New Stadium Details And Discussions

punky · Jan 26, 2011

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.

jonnyrotten · Jan 26, 2011

punky said:
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.

Sacked :grin:

MattyP · Jan 26, 2011

PT said:
Isn't the London Evening Standard press banned from White Hart Lane for spurious reporting of Spurs related news?

Azrael said:
Indeed.

I'm 99% sure that ban was lifted by Levy when the Evening Standard changed owners.

Spur-of-the-moment · Jan 26, 2011

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

jonnyrotten · Jan 26, 2011

Thanks for bringing that interview up SOTM. There is no way on this earth that there is £200m between the schemes, we are being sold down the river. With the Olympic park we don't get a hotel, supermarket and houses to sell either, the planning application is void without the major employer.

StartingPrice · Jan 26, 2011

Spur-of-the-moment said:
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

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?

fieryjack · Jan 26, 2011

jimmyn16 said:
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

Since when, when money is involved, has anybody cared what the public want?

bigturnip · Jan 26, 2011

StartingPrice said:
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.

All I keep asking for proof on is the figure of £200m being the difference for the two projects, the quote from the architect clearly doesn't show that, it says the whole NDP project will cost £450m and that the stadium construction at the OS will be £250m, but that's not the cost of the whole project, so why do people keep making out that the stadium is the only cost in the OS project?

Spur-of-the-moment · Jan 26, 2011

StartingPrice said:
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?

Well, startingprice, I thought you might be able to do better than that.

If Levy is telling the truth then you have a problem. If he's telling lies, then you still have a problem, since he's spinning - the very thing you are trying to deny.

You can't have it both ways.

Here are sloth's words:

"We know the difference in budgeted expenditure between the two is £200m, that's because the architect in charge of both projects has told us it is."

Are these the 'figures' you're talking about?

They're wrong.

You're asking me why Levy wants Stratford? I don't know, that's my answer. If there are any advantages they appear to me to be so marginal that they are not wortth giving up our home, our tradition, our heritage and our culture for.

Levy could be mistaken. That's the problem. He could be taking bad advice. You'll recall that he woke up one morning and decided to sack Jol and appoint Ramos, universally regarded as a big mistake. He's not infallible.

Furthermore you have accused me of 'spin'. My only argument is that the club has been spinning like crazy. I've shown that's the case by exposing the discrepancy between Keirle's statement (to which sloth has allied himself on this thread) and Levy's position. Who's spinning?

I'm glad you don't want to move, and I'm glad that you would put your name to an appropriate petition. OK, we are agreed.

But you do not do yourself any favours by accusing me of spin, when all I am doing is asking questions, questions which have been entirely appropriate.

Sotm

bigturnip · Jan 26, 2011

StartingPrice said:
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.

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.

bigturnip · Jan 26, 2011

danielneeds said:
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.

What evidence?

bigturnip · Jan 26, 2011

sloth said:
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]

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.

Kendall · Jan 27, 2011

bigturnip said:
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.

bigturnip · Jan 27, 2011

Kendall said:
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.

I suspect from your second paragraph you actually mean mutually inclusive.

Historically they aren't, football clubs aren't held in portfolios to earn money, they are bought and sold with amazing frequency when compared to other businesses. The object is generally to build up a club's assets and try to sell it on for a profit on the purchase price and any investment made. Why do you think ENIC are different and are interested in the club's long term future rather than achieving the most profitable exit strategy?

Kendall · Jan 27, 2011

Yeah I did, it was a late one last night!

I think ENIC are different because we've not been held in a romantic way a la say Everton. Nor have we been held in a frivolous way a la City & Chelsea. We've been held to make money, but also by a fan who is keen to see THFC do well.

Why do I think ENIC are different? they have always been willing to spend big. Even though some players haven't come off, ENIC have backed every manager here, breaking multiple records recently. We're looking to get a bigger, more modern stadium, we're constantly looking to improve not only the team, but the running of the club.

You could be cynical and say "ENIC are just in it for the money" and I agree that if Spurs was not potentially profitable investment, ENIC would be nowhere near us, but I prefer to think that ENIC has the best interests of Spurs in mind, with the ultimate and fundamental goal of making us into a sustainable, money-making investment for ENIC.

I don't really see how ENIC wanting to make money from Spurs is actually a bad thing, as long as there's evidence that they're willing to spend when its required. Evidence which is there for all to see.

Azrael · Jan 27, 2011

^ I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that we are Spurs. I just think that Enic woanted a stable club that used to be one of the big boys that that would stand half a chanceof building up into a top six/top four sides, and, lets face it, at the time we were by far the best candidates.

stevenqoz · Jan 27, 2011

bigturnip said:
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.

The tyranny of the majority....Bentham, James or J S Mill I do believe

stevenqoz · Jan 27, 2011

Just a link to remind us of ENIC's past football investments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/1161408.stm

EastLondonYid · Jan 27, 2011

Dream on that Enic won't sell once they get the cheapest option of the OS,Thats why they don't give a toss where it is, just like Harry, they will be long gone!

Kendall · Jan 27, 2011

Bullshit.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Gone

SC Supporter

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip

Well-Known Member

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body

Well-Known Member

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body

Well-Known Member

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads