New Stadium Details And Discussions

UpTownSpur · Jan 9, 2017

chico said:
Winning matches creates "the psychological phenomenon of home advantage". Why can't we turn it into a fortress? If we play like we did vs Chelsea and City we will that's for sure. Great stadium, big crowds and kudos might actually attract a couple of players in the summer, particularly if we have qualified for the CL again? WE create the atmosphere. The London Stadium is a poorly designed (football wise) football ground and can not be compared to Wembley, which was purpose built.

Imagine if we get to the League or FA Cup final? Home advantage, and unfair one, would be the cry then!

I'm looking forward to it, because I know we will be going into our new state of the art football palace and future fortress, the following season.

I think a lot of Spurs are gonna be in for a shock next season at just how bad it will be when we play, for example, someone like WBA on a Saturday afternoon, with the top tier closed. "Flat" will be next season's buzz word. People will try and get something going but their voices will just disappear off into the sky and they'll just give up in the end.

No league performance matched the utter stinkfest of Monaco and BL, certainly none at home, where we have the best record along with Liverpool. In fact, I think those performances caused our dip in league form.

widmerpool said:
I'm sure that what you describe is an important component of home advantage, but it can't be the whole story.

An intuitive feel for the position of the goal, for the behaviour of wind and turf in different parts of the pitch, for what is likely to work and where - all that must, surely, come from playing in the same place every week, and must be part of what contributes to home advantage. And having that instinct for playing at Wembley would be very useful if we made it into any cups over the next few years.

Yes, there's non psychological home advantage as well. We have England players who've played there frequently but still looked a shadow of the players we see at WHL. I don't think we'll get any long term advantage at all.

worcestersauce · Jan 10, 2017

Deeyal said:
Im intrigued- Please can you clarify what you mean by it not being essential? what is the alternative in your view?

I may be shouted down here by those more knowledgable, but I think that it may be esential due to the design. They are building a permanent artifical NFL surface that will sit underneath the retractable football pitch. Are you suggestuing they use the NFL pitch as a temporary solution? I'm not sure this would be viable would it? or are you saying the could build a non retracting pitch over the top of the NFL surface as a temporary solution. Surely this would not be cost effective, and then they would have to replace the entire pitch at some point anyway? and surely they would have to build whatever mechanisnm they are using to retract said pitch in advance? so at that point, wouldnt you be better off doing it all at the same time?

Presumably we can install a pitch but won't be able to slide it out, the NFL doesn't have to be ready at the same time as us, they can wait until the following year.
That said I fully expect us to be playing at Wembley and that it won't be an issue.

arunspurs · Jan 10, 2017

UpTownSpur said:
I think a lot of Spurs are gonna be in for a shock next season at just how bad it will be when we play, for example, someone like WBA on a Saturday afternoon, with the top tier closed. "Flat" will be next season's buzz word. People will try and get something going but their voices will just disappear off into the sky and they'll just give up in the end.

No league performance matched the utter stinkfest of Monaco and BL, certainly none at home, where we have the best record along with Liverpool. In fact, I think those performances caused our dip in league form.

Yes, there's non psychological home advantage as well. We have England players who've played there frequently but still looked a shadow of the players we see at WHL. I don't think we'll get any long term advantage at all.

Its for one season. Remind yourself this again - Its for one season.

Even in the scenario that we finish outside CL spot, which could happen this season too, I won't be shocked or surprised. Most fans will take it in the stride & move into new stadium with confidence. But I am not sure about you. You may still be moaning. End of the day, all such moaning is of no use.

Realistically, we have to play outside WHL for 1 season - which ever stadium it is, its going to be difficult.
If athmosphere is a issue, so be it. Its just for 1 year. I can live with it.
Players are professionals, like our management team. They will adjust eventually. We have already crossed the psycological barrier of beating a side there. We will have EL games this season, then preseason in Wembley. So, we will get it right.

Krafty · Jan 10, 2017

We are going to Wembley for a season, suck it up. Short term pain, long term gain. It is definitely more than worth it (and on the sporting side, might be really good for both our psychological development and also for when we move to the new stadium. When teams move to a new ground there is very often a settling in period when they struggle to get used to the new surroundings, the crowd is muted, everything just feels unnatural. To be away from home for a season makes everyone long for a return, even if its not the same old place it will feel like we are returning home as it will be our ground, our pitch, our patch)

We need this upgrade, and the price we might pay is more than worth it. One season of potential mediocrity, relatively speaking for dozens of potentially massively successful years? Gamble I'm willing to take

coyspurs18 · Jan 10, 2017

UpTownSpur said:
I think a lot of Spurs are gonna be in for a shock next season at just how bad it will be when we play, for example, someone like WBA on a Saturday afternoon, with the top tier closed. "Flat" will be next season's buzz word. People will try and get something going but their voices will just disappear off into the sky and they'll just give up in the end.

No league performance matched the utter stinkfest of Monaco and BL, certainly none at home, where we have the best record along with Liverpool. In fact, I think those performances caused our dip in league form.

Yes, there's non psychological home advantage as well. We have England players who've played there frequently but still looked a shadow of the players we see at WHL. I don't think we'll get any long term advantage at all.

From what I have read, home field advantage relates to the psychology of the player and familiarity of the grounds. Studies showed higher levels of testosterone prior to home matches than away. It's been described as a "territorial" response. More and more support is coming out that fans have a minimal impact on the home field advantage. In fact home advantage was shown to "reliably" exist when no crowd exists. Referee bias can also play a role in a home field advantage.

I agree that it may cost us some points in the table as it takes time to settle in, however I feel that would be the case at any new stadium and isn't exclusive to Wembley.

MattyP · Jan 10, 2017

UpTownSpur said:
I think a lot of Spurs are gonna be in for a shock next season at just how bad it will be when we play, for example, someone like WBA on a Saturday afternoon, with the top tier closed. "Flat" will be next season's buzz word. People will try and get something going but their voices will just disappear off into the sky and they'll just give up in the end.

No league performance matched the utter stinkfest of Monaco and BL, certainly none at home, where we have the best record along with Liverpool. In fact, I think those performances caused our dip in league form.

The atmosphere for the Monaco game was actually pretty decent when you compare it with many other football atmospheres the new Wembley has seen. And we didn't perform that terribly on the pitch from what I can remember, just a couple of silly mistakes.

And the atmosphere at the Lane on Sunday was shockingly poor, could've heard a pin drop and there's been enough other games at the Lane where we the home crowd have been poor. Not every game is at the level of Chelsea.

I'm not disputing that the atmosphere at Wembley is likely to be poor, but I think we are already in that territory for a fair few games already, so I don't think it's as easy as just blaming Wembley.

Which is what everyone will inevitably do next season.

cliff jones · Jan 10, 2017

Those knocking Wembley are clearly in the minority, not putting forward any alternative that trumps the positives of playing there and seem to take the very short term view that finishing 5th or 6th before we move back to Tottenham is the end of the world.

I was at the two CL shitefests, up in the Gods to boot but it's still infinitely better than schlepping to any of the Home Counties subbuteo stadia touted before the right decision was made. Wembley is the least bad option and the right call by Levy, whether I like him or not. Let's tough this out together and not create a culture of ready made excuses for the playing side.

philip · Jan 11, 2017

cliff jones said:
Those knocking Wembley are clearly in the minority, not putting forward any alternative that trumps the positives of playing there and seem to take the very short term view that finishing 5th or 6th before we move back to Tottenham is the end of the world.

I was at the two CL shitefests, up in the Gods to boot but it's still infinitely better than schlepping to any of the Home Counties subbuteo stadia touted before the right decision was made. Wembley is the least bad option and the right call by Levy, whether I like him or not. Let's tough this out together and not create a culture of ready made excuses for the playing side.

Have you ever been to MK stadium? Apart from the colouring, it feels as close to WHL as possible. It's the ideal home from home style-wise.
Wembley, on the other hand, is as different as possible. Sweeping shallow corners, uniformity on all sides, atmosphere sucking corporate tier. All in all, a lovely exhibition centre but not a football stadium.

A significant percentage of our home fans live in herts, beds, bucks, barnet etc and could get to MK as quickly as they could to WHL.
We still would have been able to use Wembley for CL games like this season.

Unfortunately Levy buckled to what the fans wanted rather than what would have been best for the team.

Goldman · Jan 11, 2017

philip said:
Unfortunately Levy buckled to what the fans wanted rather than what would have been best for the team.

That's just conjecture though. This season we narrowly lost to a very good Monaco team, a decent Leverkusen team, and beat a pretty poor CSKA side.

That's an extremely small sample size to make a sweeping judgement that playing at Wembley would be detrimental to results as opposed to a different stadium we have never played in, just because it's a bit similar to WHL in size. And most likely generate a better atmosphere.

I don't particularly like Wembley, but it seems a weak excuse to blame the ground over poor performances/results.

Ignoring previous season results at Wembley, and focusing on the current team, you could easily argue that the continuity of playing at a stadium they've played at multiple times this season (and potentially more) would be better for team, rather than having to quickly adapt to a completely new stadium/environment.

philip · Jan 11, 2017

Goldman said:
That's just conjecture though. This season we narrowly lost to a very good Monaco team, a decent Leverkusen team, and beat a pretty poor CSKA side.

That's an extremely small sample size to make a sweeping judgement that playing at Wembley would be detrimental to results as opposed to a different stadium we have never played in, just because it's a bit similar to WHL in size. And most likely generate a better atmosphere.

I don't particularly like Wembley, but it seems a weak excuse to blame the ground over poor performances/results.

Ignoring previous season results at Wembley, and focusing on the current team, you could easily argue that the continuity of playing at a stadium they've played at multiple times this season (and potentially more) would be better for team, rather than having to quickly adapt to a completely new stadium/environment.

It's not based on those three games. It's based on going to Wembley and seeing first hand how difficult it is to keep up an atmosphere.
When you couple in the fact that every team who come to Wembley will raise their game (every club asked has admitted to that) and that we'll have to play in a 5/9ths full stadium for practically every PL game, and it's obvious it'll have to have an effect.

danielneeds · Jan 11, 2017

philip said:
It's not based on those three games. It's based on going to Wembley and seeing first hand how difficult it is to keep up an atmosphere.
When you couple in the fact that every team who come to Wembley will raise their game (every club asked has admitted to that) and that we'll have to play in a 5/9ths full stadium for practically every PL game, and it's obvious it'll have to have an effect.

To be fair the atmosphere for the Monaco game in particular was great - that was not the reason we lost. The players froze on the occasion, and Monaco are a very tidy team.

Dougal · Jan 11, 2017

danielneeds said:
To be fair the atmosphere for the Monaco game in particular was great - that was not the reason we lost. The players froze on the occasion, and Monaco are a very tidy team.

Disagree about the atmosphere. The crowd didn't really get going from the start and the early goal added to that. It was lifted by Toby's goal but for atmosphere's sake that came at a terrible time. As far as I'm concerned we never really got to see the kind of atmosphere we could really have at Wembley, but for the fleeting moment celebrating that equaliser. Even the Moscow win didn't help as we were already out.

Hoopspur · Jan 11, 2017

Can't believe this latest sub thread. The club will have balanced possibilities vs probabilities. I can see a whole stack of told you so's coming.

worcestersauce · Jan 11, 2017

It's all a compromise, the ideal situation is that we play the last game of the season in the old ground and the first game of the new season in the new stadium having trained and played on it throughout the Summer but that isn't going to happen so we need to play at Wembley for a year which will not be the fortress we've made White Hart Lane this season and the first year back qwe will need to rebuild a fortress in the new ground.
One thing I am convinced of, the failure of Arsenal to maintain previous success in the emirates that they had at the old Highbury is not down to the ground, it is much more than that and the move was just coincidental and so when we get into our fantastic cauldron of footballing excellence we will be even better and success will flow like a river in a rainstorm.

LeSoupeKitchen · Jan 11, 2017

IMO the atmosphere would be better at MK and if next season is taken in isolation then I think that would be the better option. Thinking longer term it will be much better moving into our new stadium after being in Wembley for a year. If we get used to generating an atmosphere in Wembley then the new stadium will feel like a cauldron.

nicdic · Jan 11, 2017

LeSoupeKitchen said:
IMO the atmosphere would be better at MK and if next season is taken in isolation then I think that would be the better option. Thinking longer term it will be much better moving into our new stadium after being in Wembley for a year. If we get used to generating an atmosphere in Wembley then the new stadium will feel like a cauldron.

Except fans were pretty vocal about boycotting games if we went to MK, so playing in an empty stadium vs playing in Wembley?

Hengy1 · Jan 11, 2017

nicdic said:
Except fans were pretty vocal about boycotting games if we went to MK, so playing in an empty stadium vs playing in Wembley?

I doubt if push comes to shove people would actually boycott and if some did they'd always be other people willing to go.

whitesocks · Jan 11, 2017

Deeyal said:
Im intrigued- Please can you clarify what you mean by it not being essential? what is the alternative in your view?

I may be shouted down here by those more knowledgable, but I think that it may be esential due to the design. They are building a permanent artifical NFL surface that will sit underneath the retractable football pitch. Are you suggestuing they use the NFL pitch as a temporary solution? I'm not sure this would be viable would it? or are you saying the could build a non retracting pitch over the top of the NFL surface as a temporary solution. Surely this would not be cost effective, and then they would have to replace the entire pitch at some point anyway? and surely they would have to build whatever mechanisnm they are using to retract said pitch in advance? so at that point, wouldnt you be better off doing it all at the same time?

I do not think a retractable pitch (RP) is essential until the NFL decide to bring a franchise to London.
We can share the grass pitch with the NFL for the couple of exhibition games a season - just like Wembley do, and we have done in the past.
Sure the pitch will get torn up and is not what we should expect for a club like ours, but that boat has sailed in either case. The quality of the pitch is not the number 1 consideration if it has to be planted in a set of mobile trays, with inevitable restrictions on what the ground staff are allowed to do. At the very least, any time spent in the bunker will not do it much good.

So would it matter if the RP was not installed this or next year? The important thing is the design allows it to be installed when/if the franchise comes.
I've no idea if it is feasible to get the stadium operational for Sept 2017, but if the RP stage was put back, then that would help. Plus the RP takes up a fair bit of dead space outside the stadium and I imagine the other work on the flats etc can progress much quicker and simultaneously if the builders can use this space for access, storage etc. These additional builds are paying for a good portion of the new stadium - we want them up quickly too.

Your point of having to do quite a bit of work to install the RP in the future is a good one - more than a summer's work imo, especially if the piling for the rails and drainage work etc etc all has to be completed. But that day might never come and if instead we could avoid moving out next season, then that is a fair trade. If we move away next season, then I'm sure they'll have time to make preparations for the RP, just in case, even if they end up burying it all under 3 foot of sand.

Then again maybe everything will be fine and as advertised. You never know.

thebenjamin · Jan 11, 2017

Some article by Gary Jacob in the times today questioning why ours stadium is costing £750m and Chelsea's is only costing 500M. Can't see beyond the opening paragraphs though!

Also says Chelsea are going to get planning permission awarded soon.

DanielCHillier · Jan 11, 2017

thebenjamin said:
Some article by Gary Jacob in the times today questioning why ours stadium is costing £750m and Chelsea's is only costing 500M. Can't see beyond the opening paragraphs though!

Also says Chelsea are going to get planning permission awarded soon.

Isn't the £750m the cost for the entire project including redevelopment of the surrounding area? Also given the complexity of the Chelsea design i'd be surprised if it doesn't go well above that £500m estimate.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Says it like it is

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mistakes were made

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Kick-Ass

You have insufficient privileges to reply here!

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

Well-Known Member

Official SC Padre

Well-Known Member

The past means nothing. This is a message for life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads