Wembley until new year 2019

How would their playing a home game make them suffer exactly? The only have one home game in November, while switching the fixture to the Etihad would mean they have two.

It's also worth pointing out that three of their four September fixtures and two of their three November ones are at home, so it's not like they'd suddenly be playing a string of away fixtures as a result. Quite the opposite, in fact. Equally worth pointing out is The FA didn't have a problem with switching our game with Watford at the start of September to be played at Watford's ground when it was originally scheduled to be at ours.

The only actual issue is that, as the match is scheduled for a Sunday, it's a mild inconvenience for whichever of Sky or BT is showing it. And that's what the real issue is, one The FA is proving themselves to be utterly spineless to address.

 

No the real issue is the fact the stadium isn't ready, let's be honest.

I don't think it's fair for them to have to play 3 away games in April at a time when they could be travelling for a CL tie too.

 

If City don't like any of the possible options they could always forfeit

 

I wonder if a behind closed doors game at the new stadium is on the cards here. That would kinda suck for all fans involved though, not sure why they should be punished.

 

Allow me to bring up a sequence of league fixtures Spurs had last season

3rd March - Huddersfield (h)
11th March - Bournemouth (a)
1st April - Chelsea (a)
7th April - Stoke (a)
14th April - The Sheikh Mansour Team (h)

So if The FA want to witter on about the "integrity" of the league as an excuse for not switching the fixture, they should also explain why there was forty days between Spurs' home league fixtures last season. Because how much "integrity" does a fixture list have if Spurs can go over a month without a home league fixture without The FA having anything to say on the matter, yet when The Sheikh Mansour Team face the possibility of going three weeks without one it's the biggest injustice in football since they allowed Sheffield Wednesday to host matches for a decade in spite of their stadium not having a valid safety certificate?

 

But you had a home game against Newcastle after Bournemouth postponed due to you being in the FA Cup quarter finals so you weren't scheduled 3 away games like City would be and we did last season.

Throwing in that comment at the end is ridiculous bordering on moronic btw.

 

More likely you'll have to

 

Highly unlikely. Not sure the FA wants to meet Levy in court.

 

In the first half of the season :

Spurs could end up with several blocks of 3 away games
(perhaps one with 4) merely due to the fixture schedule of the
CL group stage. And that is without considering League Cup
rounds 3/4/5 (dates TBC) , which could extend those blocks.

 

Yeah I know mate just messing about there really. I was wondering earlier though and that would be the outcome if nothing was sorted wouldn't it?

Obviously wont come to that though, have you announced when you expect it to be ready now?

 

Technically all of their games are away, as they don't own their stadium...

 

The City game was announced TBD when the stadium delay came out, so i guess maybe they are hopeful for then. But then the fact they've asked to switch it means maybe they aren't.
It's only an issue because of NFL. We exercised the right for Wembley until 2019 last season, so it seems even more unreasonable that they won't let this be switched considering there is an event clash for this game that is out of our control.

Personally i think we'll be at Wembley until the new year and all our league cup and CL games will be at Wembley.

 

I'd imagine thats the case with most teams in Europe and is different to the PL actually scheduling their matches for a team to play 3 matches away in a row, particularly as it's the business end of the season so it means they will play 4 of last 5 away from home.

 

I personally don't think you should be allowed to do half and half but money talks I'm sure.

 

I don't see why it matters, honestly.
If Cardiff wanted to play most of their matches at their current ground, but the top six at the Millennium Stadium, then I wouldn't care.
It would probably be a slight disadvantage for them, if anything.

This is hardly something that we've planned, either.
What would happen if a team lost their ground in an unexpected manner?
If they could find alternative arrangements, then I don't see why it's an issue.

 

I always thought that was the rule tbh and that we'd gotten permission from the other prem clubs to switch ONE game (Fulham) to Wembley in order to give us an extra 4-5 weeks at the beginning of this season to finish the stadium.

I also would not be surprised at all if this resulted in us being at Wembley the entire season, which would be a massive shame.

 

I'm just not convinced it's completely fair, particularly if your form proves to be considerably better at one than the other.

Are there any more fixture clashes?

 

I'm pretty sure this is the reason. It doesn't really hold up quite as simply as that though. If we'd played the whole season at the new ground then our form there could have been either better or worse at the beginning of the season due to new stadium bump or unfamiliar surroundings. That would have still been considered "fair" though.

We still may have that when we move. I think it would be a bigger deal if we hadn't played at Wembley all last year and were already used to it. If that was the case then there could have been a significant benefit to clubs playing Spurs away from home early in the season.

 

You just KNOW the Mousers are lining this up as an excuse though if they don't beat us, because they would have done at the new stadium and it was really unfair.

 

I just want it ready for December, as being the last team who won at the old one it would be nice to be the first team to win at the new one too