Disgusting
- Thread starter Spursguru
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
from what i've read,most Spammer's don't want it either,and a lot of them are season ticket holders,who won't be renewing
Look at you lot getting all bitter and twisted!
What a fantastic day for my club.
Thats sad, highly ****ing sad you think we're bitter and twisted and its a fantastic day for your club!
I don't know of any spurs fan that wanted to move there and was disappointed that Levy even considered it, although now I see why, money.
So if anyone will be bitter and twisted over this, its mr Levy!
However, if we went there, i would have been gutted, as it will be a soulless stadium with no association with the club.
Update (BBC London) :
Newham council have invested 40m for a 35% stake in the OS.
That probably means the Spanners are only getting a 12% max stake of the pie.
Barry Hearn is basically saying he is only interested in ground-share,
and if he gets that for the Os, he would drop his legal challenge.
Newham council have invested 40m for a 35% stake in the OS.
That probably means the Spanners are only getting a 12% max stake of the pie.
Barry Hearn is basically saying he is only interested in ground-share,
and if he gets that for the Os, he would drop his legal challenge.
Considering we have been at white hart lane since 1899, then how can you state the new stadium won't have any geographic association to Tottenham?
Not interested in what was intended to take place, my only concern is what is going to happen and while I'm still slightly unsure about the current plans, as in when they will happen, moving directly opposite WHL, ensures we remain in the same area we have been since 1899 and keep a strong bond with the clubs history.
If you wanted a better example of night and day reporting, the take on the same story by the BBC "News" and BBC London News couldn't be more different.
The BBC "News" take on it was a sickening example of toeing the party line, as it wasn't a news report but a PR campaign: it's a wonderful stadium, it will be fantastic for the Olympic legacy, how it will regenerate the area, and all the other hollow platitudes people were saying about that corporate jolly masquerading as a glorified sports day that kicked the crap out of the local, regional and national economy...in other words, the same amount of coverage than the BBC gave to the story about the BBC pissing away £80m of license payers' money on the sale of Lonely Planet this week.
BBC London News, on the other hand, actually reported on the story - they had Richard Caborn voicing his doubts about the transparency of the deal, they had West Ham fans saying they'd never go to a game there and how The Pornographers show no interest in anything but themselves when running the club, and actually reported the figures of public money that were being spent on it. They also had Boris and Brady mouthing statements that ring about as true as Oscar Pistorius' defence.
Typically, though, the former was the version of the story reported in the Standard, with a two-page interview with Allardyce saying...well, if I lacked any self-respect I would have bothered reading it.
The BBC "News" take on it was a sickening example of toeing the party line, as it wasn't a news report but a PR campaign: it's a wonderful stadium, it will be fantastic for the Olympic legacy, how it will regenerate the area, and all the other hollow platitudes people were saying about that corporate jolly masquerading as a glorified sports day that kicked the crap out of the local, regional and national economy...in other words, the same amount of coverage than the BBC gave to the story about the BBC pissing away £80m of license payers' money on the sale of Lonely Planet this week.
BBC London News, on the other hand, actually reported on the story - they had Richard Caborn voicing his doubts about the transparency of the deal, they had West Ham fans saying they'd never go to a game there and how The Pornographers show no interest in anything but themselves when running the club, and actually reported the figures of public money that were being spent on it. They also had Boris and Brady mouthing statements that ring about as true as Oscar Pistorius' defence.
Typically, though, the former was the version of the story reported in the Standard, with a two-page interview with Allardyce saying...well, if I lacked any self-respect I would have bothered reading it.
Levy should never have considered the OS site, although I now get what your initial point was (as i missed it slightly) as our plans where difference, in the sense of yes building a new site, a point I actually forgot about as I tried to ignore our bid, as found it ridiculous we would even consider the OS.
Although money is always a big factor in these situations.
" Although money is always a big factor in these situations. "
1. a) Original new WHL costing : 400m.
b) With Haringey + TFL poncing + English heritage antics : 450m.
Increase = 12% .
2. New WHL built on OS site.
No council / TFL / English heritage interference.
Faster completion time.
250m max.
Go figure.
1. a) Original new WHL costing : 400m.
b) With Haringey + TFL poncing + English heritage antics : 450m.
Increase = 12% .
2. New WHL built on OS site.
No council / TFL / English heritage interference.
Faster completion time.
250m max.
Go figure.
Also, just found this from our original plans
Although they never disclosed how much income that would bring in!
S
Spur of the Moment
Guest
You also shouldn't forget that the local Council and politicians were making any hope of redevelopment of the site untenable that as a responsible company, Levy and the Board HAD to consider alternatives.
I don't think that the OS bid was ever a first choice, but THFC plc needed options - whether they were purely for show (and dough) or viable as plans.
Whatever the reason, we are now looking at a new stadium in 2/3 years virtually on the same footprint of our existing one and having managed to get a few £m out of central government along the way.
I don't think that the OS bid was ever a first choice, but THFC plc needed options - whether they were purely for show (and dough) or viable as plans.
Whatever the reason, we are now looking at a new stadium in 2/3 years virtually on the same footprint of our existing one and having managed to get a few £m out of central government along the way.
Yes a possibility, but if we look at how Levy runs the club, transfers activity and penny pinching, then relocating us to stratford just so Levy & Enic can save millions does fall into the same pattern of how the club is run so I personally believe they would have jumped at the chance to go ahead with the plans and we would have had the "pleasure" of reading one of Levy's open letters in how it was a difficult decision to leave the clubs historic location behind, but he was doing it for our future.
Look at you lot getting all bitter and twisted!
What a fantastic day for my club.
You still don't get it, do you? I, amongst others, am sure that Levy never really wanted the O.S. but used it as leverage to get what he wanted from Haringey Council.
I'm not saying any of you wanted it. I'm saying look at you all getting bitter and twisted about us getting a nice new stadium funded by the tax payer.
Once converted, it's gonna be the nuts.
Once converted, it's gonna be the nuts.
"I'm saying look at you all getting bitter and twisted about us getting a nice new stadium funded by the tax payer."
But the more that is coming out, the only way the taxpayer will lose out if
your lot are so ****e over the next 10-15 yrs that no Sugga Daddy would
ever buy you.
But the more that is coming out, the only way the taxpayer will lose out if
your lot are so ****e over the next 10-15 yrs that no Sugga Daddy would
ever buy you.