Please Register to access the whole of the site and to post on the forums.
Discussion in 'The New Stadium' started by spursgirls, Feb 8, 2011.
They are not banned from WHL after they got new owners. Hence the article Levy did yesterday.
I don't want to go to east London, I've been vocal about it, but there's no basis for us losing the name Tottenham, it just wouldn't happen.
Frankly, I don't care if we leave Tottenham for somewhere also in North London. Enfield, Barnet, fine by me. There was once talk of Picketts lock, I'd be absolutely fine with that.
When the wind's in the north you hardly notice the sewage treatment works is there!
Thing is, I understand the need to leave Tottenham if it genuinely is too difficult, I just do not want to leave north London.
Things change. I'm not sure how useful it is dredging up old comments about the NDP. I mean, at the time, of course, he's going to be strongly backing it - but in the Commercial Property world, which is ultimately what this is, things change so dramatically.
The plan outlined in the article in the first post is as thorough as it gets. It's sensible and provides for an actual legacy. I find it difficult for people to disagree with anything that Levy has said in that article because it's pretty much full proof. And for people to think they know more than this man? Or that they know better?
Well that's just as ridiculous.
Our plan is sound - Christ, even West Ham released a football stadium picture without a view of a running track.
Can't be any worse than when the Gooners visit.
Separate names with a comma.