LONDON - New White Hart Lane (56,250)

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Harry1990

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.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by RobH

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.

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!!

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.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by oxo

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!

[Mr Malark]

Originally Posted by JimB

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.

[Lilbaz]

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.

[topalex]

''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.

[REVUpminster]

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.

[Kebab Man]

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?

[oxo]

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.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Mr Malark

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.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Kebab Man

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.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by topalex

''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.

[Kebab Man]

Originally Posted by oxo

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.

[Kebab Man]

Originally Posted by JimB

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.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Kebab Man

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.

[Mr_Malark]

Originally Posted by topalex

''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.

[meatball1]

Originally Posted by JimB

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]

Originally Posted by oxo

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.

[meatball1]

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

[Mr_Malark]

Originally Posted by JimB

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.