Sacked :grin:Probably being sexist here but most polling happens during the day when it is mainly housewives around who answer the phone. So i'm sure that'll skew the results somewhat.
Isn't the London Evening Standard press banned from White Hart Lane for spurious reporting of Spurs related news?
Indeed.
sloth and startingprice, I'm gobsmacked by your attitudes.
We ask for evidence -- a simple set of plausible figures will do -- for the assumption that the Stratford site will be significantly cheaper than the NDP, and we are accused of sophistry. I don't know what dictionary you use, but asking for evidence is not one of the definitions of that word.
Well, I'd be interested to see what you make of this interview on the BBC web site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9371972.stm
Scroll down and you'll see the Levy interview. Look at it all, it's quite interesting (he calls football 'soccer', not a problem, but yet another PR gaffe among many others), but at approx 7 minutes 30 seconds, Levy is asked how he responds to accusations that the club is 'mercenary'. He says, and I quote "We've never said the [Stratford] opportunity is cheaper".
I'll repeat that: "We've never said the [Stratford] opportunity is cheaper".
All depends on the terms agreed with the OPLC. This directly contradicts what David Keirle was reported as saying in his press conference and various interviews. There we heard quite clearly the argument that Stratford would be '£200m' cheaper than the NDP. Well, Levy is now saying it is not 'cheaper'. They've never said it.
Make of this what you will. Either Keirle was spinning -- actually, lying -- and was reported accurately. Or he was misreported. You choose but many of your arguments have seized on the Keirle assertions as if they were gospel.
The more sensible and circumspect of us questioned them. Levy has confirmed our suspicions to be well-founded.
You poo-pooed those suspicions.
And we are accused of 'sophistry'?
I would have thought an apology is in order.
Sotm
From Matthew Beard's blog in the London Evening Standard today:
Stadium poll exposes Spurs strategy
Today's BBC London poll emphatically giving backing to the West Ham stadium bid shows Spurs have some way to go convincing Londoners of their plan........
.......Spurs have repeatedly rejected requests by London media to explain their bid, so it can hardly come as a surprise that today's poll shows them looking so out of touch.
http://bit.ly/guJ62p
BigTurnip - I think some folk, myselfincluded, are fed up debating with the likes of you and SOTM, for the very simple reason that you keep on asking for 'proof' of financial figures, etc., but whenever it is offered you sole response is that the source is THFC and therefore you refuse to trust it.
Yeah, okay.
But, wait a minute...you have been provided with figures, several times.
The interview...I don't take it seriously. I think his main priority, in answering that way, is to say his primary motivating factor isn't 'meanness' or 'avarice' - just what Karen Brady has accused him of...:think: What did you expect him to say: "Yeah, I'm a cheapskate":shrug:
I, personally, have never, insofar as I can remember, said that the saving is £200 million.
What I have asked you to do, very clearly, is offer me an explanation as to why he should want to move to the OS if not because it is more viable, amongst other things, more viable economically. You still haven't done that.
I find this argument boring, it just goes round and round.
And what makes me laugh the most is that I have said I really don't want the club to move and if presented with a well-worded petition would gladly put my name to it.
But there are clearly good reasons why the club wants to take up the OS option and anyone of any intelligence who wants to consider the issue has to deal with them.
So far you have poo-pooed each and every suggestion (whether based on hard figures or on common sense) as to why the club would want to take up the OS option. So, come-on, tell us why you thnik it is; what is your grand conspiracy theory? Or, do you incline more towards a "Dan Levy got up one morning, nicked himself shaving, and suddenly, just as the wind changed NNW, decided to move the stadium against all reason and advice, and at considerable unneccessary cost" type of explanation?
What I have asked you to do, very clearly, is offer me an explanation as to why he should want to move to the OS if not because it is more viable, amongst other things, more viable economically. You still haven't done that.
Of course, none of us know the actual figures, but you have to read all the information available and use your analytical abilities together with common sense to come to some conclusions. My point is that you are so partizan, you are writing off any logical points garnered from the evidence from the other side of the debate.
This sort of thing is precisely why people shouldn't be consulted on subjects which require more than a cursory knowledge.
Ask Londoners do they want the OS to become a white elephant after the olympics and they'll tell you no.
Ask whether they want to keep pumping money into the stadium after the olympics through their council tax and they'll answer you no.
Ask them how much thought they've given to the subject and the majority will tell you virtually none.
The same thing happened with Boris and the bendy buses. The majority of people didn't like them for a variety of petty or misinformed reasons. The main one was that they were more dangerous which wasn't supported by the evidence. The unadmitted reason was they replaced Routemaster (or at least were seen to do so), for which most of us had a deal of affection. And for motorists, particularly in affluent London, they were seen as blocking the road with their extreme length.
I'm a Dad with two children, both under five, you try going to do a shop at Sainbury's with a child in a buggy and carrier bags on the back and another child in tow. It's not easy. But then when the bus driver tells you in the wet and cold there's no room on the bus unless you fold your buggy. And the next one tells you the same. And the next one. And that's what bendy buses catered for.
I saw it happen the other day on the 149, a young mum forced to wake a sleeping baby, the buggy tip over backwards and her shopping scatter, the bus not move for a couple of minutes while she sorted it out, all with a screaming baby under one arm.
But the majority don't experience it and they vote in their ignorance on small petty reasons and subject the affected minority to their decision.
[/rant]
Because Levy's main concern is to act in the interest of ENIC and their shareholder's, not in the long term interests of Tottenham Hotspur, I think you'll find this response numerous times throughout this thread. You accuse us of just hearing what we want to, yet you seem happy to ignore this very rational explanation and disregard it as a conspiracy theory.
I would say these two things are mutually exclusive.
The best for THFC = financial rewards for ENIC. Levy has never been afraid to back managers and spend big money on all aspects of the club to enable us to be competing with the best in every aspect of football, not just on the pitch. He knows that doing this will enhance THFC as a team, a club and a brand, which ultimately makes it a money-spinning investment and a good earner for the ENIC portfolio.
Not sure what this has to do with the stadium, but I think all buggies should be folded up before they are allowed on the bus, on numerous occasions I have seen selfish parents refuse to fold buggies up when somebody tries to get on in a wheelchair and can't because a buggy is taking the wheelchair space. The wheelchair user has to wait for the next bus because the bus driver doesn't want some inconsiderate parent shouting abuse at them on a crowded bus.