good times and the bad. I would never advocate anything that I thought would hurt our great Club. However, this is a huge deal and if we're successful, it's an event in our history that will only doth its cap to 1882 and Bill Nic.

This is a truly tremendous opportunity and I really hope we get the chance to see our Club's elevation within the Great Pantheon. Cos it's once-in-a-lifetime, folks. Right here, right now.

You don't want to move to Stratford but Dalston is still Tottenham enough? Even though you lose the North London postcode the moment you cross Crossways at the top of my old estate?

Its not about postcodes. Geo-cultural aspects have to be taken
into account.
Allow me to choose a simple example that might help you understand the concept. For instance, half of Vilnius’ population consider
themselves to be ethnically Polish although the territory where they live is officially recognized as belonging to the neighbouring state of Lithuania.

To give you another example closer to home, why do you think the nutty Milton Keynes-Wimbledon FC 'Frakenstein’ experiment went so wrong? A classic example of socio-geographic disfunction I’m sure you’d agree.

In any case, I’m sure most Londoners would not feel dismay at the thought of Dalston being recognized as a north eastern area of London, regardless of what the post office and its postcode suggests.

I was just toying with the idea of THFC being located in Dalston and became seduced by the prospect. However, I am aware this will never happen for reasons of affordability.

Here's an interesting point though: we weren't even the first major club in North London. Tottenham was actually part of Middlesex until the boundaries were re-drawn in 1965. The 'Surrendering North London' argument therefore falls away to large extent.

Anyway, the excitement is palpable so let me begin posting snippets of my Socratic rejoinder to Buckle and friends...

It's a mere technicality that sometimes pleases Arsenal fans but which can safely be ignored in any serious discussion, I think.

While we further await Mr. Malark's much anticipated public relations post
in installments, allow me to share an idea I have concerning location.

It is plainly evident that a move to Stratford would alienate the
majority of Tottenham supporters and the board are not acting
in the interest of fans but overriding financial concerns based
on short-term potential profit.

My suggestion would be to move to Dalston which would be an ideal location for a new Spurs stadium. Why?

1. Dalston is situated in North London half way between Arsenal and West Ham in a superbly located central place in the Spurs' 'catchment' area.
Just as importantly, the 'North London derby' fixture would live on.

2 Enjoys excellent transport links (tube and rail) and is significantly closer to central London than at present.

3. Could just about 'get away with' being called 'Tottenham' in the area of Dalston so fan base 'club identity' would not be effected.

I know of some large brown field sites in the area but am not aware of their legal land ownership status.

Would land purchase in Dalton for the purpose of stadium-build be a completely unrealistic prospect?

I think of Dalston as being gooner territory. It's only a hop, skip and a jump (or two) from Highbury.

Why would an alternative site be more expensive? Tottenham may be one of the cheapest spots to buy property in the Capital but it’s still not cheaper than buying empty plots of land. And therein lies the problem. The current stadium’s land-locked so we have to pay for land at its developed price rather than its footprint. This increases costs exponentially.

There is very little of the NDP site that Spurs don't already own. Haringey have already promised assistance, in the form of CPO's, with buying the remaining properties.

If Spurs move, we will henceforward and forever have to pay an annual rent (which, presumably, will be subject to regular reviews). The Olympic stadium site isn't for sale. However, if it was, it would be far more expensive than the land at Tottenham.

There is very little of the NDP site that Spurs don't already own. Haringey have already promised assistance, in the form of CPO's, with buying the remaining properties.

If Spurs move, we will henceforward and forever have to pay an annual rent (which, presumably, will be subject to regular reviews). The Olympic stadium site isn't for sale. However, if it was, it would be far more expensive than the land at Tottenham.

Local authorities cannot use CPO's for the benefit of private individuals or companies, only for the provision of public facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads etc. Arsenal tried this route and in the end had to pay the market rate which for the current freeholders puts them in a very advantageous position. When Spurs were buying the land covertly they got it cheap.

Can you seriously argue that Stratford isn't better connected than White Hart Lane? And then, in the same breath, render those advantages moot because it’ll only make it easier for a small number of tourists and corporate types to pitch up to matches? That's patently absurd and, actually, a contradiction in terms. Why would more tourists be able to go to Stratford over White Hart Lane? Because it’s better connected?

And to argue that people are queuing up to see the stadium rather than the team simply doesn't bear witness. To evidence this, the stadium tours are currently booked up for the next three weekends. That's less than 1% of your purported 35k figure. It's less than 0.5%.

The point that Buckle was making was that, despite the comparatively poor transport infrastructure and the less than salubrious area, 35,000 Spurs fans are still on the so called "waiting list" for season tickets. In other words, these people want a season ticket regardless of the fact that Tottenham isn't perfect in every respect. Therefore, it is pointless for David Keirle and others to make outrageously false claims about Stratford being easier to get to for the "vast majority of Spurs fans" since the Spurs fans who most matter (season ticket holders and those on the waiting list) don't sufficiently care and will still go to games regardless.

By the way, it really is outrageous and false to claim that the "vast Majority of Spurs fans" will find it easier to get to Stratford than to Tottenham.

Tottenham is and has always been a north London club (yes, yes...and Middlesex). They may have fans all over the world; all over the UK; all over the south east of England and in all parts of London. But their heartland is still north London and those counties immediately north of London (Hertfordshire, north Essex, south Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire). In my experience, the majority of match going Spurs fans live in these areas. And for the majority of them, it is just as easy or easier to get to Tottenham than it will be to get to Stratford.

Local authorities cannot use CPO's for the benefit of private individuals or companies, only for the provision of public facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads etc. Arsenal tried this route and in the end had to pay the market rate which for the current freeholders puts them in a very advantageous position. When Spurs were buying the land covertly they got it cheap.

CPO's aren't there to enforce cheap sales.

They're there to enforce sales, full stop. In other words, if one or two property owners are standing in the way of a development that will benefit the whole community, unless they can make a compelling case, they will be forced to sell at market rate. Spurs wouldn't expect to pay any less.

CPO's aren't there to enforce cheap sales.

They're there to enforce sales, full stop. In other words, if one or two property owners are standing in the way of a development that will benefit the whole community, unless they can make a compelling case, they will be forced to sell at market rate. Spurs wouldn't expect to pay any less.

But what is the market rate. If you are the last freeholder your land is priceless. Councils cannot determine the value. A number of councilers when dealing with Arsenal buying Ashburton Grove got into trouble trying to help Arsenal.
Something has happened in the last two months to make Levy say it is unviable. Harry Redknapp being England manager?? Harry's tax bill??? Bale secretly injured??? We will find out one day.

Confusion? What’s confusing you? I’ll tell you what’s confusing me: your effort to predicate an argument on a wealthy club's refusal to be profligate with its money. Your angle seems to be that because we can offer greater returns to the OPLC, we can afford to proceed with the NPD. As if anyone would see a house for £250k in a well-connected part of London and then go away to buy an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £450k. Or even the same price. It just wouldn’t happen, unless you were, you know, confused or something...

This is one of the fallacies that most needs to be exposed in the press.

The new stadium at Tottenham would cost £250 million. The remaining £200 million is mostly earmarked for the enabling development.

So your analogy would more accurately describe reality if you said, "....an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £250K plus a number of other properties to the tune of £200K."

Unfortunately, location does matter. There's even a tv series named after it, thrice.

I mean, this claim absolutely doesn't hold water. Does anyone genuinely believe a company would pay the same amount to name a new stadium as it would a stadium built in the same location as an existing ground that’s universally known by a particular name? And has been for the past century?

That's a fair point.

This is one of the fallacies that most needs to be exposed in the press.

The new stadium at Tottenham would cost £250 million. The remaining £200 million is mostly earmarked for the enabling development.

So your analogy would more accurately describe reality if you said, "....an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £250K plus a number of other properties to the tune of £200K."

Hence, 'even the same price'.

However, the CPO argument, the Section 106 requirements, and the TfL and English Heritage issues all fall away. They're all intrinsic to the NPD project. It therefore wouldn't be the same price.

What about Leyton Orient’s solid, loyal, localised support? You don’t seem to have any qualms about the impact West Ham’s artificial pricing strategy will have on them. Because at least Spurs will charge market rates. West Ham will kill Orient stone-dead.

Or at least theoretically. Because the Hammers have already begun their 'Kids For A Quid' initiative and they’re still not getting full gates. They can’t even bribe their own fans to come. Add a running track to the equation and it doesn’t take a Maths genius to see which way that’s going.

Trying to predict demand for tickets four years from now - either Spurs' or West Ham's - is a matter of guesswork. Sure, the athletics track might have a detrimental effect on the demand for tickets to see West Ham home games. But equally, we have no idea what impact the move to Stratford will have on demand for tickets to see Spurs' home games.

Oh, and let's not forget - West Ham wouldn't have to sell out every game at the Olympic stadium to be able to meet the rent requirement.

Interesting that Levy said a couple of days ago that the NDP is definitely a no goer. Up to now his PR tack has always been "I'm keeping all options open" but this is a significant departure to that.

He's now talking about alternative sites if we don't get Stratford but I don't know where they could be. I've got a Collins London Streetfinder which helpfully colours industrial land in shitty brown. I can't find anything in Dalston unfortunately. There is quite a lot of brown land around Tottenham Hale but I think we looked at that and rejected it before. There's some stuff up towards Edmonton and Enfield but the links there are even worse than WHL, and if the idea is to increase THFC's profile, then I can't imagine us going further outside London. The only other brownfield site in the area is to the south of St Anne's Hospital. This is about mid-way between Manor House and Seven Sisters and is easily walkable from both stations. It is indisputably in Tottenham, which will please traditionalists. There are still some enormous tracts of brownfield land in the Willesden/Neasden/Hendon areas but although these are perceived to be "north" London they are actually further from WHL than Stratford is.

I think it is now clear (if it wasn't before) that the real issue with WHL is transport/accessibility and not so much construction costs. As Spurs fans we are probably not the best people to comment on the transport at WHL. We would crawl miles over broken glass to watch Spurs play, but when someone is making a strategic decision about the future of a club, the ability to attract future generations of fans is very important, and accessability is central to that. Even though the matchday services from WHL have improved in the last couple of years, they are still a poor second to a tube service.

I am fairly sure that Levy has spent the last couple of years trying to attract sponsorship/funding for the NDP. I am not sure whether he got anywhere but Stratford straightaway attracted a big-name partner, AEG. I am not sure whether the relationship with AEG will survive if we don't get Stratford, but I can't see any major sponsor or partner wanting to get involved with an area which is perceived as being inaccessible, particularly if part of the business plan is to host non-football (or non-Spurs) events. The reason why Stratford is "cheaper" for the club is not that bricks are more expensive in N17 than in E15, it is that it is easier to get funding/investment for a high-profile, accessible area. Was anyone surprised when Abramovich invested in Chelsea rather than Spurs?

Hence, 'even the same price'.

However, the CPO argument, the Section 106 requirements, and the TfL and English Heritage issues all fall away. They're all intrinsic to the NPD project. It therefore wouldn't be the same price.

If Spurs move to Stratford, they would have to build a new 25K stadium for UK Athletics. Spurs might even have to buy a new site for that stadium because the OPLC might well agree that banishing athletics to the poorly connected Crystal Palace backwater that has helped to stifle the sport's growth for many years would be too meagre a consolation prize.

As to the English Heritage issues, investing capital in the refurbishment of good buildings generally leads, if properly costed and managed, to a capital gain. Certainly, Spurs will be able to put the buildings to good work and earn money from them.

And Spurs will have to contribute to planning gain and sign Section 106 agreements with both Newham AND Bromley councils if they are to get planning permission to build a new stadium at Stratford and another at Crystal Palace. So no gain there.

Finally, the big unknown quantity in all these equations is how much it will cost Spurs to rent the stadium. And how much will hey have to agree to pay to UK athletics?

Overall, I don't think that anyone would deny that the NDP will be more expensive than Stratford. But how much more? And at what figure, for you, does the sacrifice of identity, history, community and integrity become a worthwhile price to pay?

Grubby? Money-grabbing? Yet, in the interests of fairness, there's no spotlight turned on the opposing bid made by a Club owned by two porn barons who only bought it with the sole intention of making a killing through the Olympic Stadium. But now it's all candy floss and community, so that's fine. Publicly-funded candy floss too, because they're not even going to put their own money into it.

Yes, they are.

They will be borrowing £40 million from Newham (who will, in turn, have borrowed from the Treasury) and they will repay the full amount with interest.

Mercifully, I think most Spurs supporters are finally beginning to wake up to this incredible opportunity and I can only hope we don't drop the baton because one of our runners failed to turn up.

As remarked upon earlier, the anti Stratford songs were belted out by at least 50% of the 6,000 Spurs fans at Craven Cottage today.

just a thought. there are structures at the olympic site that will be removed after the games and spurs proposed stadium will have a smaller "foot print" than the current olympic stadium!

will there not be enough room to build a football stadium and an athletics stadium at stratfod?

like i said, just a thought!

Anyway, that's it.

In closing, let me just say I am a lifelong Spurs fan and have been there in the good times and the bad. I would never advocate anything that I thought would hurt our great Club. However, this is a huge deal and if we're successful, it's an event in our history that will only doth its cap to 1882 and Bill Nic.

This is a truly tremendous opportunity and I really hope we get the chance to see our Club's elevation within the Great Pantheon. Cos it's once-in-a-lifetime, folks. Right here, right now.

We can never know for sure but I suspect that Bill Nick would be appalled at the prospect of his beloved Spurs being uprooted. Certainly, his daughter was recently quoted to that effect.

He lived his entire adult life in Tottenham, despite ample opportunity to move to gentler, leafier streets (undoubtedly with better transport infrastructure). He chose to stay. He loved the place. He understood that Tottenham Hotspur and Tottenham were indivisible.

As to "once in a lifetime; you'll never get this opportunity again; the train's leaving without you"......forgive me, for I mean no offence, but that's a favourite pressurizing tactic for all sorts of salespeople who are trying to sell all sorts of products that you don't really need.

Lastly, I too would dearly love to see Spurs within the Pantheon of great clubs. I totally understand where you and the pro Stratford (or even okay-with-Stratford) lobby are coming from. But I don't want to earn inclusion in the Pantheon by any means or at any price. I want Spurs to get there as a club that has remained true to its roots; that retains a strong and unique identity; that has continuity of history and location; that has stood shoulder to shoulder with its community; and which hasn't sacrificed all those things at the altar of Mammon.

I want a club that is whole - and not torn in two. Because that would be the most hurtful thing of all.

doth its cap.

Apologies for the pedantry. And rest assured that this is not meant as an attempt to undermine. It's just a point of interest because I've noticed a few people using that spelling.

You "doff" your cap. It's an abbreviation of "do off".

just a thought. there are structures at the olympic site that will be removed after the games and spurs proposed stadium will have a smaller "foot print" than the current olympic stadium!

will there not be enough room to build a football stadium and an athletics stadium at stratfod?

like i said, just a thought!

Only way there would be enough room would be by eating into the parkland. There's not enough room by the stadium itself. It's surrounded on three sides by water.

Here's an interesting point though: we weren't even the first major club in North London. Tottenham was actually part of Middlesex until the boundaries were re-drawn in 1965. The 'Surrendering North London' argument therefore falls away to large extent.

Anyway, the excitement is palpable so let me begin posting snippets of my Socratic rejoinder to Buckle and friends...

This is a favourite Ars*nal argument. They will say 'we were in N London first cos you were in Middlesex'. If I were you I wouldn't want be seen to be getting into bed with this kind of person or subscribing to this sort of baloney.

I recommend you read the early Spurs history 'A Romance of Football': it's available on the web. There is reference there to a journalist's account of us as a 'North London' club. It comes from the 1890s, as I recall, and the book itself is from the early 1920s, I believe. There are plenty of references to a London identity. We were members of London leagues in our early history: Middlesex was less important.

Remember that this 'Middlesex' represents only one administrative mapping. There are others such as those of the Post Office or the Metropolitan Police. In any case our real (rather than bureaucratic) identity is as North Londoners. The history and culture reflects that, as indicated by, for example, the 'North London Derby' and phrases such as 'Pride of North London'.

Why would an alternative site be more expensive? Tottenham may be one of the cheapest spots to buy property in the Capital but it’s still not cheaper than buying empty plots of land. And therein lies the problem. The current stadium’s land-locked so we have to pay for land at its developed price rather than its footprint. This increases costs exponentially.

The board searched elsewhere for suitable sites. They didn't find any, or at least they didn't find any that made better financial sense than staying in Tottenham.

This is a quote from Keirle/KSS some time after the NDP process began (I think after the first public exhibition opened):

“We were initially commissioned about five years ago to look at options for the existing stadium and looked at what it might be possible to do with the east and west stands and to upgrade north and south. But those proved very limiting and came nowhere near to the quality of fan experience or overall capacity the board at that time were considering was appropriate for Spurs. So that was reasonably quickly put to one side and we were then asked to look at other potential sites in north east London. We came up with about 18 or 20 sites that had the potential to manage a stadium of this size. But for one reason or another, they were all either undeliverable, not viable or nowhere near transport. All of those fell away and we started looking at a new stadium two years ago, and that was looking at options for the existing site and whether we could play away for a couple of seasons. It was about that time that we started expanding the site and looking at what those options are. A few months ago re-developing on the existing site became viable and deliverable."

I think this fully supports my point.

Can you seriously argue that Stratford isn't better connected than White Hart Lane? And then, in the same breath, render those advantages moot because it’ll only make it easier for a small number of tourists and corporate types to pitch up to matches? That's patently absurd and, actually, a contradiction in terms. Why would more tourists be able to go to Stratford over White Hart Lane? Because it’s better connected?

And to argue that people are queuing up to see the stadium rather than the team simply doesn't bear witness. To evidence this, the stadium tours are currently booked up for the next three weekends. That's less than 1% of your purported 35k figure. It's less than 0.5%.

The point is that most of those supporters who now go regularly (I'd be interested to know if you are one of these, by the way) and form the essential core of our support come from N London, Herfordshire, parts of Essex, Beds and parts of Cambridgshire. On average, according to the club, they travel 40 odd miles to see a game. Taken as a whole, Stratford would be no more or less easy for them to get to.

Tourists in central London and corporates from Canary Wharf and the City will find it easier to travel to Stratford, but that's not the issue. Tourists and corporates who can't be arsed to go to WHL do not constitute a reliable core of our support: when the fair weather fades so will they. This is an important business aspect. Only the core support will remain loyal. For them Stratford is, on average, no easier. Furthermore, as evidenced by the chants heard at Fulham (clearly audible on the TV, JimB, with 'North London is ours' one of the loudest songs I heard), at Newcastle and at the last home match, a substantial number don't like the idea of going to Stratford.

For our club in fallow as well as in fertile times, the transport connections are really not so important a decider.

My point was not about stadium tours (I don't think I mentioned stadium tours) but about the waiting list for STs. Of those on the waiting list who are serious about getting a ST, they are just as willing to go to WHL as ST holders who go now. A self-evident fact.

Confusion? What’s confusing you? I’ll tell you what’s confusing me: your effort to predicate an argument on a wealthy club's refusal to be profligate with its money. Your angle seems to be that because we can offer greater returns to the OPLC, we can afford to proceed with the NPD. As if anyone would see a house for £250k in a well-connected part of London and then go away to buy an equivalent-sized property in a worse part of the Capital for £450k. Or even the same price. It just wouldn’t happen, unless you were, you know, confused or something...

Yes, you are right, it is confusing you.

Just read my post again more carefully.

I am talking about the contradictory effects of the Spurs spin machine. There is no doubt that parts of the press (and probably a majority of Londoners if the polls are to be believed) regard us as a rich, arrogant club with mercenary motives. At the very same time, for reasons that are not entirely clear, we are trying to sell the line to our own support that (really rather suddenly) this great big rich club can't afford the NDP any more. This is not convincing our own support either. Again, the polls are against Stratford.

The spin is revealing itself as spin and this does not give the club a trustworthy image in the eyes of the wider public, a section of the press, and the majority of our own support.

Unfortunately, location does matter. There's even a tv series named after it, thrice.

I mean, this claim absolutely doesn't hold water. Does anyone genuinely believe a company would pay the same amount to name a new stadium as it would a stadium built in the same location as an existing ground that’s universally known by a particular name? And has been for the past century?

I don't think that's the issue. The business wanting its name on the stadium, would want that name to appear in the global media coverage of games, which it would. The club would carefully ensure that official coverage referred to the new name: that's all that's required. Think of how the name 'Emirates' is relayed through media channels.

It would be helped by a synergistic shirt deal, of course.

Furthermore the name of the stadium would be associated with the club, not where the club is located. It would be the association of the club with a stadium as transmitted to audiences of 100s of millions across the EPL-watching world. I know there's an Allianz Arena and that Bayern Munich (oh, er, and another club) plays its home games there. I have no clue what part of Munich it's in, and it doesn't matter a fig for the global audiences a naming rights deal targets.

What about Leyton Orient’s solid, loyal, localised support? You don’t seem to have any qualms about the impact West Ham’s artificial pricing strategy will have on them. Because at least Spurs will charge market rates. West Ham will kill Orient stone-dead.

Or at least theoretically. Because the Hammers have already begun their 'Kids For A Quid' initiative and they’re still not getting full gates. They can’t even bribe their own fans to come. Add a running track to the equation and it doesn’t take a Maths genius to see which way that’s going.

Yes, you make a good point, the only one I've encountered so far in your posts.

I can't disagree with you about the position of Leyton Orient and the way their interests have been sidelined in the bidding process.

However, if you are saying that Orient supporters are going to support West Ham just because they are offering cheaper tickets than before, then you seriously misunderstand how football loyalty works. This isn't comparing the price of chicken wings at Asda and Tesco.

As for whether West Ham can fill, or mostly fill, their own stadium, that will be up to their pricing structure and the degree of success they experience on the field. It will be easier to devise a more differentiated pricing structure in a bigger stadium. The professionals in this area -- those who work out tariffs, occupancy, game grades and so forth -- will have an approach to maximising attendance. Save to say that West Ham do have a substantial supporter base with a strong identity and big historical reference points, and therefore have a good chance of a reasonably high occupancy.

By the way Barry Hearn already has his lawyers on the case and there is a chance he can get a good deal for his club: watch this space.

Grubby? Money-grabbing? Yet, in the interests of fairness, there's no spotlight turned on the opposing bid made by a Club owned by two porn barons who only bought it with the sole intention of making a killing through the Olympic Stadium. But now it's all candy floss and community, so that's fine. Publicly-funded candy floss too, because they're not even going to put their own money into it.

Yeah, yeah, the porn baron thing. It's legal, it's a business, and moralising about it has no place in this discussion. Others might want to talk about how Joe Lewis made his money gambling on the currency markets, the very activity that was mixed up in the financial crisis. But this is a tedious, ad hominem kind of argument that misses the point.

Gold and Sullivan are good businessmen and have a excellent track record in football. They are genuine supporters and in it for the long term. Your insults are neither original nor relevant

But, excuse me, you are saying it is 'publicly-funded' and that they are not going to put their own money into it? What's your point? Of course Stratford is one great big publicly funded opportunity for both bids. And?

Or are you talking about the Newham loan? Well, first, it's a loan and not funding and, second, Newham will make money out of it.

Is ENIC going to put its 'own money' into it? No. Any debt will be loaded onto the club. Daniel Levy takes nearly £1.5m in an annual salary from the club. He ain't giving any of his money to the club or anyone else.

I’m not going to pretend there’s a perfect solution here but this is Seb Coe’s true legacy. A vanity project with nothing behind the looking glass. But at least we’re trying to make the best of a bad situation and give athletes a modern venue for use throughout the year. An opportunity to plan their own programmes and to perform in front of full houses.

Alternatively, they can just rattle around in the Olympic Stadium whenever West Ham’s ‘All Things To All Men’ proposal allows. Because make no mistake, each time Karen Brady widens the terms of reference it just pushes athletics needs further down the ladder.

Again, you need to read my post. If you want to call the Olympics a 'vanity project', well, OK, but that's not what the 100s of millions watching it will think. That's not what the kids watching Usain Bolt or Jessica Ennis will think. I understand your cynicism but it's not relevant here.

My point is that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for athletics in this country. Crystal Palace, no matter how much you try to wrap it up in something else, is a backwater. There is no way on earth it can be a substitute for an athletics legacy in the OS itself. It really is that simple. Whether you think it's worth it depends on the extent to which you appreciate the Olympics as a mega-spectacle which will be the biggest ever boost to athletics in this country, provided we strike while the iron is hot and strike in the right place: the Olympic Stadium.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because there is an Olympics in London in 2012 in which bidding process our athletics lobby played a crucial role.

You can't ignore that. The OPLC certainly won't.

Mercifully, I think most Spurs supporters are finally beginning to wake up to this incredible opportunity and I can only hope we don't drop the baton because one of our runners failed to turn up.

You're wrong again. What evidence there is suggests strongly that 'most' Spurs supporters are highly sceptical of the proposed move to Stratford, and rightly so.

Anyway, that's it.

In closing, let me just say I am a lifelong Spurs fan and have been there in the good times and the bad. I would never advocate anything that I thought would hurt our great Club. However, this is a huge deal and if we're successful, it's an event in our history that will only doth its cap to 1882 and Bill Nic.

This is a truly tremendous opportunity and I really hope we get the chance to see our Club's elevation within the Great Pantheon. Cos it's once-in-a-lifetime, folks. Right here, right now.

The thing is, Mr_Malark, you don't know that this is a 'truly tremendous opportunity'. Not at all. All we have to go on is a set of mixed messages, which don't really tell us anything of any true value because they are produced by spin doctors.

We don't know how the finances will actually work, all we have is our own intelligence and capacity to question. Your belief is just a hope. But that's not good enough to justify the biggest ever decision in the history of the club.

In the 1980s we had shareholder-owners who had some bright ideas for the THFC business. I could just imagine you being swept up in that eighties hype and speaking of 'truly tremendous opportunities'. They brought us to the brink of insolvency.

In the 1990s we had shareholder-owners who promised the title within three years (and we seemed capable of it at that juncture), but only dragged us down to mid table and the worst years in our post-war history.

In the 2000's we have shareholder-owners making grand promises again, this time through uprooting the club from its origins, heritage and traditions. The history of shareholder-owners is not encouraging: they seem to forget that we are a football club. In losing sight of us as a football club, they lose sight, in the end, of the very business they are claiming to cultivate. They are also out of touch with the football club. The regimes of the 80s and 90s had contempt for the supporters. The current regime started well but its attitude to the supporters is now beginning to reek of our bad past, with the lack of transparency and consultation.

The combination of a deficiency in plausible financial facts, an approach that is distancing the core support, and the rather cynical operation of spin should surely give us pause for thought.

The idea that this great uprooting is a 'truly tremendous opportunity' is founded on nothing other than a vague dream. That's not good enough for a business, let alone a football club.

There are various points I could come back to you on (I think you're playing just as fast and loose with the facts as anything emanating out of N17 0AP) but, with neither party mortally wounded, I'm going to stay my hand.

The decision's now with the OPLC. May the best application win.

And if indeed it does, we'll meet up here again afterwards to slug it out.

There are various points I could come back to you on (I think you're playing just as fast and loose with the facts as anything emanating out of N17 0AP) but, with neither party mortally wounded, I'm going to stay my hand.

The decision's now with the OPLC. May the best application win.

And if indeed it does, we'll meet up here again afterwards to slug it out.

Of course, apart from one aspect of your Leyton Orient post I did demolish your arguments one by one, and other posters have done pretty much the same. Your points were, let us say, 'malarkey'.

We'll leave the readers of this forum to make up their own minds.

But you part in good spirit, Mr_Malark, much better than the spirit in which you arrived, and I respect you for that.

There are various points I could come back to you on (I think you're playing just as fast and loose with the facts as anything emanating out of N17 0AP) but, with neither party mortally wounded, I'm going to stay my hand.

The decision's now with the OPLC. May the best application win.

And if indeed it does, we'll meet up here again afterwards to slug it out.

The recommendation is with the OPLC the discision is with Boris Johnson.

The recommendation is with the OPLC the discision is with Boris Johnson.

I can't see Boris and the other final decision makers going against the OPLC, though. Can you? It would cause an uproar.

There are various points I could come back to you on (I think you're playing just as fast and loose with the facts as anything emanating out of N17 0AP) but, with neither party mortally wounded, I'm going to stay my hand.

The decision's now with the OPLC. May the best application win.

And if indeed it does, we'll meet up here again afterwards to slug it out.

We will indeed.

But maybe not for long, if Spurs win the bid!

My interest in this stadium (and in this thread) will end.

Interesting that Levy said a couple of days ago that the NDP is definitely a no goer. Up to now his PR tack has always been "I'm keeping all options open" but this is a significant departure to that.

He's now talking about alternative sites if we don't get Stratford but I don't know where they could be. I've got a Collins London Streetfinder which helpfully colours industrial land in shitty brown. I can't find anything in Dalston unfortunately. There is quite a lot of brown land around Tottenham Hale but I think we looked at that and rejected it before. There's some stuff up towards Edmonton and Enfield but the links there are even worse than WHL, and if the idea is to increase THFC's profile, then I can't imagine us going further outside London. The only other brownfield site in the area is to the south of St Anne's Hospital. This is about mid-way between Manor House and Seven Sisters and is easily walkable from both stations. It is indisputably in Tottenham, which will please traditionalists. There are still some enormous tracts of brownfield land in the Willesden/Neasden/Hendon areas but although these are perceived to be "north" London they are actually further from WHL than Stratford is.

I think it is now clear (if it wasn't before) that the real issue with WHL is transport/accessibility and not so much construction costs. As Spurs fans we are probably not the best people to comment on the transport at WHL. We would crawl miles over broken glass to watch Spurs play, but when someone is making a strategic decision about the future of a club, the ability to attract future generations of fans is very important, and accessability is central to that. Even though the matchday services from WHL have improved in the last couple of years, they are still a poor second to a tube service.

I am fairly sure that Levy has spent the last couple of years trying to attract sponsorship/funding for the NDP. I am not sure whether he got anywhere but Stratford straightaway attracted a big-name partner, AEG. I am not sure whether the relationship with AEG will survive if we don't get Stratford, but I can't see any major sponsor or partner wanting to get involved with an area which is perceived as being inaccessible, particularly if part of the business plan is to host non-football (or non-Spurs) events. The reason why Stratford is "cheaper" for the club is not that bricks are more expensive in N17 than in E15, it is that it is easier to get funding/investment for a high-profile, accessible area. Was anyone surprised when Abramovich invested in Chelsea rather than Spurs?

All valid arguments.

But not enough, IMO, to justify sacrificing history, identity, integrity and community.

The area of Tottenham isn't perfect for a multitude of reasons. We've all known that for as long as we've been Spurs fans.

But it's still our home. It's where we belong. And no event short of an imminent and inevitable cataclysm should force us out.

All valid arguments.

But not enough, IMO, to justify sacrificing history, identity, integrity and community.

The area of Tottenham isn't perfect for a multitude of reasons. We've all known that for as long as we've been Spurs fans.

But it's still our home. It's where we belong. And no event short of an imminent and inevitable cataclysm should force us out.

OK, but wouldn't you consider other clubs in England and abroad overtaking us to be a cataclysm? If we allow that to happen, that would be a bigger threat to our identity than moving 5 miles. We would lose our status within the game and would no longer be the THFC which the world used to recognise.

We won't be losing our history either - we'll be taking it with us.

Why should we let the likes of Man City - and there will be others, trust me - to allow relocation and corporate investment to transform their clubs, while we turn our noses up at that type of thing? We would simply lose our position in the English game, which we have fought so hard to regain in the last couple of years.

You know the arguments for a bigger stadium (and I think you agree with them) so I will not regurgitate them here. It would have been nice to build the NDP but it is inaccessible and unfundable. To be honest I would have preferred Tottenham Hale or Manor House to Stratford, but it just ain't gonna happen. Some people would have preferred Enfield or Edmonton but to me they are even worse than Stratford. Out of the options in front of us, Stratford is the least bad one.

The football world is changing fast and if we don't adapt to it because we are sticking fast to a point of principle, we will just be left behind.

No business - even a football club - can be run on the basis that it is anchored to its location.

Of course, apart from one aspect of your Leyton Orient post I did demolish your arguments one by one, and other posters have done pretty much the same. Your points were, let us say, 'malarkey'.

We'll leave the readers of this forum to make up their own minds.

But you part in good spirit, Mr_Malark, much better than the spirit in which you arrived, and I respect you for that.

Demolish my argument? If you said that to me in a pub after I'd offered you my hand, I'd punch a hole in your face.

I'll come back to you, your stupid points and your personality disorder later.

I can't see Boris and the other final decision makers going against the OPLC, though. Can you? It would cause an uproar.

Boris relies on votes from the middle class outer London boroughs. Inner London is Labour. If he goes against the legacy and is up for election next May. If he loses then Ken Livingston will be mayor and he wants the legacy.

OK, but wouldn't you consider other clubs in England and abroad overtaking us to be a cataclysm? If we allow that to happen, that would be a bigger threat to our identity than moving 5 miles. We would lose our status within the game and would no longer be the THFC which the world used to recognise.

We won't be losing our history either - we'll be taking it with us.

Why should we let the likes of Man City - and there will be others, trust me - to allow relocation and corporate investment to transform their clubs, while we turn our noses up at that type of thing? We would simply lose our position in the English game, which we have fought so hard to regain in the last couple of years.

You know the arguments for a bigger stadium (and I think you agree with them) so I will not regurgitate them here. It would have been nice to build the NDP but it is inaccessible and unfundable. To be honest I would have preferred Tottenham Hale or Manor House to Stratford, but it just ain't gonna happen. Some people would have preferred Enfield or Edmonton but to me they are even worse than Stratford. Out of the options in front of us, Stratford is the least bad one.

The football world is changing fast and if we don't adapt to it because we are sticking fast to a point of principle, we will just be left behind.

No business - even a football club - can be run on the basis that it is anchored to its location.

We were (and still are, to a lesser extent) miles behind loads of clubs in England and abroad for the best part of twenty years. It didn't stop us being Tottenham Hotspur.

Furthermore, we have got to where we are now with the stadium we have in the area that it is. I don't accept the scare story that, if we don't move to Stratford, we will inevitably fall back into perpetual mediocrity or worse.

Nor do I accept that the NDP (or even just a new stadium at WHL) is unviable. The club only started to spin that line to the masses when they turned their attentions to the Olympic stadium. If West Ham win the bid, I suspect that the NDP will suddenly, and conveniently, become viable again.

As to using Man City as an example, you're comparing apples and pears. Man City moved to their new stadium eight years ago and did fuck all of any note on the back of it. It's only after they were bought by the Sheikh that they started to promise better things. You could argue that the Sheikh only bought them because they already had the stadium, I suppose. But it would be debatable. And it's not as if Eastlands is some kind of smart, well appointed area of Manchester. So to the extent that the stadium was responsible for attracting new wealth, then we have to conclude that the same would be true of a new stadium in Tottenham, if it is built.

One other thing about Manchester: there can be no comparison with London. Quite apart from the fact that Man City's move took them further away from Old Trafford, there are only two football clubs in Manchester and, other than in the immediate vicinity of the two stadiums, there is no demarcation as to light blue or red areas of the city. Very different to London, with its multitude of clubs and territorial nature.

Demolish my argument? If you said that to me in a pub after I'd offered you my hand, I'd punch a hole in your face.

I'll come back to you, your stupid points and your personality disorder later.

Just to let you know, the mods will be seeing this post.

There are a few threads which I used to contribute to a lot which I'm no longer posting in on this forum because of idiots like yourself. I'm starting to wonder why I have an account on this forum quite frankly. It's gone downhill considerably over the last year or so.

The unmistakable sign of someone feeling outfoxed and 'defeated' by extremely well put forward and eloquently expressed arguments (round of applause here for Jim B et al) is when that person starts spewing out vitriol such as 'I'd punch a hole in your face'.

I resent Mr. Malark's cheap PR exercise on this thread and despite his gifted way with words, the 'selling technique' had the feel of Del Boy trying to flog us a smelly pair of second hand socks.

Anyway, lets hope the olympic stadium/site ends up in West Ham's hands ASAP so we don't have to even discuss the horrifying prospect of THFC in faraway Stratford. However, as much as we don't like to think about it, money speaks louder than any amount of reasoning or soundly based argument.

I'm sure by now there are quite a few of us feeling a certain degree of apprehension ahead of the final announcement.

I've just had a IM from the mod, who wanted to know exactly what was going on with this project and how it related to the Olympic Park.....

I started describing the situation and it turned into rather a long post. I realised how confusing it could be for people not following what is going on!! I think it might be helpful for anyone else stumbling into this thread, especially people from outside the UK who don't know the geography or politics, if I paste my response to him here....


Thanks,

so the project will be the same. Just another location?

Whats the difference betweenn WHT and Olympic park?

Yep, same project, different location.

White Hart Lane is on a fairly grotty high street in North London. The Olympic Park, on the other hand, will be a beautiful new 500 acre park in London with great transportation to the centre of town. A no brainer right?

Except things are never that simple.

The Olympic Park is firmly in West Ham's terrority in East London. They are the "natural" tennants for the Olympic stadium and are claiming as such in their bid for it. But they're not as financially stable as Spurs, which is why our bid, despite it including knocking down the Olympic Stadium, is in with a strong chance of being chosen.

The fact that Spurs could conceivably move to West Ham territory in East London hasn't gone down that well with many fans from either side or the MP for Tottenham who would lose his constituincy's biggest employer. UK Athletics don't like the plan either because it means losing the Olympic Stadium.

Then again, other Spurs fans, if offered the chance to have a bigger stadium would be happy to move, and some West Ham fans want Spurs' bid to win so they don't end up watching football from behind an athletics track!



And it gets even more complicated....

The winning bid for the Olympic stadium has to prove to the OPLC (Olympic Park Legacy Company) it can provide an athletics legacy as was promised by London 2012's Olympic bid. The fact that Spurs' plan includes no athletics legacy at the Olympic Park means Spurs have instead offered to refurbish the Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium to provide this legacy. This hasn't gone down well with UK Athletics who see this offer as "derisory". To complicate things even further Crystal Palace Football Club want the same site at Crystal Palace for their new stadium - hence we have two different plans for the same site, from two different clubs, for two different sports in this thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1304881).

And don't forget...

Whoever ends up playing at the Olympic Stadium (or where it's situated), Leyton Orient FC won't be happy. They fear a big Premier League club turning up near them will send them out of business.

So, essentially, we have Tottenham, West Ham, Crystal Palace, Leyton Orient AND UK Athletics all pulling in different directions. I wouldn't want to be making the decision on who gets the Olympic Stadium as a lot of people will be unhappy whoever is chosen!! :nuts:

RobH:

Thanks for the basic info explaining the situation in
all its complexity for those who are unfamiliar with the subject.

However, it would be nice to hear what your standpoint is.
What is your view and your reasons in support of or against
a move to Stratford?

Personally I'd love THFC to move to what I consider would be
the ideal location of Dalston but am aware this is
somewhat unrealistic with land purchasing problems and
finance.

So, essentially, we have Tottenham, West Ham, Crystal Palace, Leyton Orient AND UK Athletics all pulling in different directions. I wouldn't want to be making the decision on who gets the Olympic Stadium as a lot of people will be unhappy whoever is chosen!! :nuts:
Very good summarisation,
Except it is the politicians who will decide with some compromise and EVERYBODY will be unhappy.

Guys stay at Tottenham.
Even its 100 € more expensive.

"Ticket at new WHT: 50 €
Food and drinks: 20€
New hoem kit: 90 €
Watching my Tottenham Hotspur in Tottenham: priceless"

Moving to a new stadium "hurts". But moving to a new stadium and neighbourhood is really bad.

The board searched elsewhere for suitable sites. They didn't find any, or at least they didn't find any that made better financial sense than staying in Tottenham.

This is a quote from Keirle/KSS some time after the NDP process began (I think after the first public exhibition opened):

“We were initially commissioned about five years ago to look at options for the existing stadium and looked at what it might be possible to do with the east and west stands and to upgrade north and south. But those proved very limiting and came nowhere near to the quality of fan experience or overall capacity the board at that time were considering was appropriate for Spurs. So that was reasonably quickly put to one side and we were then asked to look at other potential sites in north east London. We came up with about 18 or 20 sites that had the potential to manage a stadium of this size. But for one reason or another, they were all either undeliverable, not viable or nowhere near transport. All of those fell away and we started looking at a new stadium two years ago, and that was looking at options for the existing site and whether we could play away for a couple of seasons. It was about that time that we started expanding the site and looking at what those options are. A few months ago re-developing on the existing site became viable and deliverable."

I think this fully supports my point.

No, it doesn't actually.

You cannot reasonably claim that it would make ‘no financial sense to sell the land and buy what is likely to be much more expensive land elsewhere’ without knowing which sites in North-East London were considered and what factors rendered them ‘undeliverable, not viable or nowhere near transport’.

It is curious however that you are willing to accept that conclusion from a Spurs representative but are unwilling to accept a later statement from another representative that the NDP may now be equally undeliverable. There’s not even a hint of finding out where those other 18-20 sites are and why they were individually discounted. It lies outside your tunnel vision.

It is also revealing that given a choice of Stratford or inertia, you have effectively chosen the latter on the pretence that we will push through with the NDP. Still, nice to know you’ve got your own best interests at heart.

The point is that most of those supporters who now go regularly (I'd be interested to know if you are one of these, by the way) and form the essential core of our support come from N London, Herfordshire, parts of Essex, Beds and parts of Cambridgshire. On average, according to the club, they travel 40 odd miles to see a game. Taken as a whole, Stratford would be no more or less easy for them to get to.

You, my friend, are an imbecile.

Stratford is served by the Central Line, the Jubilee Line, the Docklands Light Railway, the Overground, an International Terminal, a bus station and a mass of carparking.

Tottenham is served by the Overground and a local bus route. If you want to add the Victoria Line to that, then I'll add the Hammersmith & City Line and the District Line to the Olympic site. After all, Mile End is about the same ‘short walk’ away...

Stratford is infinitely more accessible and only a buffoon would dispute this. That's why you did.

For our club in fallow as well as in fertile times, the transport connections are really not so important a decider.

There's even uncertainty in your own words. I don't even think you believe what you're writing.

The creaking transport links can at best be described as mediocre and it’s not uncommon for TfL, who seem to treat the fans with disdain, to plan maintenance work on matchdays. This decreases capacity further.

Increase demand by another 20,000 and let's see if ‘the transport connections are really not so important a decider’...

Yes, you are right, it is confusing you.

Just read my post again more carefully.

I am talking about the contradictory effects of the Spurs spin machine. There is no doubt that parts of the press (and probably a majority of Londoners if the polls are to be believed) regard us as a rich, arrogant club with mercenary motives. At the very same time, for reasons that are not entirely clear, we are trying to sell the line to our own support that (really rather suddenly) this great big rich club can't afford the NDP any more. This is not convincing our own support either. Again, the polls are against Stratford.

The spin is revealing itself as spin and this does not give the club a trustworthy image in the eyes of the wider public, a section of the press, and the majority of our own support.

The contradictory effects? As opposed to what? Your own impartial analysis? In one breath you're relying on a Club representative's testimony, in another you're accusing the Club of lying.

The Club have never said we can't afford it (although a cursory look at our turnover and profit will quickly illustrate we probably can't), they’ve said it's not viable. It would push us into financial penury.

But, then, I’d imagine you're the kind of person who thinks Andy Carroll would've been cheap at half the price. You haggle upwards because you don’t quite have a grasp on this money thing.

I don't think that's the issue. The business wanting its name on the stadium, would want that name to appear in the global media coverage of games, which it would. The club would carefully ensure that official coverage referred to the new name: that's all that's required. Think of how the name 'Emirates' is relayed through media channels.

It would be helped by a synergistic shirt deal, of course.

Furthermore the name of the stadium would be associated with the club, not where the club is located. It would be the association of the club with a stadium as transmitted to audiences of 100s of millions across the EPL-watching world. I know there's an Allianz Arena and that Bayern Munich (oh, er, and another club) plays its home games there. I have no clue what part of Munich it's in, and it doesn't matter a fig for the global audiences a naming rights deal targets.

Incoherent rubbish.

And, still with the contradictions. Have you previously argued that Spurs would need to give up its name if it moved to Stratford? Cos I bet you have. Yet even you agree that ‘the name of the stadium would be associated with the club, not where the club is located.’

You speak with forked tongue, Buckle. Or do you alternate your posts with your pals, who all have differing views?

Yeah, yeah, the porn baron thing. It's legal, it's a business, and moralising about it has no place in this discussion. Others might want to talk about how Joe Lewis made his money gambling on the currency markets, the very activity that was mixed up in the financial crisis. But this is a tedious, ad hominem kind of argument that misses the point.

Gold and Sullivan are good businessmen and have a excellent track record in football. They are genuine supporters and in it for the long term. Your insults are neither original nor relevant

But, excuse me, you are saying it is 'publicly-funded' and that they are not going to put their own money into it? What's your point? Of course Stratford is one great big publicly funded opportunity for both bids. And?

Or are you talking about the Newham loan? Well, first, it's a loan and not funding and, second, Newham will make money out of it.

Is ENIC going to put its 'own money' into it? No. Any debt will be loaded onto the club. Daniel Levy takes nearly £1.5m in an annual salary from the club. He ain't giving any of his money to the club or anyone else.

Ask yourself this: are West Ham securing their loan through the Exchequer? Are they loading part of the risk on the Local Authority?

Then ask yourself this: are we?

Which do you think is the better deal for Joe Taxpayer?

Again, you need to read my post. If you want to call the Olympics a 'vanity project', well, OK, but that's not what the 100s of millions watching it will think. That's not what the kids watching Usain Bolt or Jessica Ennis will think. I understand your cynicism but it's not relevant here.

My point is that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for athletics in this country. Crystal Palace, no matter how much you try to wrap it up in something else, is a backwater. There is no way on earth it can be a substitute for an athletics legacy in the OS itself. It really is that simple. Whether you think it's worth it depends on the extent to which you appreciate the Olympics as a mega-spectacle which will be the biggest ever boost to athletics in this country, provided we strike while the iron is hot and strike in the right place: the Olympic Stadium.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because there is an Olympics in London in 2012 in which bidding process our athletics lobby played a crucial role.

You can't ignore that. The OPLC certainly won't.

So the Olympic Stadium is better-located than that Crystal Palace backwater? Even though Crystal Palace is about as well-connected as White Hart Lane?



Do you see? Is it beginning to penetrate?

You're wrong again. What evidence there is suggests strongly that 'most' Spurs supporters are highly sceptical of the proposed move to Stratford, and rightly so.

A recent poll on Come On You Spurs indicated two-thirds of fans supported the move. This was before Levy discounted the NDP.

The idea that this great uprooting is a 'truly tremendous opportunity' is founded on nothing other than a vague dream. That's not good enough for a business, let alone a football club.

Your NDP project is the vague dream. I’d just prefer if you kept your sleepwalking away from the keyboard.

RobH:

Thanks for the basic info explaining the situation in
all its complexity for those who are unfamiliar with the subject.

However, it would be nice to hear what your standpoint is.
What is your view and your reasons in support of or against
a move to Stratford?

Personally I'd love THFC to move to what I consider would be
the ideal location of Dalston but am aware this is
somewhat unrealistic with land purchasing problems and
finance.

You're such a dummy. Where are these numerous brown field sites you said you'd identified?

You want Spurs to move to Dalston because you live in the area. And that's it. You have nothing else. You want Spurs to move to Dalston because you're lazy.

No, it doesn't actually.

You cannot reasonably claim that it would make ‘no financial sense to sell the land and buy what is likely to be much more expensive land elsewhere’ without knowing which sites in North-East London were considered and what factors rendered them ‘undeliverable, not viable or nowhere near transport’.

It is curious however that you are willing to accept that conclusion from a Spurs representative but are unwilling to accept a later statement from another representative that the NDP may now be equally undeliverable. There’s not even a hint of finding out where those other 18-20 sites are and why they were individually discounted. It lies outside your tunnel vision.

It is also revealing that given a choice of Stratford or inertia, you have effectively chosen the latter on the pretence that we will push through with the NDP. Still, nice to know you’ve got your own best interests at heart.

I think that that will be true of many Spurs fans who oppose the move to Stratford.

A choice between staying at a 36K stadium in Tottenham and moving to a 60K stadium in Stratford is, to many Spurs fans, nothing more than a choice between Tottenham Hotspur continuing to exist and Tottenham Hotspur ceasing to exist.

Expressed in those terms, it's not a difficult choice to make.

A recent poll on Come On You Spurs indicated two-thirds of fans supported the move. This was before Levy discounted the NDP.

any proof? and until the club do an official poll given to all season ticket holders and people like me on the season ticket waiting list i seriously doubt that most fans want to move. i pay £55 quid a year to be on a season ticket waiting list in which im 29k odd in line it would be a disgrace if the club didn't consult people who pay a small fortune to go and watch their club. i go to at least 5-10 games a season at if im lucky £30 a game. it probably costs me nigh on 500 to watch the team i love each year.

and did the 6 k fans at fulham singing North London, North London, Say No to Stratford, North London is ours want to move then. or maybe the home game against United shows people want to move to stratford.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDrvTcjzirA

i think some people on here don't understand what being a Spurs supporter is all about. I want to win things as much as the next person but i think what is more impotant is how we win, and how we play mor than the results.

'The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It's about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.' Danny Blanchflower

"We must always consider our supporters, for without them there would be no professional football. It would be better to have more fans watching football the way they like it played, rather than have a few fans watching football the way we would like it played."

"It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. And we of Spurs have
set our sights very high, so high in fact that even failure will have in it an echo of glory."

so to claim if we don't move we won't win anything is ridiculous. we are the only club apart from united to have won a major trophy in each of the last 6 decades, we are 4th on the all time honours list, 3 rd highest European trophys. at worst we probably have to wait like ten years for a trophy. i would rather stay at tottenham as it is, win 1 or 2 trophys a decade and keep our traditions then move to stratford and win the champions league etc every year.

hopefully the 56k WHL is realiseed an we can compete at the highest level where we belong. we are only 8 cups behind the scum and i want us to get near them again. one thing i will sya is i think its funny that Levy won't pay the 7 million to the TFL for the Tottenham Hale extension but offers 38.5 Mil to buy Sergio Aguero

No, it doesn't actually.

You cannot reasonably claim that it would make ‘no financial sense to sell the land and buy what is likely to be much more expensive land elsewhere’ without knowing which sites in North-East London were considered and what factors rendered them ‘undeliverable, not viable or nowhere near transport’.

It is curious however that you are willing to accept that conclusion from a Spurs representative but are unwilling to accept a later statement from another representative that the NDP may now be equally undeliverable. There’s not even a hint of finding out where those other 18-20 sites are and why they were individually discounted. It lies outside your tunnel vision.

It is also revealing that given a choice of Stratford or inertia, you have effectively chosen the latter on the pretence that we will push through with the NDP. Still, nice to know you’ve got your own best interests at heart.

Well, malarkey, so you deny, therefore, that the board looked elsewhere before settling on the NDP?

As for the rest of this post, I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense.

since 94-95 when all seater stadiums become compulsory, and spurs have been between 5-10 on the overall capicity list we have done the following.

in the last 15 years we have no lower than 14th in the laeague. we have been 4 FA Cup Semi Finals, We have won the League Cup twice and lost to further finals. we have also lost one semi final. ok we didn't win alot but you can't argue we wern't competing we just wernt as succesful as before. just like Liverpool now. they aren't as good as they were in the 91970's and 1980's but they still win cups and get to finals etc.

you also have to look at the calibre of player that we have always been able to attract even in the last 15 years when we haven't been as succesful as previously. sheringham, klinsmann, ginola,keane,berbatov,lennon,modric,van der vaart, defoe etc you get the picture Tottenham always has and always will be a big club to play for. never going to be a Man Utd or Liverpool but probably in the next band down so to say these type of players won't join if we don't move to stratford is Ludicrious.

You, my friend, are an imbecile.

Stratford is served by the Central Line, the Jubilee Line, the Docklands Light Railway, the Overground, an International Terminal, a bus station and a mass of carparking.

Tottenham is served by the Overground and a local bus route. If you want to add the Victoria Line to that, then I'll add the Hammersmith & City Line and the District Line to the Olympic site. After all, Mile End is about the same ‘short walk’ away...

Stratford is infinitely more accessible and only a buffoon would dispute this. That's why you did.

It's not a bad idea to read the post you're quoting before shooting your mouth off. Here it is again. I'd recommend reading it slowly. I'll try and be helpful and highlight in bold the bits that you were having difficulty with.


The point is that most of those supporters who now go regularly (I'd be interested to know if you are one of these, by the way) and form the essential core of our support come from N London, Herfordshire, parts of Essex, Beds and parts of Cambridgshire. On average, according to the club, they travel 40 odd miles to see a game. Taken as a whole, Stratford would be no more or less easy for them to get to.


By the way, do you go to games?

sorry for the terrible spelling in the last couple of posts. just read over them again. hopefully you can still tell what i mean't to say lol

There's even uncertainty in your own words. I don't even think you believe what you're writing.

The creaking transport links can at best be described as mediocre and it’s not uncommon for TfL, who seem to treat the fans with disdain, to plan maintenance work on matchdays. This decreases capacity further.

Increase demand by another 20,000 and let's see if ‘the transport connections are really not so important a decider’...

Have you read the traffic and transport plan in the second planning application for the NDP? Have you seen the officers' report to the planning committee outlining how the transport and traffic issues will be managed?

No?

I thought so.

It's not a bad idea to read the post you're quoting before shooting your mouth off. Here it is again. I'd recommend reading it slowly. I'll try and be helpful and highlight in bold the bits that you were having difficulty with.


The point is that most of those supporters who now go regularly (I'd be interested to know if you are one of these, by the way) and form the essential core of our support come from N London, Herfordshire, parts of Essex, Beds and parts of Cambridgshire. On average, according to the club, they travel 40 odd miles to see a game. Taken as a whole, Stratford would be no more or less easy for them to get to.


By the way, do you go to games?

i was just thinking about that too. imo the fans that do want to move are probably the arm chair fans that never even go to matches

A recent poll on Come On You Spurs indicated two-thirds of fans supported the move. This was before Levy discounted the NDP.

Have a look at the other polls.

You, my friend, are an imbecile.

Stratford is served by the Central Line, the Jubilee Line, the Docklands Light Railway, the Overground, an International Terminal, a bus station and a mass of carparking.

Tottenham is served by the Overground and a local bus route. If you want to add the Victoria Line to that, then I'll add the Hammersmith & City Line and the District Line to the Olympic site. After all, Mile End is about the same ‘short walk’ away...

Stratford is infinitely more accessible and only a buffoon would dispute this. That's why you did.

When calculating the comparative accessibility of a destination, you must consider the starting point. You can't say that place A is categorically more accessible than place B unless you know the location of starting point C. Stratford might well be served by all sorts of super-duper, modern modes of public transport. But it is not as close to the homes of as many match going Spurs fans as White Hart Lane is. So it is no more accessible.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, Spurs already has 25,000 season ticket holders, 35,000 on the waiting list, a further 30,000 or so paid up members and many other occasional fans who are, self evidently, prepared to put up with the comparatively poor accessibility of Tottenham. It's not as big an issue as many make out. Have you ever been to Old Trafford? A capacity more than twice that of White Hart Lane and with worse transport infrastructure. Doesn't seem to have affected attendances.

There's even uncertainty in your own words. I don't even think you believe what you're writing.

The creaking transport links can at best be described as mediocre and it’s not uncommon for TfL, who seem to treat the fans with disdain, to plan maintenance work on matchdays. This decreases capacity further.

Increase demand by another 20,000 and let's see if ‘the transport connections are really not so important a decider’...

The Victoria Line has, for a number of years, been undergoing a major modernisation programme that has necessitated line closure at weekends. That work will finally be completed later this year. Disruptions should, henceforward, be few and far between.

As Buckle pointed out, a broad range of other, congestion easing measures are also proposed.

Incoherent rubbish.

It's becoming clear that you get confused trying to read posts on this forum. As I keep saying, try doing it slowly, maybe a little at a time. Then think about it. Only then should you post.

And, still with the contradictions. Have you previously argued that Spurs would need to give up its name if it moved to Stratford?

No.

Cos I bet you have.

I'll repeat that again. No.

Yet even you agree that ‘the name of the stadium would be associated with the club, not where the club is located.’

Unfortunately for your argument, yes. So you are agreed on this point for the purposes of naming rights?

You speak with forked tongue, Buckle. Or do you alternate your posts with your pals, who all have differing views?

You've been watching to many bad Westerns.

Ask yourself this: are West Ham securing their loan through the Exchequer? Are they loading part of the risk on the Local Authority?

Then ask yourself this: are we?

Which do you think is the better deal for Joe Taxpayer?

But your original point was about public funding, not a loan.

If you want to talk about the loan, then Newham will have carefully assessed the risks with the loan, and the OPLC will conduct due diligence, etc. Save to say that WHUFC would have to become insolvent before it was unable to pay the instalments and low interest of this £40m loan.

Ask yourself this: are West Ham securing their loan through the Exchequer? Are they loading part of the risk on the Local Authority?

Then ask yourself this: are we?

Which do you think is the better deal for Joe Taxpayer?

It depends whether or not Joe Taxpayer believes that the stadium should be knocked down and whether or not athletics should be sent crawling back to its Crystal Palace backwater.

The recent poll by BBC London showed an overwhelming majority in favour of the original stadium, in favour of athletics keeping their home in the Olympic Park and in favour of West Ham's overall proposal.

Seems to me that Joe Taxpayer is concerned more by what they will get for the money rather than what the amounts of money are (an insignificant figure, as it happens, in the overall scheme of things).

The contradictory effects? As opposed to what? Your own impartial analysis? In one breath you're relying on a Club representative's testimony, in another you're accusing the Club of lying.

The first statement was from late 2008, part of a lengthy interview on the official web site for a small number of supporters like myself who were curious enough to know more. As far as I can see it was not intended for wider public consumption, nor was that component of the interview relayed through the main channels of the media.

The second lot of statements from Keirle was from a couple of weeks ago, given in a press conference and in some interviews for the mass media. These statements contained figures that were clearly 'economic with the truth'. They were part of a big spin offensive run by Mike Lee.

The Club have never said we can't afford it (although a cursory look at our turnover and profit will quickly illustrate we probably can't), they’ve said it's not viable. It would push us into financial penury.

The trouble is (a) you don't know this and (b) in all likelihood you are wrong. But, if you want to argue the point, why not present us with your analysis of how the figures work for the NDP?

But, then, I’d imagine you're the kind of person who thinks Andy Carroll would've been cheap at half the price.

Er, no.

You haggle upwards because you don’t quite have a grasp on this money thing.

Well, here is your big opportunity to show your grasp of 'the money thing': demonstrate to us, using an analysis of the figures, the unviability of the NDP.

So the Olympic Stadium is better-located than that Crystal Palace backwater? Even though Crystal Palace is about as well-connected as White Hart Lane?



Do you see? Is it beginning to penetrate?

Apples and pears.

Tottenham Hotspur don't need to be located in a fancy, new park with super-duper transport links. Football is the most popular spectator sport in the world. The Premier League is the most globally watched domestic league in the world. Spurs is a thriving Premier League football club with a huge local, national and international fan base. Every game is sold out. It has 25,000 season ticket holders, 35,000 on the waiting list, 30,000 further members and millions upon millions of other fans.

Athletics, by contrast, is a minority sport. It doesn't enjoy the huge profile, acres of newsprint or countless hours of TV broadcast that sustain football. It needs all the help it can get. And one of the few ways in which it can genuinely be helped is by locating it in a good stadium in a great location. General accessibility is far more important to athletics because its fan base isn't local. Its fan base is thinly spread and widely dispersed. It can never hope to thrive in a backwater like Crystal Palace.

Here's that post again.

Demolish my argument? If you said that to me in a pub after I'd offered you my hand, I'd punch a hole in your face.

I'll come back to you, your stupid points and your personality disorder later.

It speaks for itself and the credibility of the poster.

A recent poll on Come On You Spurs indicated two-thirds of fans supported the move. This was before Levy discounted the NDP.

One poll - on a website, by the way, that encourages a fawning, obedient attitude with its risible pandering to so called ITK's.

The vast majority of polls that I have seen have shown a huge majority against the move to Stratford. In fact, your example is the only one that I've heard of that has produced such a result.

As I said, you should have been at Craven Cottage yesterday. You would be under no illusions as to how deeply unpopular the potential move to Stratford is with a large proportion of Spurs fans.

On a more general note, in light of recent exchanges, something we should all (me included) remember and heed:

We are all Spurs fans. We all share a love for the team that plays in the lilywhite shirts with the cockerel on the chest. We all have a passion for football, played the Spurs way, coursing through our blood and deep within our bones.

We might disagree about this one issue. We might sometimes get carried away with the emotion of it all.

But though this may seem like civil war.......let's at least keep it civil.

i think some people on here don't understand what being a Spurs supporter is all about. I want to win things as much as the next person but i think what is more impotant is how we win, and how we play mor than the results.

'The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It's about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.' Danny Blanchflower

"We must always consider our supporters, for without them there would be no professional football. It would be better to have more fans watching football the way they like it played, rather than have a few fans watching football the way we would like it played."

"It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. And we of Spurs have
set our sights very high, so high in fact that even failure will have in it an echo of glory."

so to claim if we don't move we won't win anything is ridiculous. we are the only club apart from united to have won a major trophy in each of the last 6 decades, we are 4th on the all time honours list, 3 rd highest European trophys. at worst we probably have to wait like ten years for a trophy. i would rather stay at tottenham as it is, win 1 or 2 trophys a decade and keep our traditions then move to stratford and win the champions league etc every year.

hopefully the 56k WHL is realiseed an we can compete at the highest level where we belong. we are only 8 cups behind the scum and i want us to get near them again. one thing i will sya is i think its funny that Levy won't pay the 7 million to the TFL for the Tottenham Hale extension but offers 38.5 Mil to buy Sergio Aguero

Great post, Harry. Spot on.

I've just had a IM from the mod, who wanted to know exactly what was going on with this project and how it related to the Olympic Park.....

I started describing the situation and it turned into rather a long post. I realised how confusing it could be for people not following what is going on!! I think it might be helpful for anyone else stumbling into this thread, especially people from outside the UK who don't know the geography or politics, if I paste my response to him here....




Yep, same project, different location.

White Hart Lane is on a fairly grotty high street in North London. The Olympic Park, on the other hand, will be a beautiful new 500 acre park in London with great transportation to the centre of town. A no brainer right?

Except things are never that simple.

The Olympic Park is firmly in West Ham's terrority in East London. They are the "natural" tennants for the Olympic stadium and are claiming as such in their bid for it. But they're not as financially stable as Spurs, which is why our bid, despite it including knocking down the Olympic Stadium, is in with a strong chance of being chosen.

The fact that Spurs could conceivably move to West Ham territory in East London hasn't gone down that well with many fans from either side or the MP for Tottenham who would lose his constituincy's biggest employer. UK Athletics don't like the plan either because it means losing the Olympic Stadium.

Then again, other Spurs fans, if offered the chance to have a bigger stadium would be happy to move, and some West Ham fans want Spurs' bid to win so they don't end up watching football from behind an athletics track!



And it gets even more complicated....

The winning bid for the Olympic stadium has to prove to the OPLC (Olympic Park Legacy Company) it can provide an athletics legacy as was promised by London 2012's Olympic bid. The fact that Spurs' plan includes no athletics legacy at the Olympic Park means Spurs have instead offered to refurbish the Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium to provide this legacy. This hasn't gone down well with UK Athletics who see this offer as "derisory". To complicate things even further Crystal Palace Football Club want the same site at Crystal Palace for their new stadium - hence we have two different plans for the same site, from two different clubs, for two different sports in this thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1304881).

And don't forget...

Whoever ends up playing at the Olympic Stadium (or where it's situated), Leyton Orient FC won't be happy. They fear a big Premier League club turning up near them will send them out of business.

So, essentially, we have Tottenham, West Ham, Crystal Palace, Leyton Orient AND UK Athletics all pulling in different directions. I wouldn't want to be making the decision on who gets the Olympic Stadium as a lot of people will be unhappy whoever is chosen!! :nuts:

Ha!

The whole situation reminds me of this:

Cricket: As explained to a foreigner...

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.
When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.

The unmistakable sign of someone feeling outfoxed and 'defeated' by extremely well put forward and eloquently expressed arguments (round of applause here for Jim B et al) is when that person starts spewing out vitriol such as 'I'd punch a hole in your face'.

I resent Mr. Malark's cheap PR exercise on this thread and despite his gifted way with words, the 'selling technique' had the feel of Del Boy trying to flog us a smelly pair of second hand socks.

Anyway, lets hope the olympic stadium/site ends up in West Ham's hands ASAP so we don't have to even discuss the horrifying prospect of THFC in faraway Stratford. However, as much as we don't like to think about it, money speaks louder than any amount of reasoning or soundly based argument.

I'm sure by now there are quite a few of us feeling a certain degree of apprehension ahead of the final announcement.

Apprehensive about the result - yes.

But right now, just plain fed up with waiting!

I think that that will be true of many Spurs fans who oppose the move to Stratford.

A choice between staying at a 36K stadium in Tottenham and moving to a 60K stadium in Stratford is, to many Spurs fans, nothing more than a choice between Tottenham Hotspur continuing to exist and Tottenham Hotspur ceasing to exist.

Expressed in those terms, it's not a difficult choice to make.

Fair point. Although it'd be interesting to distill the argument down to those two key options, couch it in slightly less subjective terms, then throw it out to a supporters' vote. I have an inkling which way it'd go.

Why do people never mention Camden when they talk about where Spurs fans come from. I know quite a few season ticket holders, and a lot more like myself who manage about 6-7 games a season (do shift work). Yes there are probably more Arsenal fans in Camden (used to be half and half) but that is probably true of Tottenham as well. I'd say 35% of people in Camden are Spurs 45% Arsenal and 20% other.

''Stratford is infinitely more accessible and only a buffoon would dispute this. That's why you did''

What difference does accessibilty make if you are a true Spurs fan? I travel to games from South Essex.....I pass Stratford on the way!! Does anyone seriously think there are hordes of Spurs fans sitting at home on a Saturday morning pondering to themselves 'd'ya know..I would go but...gee...that walk from Seven Sisters is sooo annoying'' Or ' if only we played at Stratford...I'd go every week'......It means sweet FA and never has.
To anyone who has to ponder about transport one week, they will ponder about the weather the next and missing the hollyoaks omnibus the following.

I appreciate that many clubs will rely on some fairweather fans over the course of a season but this has not been an issue for Spurs in a long time. I also appreciate that our new stadium will rely on a certain amount of prawn sarnie eaters, Japanese tourists and punters who thought they were buying tickets for Les Mis but I simply do not buy the 'transport is a problem' argument. I dont know a Spurs fan who uses it as an excuse not to go.

Re transport links. No one can deny Stratford is better served but the hourly service from Tottenham Hale to Stratford woud and could easily be improved and I expect it will when Westfield opens later this year. West Ham station is the Olympic station for the District Line and Hammersmith & City line having a new exit under construction at this time for spectators to walk just over 3/4 mile along the Greenaway (Northern Outfall Sewer in my day) to the Olympic Stadium. As for the current poor transport links affecting attendences. I don't think it affects the supporters as is often claimed. Arsenal with 60,000 public transport still is no better than it was despite promises. West Ham with 35000 has suffered a drop in attendances because Upton Park station is often closed on matchday due to engineering works and involves a long walk from Barking or Canning Town. What Stratford will do is attract floating/tourists spectators from long distances who know they will be able to get in. I can remember on Boxing Day when games kicked of at different times foreign football fans going to 2 and even 3 games on the same day.

Jim & Buckle, if Levy suddenly announced tomorrow that a site near Tottenham Hale had suddenly become "viable", would you support that or still insist on Northumberland Park?

Mr Malark:

You should not dismiss Dalston as a location just because you think it has an ‘unsuitable’ postcode or think its in east London. Both represent the arguments of someone with a very restricted and bi-polar view of the world.

I don’t know enough about Dalston to try and drum up support for Spurs to move there. I do know that if West Ham get Stratford, the search will still continue for a new THFC location.

After careful scrutiny of the North London area on the map, it becomes clearly apparent to anyone, that a move to Dalston would be ideally suited for THFC – a superb geo-strategic choice of location, both in terms of catchment area, business growth potential and also in relation to the social geography of our main rivals arsenal and West Ham.

But… things are never that easy – land purchase, finance, local protest, etc, etc, etc.

Fair point. Although it'd be interesting to distill the argument down to those two key options, couch it in slightly less subjective terms, then throw it out to a supporters' vote. I have an inkling which way it'd go.

Even if the vote was as much as 80% in favour of a move to Stratford, Spurs and Spurs fans would still be the losers.

It isn't advisable to alienate 20% of a club's fan base at any time, let alone at a time when the club is moving to a stadium with a vastly increased capacity. And we're not talking about fair-weather fans either. As the chanting at the Fulham game proved, many of Spurs' most loyal fans are among those most steadfastly opposed to the potential move.

Jim & Buckle, if Levy suddenly announced tomorrow that a site near Tottenham Hale had suddenly become "viable", would you support that or still insist on Northumberland Park?

A move to Tottenham Hale would be fine with me.

''Stratford is infinitely more accessible and only a buffoon would dispute this. That's why you did''

What difference does accessibilty make if you are a true Spurs fan? I travel to games from South Essex.....I pass Stratford on the way!! Does anyone seriously think there are hordes of Spurs fans sitting at home on a Saturday morning pondering to themselves 'd'ya know..I would go but...gee...that walk from Seven Sisters is sooo annoying'' Or ' if only we played at Stratford...I'd go every week'......It means sweet FA and never has.
To anyone who has to ponder about transport one week, they will ponder about the weather the next and missing the hollyoaks omnibus the following.

I appreciate that many clubs will rely on some fairweather fans over the course of a season but this has not been an issue for Spurs in a long time. I also appreciate that our new stadium will rely on a certain amount of prawn sarnie eaters, Japanese tourists and punters who thought they were buying tickets for Les Mis but I simply do not buy the 'transport is a problem' argument. I dont know a Spurs fan who uses it as an excuse not to go.

Exactly.

It's really not a major issue for genuine fans.

They might prefer White Hart Lane to be better connected in terms of public transport. But, as is made self evident by the demand for tickets, it is not a deal breaker for them.

Mr Malark:

You should not dismiss Dalston as a location just because you think it has an ‘unsuitable’ postcode or think its in east London. Both represent the arguments of someone with a very restricted and bi-polar view of the world.

I don’t know enough about Dalston to try and drum up support for Spurs to move there. I do know that if West Ham get Stratford, the search will still continue for a new THFC location.

After careful scrutiny of the North London area on the map, it becomes clearly apparent to anyone, that a move to Dalston would be ideally suited for THFC – a superb geo-strategic choice of location, both in terms of catchment area, business growth potential and also in relation to the social geography of our main rivals arsenal and West Ham.

But… things are never that easy – land purchase, finance, local protest, etc, etc, etc.

Oxo, I certainly would not object to moving to Dalston, if it could provide a site for a 60k modern stadium, but I just don't think there is anything available there. Not to mention the planning and site-assembly issues even if there was.

Your position seems quite peculiar though, judging from your posts. You seem anti-Stratford, but pro-Dalston. Am I correct? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that view point by the way.

All of this just shows how un-scientific these questions are. I wouldn't mind Stratford (or Dalston) but I would mind Enfield, because to me that would be going outside London.

Don't ask me to explain, because I can't.

Exactly.

It's really not a major issue for genuine fans.

They might prefer White Hart Lane to be better connected in terms of public transport. But, as is made self evident by the demand for tickets, it is not a deal breaker for them.

I agree that it is not a major issue for "genuine fans" (although as you admit many of them genuinely do wish the transport links were better).

But one of the major reasons for seeking a 60k stadium is to attract new fans and new investment. Sure, we have a long waiting list who are aware of the current transport, but there will be several games in a season (Wigan, Bolton etc) where the uptake for tickets is weaker. This already happens at Stamford Bridge, the Emirates, OT, Anfield etc for some games. Inevitably this will attract some corporate types and prawn sandwich-eaters who we would probably regard as less genuine, but they are a necessary evil.

Also, it seems that the idea is to use the ground in the summer for non-football events, particularly if an investor such as AEG are involved. I might put up with a 30 minute walk to a Spurs game, but if I wanted to watch Bruce Springsteen I'd rather go to Wembley or the O2.

Every other premiership club would do the same in our position, and I wouldn't want our club to scoff at these ideas on a point of principle, and let the investment go elsewhere.

I agree that it is not a major issue for "genuine fans" (although as you admit many of them genuinely do wish the transport links were better).

But one of the major reasons for seeking a 60k stadium is to attract new fans and new investment. Sure, we have a long waiting list who are aware of the current transport, but there will be several games in a season (Wigan, Bolton etc) where the uptake for tickets is weaker. This already happens at Stamford Bridge, the Emirates, OT, Anfield etc for some games. Inevitably this will attract some corporate types and prawn sandwich-eaters who we would probably regard as less genuine, but they are a necessary evil.

Also, it seems that the idea is to use the ground in the summer for non-football events, particularly if an investor such as AEG are involved. I might put up with a 30 minute walk to a Spurs game, but if I wanted to watch Bruce Springsteen I'd rather go to Wembley or the O2.

Every other premiership club would do the same in our position, and I wouldn't want our club to scoff at these ideas on a point of principle, and let the investment go elsewhere.

Spurs will attract new fans by being successful; by playing great football; and by signing (or producing) great players. Stadium accessibility will have a minimal effect on the fan base (as I said before, Old Trafford has twice the capacity and worse public transport infrastructure than WHL, yet it has more fans than any other club in the world).

And I have to say that I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that a move to Stratford would help attendances for those less glamorous games, against the likes of Wigan, on a cold February midweek night. Quite the opposite, IMO. It is abundantly apparent that many of Spurs' most ardent and loyal fans are among those most steadfastly opposed to the move to Stratford. They are the ones who you can guarantee will go to every game, regardless of the opposition or the weather. Alienate enough of them, and Spurs will really struggle to get 50,000 to attend those less appealing games - let alone 60,000.

''Stratford is infinitely more accessible and only a buffoon would dispute this. That's why you did''

What difference does accessibilty make if you are a true Spurs fan? I travel to games from South Essex.....I pass Stratford on the way!! Does anyone seriously think there are hordes of Spurs fans sitting at home on a Saturday morning pondering to themselves 'd'ya know..I would go but...gee...that walk from Seven Sisters is sooo annoying'' Or ' if only we played at Stratford...I'd go every week'......It means sweet FA and never has.
To anyone who has to ponder about transport one week, they will ponder about the weather the next and missing the hollyoaks omnibus the following.

I appreciate that many clubs will rely on some fairweather fans over the course of a season but this has not been an issue for Spurs in a long time. I also appreciate that our new stadium will rely on a certain amount of prawn sarnie eaters, Japanese tourists and punters who thought they were buying tickets for Les Mis but I simply do not buy the 'transport is a problem' argument. I dont know a Spurs fan who uses it as an excuse not to go.

I could again refer to the extra 20,000 people you'd have to cope with if the NDP project did proceed but it's almost a moot point.

On the issue of transport, the question simply is: would you prefer a ground with better transport links? Or not? Cos even if poor accessibility wasn't prohibitive, and I agree that it currently isn't to most fans, would good accessibility be preferable? I think yes.

There's no great science to it.

Actually, I think Man Utd fans generally quite like Spurs. Reasons being:

1. We remind them of their team when it was at its most entertaining, speedy winger, gung ho best - back in the mid to late 1990's.

2. My enemy's enemy is my friend. For much of the past 15 years (and certainly from 1997 to 2004), Man Utd's biggest rival was Arsenal.

3. We beat Man City to 4th place last season - clinching it at Eastlands. We've also, more generally, had a fantastic record against Man City over the past 15 years.

4. We have regularly taken points off Liverpool over the years.

5. Over recent seasons, we've also started to take more points off Arsenal and Chelsea.

6. We usually roll over and lose against Utd.

Or it could be that we are 6 point tottenham.

See how much they like us if we actually started to beat them.

Mr Malark:

You should not dismiss Dalston as a location just because you think it has an ‘unsuitable’ postcode or think its in east London. Both represent the arguments of someone with a very restricted and bi-polar view of the world.

I don’t know enough about Dalston to try and drum up support for Spurs to move there. I do know that if West Ham get Stratford, the search will still continue for a new THFC location.

After careful scrutiny of the North London area on the map, it becomes clearly apparent to anyone, that a move to Dalston would be ideally suited for THFC – a superb geo-strategic choice of location, both in terms of catchment area, business growth potential and also in relation to the social geography of our main rivals arsenal and West Ham.

But… things are never that easy – land purchase, finance, local protest, etc, etc, etc.

This is such a silly argument. I know Dalston very well and wouldn't have any qualms moving there, if the place hadn't been developed to within an inch of its life.

Unless you can pinpoint these fantastic expanses of suitable land, let's just agree it's a daft idea and move on.

When is the damn decision? Getting bored of this whole excercise.

On a more general note, in light of recent exchanges, something we should all (me included) remember and heed:

We are all Spurs fans. We all share a love for the team that plays in the lilywhite shirts with the cockerel on the chest. We all have a passion for football, played the Spurs way, coursing through our blood and deep within our bones.

We might disagree about this one issue. We might sometimes get carried away with the emotion of it all.

But though this may seem like civil war.......let's at least keep it civil.

I completely agree. I also promise not to punch a hole in anyone's face for at least 24hrs.

A couple of links for the pro Stratford brigade.....


http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/sport/headlinesport/8824900.Tottenham_release_Crystal_Palace_plans/?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/01/tottenham-olympic-stadium-athletics?

''On the issue of transport, the question simply is: would you prefer a ground with better transport links? Or not? Cos even if poor accessibility wasn't prohibitive, and I agree that it currently isn't to most fans, would good accessibility be preferable? I think yes.''

But not at the expense of uprooting to Stratford. No great science to that either.

Mr. Malark.

If Dalston is developed to within an inch of its life, well then sadly so be it.
Like I said, it would have been the ideal location had it not been
for the issue of land availability.

Stratford would be bad news for our club - like handing over arsenal
the keys to the whole of north London!

A couple of links for the pro Stratford brigade.....


http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/sport/headlinesport/8824900.Tottenham_release_Crystal_Palace_plans/?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/01/tottenham-olympic-stadium-athletics?

''On the issue of transport, the question simply is: would you prefer a ground with better transport links? Or not? Cos even if poor accessibility wasn't prohibitive, and I agree that it currently isn't to most fans, would good accessibility be preferable? I think yes.''

But not at the expense of uprooting to Stratford. No great science to that either.

Re that second link, I think that athletics group is a rogue group who hate Sebastian Coe. I don't think it will be taken seriously. Most athletes are definitely against Spurs' plan, although I am not sure if most have followed the story particularly closely.

There is an article today with a link on the BBC website with an interview by the original architect of the Olympic stadium. He says that a running track in a football stadium is ridiculous (but then he spoils it all by saying West Ham and Spurs should share).

Interestingly, he talks about building another athletics stadium elsewhere on the Olympic Park. Orient have also talked about taking a site elsewhere in the park (the hockey stadium I think).

Up to now no one has really talked about this possibility, maybe on the assumption that there was no room for two stadia. If you look at a map the whole site is absolutely massive and the OS is a small circle in the southwestern corner. There is an enormous media centre to the west of the site which I'm sure won't be needed long term. There are half a dozen other arenas dotted about and I'm not sure if these are meant to be permanent.

Could it be open to Spurs (or West Ham for that matter) to build the athletics stadium there instead of Crystal Palace? Or better still, to downsize the actual OS to 25k as originally envisaged (keeping the track where it is), and build their football stadium to the north of the site?

I don't know.

Here is that link I was talking about.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/summer-olympics/2012/11833-tottenham-and-west-ham-should-both-play-at-london-2012-stadium-claims-olympic-architect

At last, a BBC journalist who doesn't have his tongue up Seb Coe's arse!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9383736.stm

It is an interview with the Greek equivalent of the chairman of the OPLC Yiorgos Panayiotou (which incidentally is George Michael's real name - I've been wondering what he's been doing the last few years)

At last, a BBC journalist who doesn't have his tongue up Seb Coe's arse!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9383736.stm

It is an interview with the Greek equivalent of the chairman of the OPLC Yiorgos Panayiotou (which incidentally is George Michael's real name - I've been wondering what he's been doing the last few years)

The Olympic site is another Canary Wharf, but with the shops first followed by the offices. Canary Wharf is a vast shopping centre as well but took ten years to develop. That is only reason Spurs and West Ham want it is the money it will generate.

Jim & Buckle, if Levy suddenly announced tomorrow that a site near Tottenham Hale had suddenly become "viable", would you support that or still insist on Northumberland Park?

It's in Tottenham, so no problem in principle.

Mind you, before offering a definitive opinion I'd still want to know how TH was 'viable' and the NDP was not.

Are you Tottenham guys are on side if the new stadium goes anywhere with a 'N' post code? Other than Islington, of course. I just want to understand what works for you beyond having a new stadium next door to the present one.

Also, if Stratford had a 'N' post code, would that make it OK?

I read a July 2010 document outlining Transport for London's concerns about the White Hart Line site. Although planning permission is granted, it still seems like there's some real challenges satisfying TfL's concerns, which seem quite legitimate, about moving bigger crowds out of the stadium site in a safe and timely manner. No chance for big concerts at WHL, by the look of things, Spurs possibly on the hook for all sorts of staffing requirements to keep underground lineups in order, even as far away as Finsbury Park. That's crazy.

A lot of concern about fans driving into the stadium area, where they'll park, how they'll affect traffic patterns on match days.

Was all this completely resolved when permission was granted or is this part of what Levy is grumpy about regarding staying at WHL?

Let me also get some perspective on the area around the current stadium. People say it's pretty rundown and dangerous, more so on non-match days. Is this just around the stadium, or would that apply right down High Rd, and along adjoining streets to Seven Sisters or Tottenham Hale tube stations? Does it get better the further south one goes? Or is north better?

Are you Tottenham guys are on side if the new stadium goes anywhere with a 'N' post code?
I think many of the 'floaters' would certainly be happier if we stayed in North London (assuming we HAVE to abandon the NDP project in the meantime)

Also, if Stratford had a 'N' post code, would that make it OK?
I see what you are getting at but this isnt really just about a postcode. A major issue with Stratford is that it is WHU territory (and Leyton Orient too). Its East London...it's theirs. Just as North London is ours:)



Let me also get some perspective on the area around the current stadium. People say it's pretty rundown and dangerous, more so on non-match days.
Tottenham is indeed a rough and rundown neighbourhood...like many all over the capital. I've been going there for years and now take my kids along too and we never have any problems. Dangerous? Not on match days it isnt. The surrounding streets are like many areas of London, they look more menacing than they really are. I spend a lot of time around Bow and Hackney in east London...just as rough looking as Tottenham but not a lot different in atmosphere.
I rarely visit the area outside of games though and can imagine its not the nicest place to have a night out with the wife (but then neither is my current sleepy little home town!)

I read a July 2010 document outlining Transport for London's concerns about the White Hart Line site. Although planning permission is granted, it still seems like there's some real challenges satisfying TfL's concerns, which seem quite legitimate, about moving bigger crowds out of the stadium site in a safe and timely manner. No chance for big concerts at WHL, by the look of things, Spurs possibly on the hook for all sorts of staffing requirements to keep underground lineups in order, even as far away as Finsbury Park. That's crazy.

A lot of concern about fans driving into the stadium area, where they'll park, how they'll affect traffic patterns on match days.

Was all this completely resolved when permission was granted or is this part of what Levy is grumpy about regarding staying at WHL?

?

He probably is grumpy if TfL is being more restrictive after Arsenal reneged on all their transport promises for Arsenal, Holloway Rd and Highbury stations.

EAST SHACKLEWELL LOCATION.

Hackney Downs in the Shacklewell area would be a great place to move because of its ideal location for THFC - only 2 miles from the city with Hackney Downs and Central being the nearest rail and tube stop respectively.

I'm sure most of us would loosely recognise Shacklewell as a 'Far-south Tottenham' area so there would be no major uprooting and loss of fan identity with such a strategic relocation.

About 30% of the Hackney Downs green would need to be made available for THFC, so it would be surrounded on 2 or 3 sides of large expanse of park land with the rail line demarking the stadiums western edge.

Hackney would be on to a very nice earner and the rather rundown area of East Shacklewell could be given a boost. If the council regard Hackney Downs as protected, sacred and untouchable, I'm sure they would reconsider and review its 'untouchability' if a very tantalizing offer was put forward.

Are you Tottenham guys are on side if the new stadium goes anywhere with a 'N' post code? Other than Islington, of course. I just want to understand what works for you beyond having a new stadium next door to the present one.

No. For me, it's not enough just to have an N in the postcode - though, obviously, remaining a north London club is imperative.

Spurs would have to present an utterly compelling - life or death - argument to move a significant distance away from Tottenham. So far, I've seen nothing of the sort. Only u-turns, lies and spin.

Also, if Stratford had a 'N' post code, would that make it OK?

Nope.

I read a July 2010 document outlining Transport for London's concerns about the White Hart Line site. Although planning permission is granted, it still seems like there's some real challenges satisfying TfL's concerns, which seem quite legitimate, about moving bigger crowds out of the stadium site in a safe and timely manner. No chance for big concerts at WHL, by the look of things, Spurs possibly on the hook for all sorts of staffing requirements to keep underground lineups in order, even as far away as Finsbury Park. That's crazy.

20,000 extra seats will undoubtedly make congestion worse. But it will be nothing unusual. I repeat, Old Trafford has more than twice WHL's capacity and worse transport links. Yet it has been sold out for every game for decades. No one makes a fuss about the congestion there. No reason why they should make a fuss about congestion at WHL.

As to concerts, Spurs were granted permission to stage a limited number, for which capacity would be limited to 45,000.

A lot of concern about fans driving into the stadium area, where they'll park, how they'll affect traffic patterns on match days.

There will be a new, greatly extended Controlled Parking Zone. Traffic in the immediate area will consequently probably be better than it is now.

Was all this completely resolved when permission was granted or is this part of what Levy is grumpy about regarding staying at WHL?

It was all resolved during the planning process and Spurs were consequently granted planning permission. Daniel Levy is only "grumpy" now because, in order to increase the apparent attractiveness of moving to Stratford, he has to diminish the apparent attractiveness of staying in Tottenham.

Let me also get some perspective on the area around the current stadium. People say it's pretty rundown and dangerous, more so on non-match days. Is this just around the stadium, or would that apply right down High Rd, and along adjoining streets to Seven Sisters or Tottenham Hale tube stations? Does it get better the further south one goes? Or is north better?

As others have said, it's poor and run down but it's not really any worse than a number of other areas of London. Heading north, Enfield is more middle class, on the whole. Heading west, you have the relatively well-to-do areas of Muswell Hill, Alexandra Park and Finchley. Heading south, south Tottenham isn't much better than north Tottenham. In fact, you have to go beyond Hackney and head most of the way into the City of London or Shoreditch before you get to some better areas. Heading east, you have to get through Walthamstow before getting to the gentler streets of Chigwell.

He probably is grumpy if TfL is being more restrictive after Arsenal reneged on all their transport promises for Arsenal, Holloway Rd and Highbury stations.

"After Arsenal reneged?" To the best of my knowledge the remnants of the club's temporary development arm can't even move forward on some of the lingering additional facilities around the new venue until the government accomplishes their work on station improvements, which at last word was bundled along with all the other projects that have been postponed due to the economy. After all, the clubs themselves wouldn't be carrying out the actual improvements on government infrastructure, but merely directing funds to said action, which Arsenal has done.

The only things on which the club has "reneged" are those ancillary structures for shops, rec space and other features to be developed near the stadium site, and much of that is due to ongoing discussions with the locals and the Council as to what form they want it to take. Too many chefs, and all that.

Back on topic, I'm still amazed THFC are pursuing the Olympic idea to the extent they are, and remain convinced as others it's a sign that funny dealings are going on behind the scenes. Either the club is facing hidden struggles with their (better) plans for WHL or the Olympic Park site has some secret benefits I've yet to discern. WHU has at least a legit means of demonstrating the poisitve potential returns versus their other options, but I'd have thought Levy and Co. would simply rather be moving 110% forward with their well received design.

Either that or it's all a scheme to force WHU to work harder and invest more money while THFC casually dips their brand into more of East London.

Interesting...

A warning from Germany to West Ham about retaining an athletics track in a football stadium:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3386287/Bayern-Munich-warn-West-Ham-against-Olympic-Stadium-running-track.html

Interesting...

A warning from Germany to West Ham about retaining an athletics track in a football stadium:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3386287/Bayern-Munich-warn-West-Ham-against-Olympic-Stadium-running-track.html

I guess everyone in their heart of hearts knows damn well that a running track around a football pitch is a nightmare and woud never be contemplated given the choice (Even Gold and Brady probably know this, no matter how smartly they dress it up!)
The relief I would feel if WHU got the stadium would be tempered greatly by the sympathy I would have for their fans having to endure this tragic scenario.
Whatever the outcome of this someone is going to suffer and a dispirited, disjointed fragmented WHU is no good for London football. Arsenal fans might well be relishing the thought of Spurs moving to Stratford but have they really thought through what it would mean to their own club? Having us next door goes some way to making them them who they are and us who we are.
We might hate eachother but we need eachother!

Arsenal fans might well be relishing the thought of Spurs moving to Stratford but have they really thought through what it would mean to their own club? Having us next door goes some way to making them them who they are and us who we are.
We might hate eachother but we need eachother!Well I wouldn't go THAT far! ;)

But seriously, I get what you're saying and I for one have said all along I'm for what's best for English/Scottish football and the Premier League, and I know stadium ownership and supporting the fans has been a large part of why English football has prospered. One need only look at how dependent Spanish and Italian clubs are on TV contracts to get the idea.

No tracks at English football grounds. Better still that all grounds are oriented around football first, and at least the new WHL proposal accomlishes this. :cheers:

Interesting...

A warning from Germany to West Ham about retaining an athletics track in a football stadium:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3386287/Bayern-Munich-warn-West-Ham-against-Olympic-Stadium-running-track.html

What the bosses from Bayern Munich say is basically right, but there are also other examples, even in Germany. The Olympic stadium in Berlin has to be considered a sucess, and a good venue for soccer even with a running track.
Hertha BSC has far higher attendancies than some other clubs and the Olympic Stadium in Berlin is regularly used for DFB cup finals and has also been used in the 2006 World Cup again despite plenty of other well sized options without a running track.

Personally I'd agree that a running track is basically a nightmare for nearly any soccer fan.
But it's allways a financial issue also.
Plenty of clubs here in germany including mine have financial problems because they built fancy new stadia. From Schalke and Dortmund in the first league to 1860 Munich, Bielefeld and even Aachen in the second league, down to Dresden in league 3.

The club officials from Bayern Munich can easily claim the Allianzarena as being a great success. And yes attendancies from Bayern Munich have gone up and, yes their homegames are constantly sold out. But that's only half of the truth, they're simply not mentioning the other half, the downside. And that is the financial disaster the Allianzarena catapulted the second tennant 1860 Munich into. They simply don't mention that the Allianzarena is only a blessing for the big FC Bayern München, but at the same time it's a real curse for the TSV 1860 München. The situation in the Allianzarena is just not as simple as the officials from Bayern Munich present it, surely they have all the benefits, being able to sell out the stadium for all the homegames, having a second tennant paying millions of euros for rent, having had benefits of state and city providing infrastructure etc.
Only 1860 Munich being the smaller tennant has to deal with all the problems, of having to play in an oversized, overly expensive arena, not getting out because of long term contracts, not being able to expect any kind of financial support should they ever be building a smaller stadium, because of the existing Olympic stadium and Allianz arena in Munich etc. etc. etc.

So they're right with their warning, but as an extremely wealthy club they're simply forgetting the financial issues.
At the same time, just as right as they are with their arguments, the truth is also just as well, that playing in a stadium with a running track should usually still be far better for any club, than going bankrupt or becoming uncompetitive in their league due to high financial burdens of building a stadium without running track or modifying a stadium removing the track.
It allways depends on each clubs individual premisses and conditions.

Well I wouldn't go THAT far! ;)

But seriously, I get what you're saying and I for one have said all along I'm for what's best for English/Scottish football and the Premier League, and I know stadium ownership and supporting the fans has been a large part of why English football has prospered. One need only look at how dependent Spanish and Italian clubs are on TV contracts to get the idea.

No tracks at English football grounds. Better still that all grounds are oriented around football first, and at least the new WHL proposal accomlishes this. :cheers:

Nice to see a fan of an ardent rival club make a constructive statement. Much respect.

If Spurs move to Straftord, it might make them less appealing to certain hard-core fans, but it clearly makes them more commercially appealing.

All this talk of North London seems unambitious when the whole of London and England and, eventually, Europe, should be what a successful club would want to strive for.

I bet domestic success in England, then in Europe is the focus for Arsenal fans, first and foremost, rather than beating a local rival or having some local bragging rights.

I guess everyone in their heart of hearts knows damn well that a running track around a football pitch is a nightmare and woud never be contemplated given the choice (Even Gold and Brady probably know this, no matter how smartly they dress it up!)
The relief I would feel if WHU got the stadium would be tempered greatly by the sympathy I would have for their fans having to endure this tragic scenario.
Whatever the outcome of this someone is going to suffer and a dispirited, disjointed fragmented WHU is no good for London football. Arsenal fans might well be relishing the thought of Spurs moving to Stratford but have they really thought through what it would mean to their own club? Having us next door goes some way to making them them who they are and us who we are.
We might hate eachother but we need eachother!

We would still be "next door" to them, in fact we would be moving nearer to them

Nice to see a fan of an ardent rival club make a constructive statement. Much respect.

If Spurs move to Straftord, it might make them less appealing to certain hard-core fans, but it clearly makes them more commercially appealing.

All this talk of North London seems unambitious when the whole of London and England and, eventually, Europe, should be what a successful club would want to strive for.

I bet domestic success in England, then in Europe is the focus for Arsenal fans, first and foremost, rather than beating a local rival or having some local bragging rights.

Spurs remaining in Tottenham and Spurs being s successful club, in England and in Europe, are not mutually exclusive options. They can coexist.

The whole notion that Spurs can only be successful if they move to Stratford is a fallacy propagated by Spurs' spin machine.

And just to be quite clear, this issue is not about local bragging rights. It's about identity, integrity and community.

P.S. Gunnerjacket is a complete and utter, ****ing ****.













Nah, not really. He's a top bloke......for a gooner. ;)

''We would still be "next door" to them, in fact we would be moving nearer to them''

This is not so much about the physical distance but more the emotional. At present the status quo suits everyone. We have our NLD, our rivalry with East London and our perceived manor.
If we move to Stratford it wont just detract from us..Spurs ...but in my opinion it will detract/impact upon the Ar5e and WHU too (not to mention little Orient)
As much as I love to see the goons get stuffed I would not be :banana: if this was them moving out of N London (back to Woolwich for eg). Of course the rivalry would remain but it would be diluted. Likewise moving onto WHU manor is going to alter forever our relationship with them. Some may not see this as a negative impact, some may not care.....but I am not comfortable with the possible consequences.

Dont get me wrong I am not anti Stratford on this one emotive issue....like JimB and others I am yet to be convinced by the economic spin from Levy and co.

No one seems interested in talking about the added commercial benefits that Spurs seem almost certain to gain from moving to the Olympic site.

If overall costs to Tottenham are merely equal to what it would take to build where they are now, it stands to reason they would be far better off financially from stronger corporate support, being just a few stops up the DLR from Canary Wharf. If you are selling suites or club seats, these are the people needed to pay for them. That location is probably an easier sell than Tottenham.

Just looking on Google Earth at the two sites, might the Olympic site be a bit cheaper or faster to build at because of easier logistics getting and handling materials on site?

There is another way to lower the club's costs even further. Groundshare. Filthy word, of course, unthinkable for Spurs fans probably, but with all the legacy board delays and possible government involvement, could anyone be shocked if it was being discussed?

Outcome? There would be a quality stadium with both clubs able to have funds to build competitive teams, constant use of the park area and transit system, maybe even generate funds for an atheletics track in the area.

I think if Spurs got the stadium outright, it would signal the start of a steady demise for West Ham(a lot of self-inflicted harm done already). That would stir up a proper shi+storm. Can't have public money putting neighbours like that - competing bidder, no less - to the sword. Not the sort of thing the Olympic legacy shouuld represent.

Could some of the money generated go toward support or compensation for Leyton Orient? Any chance they could become a kind of developmental option for younger players on both clubs, which would help to foster interest from both sets of fans?

I also read that Spurs fans worry that if the team moves they will become tenants instead of landowners. That arrangement doesn't seem to affect the success of America's NFL teams, most of whom play in city-owned stadiums with some listed as the most valuable sports entities in the world.

This week's Super Bowl is being played at Cowboys Stadium, owned by the city of Arlington, Texas. The Cowboys team are ranked second only to ManU in Forbes global ratings. Both teams playing in the game, Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers, play in city-owned stadiums. They are both valued in excess of $1 billion by Forbes, putting them in the top 25 world wide.

Wouldn't Spurs becoming stinking rich and be able to afford top players by moving into such an arrangement?

No one seems interested in talking about the added commercial benefits that Spurs seem almost certain to gain from moving to the Olympic site.

If overall costs to Tottenham are merely equal to what it would take to build where they are now, it stands to reason they would be far better off financially from stronger corporate support, being just a few stops up the DLR from Canary Wharf. If you are selling suites or club seats, these are the people needed to pay for them. That location is probably an easier sell than Tottenham.

That's undoubtedly true.

Equally true is the fact that no football club should betray its heritage, its fans, its community and its identity in pursuit of corporate suits.

Just looking on Google Earth at the two sites, might the Olympic site be a bit cheaper or faster to build at because of easier logistics getting and handling materials on site?

Yes, there probably would be a saving, in terms of money and time.

However, Spurs wouldn't get access to the Olympic stadium until late 2012. So the stadium wouldn't be ready until summer 2015 regardless.

On the other hand, if Spurs were to start work on the new stadium in Tottenham immediately (which, theoretically, they could), they could move in in summer 2013.

There is another way to lower the club's costs even further. Groundshare. Filthy word, of course, unthinkable for Spurs fans probably, but with all the legacy board delays and possible government involvement, could anyone be shocked if it was being discussed?

Outcome? There would be a quality stadium with both clubs able to have funds to build competitive teams, constant use of the park area and transit system, maybe even generate funds for an atheletics track in the area.

It won't happen. Not in England, where a club's stadium is an inherent element of its identity.

There would also be serious issues with overuse of the pitch.

I think if Spurs got the stadium outright, it would signal the start of a steady demise for West Ham(a lot of self-inflicted harm done already). That would stir up a proper shi+storm. Can't have public money putting neighbours like that - competing bidder, no less - to the sword. Not the sort of thing the Olympic legacy shouuld represent.

Agreed. Nor should we forget that a further Olympic legacy would be leaving the area of Tottenham bereft.

Could some of the money generated go toward support or compensation for Leyton Orient? Any chance they could become a kind of developmental option for younger players on both clubs, which would help to foster interest from both sets of fans?

Seems a bit too patronising. Barry Hearn may only be after money but I don't think the Leyton Orient fans will be bought off so easily.

I also read that Spurs fans worry that if the team moves they will become tenants instead of landowners. That arrangement doesn't seem to affect the success of America's NFL teams, most of whom play in city-owned stadiums with some listed as the most valuable sports entities in the world.

This week's Super Bowl is being played at Cowboys Stadium, owned by the city of Arlington, Texas. The Cowboys team are ranked second only to ManU in Forbes global ratings. Both teams playing in the game, Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers, play in city-owned stadiums. They are both valued in excess of $1 billion by Forbes, putting them in the top 25 world wide.

Wouldn't Spurs becoming stinking rich and be able to afford top players by moving into such an arrangement?

The city of Arlington is surely only part owners of the Cowboys stadium? Didn't Jerry Jones provide the bulk of the funds?

But back to the point - yes, I'm sure that moving to Stratford could benefit Spurs financially.

But that's not enough. There are points of principle involved that are far more important than profit margins.

P.S. Gunnerjacket is a complete and utter, ****ing ****.

This was at the bottom of my screen when I first read, you cheeky *******! :lol:

I also read that Spurs fans worry that if the team moves they will become tenants instead of landowners. That arrangement doesn't seem to affect the success of America's NFL teams, most of whom play in city-owned stadiums with some listed as the most valuable sports entities in the world.The NFL is a closed league with essentially a monopoly on viewing for that sport, which inflates the values for those teams and, thus, their stadiums. The NFL teams also don't have the same type of competition for attending fans as EPL clubs. Plus...

This week's Super Bowl is being played at Cowboys Stadium, owned by the city of Arlington, Texas.Because of the league's exclsuivity the lease conditions are so favorable to the franchises it's ridiculous, and that's how the Cowboys/NFL teams retain their value. More importantly, JerryWorld is decidedly better configured for hosting other events throughout the year than it appears the Olympic Stadium could be.

So the question would be could Spurs or West Ham get those types of lease conditions and/or the type of environment that would generate the revenue desired? I can't say, but I do know everything THFC already put into their plans to redevelop WHL are a) in line with most proven successful club-owned expansions and b) contrary to the direction shown in pursuing the Olympic Sadium.

The city of Arlington is surely only part owners of the Cowboys stadium? Didn't Jerry Jones provide the bulk of the funds? The City of Arlington owns the building and the land, but then immediately leases the facility to Jerry Jones. This is very common in the States largely for tax purposes: If the team owners retained the properties the taxes would be huge. Plus the costs for constructing these $1B temples to sporting largese "necessitate" public financing on whole or in part.

The NFL has seen some 15-20 new venues constructed in the past 20 years, and in most cases the owners probably foot the bill for half, factoring in land, site improvements, etc. The venue then becomes a community property for hosting varieties of events, but the NFL team gets primary leasing conditions and virtually all revenues from the site on gameday+. For example, in the case of the Jets and Giants (NY) I think the lease is 50 years. So the teams essentially have no land or rent costs, and that's the only reason we see more domed palaces where at least the communities can host more conventions, concerts, etc. Without the subsidization I'm sure we'd see much smaller, gritty venues.

It's a sham really, and I encourage folks to track fieldofschemes.com for more info on the matter. I love my sports, but I'm a taxpayer, too.

when is the decision going to be made? Are any bookrmakers running markets? Who are the favourites?

There is another way to lower the club's costs even further. Groundshare. Filthy word, of course, unthinkable for Spurs fans probably, but with all the legacy board delays and possible government involvement, could anyone be shocked if it was being discussed?




GROUNDSHARE. Where could Spurs find a 60,000 seat stadium in North London to groundshare already built. I am sure West Ham will get it with Orient sharing even though Barry Hearn does not want it. For some years he has been determined to leave Brisbane Rd. He now wants the hockey stadium on the olympic site or at Eaton Manor where it is due to be rebuilt but he dose not want a premier league team next door. Maybe West Ham will be in the championship by 2015, maybe Spurs will be.

when is the decision going to be made? Are any bookrmakers running markets? Who are the favourites?

Supposed to be in the next week, BUT it is only a recommendation!! The decision is made by Boris Johnson and two government ministers and it is mayoral elections May 2011 and Ken is lurking in the wings..

Supposed to be in the next week, BUT it is only a recommendation!! The decision is made by Boris Johnson and two government ministers and it is mayoral elections May 2011 and Ken is lurking in the wings..

As I said before, I can't imagine that Boris or the government will defy the OPLC's decision.

But if it's a matter of winning votes (or, at least, not losing votes) over the issue, then Boris will definitely go with West Ham. A huge majority of Londoners prefer West Ham's bid to Spurs'.

This was at the bottom of my screen when I first read, you cheeky *******! :lol:

:lol:

Just keeping you on your toes.

The City of Arlington owns the building and the land, but then immediately leases the facility to Jerry Jones. This is very common in the States largely for tax purposes: If the team owners retained the properties the taxes would be huge. Plus the costs for constructing these $1B temples to sporting largese "necessitate" public financing on whole or in part.

The NFL has seen some 15-20 new venues constructed in the past 20 years, and in most cases the owners probably foot the bill for half, factoring in land, site improvements, etc. The venue then becomes a community property for hosting varieties of events, but the NFL team gets primary leasing conditions and virtually all revenues from the site on gameday+. For example, in the case of the Jets and Giants (NY) I think the lease is 50 years. So the teams essentially have no land or rent costs, and that's the only reason we see more domed palaces where at least the communities can host more conventions, concerts, etc. Without the subsidization I'm sure we'd see much smaller, gritty venues.

It's a sham really, and I encourage folks to track fieldofschemes.com for more info on the matter. I love my sports, but I'm a taxpayer, too.

Interesting stuff. Have I understood right that, in such arrangements, the leasehold is free?

Either way, the long and the short of it seems to be that the US model isn't really comparable to what will happen at the Olympic stadium.

As I said before, I can't imagine that Boris or the government will defy the OPLC's decision.

But if it's a matter of winning votes (or, at least, not losing votes) over the issue, then Boris will definitely go with West Ham. A huge majority of Londoners prefer West Ham's bid to Spurs'.

Boris was elected by the middle class voters of outer London. He hardly got any votes from inner London. Does anybody remember Ken Livingston's views as he has got a good chance of being re-elected.

I've answered my own question http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/ken-livingstone-tottenham-hotspur-olympic-stadium

There seems to be two extremist schools of thought on the matter of THFC relocation. Both their arguments are rubbish.

JimB, representing the Tottenham diehards who think any area beyond a 500 metre radius around White Hart Lane is a Spurs no-go zone.
Even the thought of moving to neighbouring Dalston would be like the world turning upside down because its not ‘Tottenham enough’ that far south.

Whereas the other school of thought, at the opposite end of the spectrum represented by Flashman, is quite willing to sacrifice fan identity at the altar of commercialism. He would not have any qualms about renaming the club ‘Coca Cola Hotspur’ and even relocating us to Croydon if only a stadium could be built there with more corporate seat potential.

Both points of view are bollocks in their extremism because as they say ‘the truth lies somewhere in between’.
This is why, if we hopefully lose the Stratftord bid, we should keep an open mind about suitable locations but without being too ‘fanatically’ Tottenham which would be detrimental and backfire on us. By the same token, we should not go over-the-top in the other direction by being blinded through the relentless pursuit of corporate gain and ending up with Bob Diamond as our 'loyal' chairman.

This is why I would suggest locations such as Hackney Downs for THFC. Locations which are quite far away from WHL but do not 'intrude' on
alien catchment areas such as Stratford, Islington and Stepney.

Has Pickets Lock been discounted. Could even have a dedicated station.

There seems to be two extremist schools of thought on the matter of THFC relocation. Both their arguments are rubbish.

JimB, representing the Tottenham diehards who think any area beyond a 500 metre radius around White Hart Lane is a Spurs no-go zone.
Even the thought of moving to neighbouring Dalston would be like the world turning upside down because its not ‘Tottenham enough’ that far south.

Whereas the other school of thought, at the opposite end of the spectrum represented by Flashman, is quite willing to sacrifice fan identity at the altar of commercialism. He would not have any qualms about renaming the club ‘Coca Cola Hotspur’ and even relocating us to Croydon if only a stadium could be built there with more corporate seat potential.

Both points of view are bollocks in their extremism because as they say ‘the truth lies somewhere in between’.
This is why, if we hopefully lose the Stratftord bid, we should keep an open mind about suitable locations but without being too ‘fanatically’ Tottenham which would be detrimental and backfire on us. By the same token, we should not go over-the-top in the other direction by being blinded through the relentless pursuit of corporate gain and ending up with Bob Diamond as our 'loyal' chairman.

This is why I would suggest locations such as Hackney Downs for THFC. Locations which are quite far away from WHL but do not 'intrude' on
alien catchment areas such as Stratford, Islington and Stepney.

Where do you live, lazybones? Is that 'truth that lies inbetween' five minutes from your front door?

Anyway, you haven't quite grasped the argument for moving to Stratford so you might want to familiarise yourself with the key points over the last ten pages. Here's what it isn't though: supporting Coca-Cola FC in Croydon in an expensive suit.

You may also want to get a handle on JimB's frustrating reluctance to re-locate the Club to your back garden. I absolutely don't agree with the guy and never will but at least it isn't reliant on some improbable deus ex machina. Still, maybe Hackney Council will let us build our stadium on one of their cherished public parks? After all, no one thought pigs could fly then swine flu.

Is Mr Levy getting the jitters as decision day approaches seeing public opinion might influence decision makers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/8302292/London-Olympics-2012-Tottenham-chairman-Daniel-Levy-prepared-to-sue-if-club-lose-Olympic-Stadium-bid.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/03/tottenham-olympic-stadium-daniel-levy

i got this message sent to my facebook page earlier. members of the WeAre17 group met with Daniel Levy todya to discuss the stadium situations.


he is the message i got.-

Sorry for not updating people sooner. We are still working on the statement - unfortunately quite a few of us have a hectic work commitment this week.

The Meeting with Daniel Levy went as well anticipated. I spose the major thing we can take out of it is that IF the club win the bid Levy has given his word that their will be a Full and Independent Consultation/Referendum with which we can show that we arent a small minority like he claims. This would take place BEFORE the club pay the non-refundable £20m Bond so there is reason to believe that it COULD affect the outcome.

We'll prepare a more detailed write-up over the next couple of days and get it up here ASAP. Thank You for your continued patience

Levy is now going to sue if he does not get the stadium. Well if he wins and no running track is required West Ham will present their non track stadium (For the Parcelforce site at West Ham) and sue as the Spurs would have changed the criteria for the Olympic site. Barry Hearn will sue anybody and ignore all his plans to move Orient out to Hainault/Harlow proposed long ago. The lawyers will have a field day. It is all down to greed. As an aside I hope the pub landlady wins her case as we never got a reduction as Sky customers when Sky was forced to lower it's wholesale prices.

Another take on the saga:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/02/the_cost_of_shunning_premier_l.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bond
The cost of shunning Premier League duo

One of the questions which keeps coming up in the debate over the future use of the Olympic Stadium is, why did organisers decide back in 2006 and early 2007 to rule out a design which could have accommodated Premier League football?

Instead of building the £500m stadium only to reduce it from 80,000 seats to a 25,000 capacity athletics arena, why didn't designers come up with a plan that would have kept big football and the track and field community happy?

If they had done so, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) would have avoided the difficult dilemma it faces of choosing between two bids essentially from Premier League clubs.

As we know West Ham are prepared to retain the running track which is such an emotive and fundamental part of the promises made by London's winning bid team back in 2005.

But Tottenham want to knock the majority of the stadium down and rebuild it as a football only ground while relocating an athletics legacy to a spruced up Crystal Palace.

Today both bidders will send in clarifications to the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), the body charged with the task of choosing between these two bids. A decision on a preferred bidder is likely by the end of next week.Had Premier League football been factored in from the start then the OPLC's choice might have been an easier one. As it is, the idea of designing a stadium with retractable seating which could have factored in athletics and football or one which could have been easily adapted like the City of Manchester Stadium was rejected very early on in the process and not long after London had won the bid.

It has already been reported elsewhere that earlier interest from West Ham back in December 2006 and January 2007 was rebuffed by the Olympic board because a strategic decision had been taken by the ODA and its designers to rule out a Premier League option.

Despite an offer from West Ham, outlined in two letters to the ODA in December 2006 and January 2007, to pay £100m towards the extra costs created by a redesign, the ODA ploughed on with the reduced capacity athletics option.

I have now received information which sheds new light on why this happened.

As far back as the July 2006 Olympic Board meeting, the decision was taken to go for the so-called "base case" with athletics. This was reiterated at another meeting of the Olympic Board in November 2006.

Why was the then Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and former Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell so detemined to ignore the possibility of a big Premier League team moving in after the Games?

According to one source I have spoken to, the Government commissioned a report by consultants KPMG to examine the legacy options for the stadium. This included KPMG testing the market for interest from a Premier League club.

There was interest from West Ham but by July 2006 the ODA received no formal tenders from any clubs.

But with the clock ticking down, the ODA felt under pressure to start the procurement process for the stadium. They were anxious not to have a repeat of the Wembley Stadium fiasco which came in late and over budget and with an immovable completion deadline of one year before the Games, the Mayor, the Government and the ODA didn't want to take any risks.

The ODA went ahead with the procurement process choosing Team McAlpine and designs for the 80,000 to 25,000 stadium were drawn up by architects.

What potentially changed the situation was the Icelandic takeover by Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson and Eggert Magnusson in the autumn of 2006. The former chairman of the ODA Sir Roy McNulty received a short letter from West Ham on 4 December which outlined their interest but set out a number of conditions. These included:

* Being granted the freehold for the stadium
* Becoming the sole operator
* A retractable seating design
* A 500-space car park

These were reiterated in a more formal offer letter from West Ham's financial director Nick Igoe on 17 January 2007.

But for a third time the Premier League football option was rejected by the Olympic Board at a meeting in February.

Ministers, the Mayor of London and the ODA decided that after six months work the designs were too far down the line to reverse them without jeopardising the timetable for the stadium's delivery.

The source adds that reconfiguring the stadium with retractable seating would have meant submitting a complete redesign which involved moving and reconfiguring stands, starting a new tender process (as a public asset the ODA couldn't just hand the stadium to one bidder without going out to market again) and submitting a new planning application.

That would have had an impact on costs which West Ham's £100m offer may not have covered and potentially caused serious delays.

There was also opposition from developers Westfield, building the new Stratford City shopping complex and the entrance to the Olympic Park. Negotiations with the ODA and landowners were at a delicate stage and they, at that stage, were against a Premier League club moving into the stadium. It is ironic that Westfield are now working with West Ham and Newham Council on their bid.

The other factor to consider is that the ODA had commissioned in September 2006 another group of consultants, PMP, to examine the legacy plans for the stadium and the rest of the park following the work done by KPMG.

They were hired to look at all the options for the stadium except, once again, a combination of Premier League football and athletics, rugby union and rugby league and lower league football were considered.

PMP looked at the finances of the stadium over a five year period following the Games and estimated what the different configurations might cost. Among their findings PMP concluded:

* That an athletics only stadium would need a public subsidy of approximately £1m a year.

* That a combination of athletics and lower league football would only need a subsidy of £1m to £1.5m over five years (£200,000 to £300,000 a year).

Since then estimates for the public subsidy have soared to £5m-£10m a year depending who you believe but at the time, the ODA argued that a £10m subsidy guaranteed by the London Mayor would more than cover the £1m annual cost of running the athletics only legacy.

The PMP report was completed by January 2007 - exactly the same time West Ham were making their offer.

Since then, of course, the OPLC has been brought in to re-think the legacy plans for the stadium and reach out to Premier League football.

And while few expect the OPLC to stick with the original plan chosen back in 2007, a look back at the reasons for that decision do pose another interesting question.

Would the public be prepared to pay for a stadium which shuns Premier League football again and sticks to the legacy promise to athletics made in Singapore six years ago?

when is the decision going to be made? Are any bookrmakers running markets? Who are the favourites?

Spurs were favourites a few weeks ago but West Ham are now, mostly because of the media hype in their favour. A lot of money is going on West Ham, not very much on Spurs. A third option (which no one is talking about) is that no one gets the ground and it just gets downsized as a 25,000 athletics ground as originally planned.

There seems to be two extremist schools of thought on the matter of THFC relocation. Both their arguments are rubbish.

JimB, representing the Tottenham diehards who think any area beyond a 500 metre radius around White Hart Lane is a Spurs no-go zone.
Even the thought of moving to neighbouring Dalston would be like the world turning upside down because its not ‘Tottenham enough’ that far south.

Whereas the other school of thought, at the opposite end of the spectrum represented by Flashman, is quite willing to sacrifice fan identity at the altar of commercialism. He would not have any qualms about renaming the club ‘Coca Cola Hotspur’ and even relocating us to Croydon if only a stadium could be built there with more corporate seat potential.

Both points of view are bollocks in their extremism because as they say ‘the truth lies somewhere in between’.
This is why, if we hopefully lose the Stratftord bid, we should keep an open mind about suitable locations but without being too ‘fanatically’ Tottenham which would be detrimental and backfire on us. By the same token, we should not go over-the-top in the other direction by being blinded through the relentless pursuit of corporate gain and ending up with Bob Diamond as our 'loyal' chairman.

This is why I would suggest locations such as Hackney Downs for THFC. Locations which are quite far away from WHL but do not 'intrude' on
alien catchment areas such as Stratford, Islington and Stepney.

Truth?

This isn't a matter of true or false. This is a matter of opinion.

You think that Spurs ought to move to Dalston or Hackney. Okay. But that's just opinion - not truth. It's an opinion, furthermore, that I suspect not many will share.

You're trying to claim some sort of moderate, middle ground. But it simply doesn't exist in this instance. Moving to Dalston would be no better than moving to Stratford. Dalston is more gooner territory than Spurs. In fact, it would be possible to argue that a move to Dalston would be even worse than a move to Stratford. After all, the financial benefits and infrastructure justifications cited for moving to Stratford aren't present to anything like the same degree in Dalston. In which case, why bother to move away from Tottenham at all?

So to borrow your pithily descriptive and dismissive choice of word - I believe your Dalston and Hackney suggestions to be bollocks.

Has Pickets Lock been discounted. Could even have a dedicated station.

Pickets Lock has even worse transport links than WHL and it's in the middle of nowhere. Soulless. No thanks.

Is Mr Levy getting the jitters as decision day approaches seeing public opinion might influence decision makers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/8302292/London-Olympics-2012-Tottenham-chairman-Daniel-Levy-prepared-to-sue-if-club-lose-Olympic-Stadium-bid.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/03/tottenham-olympic-stadium-daniel-levy

It would be truly pathetic if he did sue - and a waste of Spurs' money. Why shouldn't Seb Coe and Tessa Sanderson have their say? It's no worse, surely, than the likes of Mike Lee, Keith Mills or Glenn Hoddle towing the THFC line. After all, Tessa Sanderson has been denied her vote on the OPLC decision and Seb Coe never had a vote on the matter.

As to Levy's laughably outrageous lies about anti Stratford Spurs fans being in a "tiny minority", perhaps he should have made an appearance at the Fulham FA Cup game, opened his eyes and removed his fingers from his ears.

i got this message sent to my facebook page earlier. members of the WeAre17 group met with Daniel Levy todya to discuss the stadium situations.


he is the message i got.-

Sorry for not updating people sooner. We are still working on the statement - unfortunately quite a few of us have a hectic work commitment this week.

The Meeting with Daniel Levy went as well anticipated. I spose the major thing we can take out of it is that IF the club win the bid Levy has given his word that their will be a Full and Independent Consultation/Referendum with which we can show that we arent a small minority like he claims. This would take place BEFORE the club pay the non-refundable £20m Bond so there is reason to believe that it COULD affect the outcome.

We'll prepare a more detailed write-up over the next couple of days and get it up here ASAP. Thank You for your continued patience

Good to hear. Two caveats:

1. The Spurs spin machine will go into overdrive if Spurs win the bid. The sort of lies and exaggerations that they've come out with already will prove to be the mere tip of the iceberg.

2. As ever, the wording of any referendum will be crucial. Expect it to be phrased in a manner which massively favours the move to Stratford.

JimB:

I thought the main point of a new WHL was to increase capacity to at least 50,000 from its present 36,000.
Is it not?

This can not be realized on the present site. In any case, our present location is a bit out on the sticks and out-of-the-way. A bland WareHouseLand (that's WHL). We deserve a lot better than this or ‘corporate-friendly’ Stratford 7 miles away!

We want to be within walking distance of more central, cosmopolitan and trendy places such as Shoreditch, Hoxton and to attract corporate interest, being near the city and Liverpool Street.

If that means relocating to so called gooner territory such as south west Hackney so be it – a Spurs stadium would gradually degoonerize the area surrounding it anyway.

It would be truly pathetic if he did sue - and a waste of Spurs' money. Why shouldn't Seb Coe and Tessa Sanderson have their say? It's no worse, surely, than the likes of Mike Lee, Keith Mills or Glenn Hoddle towing the THFC line. After all, Tessa Sanderson has been denied her vote on the OPLC decision and Seb Coe never had a vote on the matter.

As to Levy's laughably outrageous lies about anti Stratford Spurs fans being in a "tiny minority", perhaps he should have made an appearance at the Fulham FA Cup game, opened his eyes and removed his fingers from his ears.

The reason he would sue is that the grounds for rejecting Spurs bid (removing the track) would be invalid legally. And I think he would have a very good case. He wouldn't be threatening it otherwise.

There is no requirement to keep the track. If you look at the bid criteria, you'll see it's simply not there. In fact a legacy elsewhere is encouraged by the wording.

He will say that Seb Coe, Tessa Jowell etc have tried to add "keeping the track" to the list of criteria retrospectively. You cannot change the rules half way through the game. The time for the athletes to complain (if there ever was one at all) was before the criteria were being set, not now.

He is worried that the media hype will influence the decision, and his threat is a shot across the bows of the OPLC/Boris/whoever not to bow to the pressure.

JimB:

I thought the main point of a new WHL was to increase capacity to at least 50,000 from its present 36,000.
Is it not?

This can not be realized on the present site. In any case, our present location is a bit out on the sticks and out-of-the-way. A bland WareHouseLand (that's WHL). We deserve a lot better than this or ‘corporate-friendly’ Stratford 7 miles away!

We want to be within walking distance of more central, cosmopolitan and trendy places such as Shoreditch, Hoxton and to attract corporate interest, being near the city and Liverpool Street.

If that means relocating to so called gooner territory such as south west Hackney so be it – a Spurs stadium would gradually degoonerize the area surrounding it anyway.

Who is this "we"?

Football fans don't, as a rule, go to football games so that they can combine it with shopping for shoes in trendy shops or sipping skinny latte's while discussing Sartre's theory on the existential dilemma.

If you really do want a football club that combines all those things, and if Dalston is where it must be, by all means go ahead and start up your own Dalston FC. No one is stopping you.

But Dalston is not where Tottenham Hotspur belongs. Cafe society is not what Tottenham Hotspur is about.

The area of Tottenham may be a shit hole. But it's our shit hole. And maybe, if Spurs get the ball rolling with the NDP, it won't remain a shit hole forever.

As to the claim that a 56,000 seat stadium in Tottenham "cannot be realised", I don't believe it for a second.

The NDP was viable two years ago, when Spurs first revealed their plans. It was still viable nine months ago, when they submitted revised plans. It was viable four months ago, when they won planning consent. And I don't doubt that it will, all of a sudden, miraculously become viable once again if Spurs lose the bid for the Olympic stadium.

The reason he would sue is that the grounds for rejecting Spurs bid (removing the track) would be invalid legally. And I think he would have a very good case. He wouldn't be threatening it otherwise.

There is no requirement to keep the track. If you look at the bid criteria, you'll see it's simply not there. In fact a legacy elsewhere is encouraged by the wording.

He will say that Seb Coe, Tessa Jowell etc have tried to add "keeping the track" to the list of criteria retrospectively. You cannot change the rules half way through the game. The time for the athletes to complain (if there ever was one at all) was before the criteria were being set, not now.

He is worried that the media hype will influence the decision, and his threat is a shot across the bows of the OPLC/Boris/whoever not to bow to the pressure.

1. There are a number of reasons why the West Ham bid would win. It would be impossible to prove which of those reasons was foremost.

2. If we accept that Spurs would have the right to sue (because - waaah, waaaah, waaaah - they lost), then we would also have to accept that West Ham would have the right to sue if they lose. After all, Spurs' spin machine and various agents have been trying to set the agenda and influence the OPLC every bit as much Seb Coe, Tessa Jowell etc.

It would be a farcical situation. Months and months of deliberation and procrastination and, at the end of it all, we'd be no closer to knowing the identity of the eventual tenants because one of the two sides will inevitably sue.

The worst possible outcome for the taxpayer.

And the only people rubbing their hands in glee at such a prospect would be the lawyers.

This being Super Bowl weekend, lots of peoplle discussing the NFL's future and London looks to be a likely destination to transfer a team to in the near future. The NBA is another possiblility. Both leagues see London as important to future growth.

The NFL is facing a possible player lockout for next year, which makes short-term future plans difficult to gauge precisely, but seeing as how they're about to fill a marketplace hole in Los Angeles, a team in London is definitely in the works. Within 3 years.

London has a suitable facilities and the market place is ready to accept these sports, which will draw good support from fans, but more importantly, will attract important revenue from corporate sponsors, the likeliest candidates to buy suites or premium-priced club seats. It will also create new competition for media coverage all through the European football season.

Football clubs will be affected. It won't diminish the hard-core audience by any means, but the game is facing enugh financial worries that any added competition will cause pain. Maybe not to Arsenal or Chelsea, who look set to be comfortable for the long haul. Below that, who knows how much hurt other clubs can sustain?

If I was in Spur's shoes, looking to build a new stadium, I'd be concerned about these circumstances. It's certainly nothing we're reading about from the British media, who seem to prefer childish cheap shots. But this is being discussed regularly at certain media and commercial levels and has been pretty serious the past couple of years.

When your facing stadium building costs in the hundreds of millions, it's vital to assess these factors. For sure, Levy's probably got the best insight available from partnering with Anschutz in this bid.

This being Super Bowl weekend, lots of peoplle discussing the NFL's future and London looks to be a likely destination to transfer a team to in the near future. The NBA is another possiblility. Both leagues see London as important to future growth.

The NFL is facing a possible player lockout for next year, which makes short-term future plans difficult to gauge precisely, but seeing as how they're about to fill a marketplace hole in Los Angeles, a team in London is definitely in the works. Within 3 years.

London has a suitable facilities and the market place is ready to accept these sports, which will draw good support from fans, but more importantly, will attract important revenue from corporate sponsors, the likeliest candidates to buy suites or premium-priced club seats. It will also create new competition for media coverage all through the European football season.

Football clubs will be affected. It won't diminish the hard-core audience by any means, but the game is facing enugh financial worries that any added competition will cause pain. Maybe not to Arsenal or Chelsea, who look set to be comfortable for the long haul. Below that, who knows how much hurt other clubs can sustain?

If I was in Spur's shoes, looking to build a new stadium, I'd be concerned about these circumstances. It's certainly nothing we're reading about from the British media, who seem to prefer childish cheap shots. But this is being discussed regularly at certain media and commercial levels and has been pretty serious the past couple of years.

When your facing stadium building costs in the hundreds of millions, it's vital to assess these factors. For sure, Levy's probably got the best insight available from partnering with Anschutz in this bid.

Spurs will have no worries about a possible future NFL franchise in London.

There is no reason why football and American football cannot coexist. NFL teams only have eight guaranteed home games a season and games aren't generally played at the same time as football games. So there won't be too much overlap.

Besides, London is a city of 8 million, with a metropolitan area population of some 13 million. The south east of England as a whole (within an hour and a half from the centre of London) has a population of more than 20 million. And since a London NFL franchise will be the only one in England (and possibly the whole of Europe), the fan base could be drawn from even further and wider.

Furthermore, it tends to be the case that those who follow NFL closely on this side of the Atlantic are those who don't have an avid interest in football (soccer to you). American football is very much a minority interest sport over here.

A club like Spurs will barely be affected. They have a huge fan base (certainly, a more reliable and solidly loyal fan base than Chelsea). So, even in the unlikely event that they were to lose a small number of fans to NFL, there would be more than enough waiting in the wings to take up the slack.

On a more general note, I'd be pretty pissed off about the NFL's plans for London if I was a native of one of the many big American cities that don't have an NFL franchise.

Is Mr Levy getting the jitters as decision day approaches seeing public opinion might influence decision makers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...adium-bid.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...um-daniel-levy

It would be truly pathetic if he did sue - and a waste of Spurs' money. Why shouldn't Seb Coe and Tessa Sanderson have their say? It's no worse, surely, than the likes of Mike Lee, Keith Mills or Glenn Hoddle towing the THFC line. After all, Tessa Sanderson has been denied her vote on the OPLC decision and Seb Coe never had a vote on the matter.

As to Levy's laughably outrageous lies about anti Stratford Spurs fans being in a "tiny minority", perhaps he should have made an appearance at the Fulham FA Cup game, opened his eyes and removed his fingers from his ears.

Well said.

There's so much wrong with Levy's words in the Guardian interview.

He tries to set up a premise that the OPLC decision should not be 'political' or 'emotional' but purely 'objective'. If this was an 'investment bank' making a decision, then the other emotional and political factors would not come into play.

He's completely wrong, of course. Indeed, it's a very odd argument: as if profitability is the only factor in making a decision that has implications for the welfare of a national sport, the undertakings given to the international Olympic authorities, the local community and other communities in London, let alone the future of Tottenham Hostpur as a football club. In case he's forgotten, the voters of London expect both central government and Boris to represent their interests or at least balance their interests with other factors. If a decision like this could be made by bankers poring over spreadsheets tapping on their calculator keys, then why not leave other political decisions to them. Actually do we really need politicians at all? Think of the savings we could make by shutting down the Houses of Parliament.

There is something laughable, if it were not so naive, about the idea of leaving political decisions to investment bankers. After all their supposedly technical and objective decision-making brought the whole financial world crashing down around our ears, the price of which we will be paying for decades to come.

A decision about what happens to the OS must always be informed by political issues, and quite right too.

This sidelining of politics would also account for his indifference to the welfare of Tottenham if the club were to leave. He's looked at a spreadsheet and sees profits on some ideal of a property development, with some money coming into the area a few years down the line. But what about the immediate impact on the locality and its people of the club scarpering to Stratford? What kind of employment does he envisage taking the place of the football club? There are political issues that are bound up with the welfare of an already downtrodden local community.

As JimB says, it's nonsense that there is only a 'tiny minority' of fans against the move: why meet with WeAreN17 if they are so insignificant? But the other bizarre idea is that he must rise above 'emotion' (the emotional investment by supporters) to do what's good for the club. The only reason he draws nearly £1.5m salary from the club is the emotional commitment of the support, their loyalty, their passion for Spurs, their emotional involvement in an identity, a place, a history. It's the emotion that has kept the club afloat in bad times.

This emotion is not some kind of froth on the top of a business: it constitutes the very foundations of that unique form of business associated with not just an elite sporting club, but the special nature of an English football club.

In this interview Levy appears to me to be seriously out of touch with what football is, how it functions as a business, the vital role of emotion in a football club, and the proper role of politics in major regeneration decisions. If he so out of touch that he really thinks an 'investment bank' could make the decisions, then we should seriously question his judgement as the Chairman of our club.

Don't get me wrong, Levy's been good for the club. But he's not infallible. If this interview is anything to go by, we cannot and should not leave the most important decision in the history of our club to a man who takes such an amputated view. Levy is good at the short-term spreadsheet, but that is not enough for the long-term stewardship of an entity that is bound up with heritage and culture.

He clearly isn't in possession of the broad perspective required to understand that a football club business is built on the emotions of supporter affiliation which include a relationship to a history and a locality.

The worst thing that happened in football was when directors were able to pay themselves a salary and their greed has been the downfall of many clubs when they have taken salaries out of all proportion to their worth or the clubs could afford.

got this email on my facebook from the We Are N17 group which goes into more detail about what was said when they met Daniel Levy on Thursday night.

http://www.docshare.com/doc/436644/We-Are-N17-Statement-02-11

would have copied and pasted but there is 6 pages of writing so thought i better leave the link

On a more general note, I'd be pretty pissed off about the NFL's plans for London if I was a native of one of the many big American cities that don't have an NFL franchise.

This. During the labor talks previously alluded have brought out discontent among many parties about how the league has been neglectful regarding existing franchises and their communities. Enough people are sick of the exploitation of LA as an available lure for franchise relocation for those communities failing to caugh up more money, that even otherwise stable and prosperous teams and owners are feeling threatened or chastized (Buffalo, Carolina, Kansas City...) The previous discussions about moving a team to Mexico City raised many hairs, and the idea of regular travel to London for games that count hasn't been warmly received. To say nothing of how that would (or wouldn't) raise TV revenues from existing levels nor really draw further interest in the sport in Europe. From one owner commenting about such expansion (paraphrasing): "The NFL is the most prosperous sports entity on the planet. If it ain't broke, why try to fix it?"

To wit, one NFL franchise in London won't impact the local football clubs. 8-12 home dates at best, and not against local rivals, means it would merely be another entertainment option appealing for local money but not enough to impact the core base of Gooners, Spurs fans, WHU faithful, etc. If anything it might be the Rugby faithful who consider this option on the basis of similar violence.

Sorry to divert, but since the topic came up...

Bottom line, I can't see the NFL impacting the English football scene for decades to come, if at all.

NFL in London except as a novelty will not work. It would have to kick off at midnight for peak tv viewing in New York and even later for Los Angeles.

Was at the game on Saturday.
Got to admit I was expecting plenty of anti Stratford goings on but was surprised and a tad disapointed with what I saw on the day.
There was a very small anti Stratford demo opposite Bill Nick way...Im talking about 30 people with a banner and a few balloons. I admit that after about 5 minutes hanging around on the fringes, my kids insisted we go into the ground at 2pm so it may have swelled after I left.
Once in the ground I was waiting for the songs to start but only twice did anybody try to kick one off and it stayed in the small section it had started (Park Lane and Lower Shelf corner.....it certainly wasnt taken up around the ground and petered out very quickly. Admittedly the game was pretty exciting at times and most seemed focused on that so I wasnt surprised the 'say no to Stratford' song seemed a bit of a distraction at one point.
Fans I spoke to on the day however were all against the idea but none said they would never go again if we moved.
As mentioned from the reactions of fans at the Fulham game it seems the majority of season ticket holders (who make up the majority of fans at away games) would vote against a move if given the opportunity. Its the silent majority that worries me. I could include myself in that...I make no claims to be a zealot in this issue.
I fear apathy may be Levy's biggest ally.

Are any of you anti-Levy types shareholders? Can he be forced or voted out of his position? If so, who would replace him and how might likely candidates view the Olympic stadium move?

As for rankled American cities that don't have the NFL? The cost of building a stadium to suit today's NFL has gone nuts, putting a lot of cities out of the picture without a big enough owner to chip in. If you're an ambitious would-be owner, would you want to spend them big bucks to have a team in Oklahoma City, or would you prefer to invest in a bigger market like L.A. or London?

The Dallas Cowboys stadium is the template for future projects. Maybe not as big - maybe not 'all hat, no cattle' either - but definitely as plush and filled with premium priced seating locations. Wembley sure would work. A lot of American players would be comfortable playing in London. They've already asked. I think the NFL would want games shown at whatever time suits the local audience. It's audience is 24/7/365.

The NBA would be a much more prevalent media presence over fall/winter/spring with a minimum of 41 home games. Probably looking to play at the O2 Arena. A lot of players, not just Americans, would enjoy playing there.

It's not the fans they'll immediately draw that would worry a stadium-building club like Spurs. Or West Ham. Or Crystal Palace. It's the corporate support they could attract in the short term that would create the greatest concern.

Was at the game on Saturday.
Got to admit I was expecting plenty of anti Stratford goings on but was surprised and a tad disapointed with what I saw on the day.
There was a very small anti Stratford demo opposite Bill Nick way...Im talking about 30 people with a banner and a few balloons. I admit that after about 5 minutes hanging around on the fringes, my kids insisted we go into the ground at 2pm so it may have swelled after I left.
Once in the ground I was waiting for the songs to start but only twice did anybody try to kick one off and it stayed in the small section it had started (Park Lane and Lower Shelf corner.....it certainly wasnt taken up around the ground and petered out very quickly. Admittedly the game was pretty exciting at times and most seemed focused on that so I wasnt surprised the 'say no to Stratford' song seemed a bit of a distraction at one point.
Fans I spoke to on the day however were all against the idea but none said they would never go again if we moved.
As mentioned from the reactions of fans at the Fulham game it seems the majority of season ticket holders (who make up the majority of fans at away games) would vote against a move if given the opportunity. Its the silent majority that worries me. I could include myself in that...I make no claims to be a zealot in this issue.
I fear apathy may be Levy's biggest ally.

i expect that the fact that game was quite exciting meant that there wasn't time to sing stratford songs. IMO we should not sing them in the crowd apart from at maximum exposure like AC Milan in the San Siro, or Arsenal game. i reckon if we are announced as prefered bidder the anti stratdord songs we be sung more often etc.

and about the move and whether fans would carry on supporting Spurs is a matter that we as spurs fans must each start to awnser. i don't think i would be able to support them although i don't think i would be able to support somenone else so my interest in football would be limited to supporting England and thats it. i like rugby and cricket so at least i have other sports to watch

Are any of you anti-Levy types shareholders? Can he be forced or voted out of his position? If so, who would replace him and how might likely candidates view the Olympic stadium move?

As for rankled American cities that don't have the NFL? The cost of building a stadium to suit today's NFL has gone nuts, putting a lot of cities out of the picture without a big enough owner to chip in. If you're an ambitious would-be owner, would you want to spend them big bucks to have a team in Oklahoma City, or would you prefer to invest in a bigger market like L.A. or London?

The Dallas Cowboys stadium is the template for future projects. Maybe not as big - maybe not 'all hat, no cattle' either - but definitely as plush and filled with premium priced seating locations. Wembley sure would work. A lot of American players would be comfortable playing in London. They've already asked. I think the NFL would want games shown at whatever time suits the local audience. It's audience is 24/7/365.

The NBA would be a much more prevalent media presence over fall/winter/spring with a minimum of 41 home games. Probably looking to play at the O2 Arena. A lot of players, not just Americans, would enjoy playing there.

It's not the fans they'll immediately draw that would worry a stadium-building club like Spurs. Or West Ham. Or Crystal Palace. It's the corporate support they could attract in the short term that would create the greatest concern.


i don't think that Levy is a bad chairman in fact he probably is one of the bst chairman we have had. he always backs the manager financially apart from the last 2 years we have been in the top 3 spenders. he made mistakes with Ramos and that managing director guy now at liverpool but he got rid of them and replaced with Redknapp. we are run very well financially don't spen silly money on wages and if those fair play rules came into tomorow we would be only 1 of 2 teams following the rules.

i am not a supporter of a move to stratford but i do believe at least he wants to move their for the advancement of the club and not to sell the club

STADIUM LOCATION

Football clubs based in the outer suburbs of cities tend not to prosper and develop very well with the odd exception such as Manchester United and even Spurs to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, just look at inner suburb clubs such as affluent arsenal and Chelsea, compared to the struggling West Ham.

I am sure West Ham United would be a successful club competing in Europe if they were based in an inner suburb such as Whitechapel or Stepney and playing football there in a 40,000+ capacity stadium.

Look at other ‘outer suburb’ clubs in London: Millwall, Charlton. Wimbledon, Brenftord – is it a coincidence that these poorly performing clubs all happen to be located in outer suburbs? I think not.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.

Was at the game on Saturday.
Got to admit I was expecting plenty of anti Stratford goings on but was surprised and a tad disapointed with what I saw on the day.
There was a very small anti Stratford demo opposite Bill Nick way...Im talking about 30 people with a banner and a few balloons. I admit that after about 5 minutes hanging around on the fringes, my kids insisted we go into the ground at 2pm so it may have swelled after I left.
Once in the ground I was waiting for the songs to start but only twice did anybody try to kick one off and it stayed in the small section it had started (Park Lane and Lower Shelf corner.....it certainly wasnt taken up around the ground and petered out very quickly. Admittedly the game was pretty exciting at times and most seemed focused on that so I wasnt surprised the 'say no to Stratford' song seemed a bit of a distraction at one point.
Fans I spoke to on the day however were all against the idea but none said they would never go again if we moved.
As mentioned from the reactions of fans at the Fulham game it seems the majority of season ticket holders (who make up the majority of fans at away games) would vote against a move if given the opportunity. Its the silent majority that worries me. I could include myself in that...I make no claims to be a zealot in this issue.
I fear apathy may be Levy's biggest ally.

Depends whether you interpret people's unwillingness to demonstrate as apathy or willingness (however reluctantly) to move. Even out of those who are protesting, how many will really refuse to follow the team if it moves?

I didn't go to the Fulham game but I went to the Newcastle game and the proportion of fans singing "North London is ours" was much higher than either the Man U or Bolton home games. There were a couple of weak renditions in the south east corner for Man U at half time but nothing for Bolton. The club must be getting the impression that the mainstream home support are in favour or apathetic to moving.

Also the number of people signing the petition has remained pretty low. It got 5,000 signatures shortly after it was set up around the time of the Liverpool game, then stuck there for a few weeks before going up to about 7,000 around the time of the Man U game. They were hoping for 100,000 signatures.

Also, what is not known is how many of the people who have signed it are current ST holders or members. Would they outnumber the people on the waiting list?

I think it is fair to assume that the vast majority of people nowadays are computer literate (they need to be to get tickets) and that if they invest time, money and emotion on THFC they would sign the petition if they were against the move. I would if I felt that way. Why have so few signed? Up until new year, there was an argument that people didn't want to cause too much of an outcry as most people didn't think the Olympic bid was serious (just a bargaining chip for Haringey), or even know about it at all. But is there any Spurs fan out there now who doesn't know about it or think it is serious?

imo the reason that so few have signed the petition is that as of this moment it is not been decided if we are prefered bidder, i would imagine that the numbers of people on the petition will rise massivly if we are anounced as prefered bidder. anyway Levy has promised fans an independent fan poll to decide before we put down a non refundable £20 mil on the OS although we don't know who he will ask maybe just season ticket holders but hopefully he asks people on the waiting lists as well otherwise i will be pissed off haven't so much money being on the list.

STADIUM LOCATION

Football clubs based in the outer suburbs of cities tend not to prosper and develop very well with the odd exception such as Manchester United and even Spurs to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, just look at inner suburb clubs such as affluent arsenal and Chelsea, compared to the struggling West Ham.

I am sure West Ham United would be a successful club competing in Europe if they were based in an inner suburb such as Whitechapel or Stepney and playing football there in a 40,000+ capacity stadium.

Look at other ‘outer suburb’ clubs in London: Millwall, Charlton. Wimbledon, Brenftord – is it a coincidence that these poorly performing clubs all happen to be located in outer suburbs? I think not.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.


Give it up oxo...Spurs are not going to build around the corner from your house mate no matter what:lol:

But seriously though...Im not quite getting your point about this inner and outer suburb thing. I would certainly not include the likes of West Ham or Millwall as outer suburbs and I dont get the link with success being greater the closer a club is to the centre of a city...at least not in this day and age of fan diaspora. Chelsea were right time ,right place for a rich Russian wannabe with a £billion burning a hole in his shell suit bottoms. Had Abramovich spotted West Ham before Chelski..perhaps the PL would look a lot different today.

STADIUM LOCATION

Football clubs based in the outer suburbs of cities tend not to prosper and develop very well with the odd exception such as Manchester United and even Spurs to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, just look at inner suburb clubs such as affluent arsenal and Chelsea, compared to the struggling West Ham.

I am sure West Ham United would be a successful club competing in Europe if they were based in an inner suburb such as Whitechapel or Stepney and playing football there in a 40,000+ capacity stadium.

Look at other ‘outer suburb’ clubs in London: Millwall, Charlton. Wimbledon, Brenftord – is it a coincidence that these poorly performing clubs all happen to be located in outer suburbs? I think not.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.

Manchester United are famously NOT in Manchester, but you should also remember that they are only a couple of miles from Manchester city-centre. Not the best walk for the uninitiated I can assure you. I agree totally with the comparison, and importance of centrality.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.

Fuck me...

STADIUM LOCATION X 3.

London will always have a more glamorous image than a Coventry or a Leeds and enjoys disproportionately more international interest and investment – house prices reflect this.

This is also the case on a microcosmic scale looking at London itself. There are the more outlying ‘provincial’ suburbs such as Norwood, Hounslow, Barking and Eltham. A football club based in such areas would become far too dependent on local support to even survive, just like Crystal Palace or Leyton Orient for instance.

On the other hand, there are the more central and ‘sexier’ cosmopolitan areas such as Chelsea which tend to have more international brand appeal - Abramovich’s interest in the club proves this point.

The same goes with arsenal which, if located in an outer suburb such as Crouch End or Finchley for example, would soon dent its international brand appeal and become too locality-oriented.

West Ham is too much of an outlying suburban area to be ‘sexy’ in the same way Chelsea or even arsenal is.
However, a move to Whitechapel would give West Ham United international glamour appeal which even clothes shops such as 'All Saints Spitalfields' try to cash in on. Why else did they choose the name Spitalfields and not Dagenham for example?

This is why I argue for Spurs to move south and be much nearer to places like Shoreditch and the city so that it can strengthen its sex appeal and reinforce its international brand. Spurs can achieve this whilst still appealing to their core support by being located in north London, not Stratford.

In the Hebrew Bible, Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve and the progenitors of the modern-day Jewish and Christian faiths. The two brothers rubbed along reasonably well, tending the land and serving God and the like, until one abruptly turned against the other and smote him dead.

I guess the complete lack of anyone else on Earth will do that to you...

But fast forward two Testaments and one Son of God and a similar situation is threatening to play itself out on the road to the Olympic Stadium.

The debate has set one famous old club against another but, despite the best efforts of the respective Boards, the most intense fighting is not actually between the clubs; it's between the fans.

The debate has torn a schism straight down the centre of the Spurs fanbase and pushed each side into two distinct and very polarised camps.

Those who favour the move speak of progress, elevation and competition. They look upon the other side as Luddites, self-interest groups or ballast, fans who are unwilling or just unable to grasp the enormity of the opportunity.

Those who oppose the move talk of tradition, community and territory. They look upon their pro-Stratford brethren as armchair supporters, fair-weather fans and company men, supporters who want to destroy a century of history and abrogate their responsibility to the Club's impoverished heartland.

It has become, indubitably, the Irresistible Force Vs the Immovable Object. Team IF Vs Team IO.

But the most surprising development is the impact it's had on the relationship between the two factions: the truth is, they really don't like one another anymore...

Neither party trusts the other and both bridle with suspicion at each other's motives. It's also hard to continue drinking with someone who's so diametrically opposed on an issue that's key to the future of the Club.

The Tottenham board have an unenviable task. It's the American Civil War and the Second World War all rolled into one.

But the supporters may have an even bigger battle on their hands because the brotherhood is being torn asunder and, unfortunately, no one's entirely sure who's Cain and who's Abel.

STADIUM LOCATION

Football clubs based in the outer suburbs of cities tend not to prosper and develop very well with the odd exception such as Manchester United and even Spurs to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, just look at inner suburb clubs such as affluent arsenal and Chelsea, compared to the struggling West Ham.

I am sure West Ham United would be a successful club competing in Europe if they were based in an inner suburb such as Whitechapel or Stepney and playing football there in a 40,000+ capacity stadium.

Look at other ‘outer suburb’ clubs in London: Millwall, Charlton. Wimbledon, Brenftord – is it a coincidence that these poorly performing clubs all happen to be located in outer suburbs? I think not.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.

THE ONLY REASON CHELSEA ARE SUCCESSFUL IS BECAUSE A RUSSIAN BILLIONAIRE TOOK THEM OVER.

In the Hebrew Bible, Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve and the progenitors of the modern-day Jewish and Christian faiths. The two brothers rubbed along reasonably well, tending the land and serving God and the like, until one abruptly turned against the other and smote him dead.

I guess the complete lack of anyone else on Earth will do that to you...

But fast forward two Testaments and one Son of God and a similar situation is threatening to play itself out on the road to the Olympic Stadium.

The debate has set one famous old club against another but, despite the best efforts of the respective Boards, the most intense fighting is not actually between the clubs; it's between the fans.

The debate has torn a schism straight down the centre of the Spurs fanbase and pushed each side into two distinct and very polarised camps.

Those who favour the move speak of progress, elevation and competition. They look upon the other side as Luddites, self-interest groups or ballast, fans who are unwilling or just unable to grasp the enormity of the opportunity.

Those who oppose the move talk of tradition, community and territory. They look upon their pro-Stratford brethren as armchair supporters, fair-weather fans and company men, supporters who want to destroy a century of history and abrogate their responsibility to the Club's impoverished heartland.

It has become, indubitably, the Irresistible Force Vs the Immovable Object. Team IF Vs Team IO.

But the most surprising development is the impact it's had on the relationship between the two factions: the truth is, they really don't like one another anymore...

Neither party trusts the other and both bridle with suspicion at each other's motives. It's also hard to continue drinking with someone who's so diametrically opposed on an issue that's key to the future of the Club.

The Tottenham board have an unenviable task. It's the American Civil War and the Second World War all rolled into one.

But the supporters may have an even bigger battle on their hands because the brotherhood is being torn asunder and, unfortunately, no one's entirely sure who's Cain and who's Abel.

Can I use this, substituting "Everton FC" for Spurs? Very nicely put!!

I think I predicted much of this several months ago. I saw exactly the same with our fanbase, and for some the rift still exists (long after the proposed move collapsed). Now, the few remaining pro-movers (amounts to a couple of cranks on the websites) want to attribute all the club's current ills on those who opposed it..... when, at the end of the day they only highlighted the multiple pitfalls and lies that supported the out of town option..... shooting the messengers so to speak. It can be quite difficult to remain objective when fighting big business, but you must all try to (both sides). As I said before, your predicament isn't exactly the same as ours, for many reasons..... but if you're being deliberately misled, it should be outed!!! If not, the figures/explanations should tell the full story. Even if it is close financial call between the options, have they tried to take into account all the valuable imponderables that define a club and its identity? They don't travel too well IMO!

THE ONLY REASON CHELSEA ARE SUCCESSFUL IS BECAUSE A RUSSIAN BILLIONAIRE TOOK THEM OVER.

Would he have had the same success with Brentford or Crystal Palace do you think? I think the point being made is that all other things being equal, centrally located clubs, or clubs located in larger, densely populated areas tend to have bigger fanbases than those on the peripheries or leafy suburbs. Public transport accessibilty tends to increase almost exponentially in downtown areas too.... meaning Chelsea was a big club waiting to happen. The way London is split may provide opportunity for a club to grab a bigger catchment by moving, but I'm not sure that's all been covered by 100+yrs of natural evolution.

Mr. Malark:

The two polarized camps you speak of are extremist in their polarity.
A certain degree of moderation is called for by Spurs fans.

Those who favour the move to Stratford are preoccupied with spread-sheet analysis, NFL affiliation and calculator arrived solutions. To use your biblical metaphor, they are like the Pharisees who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Those moderates in favour of a slightly nearer location in north London towards Shoreditch speak of long term financial gain, broader catchment areas and enhanced international brand appeal.

Those who fail to see Spurs relocation beyond N17… wake up and welcome to the 21st century!

Those moderates in favour of a slightly nearer location in north London towards Shoreditch speak of long term financial gain, broader catchment areas and enhanced international brand appeal.

Ha, you make me smile, Oxo...

Delt:

As Tom Hughes explains so well, the only reason Chelsea are successful is because of their central location, otherwise Mr. Abramovich would not have chosen Chelsea to invest in. He cleverly dismissed the likes of West Ham, Charlton and Crystal Palace recognizing them to be ‘outer suburb’ clubs with less ‘international sex appeal’.

If there was a Premiership side with a stadium based on Oxford Street called Soho Rovers lets say, Abramovich would buy it instead of Chelsea
because of Soho’s more central location.

Tom Hughes understands this perfectly well so I hope you can now.

In west London, QPR or Fulham could be regarded as being neither inner or outer suburb clubs but in between. This is also reflected in their performance which is mid-Premiership to Top-tier Championship standard.

Anyway, my point is we should be moving directly south towards Shoreditch, not south east, ending up in West Ham’s Stratford.

All this talk of being close to the centre is rubbish. When clubs were in their infancy they moved. Arsenal to get away from Charlton and Millwall, West Ham to a more populated area. Nowadays it is the fans who have moved away but still retain their allegiances. Chelsea was a created club of the Mears family (Ambomovich of his day). Most clubs notably Man U have supporters all over the country and they used to be cheap to watch as did Liverpool. Arsenal support is testimony to their continued success but even for cup games they don't fill the emirites.The Olympic stadium will bring in the corporates but will need to have competive pricing to fill it.

Depends whether you interpret people's unwillingness to demonstrate as apathy or willingness (however reluctantly) to move. Even out of those who are protesting, how many will really refuse to follow the team if it moves?

I didn't go to the Fulham game but I went to the Newcastle game and the proportion of fans singing "North London is ours" was much higher than either the Man U or Bolton home games. There were a couple of weak renditions in the south east corner for Man U at half time but nothing for Bolton. The club must be getting the impression that the mainstream home support are in favour or apathetic to moving.

Also the number of people signing the petition has remained pretty low. It got 5,000 signatures shortly after it was set up around the time of the Liverpool game, then stuck there for a few weeks before going up to about 7,000 around the time of the Man U game. They were hoping for 100,000 signatures.

Also, what is not known is how many of the people who have signed it are current ST holders or members. Would they outnumber the people on the waiting list?

I think it is fair to assume that the vast majority of people nowadays are computer literate (they need to be to get tickets) and that if they invest time, money and emotion on THFC they would sign the petition if they were against the move. I would if I felt that way. Why have so few signed? Up until new year, there was an argument that people didn't want to cause too much of an outcry as most people didn't think the Olympic bid was serious (just a bargaining chip for Haringey), or even know about it at all. But is there any Spurs fan out there now who doesn't know about it or think it is serious?

As I understand it, WeAreN17 decided not to organise a protest at the Bolton game.

I think one of the main issues is that it is difficult to protest against a decision that has not yet been made. I imagine many fans want to await the outcome of the OPLC's deliberations. Morevover, signing the petition requires an effort that also relays personal details (to avoid duplication) but this also means that fewer will sign.

That said the passion of the away support cannot be ignored. And don't forget that 5,000 odd signatures on the on-line petition is quite significant.

How many people were in Liberation Square in Cairo, up to 100,000? That's of the order of 0.1% of the population. Those who are prepared to be active, to make a noise and to assert a voice will always be in the minority: they represent the disquiet of many more.

If, when the OPLC has yet to make a decision, there are 5,000 signatures on a petition that requires some motivation to sign, I believe it is a significant thing.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/thumbnails/images-stories-Olympic_Stadium_in_Tottenham_mode_February_2011-550x370.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/futureplans/news/club-releases-image-of-proposed-60000-capacity-stadium-in-olympic-park-070211.html

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/thumbnails/images-stories-Olympic_Stadium_in_Tottenham_mode_February_2011-550x370.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/futureplans/news/club-releases-image-of-proposed-60000-capacity-stadium-in-olympic-park-070211.html

although pro n17 i have to admit that looks pretty sexy looks a lot nicer an unique than the NDP design, wonder when they will give us some interior pictures soon. hope the stadium will be at least 60,311 seats

This is also the case on a microcosmic scale looking at London itself. There are the more outlying ‘provincial’ suburbs such as Norwood, Hounslow, Barking and Eltham. A football club based in such areas would become far too dependent on local support to even survive, just like Crystal Palace or Leyton Orient for instance.
Millwall is the club which is located closest to central London. Yet, they are still a long way off promoting to the Premier League, let alone winning it.

On the other hand, there are the more central and ‘sexier’ cosmopolitan areas such as Chelsea which tend to have more international brand appeal - Abramovich’s interest in the club proves this point.
Abramovich bought the top-flight club which was available. It had nothing to do with location.

The same goes with arsenal which, if located in an outer suburb such as Crouch End or Finchley for example
Or Woolwich where they belong

However, a move to Whitechapel would give West Ham United international glamour appeal which even clothes shops such as 'All Saints Spitalfields' try to cash in on. Why else did they choose the name Spitalfields and not Dagenham for example?
Whitechapel glamorous?? There must be another Whitechapel. The one in East London which I know is precisely the opposite of being glamorous.

oxo and tom hughes. firefly has answred your questions. Only recently have chelsea become a force due to Matthew Harding and more importantly Abramovich. Before these two sugar daddies appeared Chelsea were a yo-yo club and were the same size as west ham.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/thumbnails/images-stories-Olympic_Stadium_in_Tottenham_mode_February_2011-550x370.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/futureplans/news/club-releases-image-of-proposed-60000-capacity-stadium-in-olympic-park-070211.html

Sorry to pop in so late in the discussion, but what is the red thing to the left of the stadium? I poked around, but apparently missed a description.

Sorry to pop in so late in the discussion, but what is the red thing to the left of the stadium? I poked around, but apparently missed a description.

If it's a roller coaster then I'm all in with the OS.:banana:

Spurs will have no worries about a possible future NFL franchise in London.

There is no reason why football and American football cannot coexist. NFL teams only have eight guaranteed home games a season and games aren't generally played at the same time as football games. So there won't be too much overlap.

Besides, London is a city of 8 million, with a metropolitan area population of some 13 million. The south east of England as a whole (within an hour and a half from the centre of London) has a population of more than 20 million. And since a London NFL franchise will be the only one in England (and possibly the whole of Europe), the fan base could be drawn from even further and wider.

Furthermore, it tends to be the case that those who follow NFL closely on this side of the Atlantic are those who don't have an avid interest in football (soccer to you). American football is very much a minority interest sport over here.

A club like Spurs will barely be affected. They have a huge fan base (certainly, a more reliable and solidly loyal fan base than Chelsea). So, even in the unlikely event that they were to lose a small number of fans to NFL, there would be more than enough waiting in the wings to take up the slack.

On a more general note, I'd be pretty pissed off about the NFL's plans for London if I was a native of one of the many big American cities that don't have an NFL franchise.

i dont think a european city can sustain an NFL franchise in the long term! i'm a big NFL fan, i used to have a season ticket for the Saints - have followed them for 21 years! - i would watch the London team when the Saints came to town, and only when the Saints came to town!

i think the NFL are underestimating the loyalty that European NFL fans have for their teams! us British sports fans in particular are an entirely different breed to our American counterparts. are they hoping to play the patriotism card? i for one wont be fooled by 40 burly Americans wearing Union Jack's on their helmets!

it WILL prove to be a costly mistake for the NFL! a franchise is better off in Frankfurt - spitting distance from hundreds of thousands of US military personnel! and far more centrally located for European fans with no physical borders!

Sorry to pop in so late in the discussion, but what is the red thing to the left of the stadium? I poked around, but apparently missed a description.

Seems to be a giant bong. Must be for the kids.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11675_6737674,00.html

apperently OS or nothing now which means Levy has lied to fans who he promised a fan survey on. it starting to resemble the Eddie Izzard scetch about cake or death.

It's a bit odd, being red and all, outside a Spurs stadium.

As for the discussion on Chelsea, an ESPN article says they weren't the first London team he sought to purchase. Back in 2003, he was working with agent Pina Zahavi on buying another club, one in a more outlying area with a rundown neighbourhood around it.

Which begs the question; why did Tottenham Hotspur say no to him?

STADIUM LOCATION

Football clubs based in the outer suburbs of cities tend not to prosper and develop very well with the odd exception such as Manchester United and even Spurs to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, just look at inner suburb clubs such as affluent arsenal and Chelsea, compared to the struggling West Ham.

I am sure West Ham United would be a successful club competing in Europe if they were based in an inner suburb such as Whitechapel or Stepney and playing football there in a 40,000+ capacity stadium.

Look at other ‘outer suburb’ clubs in London: Millwall, Charlton. Wimbledon, Brenftord – is it a coincidence that these poorly performing clubs all happen to be located in outer suburbs? I think not.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.

I'd argue that this isnt much of an issue today, more of a holdover from the earlier days of the game where travel was more of an issue.

I'd argue that this isnt much of an issue today, more of a holdover from the earlier days of the game where travel was more of an issue.

In todays financials Man U have an office in Mayfair to promote the club. It's not the stadium that has to be in the centre just the means to deal with the corporate investors. Clubs will alienate their core support.

From a Spurs fan site .....

Legal argument

I said 10 days ago, and I reiterate again: the reason the decision was postponed, was so that the OPLC could acquire adequate liability insurance, as - fundamentally - they did not have the backing of one of the big audit houses, to underwrite their decision. Our bid has the substantial covenant backing of Goldman Sachs, Barclays and Citibank and the audited due diligence approval of PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

In the last 48hrs, Levy has prepared the legal canvas and has - in doing so - fired the warning shot, that Tottenham Hotspur will not accept external factors influencing and undermining what is, essentially, a procurement process. Levy is at pains to observe respect and to reemphasis the process - and that isn't just because he doesn't feel like 'getting into a scrap' - it's a calculated approach, one with reproach in mind.

Were we to 'fail' in this process, then I should imagine that - almost immediately - Levy would declare our position as unsatisfied. He would then suggest that the process was flawed, due to unfair influence, and - because of this - it would require independent external review and audit. The auditors would then be advised to base their conclusions, on the strict criteria given to those parties who were invited to tender. Usually, an audit-based review would use a points system, and I feel Levy would be very confident that - on this basis - our bid is outstanding (we meet every one of the criteria, and in many cases exceed what is asked)

Once Levy would have the full independent backing, he essentially has two options open to him: i) ask that the process be re-tendered (unlikely) or ii) file for damages. The latter is more likely, as he could offer the substantial evidence of the backing of an independent auditor, cite many various conflicts of interest (inferring flawed process and diligence) and also point to many instances where public figures and interested parties - namely Karren Brady - have actively sought to unfairly influence the process.

As for legal action making us unpopular with the public? That matters very little. Our reputation, brand and credibility had already been attacked and sullied by various characters - all of whom may come to regret being so vocal, dismissive and presumptuous about our bid. As for the cost of mounting a legal challenge? They're not prohibitive at all, as - were we to be successful - they'd all be recovered, and then some. We're talking about a significant asset here; a £1Bn decision - if you do not feel that due process has been exercised fairly and accordingly, then you do not simply walk away.

oxo and tom hughes. firefly has answred your questions. Only recently have chelsea become a force due to Matthew Harding and more importantly Abramovich. Before these two sugar daddies appeared Chelsea were a yo-yo club and were the same size as west ham.

Actually, I think if you look at the all-time Attendance table you'll find that Chelsea are far higher than West Ham.... in fact in their first few seasons they had the biggest attendances in the whole league. Needless to say poor performances soon put paid to that. I also said that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL centrallity will be an important factor, as accessibility and/or population density will normally increase closer to central areas. I'll give you another example.... at the birth of Football in Liverpool there were two dominent teams.... Everton FC and Bootle FC. The arrival of the more centrally located Liverpool FC killed Bootle off in an instant after only one season in the inaugural Division 2, despite the fact that Bootle were an already well established outfit. They never recovered. Of course if the out of town club gets off to a flyer and wins all before them then perhaps their fanbase and future is secured, but mediocrity and peripheral location would tend to lead to a downward spiral more often than not, especially where there are other options.

Actually, I think if you look at the all-time Attendance table you'll find that Chelsea are far higher than West Ham.... in fact in their first few seasons they had the biggest attendances in the whole league. Needless to say poor performances soon put paid to that. I also said that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL centrallity will be an important factor, as accessibility and/or population density will normally increase closer to central areas. I'll give you another example.... at the birth of Football in Liverpool there were two dominent teams.... Everton FC and Bootle FC. The arrival of the more centrally located Liverpool FC killed Bootle off in an instant after only one season in the inaugural Division 2, despite the fact that Bootle were an already well established outfit. They never recovered. Of course if the out of town club gets off to a flyer and wins all before them then perhaps their fanbase and future is secured, but mediocrity and peripheral location would tend to lead to a downward spiral more often than not, especially where there are other options.


Chelsea gates

1988/89
Div 2 27/08/1988 Home v Blackburn 8,722
Div 2 10/09/1988 Home v Oxford 7587
Div 2 20/09/1988 Home v Man City 8,858
Div 2 01/10/1988 Home v Leciester 7,050
Div 2 04/10/1988 Home v Walsall 6,747
LC R2 12/10/1988 Home v Scunthorpe 5,814


1991/92
Div 1 12/02/1992 Home v Southampton 7,148


1993/94
PL 04/05/1994 Home v Coventry 8,923


Their gates although sometimes good have been awful at times, a real 'Plastic' club

From a Spurs fan site .....

Very interesting post from THFC1960. Sounds like whoever wrote it knows what he is talking about.

Chelsea gates

1988/89
Div 2 27/08/1988 Home v Blackburn 8,722
Div 2 10/09/1988 Home v Oxford 7587
Div 2 20/09/1988 Home v Man City 8,858
Div 2 01/10/1988 Home v Leciester 7,050
Div 2 04/10/1988 Home v Walsall 6,747
LC R2 12/10/1988 Home v Scunthorpe 5,814


1991/92
Div 1 12/02/1992 Home v Southampton 7,148


1993/94
PL 04/05/1994 Home v Coventry 8,923


Their gates although sometimes good have been awful at times, a real 'Plastic' club

Yes, I agree..... I'm sure it had much to do with hardly any trophies in their entire history, combined with far more successful clubs relatively nearby. The point being made however, is that when football started and all the London clubs were roughly speaking.... on a par, their gates were bigger than anyone's. Infact they were London's best supported club for 12 of their first 13 seasons, despite the other clubs in some cases being longer established and often in a higher league..... in otherwords there was always strong potential given their catchment area, size of ground and accessibility. The eventual lack of success, and greater success on the pitch elsewhere saw that fanbase erode before it really had time to engulf the surrounding areas.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are other factors, but if you had a blank canvas and you were going to start locating new footy clubs in a new metropolis, the centre-ground and/or places of biggest and densest population would be the prime spots. As far as long-established clubs are concerned, apart from the super-successful few clubs in the country (and really including them), I think ANY club should be very wary of deserting its natural catchment area.

From a Spurs fan site .....

So basically, the OPLC are about to award it to Wet Spam because of public opinion and are taking out insurance for a Tottenham legal challenge.

Levy thinks that we have the best bid and meet the most criteria and the OPLC have made their decision on outside factors? ie public opinion?

So basically, the OPLC are about to award it to Wet Spam because of public opinion and are taking out insurance for a Tottenham legal challenge.

Levy thinks that we have the best bid and meet the most criteria and the OPLC have made their decision on outside factors? ie public opinion?

I think the final decision is with Boris. He could just overrule the OPLC's decision, which would avoid the need for a legal challenge.

Which website did that "legal argument" come from THFC1960? I'd like to have a look at that thread.

Daniel Levy - Evening Standard article
08 February 2011

The Olympic Park Legacy Company have a tough decision to make that will affect the future viability and success of the Olympic Park for decades to come.

They are looking to ensure the venues in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park have long-term tenants that are financially viable, sustainable, able to maximise the use of that venue to support the wider vibrancy of the Olympic Park and do not burden the taxpayer.

I believe that Tottenham Hotspur's plans for the Olympic Stadium site meet every one of these criteria - whilst also delivering a coherent and comprehensive legacy for athletics.

The original 2012 legacy was to demolish the stadium and leave a 25,000 capacity athletics stadium.

This was taken to the market and no tenant could be found, so the OPLC started to look at other options and indicated they would be prepared to consider a bid from Tottenham Hotspur for a rebuilt or reconfigured stadium without a running track - as long as we also planned for an athletics legacy.

The easiest, most cost-effective option we could have chosen was to have submitted a bid which retained the athletics track but there is a fundamental reason we have not proposed this - it would not have delivered or guaranteed a viable, sustainable legacy. Quite simply, athletics and football cannot successfully co-exist.

The experience of clubs in Europe clearly demonstrates that forcing co-existence in stadia that were not primarily designed for football is a short-term fix.

Data shows that staging football matches in a large stadium with an athletics track results in a poor spectator experience, leading to reduced attendances, excess supply of seats, the undermining of pricing structures and higher operating costs. The combination of these factors causes football clubs to move because their business models become unviable.

Three European cities which have hosted a summer Olympic Games also provide compelling evidence for London. In Munich and Barcelona the experiment has left an empty Olympic stadium, after bad experiences for fans and clubs concerned. In Athens, there are unhappy football tenants with very low attendance figures, working desperately to relocate.

Our proposal uses as much of the existing stadium infrastructure as possible, to maximise the benefit of the public investment to date. We are not "demolishing £500million" of stadium infrastructure - we are removing and recycling around £80m with zero to landfill, leaving around £420m of investment in place. Indeed, it is worth remembering that two thirds of the Olympic Stadium, under the original legacy plan, was to be dismantled.

Our bid proposals will deliver a 365- days-a-year venue. In addition to selling-out for football, together with AEG, the company which saved the Dome from being a white elephant, the stadium would host world-class concerts, sports, entertainment and community events ensuring year-round use.

We also propose a major tourist attraction based around extreme sports and incorporating a specialist sports retailing centre, restaurants, cafes and bars along with a full programme of community activities across the public realm managed by the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation.

This combination of activities will deliver over three million visitors a year to this part of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park - visitors from the UK and around the world - creating a showcase destination for London. There has also rightly been much debate recently about ensuring a proper legacy for athletics. We have looked long and hard at this issue and believe that what we are proposing offers a robust, viable and appropriate legacy for athletics.

In terms of infrastructure, we would pay for the significant redevelopment of the Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium as a dedicated home for the sport, which would see the venue's capacity increased to 25,000, with the ability to convert to 40,000 for a World Championships.

Importantly, it would be available to athletes every single day of the year. This is something that is not possible at the Olympic Stadium under West Ham's proposal, given the demands of the football season, summer pitch relaying and the hosting of other events during the summer - access for athletics has been set at a mere 20 days per year.

In addition, we have put together a substantial package to provide long-term funding for grass-roots athletics and community programmes across London and we would work with relevant athletics and other groups to help deliver this.

Our community programmes are multi-sport with guaranteed multi-million pound funding, an array of activities delivered in the stadium, across the public realm and with outreach work in all five Olympic boroughs.

We believe this is a fantastic opportunity to create a true Olympic legacy - we have put together a bid that is financially robust and fully underwritten, delivers a substantial return to the public purse, would provide a dedicated athletics legacy, includes funding and provision for comprehensive sporting and community activities and engagement and is backed by a team experienced in delivering.

There is no danger of a white elephant, no need for public subsidy now or in the future and no need for a future alteration to the stadium under our plans. But our bid goes further than just the Olympic site. Our move to Stratford would kick-start nearly half a billion pounds worth of investment in London in no less than three boroughs - three capital projects would be delivered - a new stadium built in Stratford, capital project works in Crystal Palace and a mixed-use scheme development in Tottenham.

These new projects would drive substantial regeneration benefits for Londoners, delivering employment, commercial opportunities and community engagement.

Our bid provides for real investment in east, south and north London and will return money to the Government and ensure no further call on council taxpayers. Furthermore, alongside these developments we would extend and continue our work in these communities through the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation.

We hope that the OPLC make a decision based on what is right for London, Londoners and for the public purse, with the solution that will stand the test of time for both athletics and football, that helps create a vibrant Olympic Park and delivers the promised legacy of regeneration.

Tottenham Hotspur can guarantee to deliver on all these fronts.

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/daniel-levy-evening-standard-article-080211.html

^^ I just wonder why they aren't pointing out that Westham could then move to the abandoned White Harte Lane and everyone could just be happy. :lol:

From a Spurs fan site .....

Legal argument

I said 10 days ago, and I reiterate again: the reason the decision was postponed, was so that the OPLC could acquire adequate liability insurance, as - fundamentally - they did not have the backing of one of the big audit houses, to underwrite their decision. Our bid has the substantial covenant backing of Goldman Sachs, Barclays and Citibank and the audited due diligence approval of PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

In the last 48hrs, Levy has prepared the legal canvas and has - in doing so - fired the warning shot, that Tottenham Hotspur will not accept external factors influencing and undermining what is, essentially, a procurement process. Levy is at pains to observe respect and to reemphasis the process - and that isn't just because he doesn't feel like 'getting into a scrap' - it's a calculated approach, one with reproach in mind.

Were we to 'fail' in this process, then I should imagine that - almost immediately - Levy would declare our position as unsatisfied. He would then suggest that the process was flawed, due to unfair influence, and - because of this - it would require independent external review and audit. The auditors would then be advised to base their conclusions, on the strict criteria given to those parties who were invited to tender. Usually, an audit-based review would use a points system, and I feel Levy would be very confident that - on this basis - our bid is outstanding (we meet every one of the criteria, and in many cases exceed what is asked)

Once Levy would have the full independent backing, he essentially has two options open to him: i) ask that the process be re-tendered (unlikely) or ii) file for damages. The latter is more likely, as he could offer the substantial evidence of the backing of an independent auditor, cite many various conflicts of interest (inferring flawed process and diligence) and also point to many instances where public figures and interested parties - namely Karren Brady - have actively sought to unfairly influence the process.

As for legal action making us unpopular with the public? That matters very little. Our reputation, brand and credibility had already been attacked and sullied by various characters - all of whom may come to regret being so vocal, dismissive and presumptuous about our bid. As for the cost of mounting a legal challenge? They're not prohibitive at all, as - were we to be successful - they'd all be recovered, and then some. We're talking about a significant asset here; a £1Bn decision - if you do not feel that due process has been exercised fairly and accordingly, then you do not simply walk away.


I'm no legal person but I find this argument unconvincing. It appears to be written by a Stratford booster who has good contacts but is not close enough to the centre of things.

For a start the process is not merely technical insofar as Boris and a Secretary of State are involved higher up the line. Despite what Levy would like, politics are involved and should be involved.

Even the OPLC decision is not as technical as the legal bod would have it. Just look at the criteria in full.

"1. To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Olympic Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money;
2. To secure a partner with the capability to deliver and operate a legacy solution for a venue of the Stadium’s size and complexity;
3. To re-open the Stadium for operational use as rapidly as possible following the 2012 Games;
4. To ensure that the Stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol supporting the economic, physical and social regeneration of the surrounding area;
5. To allow flexible usage of the Stadium, accommodating a vibrant programme of events allowing year round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport."

I've highlighted the key words and phrases. There is no way that a judgement about 'economic, physical and social regeneration' is merely technical. Nor is the assessment of whether something is sufficiently 'vibrant' or whether it serves the 'local community', the 'wider public' or, indeed, 'elite sport'.

From what this 'legal' person seems to be saying, the OPLC have made their decision and it's West Ham. But there is a financial issue. The OPLC would have made its decision on the basis, I guess, of a fulfilment of 4. & 5. where, I imagine, West Ham is way ahead. West Ham might have a narrow edge on 3., but this shouldn't make a difference. Spurs are going big on 1. and 2. but it is arguable that West Ham have a better 'legacy solution' than the THFC Crystal Palace botch. Indeed the shrillness of Spurs arguments over the legacy is indicative of their weakness: West Ham don't need to say anything.

So the only sure thing Spurs appear to have is 1., something that will give the Treasury 'value for money' and is, possibly, somewhat more secure in the long term, given the financial issues.

But this is no mere procurement process. Though a technical issue may be part of it, the rest is political and involves judgements outside simple tendering decisions.

Levy's muttered about the undue 'political' influence of the athletics lobby - but what do we expect? First, is everyone supposed to keep their mouths shut? In which case what's Levy doing now and what has Lee's spin machine being doing? Second, the opinion of the athletics lobby is hardly irrelevant. It is part of the inevitable and necessary politics of the decision about the legacy and the value for elite sport.

I don't know whether taking legal action has seriously crossed Levy's mind, but in my amateur view, he'd be very ill-advised to do it. If this is intended to be spin, it seems like yet another example of how desparate it can get.

Perhaps the giveaway that this is not from a serious legal person is the statement "Our reputation, brand and credibility had already been attacked and sullied by various characters - all of whom may come to regret being so vocal, dismissive and presumptuous about our bid."

Very silly bluster.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6737674,00.html

No Northumberland project. OS or WHL (36K)

SIMPLES.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6737674,00.html

No Northumberland project. OS or WHL (36K)

SIMPLES.

Haha..... ANY Evertonian could've wrote the script for this entire soap opera months ago. This would be the chapter entitled WE HAVE NO OPTION, THERE IS NO (viable) PLAN B.... it's a corker! It's almost certainly Bollocks too. I think the pro-stay fans have them seriously rattled.

The one thing that intrigues me on a legal standpoint is the fact that the OPLC themselves invited Tottenham into the bidding, Tottenham initially refused but were told to bid as the stadium does not need to have a track.

Now considering the mess regarding England's bid for the World Cup and the fact that FIFA seemingly moved the goalposts and the fact that if the bid is given to West Ham why was Tottenham asked to bid when its obvious they had no real plan to offer it to Tottenham in the first place because of the track issue. The fact being because they asked us to bid under the proviso of no track do they not feel any responsibility for lets face it a month of mud slinging from West Ham, UK Athletics and any other that wanted to jump on the bandwagon namely David Lammy and the media as a whole.

I have seen it written elsewhere when the bid for our hosting the World Cup was the best because of the fact that it simply was the safest, financially the best and other self adulation that was placed on it, remember the words of out future King, the Prime Minister, The London Mayor, and of course sporting delegates that include ironically Sebastian Coe yet when it comes down to it they are going to do exactly what FIFA did and give it to the risky, dodgy, and soon to be championship side thus more likely to become a white elephant. Where is the sense in that. Mock FIFA for being tits then follow them.

I personally think Levy has a good point to make that the people of London have been sullied into not wanting the Tottenham bid thus making the OPLC more likely to want to go with public opinion, remember alot of which was basically bullshit and lies from the likes of Brady especially the scaremongeing of the corporate crime. Remember Tottenham were told it was OK to bid under that remit of 'corporate crime' that Karen Brady is all to quick to tell everyone.

Buckle, if West Ham doen't need to say anything, why is Karren Brady continuously harping away about the Spurs bid? If anyone comes across as shrill, she does. There's an almost frantic tone to her comments that suggest West Ham are the unsettled side.

Spurs have been pretty smooth this past few days, their message has been clear and calm. What's the problem with Levy rattling his solicitors' sabres? They were asked to bid, they're entitled to a fair process. Reading and listening to a petulant and bitchy British media quoting the wild ramblings of Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, et al has certainly suggested there's an anti-Spurs bias out there that precludes fair process from occurring.

The West Ham bid is a farce. That item four stuff you've quoted is a joke as far as they go. The club's a debt-ridden shambles. The stadium is a big, barren metal tub, no matter how they tart it up. It isn't an attractive or iconic structure, undoubtedly the ugliest Olympic stadium ever built. Some distinction. Why would anyone want to see that thing stay up once the games are over?

How is a crap stadium, fated to flounder financially, going to participate in the economic regeneration of the area? Knock that pin out and the ambiguous 'physical and social' aspects of regeneration become instant casualties because, short of Avram Grant sharing a massive casino payoff, there'll be no money to pay for it.

The Spurs bid is far stronger. In fact, it should win by default.

Then the vibrant program of flexible usages will be fulfilled with the wider community seeing elite sport in the form of Spurs playing Champions League, Premier League, Carling Cup and F.A Cup games. Year round access will be governed by the ever-lengthening times needed to tour the Spurs trophy room and for school kids to attend Spurs 're-education' summer camps.

If I was on the OPLC committee I would be really pissed off, because the process is as clear as mud. I don't think any of them know what they are supposed to be doing, hence the extension of time.

Does the track have to stay? If so, Spurs' bud is null and void.

Is it commercial viability? If so, West Ham's bid is null and void.

I don't think anyone anywhere has actually defined the word "legacy" which seems to be central to the process. Instead, they have left it up to the football clubs to come up with their own interpretation of what "legacy" is.

I don't know who set the criteria, but if they were so worried about legacy, they should have defined their terms before the bids were invited, to avoid all this nonsense.

Buckle, if West Ham doen't need to say anything, why is Karren Brady continuously harping away about the Spurs bid? If anyone comes across as shrill, she does. There's an almost frantic tone to her comments that suggest West Ham are the unsettled side.

Spurs have been pretty smooth this past few days, their message has been clear and calm. What's the problem with Levy rattling his solicitors' sabres? They were asked to bid, they're entitled to a fair process. Reading and listening to a petulant and bitchy British media quoting the wild ramblings of Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, et al has certainly suggested there's an anti-Spurs bias out there that precludes fair process from occurring.

The West Ham bid is a farce. That item four stuff you've quoted is a joke as far as they go. The club's a debt-ridden shambles. The stadium is a big, barren metal tub, no matter how they tart it up. It isn't an attractive or iconic structure, undoubtedly the ugliest Olympic stadium ever built. Some distinction. Why would anyone want to see that thing stay up once the games are over?

How is a crap stadium, fated to flounder financially, going to participate in the economic regeneration of the area? Knock that pin out and the ambiguous 'physical and social' aspects of regeneration become instant casualties because, short of Avram Grant sharing a massive casino payoff, there'll be no money to pay for it.

The Spurs bid is far stronger. In fact, it should win by default.

Then the vibrant program of flexible usages will be fulfilled with the wider community seeing elite sport in the form of Spurs playing Champions League, Premier League, Carling Cup and F.A Cup games. Year round access will be governed by the ever-lengthening times needed to tour the Spurs trophy room and for school kids to attend Spurs 're-education' summer camps.

Well said.

I said on here back in October the West Ham bid is farcical. Anyone can see that there is something fishy about them by their constant need to bash our bid.

Buckle, if West Ham doen't need to say anything, why is Karren Brady continuously harping away about the Spurs bid? If anyone comes across as shrill, she does. There's an almost frantic tone to her comments that suggest West Ham are the unsettled side.

Spurs have been pretty smooth this past few days, their message has been clear and calm. What's the problem with Levy rattling his solicitors' sabres? They were asked to bid, they're entitled to a fair process. Reading and listening to a petulant and bitchy British media quoting the wild ramblings of Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, et al has certainly suggested there's an anti-Spurs bias out there that precludes fair process from occurring.

The West Ham bid is a farce. That item four stuff you've quoted is a joke as far as they go. The club's a debt-ridden shambles. The stadium is a big, barren metal tub, no matter how they tart it up. It isn't an attractive or iconic structure, undoubtedly the ugliest Olympic stadium ever built. Some distinction. Why would anyone want to see that thing stay up once the games are over?

How is a crap stadium, fated to flounder financially, going to participate in the economic regeneration of the area? Knock that pin out and the ambiguous 'physical and social' aspects of regeneration become instant casualties because, short of Avram Grant sharing a massive casino payoff, there'll be no money to pay for it.

The Spurs bid is far stronger. In fact, it should win by default.

Then the vibrant program of flexible usages will be fulfilled with the wider community seeing elite sport in the form of Spurs playing Champions League, Premier League, Carling Cup and F.A Cup games. Year round access will be governed by the ever-lengthening times needed to tour the Spurs trophy room and for school kids to attend Spurs 're-education' summer camps.

I agree. But Im not as sure of winning as I once was.

Our bid is clearly the strongest and the best for all involved (including athletics who would have use of the OS under west ham for 5% of the time).

But I'm not sure the OPLC will make a decision based on fact and long term viability. I think they would like to, but they may fear public opinion. Brady has done a good job for West Ham. She has attacked our bid because theirs is ill thought out and weak. Something for everyone, yet nothing at the same time.

It will be an interesting decision, and we will all see what basis this country is run by the verdict.

Arsenal's debt is in the Emirites. West Ham's debt is in the West stand which they will still have if going to the Olympic stand. Both clubs are profitable in operating terms which Chelsea is not. Spurs are profitable in operating terms but with NP developement would have a similar debt to Arsenal but without an Arsene Venger who Arsenal are always desperate to keep. West Have plans to develop The Parcel force site (which has similar transport, not as good, as Stratford and no private development)at West Ham station before Gold and Sullivan came along. If a football only stadium was allowed then West Ham would sue to have their football only plan considered for Stratford.

I agree. But Im not as sure of winning as I once was.

Our bid is clearly the strongest and the best for all involved (including athletics who would have use of the OS under west ham for 5% of the time).

But I'm not sure the OPLC will make a decision based on fact and long term viability. I think they would like to, but they may fear public opinion. Brady has done a good job for West Ham. She has attacked our bid because theirs is ill thought out and weak. Something for everyone, yet nothing at the same time.

It will be an interesting decision, and we will all see what basis this country is run by the verdict.

Under the objective criteria there is no contest. We would be the clear winners.

But I suspect that the OPLC committee (or some of them at least) do not sympathise with the criteria. They are more concerned to keep the track, or to keep the majority of the structure.

If that is right, then I think they are in an untenable position. I wouldn't be surprised if they pass the buck completely, saying that it has become a "political" matter, and as such, refer it to the government or the mayor.

Was at the game on Saturday.
Got to admit I was expecting plenty of anti Stratford goings on but was surprised and a tad disapointed with what I saw on the day.
There was a very small anti Stratford demo opposite Bill Nick way...Im talking about 30 people with a banner and a few balloons. I admit that after about 5 minutes hanging around on the fringes, my kids insisted we go into the ground at 2pm so it may have swelled after I left.
Once in the ground I was waiting for the songs to start but only twice did anybody try to kick one off and it stayed in the small section it had started (Park Lane and Lower Shelf corner.....it certainly wasnt taken up around the ground and petered out very quickly. Admittedly the game was pretty exciting at times and most seemed focused on that so I wasnt surprised the 'say no to Stratford' song seemed a bit of a distraction at one point.
Fans I spoke to on the day however were all against the idea but none said they would never go again if we moved.
As mentioned from the reactions of fans at the Fulham game it seems the majority of season ticket holders (who make up the majority of fans at away games) would vote against a move if given the opportunity. Its the silent majority that worries me. I could include myself in that...I make no claims to be a zealot in this issue.
I fear apathy may be Levy's biggest ally.

I believe that We Are N17 have decided to keep their powder dry until the decision is announced. It's pointless trying to change Daniel Levy's mind.

Focus, instead, on making sure that Spurs fans, as a whole, are fully informed of the facts - and that they aren't just buying Mike Lee's spin.

Focus, too, on ensuring that the promised referendum on moving to Stratford is genuinely independent; that a vote is offered to all signed up Spurs season ticket holders and members; and that the wording is in no way weighted to favour the board's side of the argument.

The only other action that could possibly achieve material results would be lobbying / pressuring of the OPLC committee members, Boris and whichever government minister will make the final decision.

Are any of you anti-Levy types shareholders? Can he be forced or voted out of his position?

Firstly, I don't think many fans are anti Levy. He's actually been a very good chairman on the whole. It's just this one issue (albeit, the biggest possible issue) that has angered so many fans.

But, to answer your question, the only person who could force Levy to stand down as chairman of Spurs is Joe Lewis - the majority shareholder of ENIC which is, in turn, the majority shareholder of Tottenham Hotspur PLC (with something like a 90% shareholding). And since Daniel Levy is Joe Lewis' protégé, business partner and family friend, that is not going to happen.

Sorry to pop in so late in the discussion, but what is the red thing to the left of the stadium? I poked around, but apparently missed a description.

It's The Orbit - a giant, interactive (well, visitors will be able to climb it) scultpure designed by Anish Kapoor, paid for entirely by steel billionaire, Lakshmi Mittal, and championed by Boris Johnson as a lasting artistic legacy for the Olympic Park.

And it's hideous.

It is Spurs’ bid which is weak and toothless. The deciding committee will take into account factors such as fan identity/geographic position and not be swayed by spread-sheetism and what the Spurs’ board claim to be a viable and mutually/objectively beneficial proposal.

In any case, how do you imagine Spurs playing on that Olympic site that looks like a third rate theme park? To add to the horror it will be dominated by a 200 metre-tall monstrosity made up of a twisted mass of scrap metal painted red. I can imagine that red eye sore becoming known as ‘Arsenal’s revenge’ should Spurs have the misfortune of ending up playing there.

It is Spurs’ bid which is weak and toothless. The deciding committee will take into account factors such as fan identity/geographic position and not be swayed by spread-sheetism and what the Spurs’ board claim to be a viable and mutually/objectively beneficial proposal.

I'm not saying you mightn't be right, but do you have links/contacts/quotations to back this up? Or are you on the committee yourself? If the answer to all of these is "no", I suggest you don't actually know what they may or may not be swayed by.

STADIUM LOCATION

Football clubs based in the outer suburbs of cities tend not to prosper and develop very well with the odd exception such as Manchester United and even Spurs to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, just look at inner suburb clubs such as affluent arsenal and Chelsea, compared to the struggling West Ham.

I am sure West Ham United would be a successful club competing in Europe if they were based in an inner suburb such as Whitechapel or Stepney and playing football there in a 40,000+ capacity stadium.

Look at other ‘outer suburb’ clubs in London: Millwall, Charlton. Wimbledon, Brenftord – is it a coincidence that these poorly performing clubs all happen to be located in outer suburbs? I think not.

The closer that a football club is located to a central area the better – that includes Spurs who would prosper much more in a location much nearer to the centre such as Hoxton, Hackney or Dalston.

1. That "odd exception", Manchester United, happens to be a pretty bloody crucial exception, you have to admit.

2. Chelsea are only affluent because they have a multi billionaire Russian owner. Nothing to do with their location, which helped them to win a measly three trophies in more than 90 years until they started spending irresponsibly (on the way to becoming a matter of days away from going into receivership).

3. West Ham being in Whitechapel (a shit, run down area which has only recently become slightly more trendy) would not necessarily have made any difference to their fortunes - which are, as they so often remind us, always hiding.

4. Millwall is most definitely not in an outer suburb. It is possibly the most central all London football clubs.

As to your assertion that Spurs would become more successful if they relocated to Dalston or Hoxton................utter poppycock. Clubs become successful because they consistently employ the right managers who, in turn, buy the right players and get them to play in a manner and at a level that exceeds the sum of the whole.

Depends whether you interpret people's unwillingness to demonstrate as apathy or willingness (however reluctantly) to move. Even out of those who are protesting, how many will really refuse to follow the team if it moves?

I didn't go to the Fulham game but I went to the Newcastle game and the proportion of fans singing "North London is ours" was much higher than either the Man U or Bolton home games. There were a couple of weak renditions in the south east corner for Man U at half time but nothing for Bolton. The club must be getting the impression that the mainstream home support are in favour or apathetic to moving.

Also the number of people signing the petition has remained pretty low. It got 5,000 signatures shortly after it was set up around the time of the Liverpool game, then stuck there for a few weeks before going up to about 7,000 around the time of the Man U game. They were hoping for 100,000 signatures.

Also, what is not known is how many of the people who have signed it are current ST holders or members. Would they outnumber the people on the waiting list?

I think it is fair to assume that the vast majority of people nowadays are computer literate (they need to be to get tickets) and that if they invest time, money and emotion on THFC they would sign the petition if they were against the move. I would if I felt that way. Why have so few signed? Up until new year, there was an argument that people didn't want to cause too much of an outcry as most people didn't think the Olympic bid was serious (just a bargaining chip for Haringey), or even know about it at all. But is there any Spurs fan out there now who doesn't know about it or think it is serious?

I didn't bother to sign that petition. Two reasons:

1. It demands that you create an account on that website.

2. Such petitions never have the slightest effect on their intended targets.

You simply cannot, on the basis of such flimsy evidence, make a sensible judgement as to the number of Spurs fans who are opposed to the move to Stratford. You cannot assume the absence of action to mean the absence of dissatisfaction. I'm sure you're aware of the fact.

A slightly facetious argument, I realise, but it would be just as easy to ask where is the evidence of support FOR the move to Stratford? Where was the pro Stratford singing? Where are the pro Stratford petitions?

I suspect that you're right, however, that most dissenters will meekly follow the club to Stratford, if it goes. But they will have been railroaded into it.

In the Hebrew Bible, Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve and the progenitors of the modern-day Jewish and Christian faiths. The two brothers rubbed along reasonably well, tending the land and serving God and the like, until one abruptly turned against the other and smote him dead.

I guess the complete lack of anyone else on Earth will do that to you...

But fast forward two Testaments and one Son of God and a similar situation is threatening to play itself out on the road to the Olympic Stadium.

The debate has set one famous old club against another but, despite the best efforts of the respective Boards, the most intense fighting is not actually between the clubs; it's between the fans.

The debate has torn a schism straight down the centre of the Spurs fanbase and pushed each side into two distinct and very polarised camps.

Those who favour the move speak of progress, elevation and competition. They look upon the other side as Luddites, self-interest groups or ballast, fans who are unwilling or just unable to grasp the enormity of the opportunity.

Those who oppose the move talk of tradition, community and territory. They look upon their pro-Stratford brethren as armchair supporters, fair-weather fans and company men, supporters who want to destroy a century of history and abrogate their responsibility to the Club's impoverished heartland.

It has become, indubitably, the Irresistible Force Vs the Immovable Object. Team IF Vs Team IO.

But the most surprising development is the impact it's had on the relationship between the two factions: the truth is, they really don't like one another anymore...

Neither party trusts the other and both bridle with suspicion at each other's motives. It's also hard to continue drinking with someone who's so diametrically opposed on an issue that's key to the future of the Club.

The Tottenham board have an unenviable task. It's the American Civil War and the Second World War all rolled into one.

But the supporters may have an even bigger battle on their hands because the brotherhood is being torn asunder and, unfortunately, no one's entirely sure who's Cain and who's Abel.

Excellent post.

The worst thing about this whole controversy is that Daniel Levy has set Spurs fan against Spurs fan. If there were no other good reasons to reject a move to Stratford, this would still be reason enough.

Delt:

As Tom Hughes explains so well, the only reason Chelsea are successful is because of their central location, otherwise Mr. Abramovich would not have chosen Chelsea to invest in. He cleverly dismissed the likes of West Ham, Charlton and Crystal Palace recognizing them to be ‘outer suburb’ clubs with less ‘international sex appeal’.

If there was a Premiership side with a stadium based on Oxford Street called Soho Rovers lets say, Abramovich would buy it instead of Chelsea
because of Soho’s more central location.

Tom Hughes understands this perfectly well so I hope you can now.

In west London, QPR or Fulham could be regarded as being neither inner or outer suburb clubs but in between. This is also reflected in their performance which is mid-Premiership to Top-tier Championship standard.

Anyway, my point is we should be moving directly south towards Shoreditch, not south east, ending up in West Ham’s Stratford.

Chelsea was already a top four club with a recent history of winning trophies (albeit as a consequence of irresponsible, Leeds style spending) before Abramovich swooped. That's why he bought them.

The fact that the club was also up for sale at a bargain basement price only increased its attractiveness - as did the fact that the seller was desperate.

Mr. Malark:

The two polarized camps you speak of are extremist in their polarity.
A certain degree of moderation is called for by Spurs fans.

Those who favour the move to Stratford are preoccupied with spread-sheet analysis, NFL affiliation and calculator arrived solutions. To use your biblical metaphor, they are like the Pharisees who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Those moderates in favour of a slightly nearer location in north London towards Shoreditch speak of long term financial gain, broader catchment areas and enhanced international brand appeal.

Those who fail to see Spurs relocation beyond N17… wake up and welcome to the 21st century!

Moderates?

:rofl:

Loons, more like!

Besides, why the use of the plural? You're the only one making such a suggestion!

Actually, I think if you look at the all-time Attendance table you'll find that Chelsea are far higher than West Ham.... in fact in their first few seasons they had the biggest attendances in the whole league. Needless to say poor performances soon put paid to that. I also said that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL centrallity will be an important factor, as accessibility and/or population density will normally increase closer to central areas. I'll give you another example.... at the birth of Football in Liverpool there were two dominent teams.... Everton FC and Bootle FC. The arrival of the more centrally located Liverpool FC killed Bootle off in an instant after only one season in the inaugural Division 2, despite the fact that Bootle were an already well established outfit. They never recovered. Of course if the out of town club gets off to a flyer and wins all before them then perhaps their fanbase and future is secured, but mediocrity and peripheral location would tend to lead to a downward spiral more often than not, especially where there are other options.

Back in the noughties, teenies and twenties of the 20th Century, when most other clubs had limited capacities, Stamford Bridge had a capacity of 100,000. That's why they had the biggest average attendances.

Yes, I agree..... I'm sure it had much to do with hardly any trophies in their entire history, combined with far more successful clubs relatively nearby. The point being made however, is that when football started and all the London clubs were roughly speaking.... on a par, their gates were bigger than anyone's. Infact they were London's best supported club for 12 of their first 13 seasons, despite the other clubs in some cases being longer established and often in a higher league..... in otherwords there was always strong potential given their catchment area, size of ground and accessibility. The eventual lack of success, and greater success on the pitch elsewhere saw that fanbase erode before it really had time to engulf the surrounding areas.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there are other factors, but if you had a blank canvas and you were going to start locating new footy clubs in a new metropolis, the centre-ground and/or places of biggest and densest population would be the prime spots. As far as long-established clubs are concerned, apart from the super-successful few clubs in the country (and really including them), I think ANY club should be very wary of deserting its natural catchment area.

Agreed.

And that one fact alone surely puts the nail in the coffin of oxo's preposterous (though amusing) theory that a centrally located club will necessarily be successful.

I think the final decision is with Boris. He could just overrule the OPLC's decision, which would avoid the need for a legal challenge.

......But which would then inevitably invite a lawsuit from whichever club were to lose out.

I'm no legal person but I find this argument unconvincing. It appears to be written by a Stratford booster who has good contacts but is not close enough to the centre of things.

For a start the process is not merely technical insofar as Boris and a Secretary of State are involved higher up the line. Despite what Levy would like, politics are involved and should be involved.

Even the OPLC decision is not as technical as the legal bod would have it. Just look at the criteria in full.

"1. To achieve a viable long-term solution for the Olympic Stadium that is deliverable and provides value for money;
2. To secure a partner with the capability to deliver and operate a legacy solution for a venue of the Stadium’s size and complexity;
3. To re-open the Stadium for operational use as rapidly as possible following the 2012 Games;
4. To ensure that the Stadium remains a distinctive physical symbol supporting the economic, physical and social regeneration of the surrounding area;
5. To allow flexible usage of the Stadium, accommodating a vibrant programme of events allowing year round access for schools, the local community, the wider public and elite sport."

I've highlighted the key words and phrases. There is no way that a judgement about 'economic, physical and social regeneration' is merely technical. Nor is the assessment of whether something is sufficiently 'vibrant' or whether it serves the 'local community', the 'wider public' or, indeed, 'elite sport'.

From what this 'legal' person seems to be saying, the OPLC have made their decision and it's West Ham. But there is a financial issue. The OPLC would have made its decision on the basis, I guess, of a fulfilment of 4. & 5. where, I imagine, West Ham is way ahead. West Ham might have a narrow edge on 3., but this shouldn't make a difference. Spurs are going big on 1. and 2. but it is arguable that West Ham have a better 'legacy solution' than the THFC Crystal Palace botch. Indeed the shrillness of Spurs arguments over the legacy is indicative of their weakness: West Ham don't need to say anything.

So the only sure thing Spurs appear to have is 1., something that will give the Treasury 'value for money' and is, possibly, somewhat more secure in the long term, given the financial issues.

But this is no mere procurement process. Though a technical issue may be part of it, the rest is political and involves judgements outside simple tendering decisions.

Levy's muttered about the undue 'political' influence of the athletics lobby - but what do we expect? First, is everyone supposed to keep their mouths shut? In which case what's Levy doing now and what has Lee's spin machine being doing? Second, the opinion of the athletics lobby is hardly irrelevant. It is part of the inevitable and necessary politics of the decision about the legacy and the value for elite sport.

I don't know whether taking legal action has seriously crossed Levy's mind, but in my amateur view, he'd be very ill-advised to do it. If this is intended to be spin, it seems like yet another example of how desparate it can get.

Perhaps the giveaway that this is not from a serious legal person is the statement "Our reputation, brand and credibility had already been attacked and sullied by various characters - all of whom may come to regret being so vocal, dismissive and presumptuous about our bid."

Very silly bluster.

Totally agreed. It's a complete nonsense to suggest that the only criterion that matters is the financial argument.

It's also a complete nonsense to suggest that Karen Brady rubbishing Spurs' bid is in any way more prejudicial than Spurs' agents rubbishing West Ham's bid. Sheer and utter hypocrisy.

The one thing that intrigues me on a legal standpoint is the fact that the OPLC themselves invited Tottenham into the bidding, Tottenham initially refused but were told to bid as the stadium does not need to have a track.

Now considering the mess regarding England's bid for the World Cup and the fact that FIFA seemingly moved the goalposts and the fact that if the bid is given to West Ham why was Tottenham asked to bid when its obvious they had no real plan to offer it to Tottenham in the first place because of the track issue. The fact being because they asked us to bid under the proviso of no track do they not feel any responsibility for lets face it a month of mud slinging from West Ham, UK Athletics and any other that wanted to jump on the bandwagon namely David Lammy and the media as a whole.

I have seen it written elsewhere when the bid for our hosting the World Cup was the best because of the fact that it simply was the safest, financially the best and other self adulation that was placed on it, remember the words of out future King, the Prime Minister, The London Mayor, and of course sporting delegates that include ironically Sebastian Coe yet when it comes down to it they are going to do exactly what FIFA did and give it to the risky, dodgy, and soon to be championship side thus more likely to become a white elephant. Where is the sense in that. Mock FIFA for being tits then follow them.

I personally think Levy has a good point to make that the people of London have been sullied into not wanting the Tottenham bid thus making the OPLC more likely to want to go with public opinion, remember alot of which was basically bullshit and lies from the likes of Brady especially the scaremongeing of the corporate crime. Remember Tottenham were told it was OK to bid under that remit of 'corporate crime' that Karen Brady is all to quick to tell everyone.

Why do you claim this as a "fact"?

I've heard nothing of the sort.

I have heard the rumour that Boris invited Spurs to bid. But it is only, at this stage, a rumour. And Boris is not a part of the OPLC.

As to why Boris might have invited Spurs to bid, it could easily be for no more complicated a reason than why someone looking to build a house will invite tenders from a multitude of construction companies.

Finally, are you seriously trying to compare a reasonable bid by West Ham to move to the Olympic stadium with the insanity of a tiny country like Qatar hosting the World Cup?

Buckle, if West Ham doen't need to say anything, why is Karren Brady continuously harping away about the Spurs bid? If anyone comes across as shrill, she does. There's an almost frantic tone to her comments that suggest West Ham are the unsettled side.

Karen Brady is a gobshite who is running scared. But that doesn't validate Spurs' position.

Spurs have been pretty smooth this past few days, their message has been clear and calm. What's the problem with Levy rattling his solicitors' sabres? They were asked to bid, they're entitled to a fair process. Reading and listening to a petulant and bitchy British media quoting the wild ramblings of Coe, Jowell, Livingstone, et al has certainly suggested there's an anti-Spurs bias out there that precludes fair process from occurring.

Bias? That would be the case if those speaking out against Spurs' bid had no good reason to do so. But clearly, they do have good reason to do so. You can't punish West Ham just because a big majority of people - in the media and elsewhere - prefer their bid to Spurs'.

The West Ham bid is a farce. That item four stuff you've quoted is a joke as far as they go. The club's a debt-ridden shambles. The stadium is a big, barren metal tub, no matter how they tart it up. It isn't an attractive or iconic structure, undoubtedly the ugliest Olympic stadium ever built. Some distinction. Why would anyone want to see that thing stay up once the games are over?

West Ham's debt is a legacy of the former owners. The current owners have a history of good management within football and in their other businesses and they have already made inroads into reducing the club's debts.

And if you think that the desire to retain the Olympic stadium has anything to do with aesthetics, then you have entirely misunderstood what the debate is about, I'm afraid.

And if you think that the desire to retain the Olympic stadium has anything to do with aesthetics, then you have entirely misunderstood what the debate is about, I'm afraid.

No, JimB, I have a fair grasp of what the debate is about. But the OPLC criteria for the bid wanted the stadium to remain "a distinctive physical symbol" and as it stands now, it's a tribute to England's incompetency in stadium projects, whether it be an inability to keep its spectators safe or even alive(past disasters/hooligan incidents ad nauseum), to bring home a project on time and on budget(Wembley) or to create a new ground that remotely projects atmosphere and excitement(Emirates). This one doesn't even offer the convenience of a proper place to pee.

The idea that the current Olympic stadium will fund economic regeneration is countered by the sight of track-encircled football stadiums all over Europe being rebuilt because football fans stayed away.

And yes, actually, I and many others can say public opinions supporting West Ham's bid can mislead. Given the depth of rivalries that exist within London, an opinion poll about the bid could be bent depending where, when and which respondents were approached. Fans of one club don't want to see Spurs gain a large financial advantage. They don't seem to consider what's good for their tax bill, they simply let sporting preferences take hold. Someone overseeing this decision from a more objective standpoint would not let the sports rivaly lead the debate over their civic responsibilities.

You'll see opinion skew when the media deliver information in a certain tone or stack facts in an article a certain way. A lot of people have their thinking done for them by seeing inflammatory headlines, provocative quotes taken out of context and the media's desire to prod its audiences into responding by simply winding them up.

The Daily Mail couldn't be more blatant about it's support of West Ham.

The Telegraph, who grant Arsenal the greatest prominence in their sports coverage, have not been balanced in their coverage and when reader comments began taking writers to task, they simply did away with comments.

The BBC have been a bit unusual in that their website columnists began strongly backing the West Ham bid, but some very interesting comments from readers have presented facts that have resulted in more recent articles swinging back the other way, or at least onto an objective footing.

Since the bids went in last year, there have been many inflammatory quotes and misleading or self-serving statements from Brady, Coe, Jowell, Livingston, Lammy and others that have been given prominent play on many websites, with no real attempt to balance out or offer counter statements. Maybe the Spurs were at fault for not joining the debate as eagerly or as early. They seemed to let a lot of this go unchallenged until recently.

This is by far the most volatile stadium project I've seen in recent years. Then again, the long-term resources it offers to the winning bidder make it a worthwhile scrap. Of course, if Spurs were to win it outright and West Ham withdraw, the debate still won't have ended.

Agreed.

And that one fact alone surely puts the nail in the coffin of oxo's preposterous (though amusing) theory that a centrally located club will necessarily be successful.

So location and accessibility has no effect, it is not an issue? Do you think if Spurs moved to say.... somewhere off the M25, they would have a propensity for a greater attendance level than they do now? I don't! I think the semantics of the initial post are being overplayed. The general point being made was that accessibilty and centrallity to your fanbase can effect attendance. Of course success on the pitch can even more so, but that is little to do with stadium planning. The Chelsea analogy was to show that when all things were relatively equal (i.e. at the beginnings of the football league) Chelsea's centrallity and accessibilty meant that they got easily the biggest average attendances for ALL those initial yrs, before success or lack thereoff moulded the respective fanbases further. Initially Stamford Bridge was nowhere near 100k capacity, and more like 70k (infact its biggest ever gate is only 83k), and initially Highbury was 60k with WHL not far behind, but despite spending some seasons in Div.2 Chelsea's gates were always bigger than both these clubs in the formative yrs.

You can always get a poll to get to say what you want depending on how you frame your questions. This was the commonly-cited poll of a thousand-odd people through the Evening Standard:

The stadium should be used for athletics after 2012: 70% agree, 26% disagree

This isn't actually a reflection of the options on the table. You almost need to split this into two statements: The stadium should be used exclusively for athletics after 2012 and It would be preferable to make the Olympic Stadium available for athletics for 60 days of the year than build a bespoke stadium that would be available for 365 days of the year.

This would likely show that most people would prefer the Stadium to remain an exclusive athletics stadium after 2012. However, if that wasn't an option, I would guess they'd probably prefer a bespoke site that gave athletes access throughout the year.

After the Olympics there is no need for an athletics stadium: 16% agree, 77% disagree

This is a fairly straight-forward statement. However, there's a need for a second gauge. No further public funds should be put into the Olympic Stadium after 2012.

These two statements could potentially result in two vastly contrasting returns but, even if they didn't, the introduction of public funds would at least serve to focus the mind.

Which bid should win? West Ham 72%, Tottenham 13%, neither 12%

Without giving the recipient further information, this question is just finger-in-the-air time. Which is fine, if the OPLC were going to decide by flicking a coin. It's a provisional opinion and no more, and it would serve far greater purpose if it were given context.

It would damage the legacy if the stadium cannot hold athletics after 2012: 63% agree, 31% disagree

This depends on what the legacy is. The three options are essentially a fully-subsidised athletics venue, a partially-subsidised West Ham bid with athletics available for a small part of the year, or a privately-funded Tottenham bid with a separate, permanently-available athletics stadium.

I'd guess the result would split between the first and third options.

The stadium should be dismantled and rebuilt as a football stadium after 2012: 14% agree, 81% disagree

As both Tottenham and West Ham will be re-building the stadium to differing degrees, this question is almost redundant and could be assessed through the other statements pitting Athletics against Football above. It would also return a measured response rather than an emotive one.

Athletics is not popular enough to justify keeping a purpose-built athletics stadium: 25% agree, 68% disagree

This is a superfluous question. The empirical evidence is in the attendances at athletic meets.

Stadiums should not be used for both athletics and football, as an athletics track would make football less enjoyable: 28% agree, 59% disagree

This is another question that would be better gauged through case studies across the world. Because how can anyone reasonably comment on it?

I've put together these suggested alternatives in about ten minutes and they're not perfect by any stretch but I think they serve to illustrate the latent failings with the first survey and undermine it as a credible barometer.



-Fuck it. West Ham have won the bid. I haven't even formatted this shit.

If West Ham is preferred bidder, still not the final say, that is the politicians. It will now make as the only alternative NP suddenly viable again.

9 February 2011 Last updated at 21:54

West Ham beat Tottenham to win Olympic stadium backing

By Adrian Warner
Olympics correspondent, BBC London

Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) executives have decided the offer from the club is a better solution than the rival bid from Tottenham.

The OPLC board will be asked to support the view and announce the Hammers as preferred bidder on Friday.

The government and London's mayor, Boris Johnson will then take a final decision in the coming weeks.

It would be a surprise if ministers and the mayor overturn OPLC executives, who have spent the last few months discussing the various plans with both clubs in detail.

West Ham are happy for the athletics track to be kept in the stadium and for the venue to be used for a variety of sports and concerts.

Tottenham's plans were to dismantle the stadium in Stratford and build a new football ground in its place.

The Spurs proposal has faced huge criticism from the athletics world, MPs and the public.

A recent BBC London poll suggested 81% of Londoners were against the proposals to rip up the athletics track.

The ComRes phone poll, carried out between 21 and 23 January, also suggested 72% of people in London wanted West Ham to get the stadium, with only 13% supporting Tottenham.

Ministers and the mayor are understood to be well aware that the Tottenham option would have been a "hard sell" to taxpayers.

:cheers: :banana:

Great news!

But no counting of chickens - or cockerels - yet.

YES!! WE LOST!! COYS!!!