I must have got this wrong, but I have always been under the impression that the new Wembley had made assurances to the locals that they wouldn't allow a club side to use the stadium even on a temporary arrangement. Furthermore, I also thought it was it was part of the public licence issued to the stadium that it was restricted in the number of events held there per year thus ruling out the possibility of a club side using it.
You weren't the first club to be called Hotspur either and a move away from Tottenham could mean that you'd have to change the name of the club. As for sharing the Emirates, whilst we're used to you being our underlings, I'm not sure too many would be too happy with us being your Landlords. That would really confirm the Master / Serf relationship On a more serious note, does anybody on here think that the introduction of safe standing might be the answer ? Clubs like Spurs and Liverpool could implement schemes similar to those that are used in the Bundasliga. The clubs get to increase capacity without having to build new stadiums, with all the financial and environmental pressures that it brings. Fans get cheaper tickets and get to choose to stand and sing with like minded fans - everybody is a winner
Well, that would rule out my favoured option..... Staying put with restricted attendances - and seriously decreased revenue - for a season makes no obvious economic sense. Trouble is, other ground-share options don't look too inviting. Oh well....
Piskie, Good shout on the safe standing areas, lots of pluses to it. Most away games we end up standing for the whole game anyway!
As Arsenal have already been on the other side of that coin, you probably shouldn't have admitted that, Piskie. Good to know that you accept your serfhood, though. As for your serious point about standing, as a side like Dortmund can manage it, I can't see any logical reason why Premier League clubs couldn't do the same. It won't happen though, as it's too emotional a subject for some and politicians would jump on it.
Wembley, as Spurcat points out, is ruled out because of various planning and consenting issues. The OS is unlikely, too. The permanent seating is only for 25,000. I can't see them retaining the temporary 55,000 seats until we've finished building our new stadium, and in any case I don't think the facilities would be suitable - no toilets or food outlets in the 55,000 seating part, they were all outside for the Olympics, which is fine for a day out but not for an intense 90mins with a 15 min break in the middle. Sharing the Emirates is the logical solution, but emotionally and practicably impossible. We'll build it as planned - three stands built while we use WHL as usual, then use those three stands while the Lane gets pulled down, then build the fourth stand. At no stage is the capacity less than we have now. I still don't think we'll give up on a permanent move to Stratford until it is clearly impossible.
As our Serfs and tenants, we could impose all manner of Draconian measures on Spurs. Like making Gareth Bale lick clean the boots of our reserves or enforcing that Adebayor makes a thousand apologies a day to the shrine of Herbert Chapman . . Anyway . . being serious again. Safe Standing - it is a pragmatic solution, with a multitude of benefits for clubs and fans alike. But as you mention it's too emotional a subject to ever be debated properly in this generation. A recent Lib Dem motion to discuss it in Parliament, led to the Sports minister to say that if there were ever another incident involving injuries sustained on a terrace then whoever sanctioned it would be wanted 'with their head on a stake'. So much for rational debate then . . . For those who are interested though, the Football supporters federation are running a safe standing campaign, which highlights the benefits of modern design http://www.fsf.org.uk/petitions/safestanding.php
In other words, "I'm not going to entertain the idea, because I like my job too much to actually do it properly. Now where did I put my expenses claim?".
Precisely - and he didn't even articulate his sentiment particularly well either. The 'head on a stake' analogy was a poor choice of words, given the subject matter.
Bucks this about Spurs not Chelsea. If it is sanctioned then Wembley would be ours for a season- but I think after seeing SC comment it won't happen.
So I'm not allowed to have a wry joke with you all before the crunch match on Saturday? I don't think it would happen tbh. I'm looking forward to you hopefully redevelopping WHL though.
When is work going to possibly start on a new stadium? 2-3 years? West Ham will move into the Olympic Stadium soon, which leaves Upton Park Vacant until they turn it into a block of flats! in saying that, I doubt the locals would want 30 odd thousand spurs fans in the area, upton park isn't exactly spurs friendly!
It's not clear that West Ham are going to be moving into the OS soon, the decision was delayed again today. There's even a chance, admittedly a small one, that they won't move in there at all, which I hope is the case, but I think eventually they will seal the deal. I just hope they don't get it too cheaply, as getting the OS could lift them up a level or two, maybe more in the long term. Our failure to expand has been a massive failure on the part of ENIC for many years now, hopefully they are going to rectify the situation in the next three years, but I'm still not convinced. I want to see the stadium construction started not a supermarket, before I get carried away with too much hope on the new WHL.
Be fair, they have only just got planning permission. That isn't ENIC failure, it is local govt failure. Sadly it took something like the riots and the threat of going to Stratford for them to get their finger out. Before then, we didn't have any kind of support in addressing transport issues, or get any kind of commitment that our investment in the area would be met with any commitment on the govt side. I know you like to knock ENIC, but on this issue they have played a blinder!
are some people missing the point that this is a TEMPORARY thing while the stadium is rebuilt? We would categorically NOT have to change our name for such a move.
I read somewhere on here that in PES2011 or one of the old versions of the game, they had a team called "West London White", we could adopt that name for a season if we have to move to west london. Or if its East London, "East London Hotshots"....although I expect we could attract the "pink pound" if we went for the East london Hotshots name!
Whenever the notion of safe standing is brought up, people yell "HILLBOROUGH!!!" and make vague references to the Taylor Report, which demonstrate one thing - they haven't actually read it. The Taylor Report clearly stated that standing wasn't unsafe, but as Something Needed To Be Done (and it was a Tory government, and they sure love their sweeping generalisations that ignore the facts they're being told), that meant that standing was dangerous and, because it is dangerous, it must be banned and that's an end of it. Then again, the Taylor Report also stated Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield City Council were responsible (yet somehow didn't mention The FA, who chose the ground, which didn't even have a valid safety certificate, even though there had been near disasters in that end before), but nobody remembers that part either...
