Well, I was bit disgusted with West Ham winning that bid. I remember some deep arguments on 606 that really persuaded me that our plan was the best for the stadium [albeit I may be a little biased.] But alas it was not to be... Well! Maybe! Is there anyone here who knows the ins-and-outs of this thing. I mean, will West Ham still get the stadium now due to their relegation and bad debt? Is there any chance of the decision to be reversed, or is it all just pub talk and disgusting Karen Brady has definitely got her way?
I'm torn on this one. As a Spurs fan who grew up and went to school in Tottenham, and who watched the likes of Martin Peters, Alan Mullery, Martin Chivers, Mike England, Pat Jennings, Steve Perryman, etc play at the lane, and (when I couldn't go) used to listen to the roar of the crowd from my parent's back garden, of course I want us to stay put, at the Lane. However, it is clear that we cannot expand what we have to any where near the capacity that we need to take the club forward. The fact is, we are going to have to move from the Lane if we want a bigger ground, so the real question is "how far away from the Lane are we going to move?" Tottenham is not a big place, and it is massively over-built, so the reality is that we are going to have to move out of Tottenham, if we do want a new stadium, and the Olympic Stadium would have been an ideal spot. I suppose the question we fans have to ask ourselves is this. Would you prefer to be a mid-table PL side playing out of a tiny and aging stadium that is our spiritual home, or a perennial title-challenging side playing out of a massive brand-spanking new purpose build stadium in another part of London? It's not an easy choice to make, and it is one that is bound to divide us fans.
I don't live in North London, it admittedly doesn't mean that much to me. A lot of other posters on 606 didn't seem too put off by the idea though, and obviously the club doesn't seem to mind if they want to move there. The question isn't really should we or shouldn't we though, the question is do we have any chance at all. No point debating whether we should go there if we definitely can't anyway.
Whatever happens to it, it'll be a disgrace if West Ham get it. Look at the other olympic stadiums around Europe. The Olympiastadion in Berlin, has Hertha Berlin (the city's main team) and they almost fill it every week. The Stadio Olimpico in Rome, has AS Roma and S.S Lazio, both European Giants. They will it week in week out too. So, why on Earth would we give OUR Olympic stadium to a 2nd rate, Championship team, that struggled to will a 35000 seater stadium. How will they will a 60k stadium? Also, they're getting the money from the council, ie a loan, which they won't be able to repay, as they won't bounce straight back into the PL, so they'll have no big income. It's difficult to repay a £135m loan when in the Championship. At least if we were there, we'd fill it easily. Also, I've watched football at a football/athletics stadium, it's rubbish. The Stade de France is the only stadium I've watched football that it works, but it costs them 100k Euros every time they move the stands back or forwards. I know it'd mean leaving North London, but several people have already pointed out we can't really stay there if we want a big stadium, to match the standard we are reaching. If you look at Arsenal, massive stadium that they fill, we could fill one too, and the amount of extra income it brings in is massive, not just in Spurs tickets, but internationals are played at stadia like that
The parcel of land next to IKEA has been offered to Spurs by Enfield Council apparently. This would be an ideal compromise for a number of reasons. 1. It keeps Spurs in North London, close to their roots. 2. It takes us out of the clutches of David Lammy and The Peoples republic of Harringey. Both seem more determined to relieve of cash than anything else. 3. Enfield council have said they will help secure some public funding (although in the present climate, is this realistic?) 4. The land is a light industrial/brownfield site, not a far more expensive high street location. 5. We build the Stadium we want and don't have to subsidise British athletes. 6. There is only one station to improve and the road access is far better, also there is less local community to impact on.
Tradition should prevail. Yes our income would increase, but for what? Selling out and moving half way across London. No thanks, WHL is home. We need to either re-develop or finder a find a suitable location nearby. COYS
But redeveloping WHL is prohibitively expensive. If we don't move forward from here, it will take us a very long time to catch the teams above us (who all have bigger grounds,) if ever. I can see the problem people some folks have with moving to the OS, but staying in the same area cannot be a problem surely?
It may be a truism, but teams with larger home support tend to get better results too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newcastle ? Sunderland ?
Mainly because that would make us the Haringey Nomads. Now, if they can dig up the OS, transport it to N17 and put it where our current ground is, that might be a solution - and probably cheaper than the constantly escallating costs of the whole shambles that is 2012.
