SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Which design do you prefer?

  • The KSS design

    Votes: 80 16.0%
  • The Populous design

    Votes: 420 84.0%

LONDON - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium / New White Hart Lane (62,850)

26M views 91K replies 1K participants last post by  sonicyouth 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)

Tottenham Hotspur FC

2x League:
1951, 1961

8x Cup:
1901, 1921, 1961, 1962, 1967,
1981, 1982, 1991

4x League Cup:
1971, 1973, 1999, 2008

7x Supercup:
1921, 1951, 1961, 1962, 1967,
1981, 1991

1x UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1963

2x UEFA Europa League:
1972, 1984











 
See less See more
7
#3,961 ·
Chelsea's performance in the Champions League this season has to be helping England's coefficient out. Not saying that they would be knocked out of the top 3 and getting 4 teams in the CL, but it has to have helped them maintain their lead.

It's been surprising how bad the rest of the clubs from England have done in European competition. I expected United and City to have done better i the Europa League.
 
#3,962 ·
Yes but city and united problems in both competitions was unbridled arrogance of lets turn up and we will win, spurs fielded a 4th team most of the time any team that has a chance of making top 4 or winning trophys will sadly not bother with the europa cup anymore, its sad but Uefa only has themselves to blame for a decade of destroying all of it former prestige.
 
#3,965 ·
Just to clarify, prior to Liverpool in 2005, a precedent had already been set when Real Madrid finished 5th but won the CL in 1999-2000 - their association put 4th placed Zaragoza in the UEFA Cup and 5th placed Real Madrid into the Champions League. Real Madrid had a good UEFA rating/coeficient so went straight into the group stages.

AFAIK UEFA had assumed that the English FA would follow this model in 2005, but instead the FA decided to play silly buggers and put Everton through, and then lobby on Liverpool's behalf. Everton's coefficient wasn't enough to put them straight into the group stages, so they had to play a qualifier against Villareal, which they lost. Liverpool were let in as defending Champions, but had to play every qualifying match from round one. However, as Liverpool had a good coefficient, having won the UEFA Cup in 2001, they got a relatively easy route, although they weren't afforded country protection for the group stages, and ended up in a group with Chelsea. For some reason, a lot of people assumed that Liverpool's involvement meant that Everton got a harsh draw, but that was never the case.

UEFA changed the rules to prevent an association from playing silly buggers again.
Arf!

That post should come with a Red Tinted Specs warning! ;)

UEFA didn't make any assumptions as to what any national association would do in such circumstances. They simply lacked the foresight to understand that their reluctance to make the decision themselves would lead to inevitable controversy.

So the English FA didn't play "silly buggers". They were left to make an impossible decision - a decision that should have been taken out of their hands by UEFA.

In the circumstances, there were perfectly valid arguments for both teams. Liverpool justifiably argued that they should be allowed to defend their Champions League title. Everton justifiably argued that they had earned the right to compete in the Champions League for the first time by virtue of proving themselves over the course of the whole season. The fact that, as a result of Liverpool fans' role in the 1985 Heysel disaster, Everton had previously been denied a rightful place in two or three European Cup campaigns in the 1980's, must surely have been a further, legitimate consideration for the decision makers in the FA.

For what it's worth, I believe that the root of the problem lies in UEFA's insistence that countries which already have four CL places cannot earn a fifth place in the event that the team that wins the CL fails to qualify via its domestic league. It's an unnecessary complication. And, given the revised rules, it's very unfair on the team that finishes fourth but still misses out. It gives an institutional advantage to teams that are already in the Champions League and only helps to widen the gap between haves and have-nots.

Countries which have three or less Champions League places will be given an extra Champions League place by UEFA in the event that a team from that country wins the Champions League but fails to qualify for the following season's CL via their own domestic league. There is no good reason why the same system should not be applied to countries which, like England, have four CL places.
 
#3,966 ·
I agree. I think it should be that the qualifying league positions are dead certs whatever the circumstances.
I believe everton had more of a case than liverpool that year. After all, such is the profile/importance of the CL, that the domestic season could be seen as part of the CL competition itself. The EPL is in effect a regional preliminary round. In that sense, liverpool were defending the title (admittedly which they had yet to win) from the start of the season, but failed to defend it. Everton, on the other hand, got through the first round.
The case with real madrid is quite shocking really. Sums up what is wrong with the modern game... Fat cats are encouraged to get fatter and it's becoming harder and harder to penetrate the elitism.
 
#3,967 ·
OK, health warning, this is nothing more than a rumour.

It appears that the major refurbishment of White Hart Lane station will be associated with a proposed name change, perhaps using the name of Bill Nicholson. If there any substance to this story, then it may well be related to a naming rights deal that seeks as far as possible to reduce the use of 'White Hart Lane' in favour of the new name.

That's it. Take it or leave it.
 
#3,968 ·
That's it. Take it or leave it

I'll take it thanks Buckle!
I wasnt doing too well with the recent coefficient/champions league discussions :dizzy: so I'll settle for a juicy rumour ta very much.

If all of these recent rumours were to prove true (WHL station, 63k capacity, naming rights etc) we are in for one hell of an announcement from Levy soon!













or not.:nuts:
 
#3,969 ·
OK, health warning, this is nothing more than a rumour.

It appears that the major refurbishment of White Hart Lane station will be associated with a proposed name change, perhaps using the name of Bill Nicholson. If there any substance to this story, then it may well be related to a naming rights deal that seeks as far as possible to reduce the use of 'White Hart Lane' in favour of the new name.

That's it. Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it. Naming a station after a person is very unlikely given the nature of the locals now living in the area who the name will mean nothing to. Gillespie Rd renamed Arsenal was a scandal at the time. Harrods tried to have Knightsbridge changed and Selfridges tried to change the name of Bond Street.
 
#3,970 ·
OK, health warning, this is nothing more than a rumour.

It appears that the major refurbishment of White Hart Lane station will be associated with a proposed name change, perhaps using the name of Bill Nicholson. If there any substance to this story, then it may well be related to a naming rights deal that seeks as far as possible to reduce the use of 'White Hart Lane' in favour of the new name.

That's it. Take it or leave it.


:yes::eek:kay:
 
#3,971 ·
OK, health warning, this is nothing more than a rumour.

It appears that the major refurbishment of White Hart Lane station will be associated with a proposed name change, perhaps using the name of Bill Nicholson. If there any substance to this story, then it may well be related to a naming rights deal that seeks as far as possible to reduce the use of 'White Hart Lane' in favour of the new name.

That's it. Take it or leave it.
Sounds very plausible to me.

Spurs - and more importantly, any potential naming rights sponsor - will be keen to erase as much local mention of the name White Hart Lane as possible. And that very much includes the station. Wasn't there an earlier rumour that the section of White Hart Lane (road) that is closest to the stadium would also undergo a name change?
 
#3,972 ·
I'll leave it. Naming a station after a person is very unlikely given the nature of the locals now living in the area who the name will mean nothing to. Gillespie Rd renamed Arsenal was a scandal at the time. Harrods tried to have Knightsbridge changed and Selfridges tried to change the name of Bond Street.
Whether or not the station could be named after Billy Nick is debatable. But I see no reason why it couldn't be renamed Tottenham (or Tottenham Hotspur) station - which obviously will still mean something to local people.

If the station is to get the proposed major upgrade, inside and out, then the funding will come from the council and from the Mayor's fund. And both those bodies are 100% behind the NDP scheme, for obvious reasons. They will therefore fully understand that changing the name of the station could be an important piece of the enabling jigsaw. And given that TfL is both under the Mayor's control and unlikely to turn its back on funding for a station upgrade, I see no reason why a name change couldn't happen.
 
#3,973 ·
Whether or not the station could be named after Billy Nick is debatable. But I see no reason why it couldn't be renamed Tottenham (or Tottenham Hotspur) station - which obviously will still mean something to local people.

If the station is to get the proposed major upgrade, inside and out, then the funding will come from the council and from the Mayor's fund. And both those bodies are 100% behind the NDP scheme, for obvious reasons. They will therefore fully understand that changing the name of the station could be an important piece of the enabling jigsaw. And given that TfL is both under the Mayor's control and unlikely to turn its back on funding for a station upgrade, I see no reason why a name change couldn't happen.
the last major name change due to a developer was Surry Docks (too common) to Surry Quays (More upmarket). Even Westfield have not had Shepherd's Bush renamed despite paying towards the new station. Another name change was on the DLR, Millwall Park to Mudchute because residents were concerned away supporters would turn up not realising Millwall had moved south of the river years ago. Supporters looking for West Ham still go to West Ham station even though they moved over 100 years ago.
 
#3,974 ·
Sounds very plausible to me.

Spurs - and more importantly, any potential naming rights sponsor - will be keen to erase as much local mention of the name White Hart Lane as possible. And that very much includes the station. Wasn't there an earlier rumour that the section of White Hart Lane (road) that is closest to the stadium would also undergo a name change?

How attached are Spurs fans to White Heart Lane? It may be tough to change the name if the fans love it.
 
#3,977 ·
It won't be tough to change the name though. I mean we're not going to end up with Newcastle-esque protests. We know the only way we'll get a new stadium is with a Naming Rights partner.
Absolutely.

I think Spurs fans are, on the whole, fine with the idea of selling the naming rights to the new stadium. We realise that it is a financial necessity.

We might even, from time to time, refer to the new stadium by its sponsor's name (provided it isn't too awful). But, for the most part - and certainly in song - we'll still call our home what we've always called it.

We are, after all, Tottenham, super Tottenham, from the Lane.
 
#3,979 ·
The fact that Newcastle have renamed an existing stadium, whereas ours will be a new name for a new build, makes a big difference too. Much easier to accept the need for a new name when everything else is brand new as well.
But the new stadium will be virtually in the exact, same place.

As I said, there'll be no problem with the club and the media calling the new stadium by its sponsor's name; and there'll be no demonstrations by the fans or vandalism of signage etc.

But I'm quite certain that the fans will still refer to the stadium as White Hart Lane.
 
#3,980 ·
I'll definitely still refer to it as The Lane myself. I just think that even though it's in the same place, the fact that the whole thing is being pulled down and completely rebuilt does make a difference.

If we were just say... expanding the East and West stands to increase the capacity of the existing stadium, and then announced that it would be renamed from White Hart Lane to a sponsored name, there would be a lot of annoyance and outcry from the fans.
 
Top