not happy about the fact that were putting the name of our new stadium up for sale. We're spurs and we play at white hart lane. I dont want us playing at the mansion bowl or something ridiculous like that.

But we also have to be realistic - a new stadium will cost millions; the only option to reduce the burden to us is to sell the rights to the name. To be honest, I dont care: its not WHL, it will never be WHL. We are moving to put ourselves on a better financial footing and to keep up with the really big clubs - once we move from WHL I dont care what the name of the new stadium is. The important thing to me is the atmosphere that we can create.

It'll always be White Hart Lane - just under a different guise.

yeah there nothing to stop the fans calling it white hart lane. Theres plenty of pubs I know that have had name changes but the locals still all use the old name that they are used to.

It's hard to change the name but it's inevitable that the name WHL will eventually fade out.

The Emirates is now the Emirates, not Highbury in a few season Anfield will be Stanley Park, Goodison Park will be Tesco, Upton Park will be the Olympic Stadium etc, it's the way of the world and after one season we'll be calling our new home it's new name and everyone will think what a dump WHL actually was.

I hope it's a cool brand like Apple (in my dreams) or a sports company, something relevant. But I doubt it.

It's simple.

We all now drink as much as we can and as often as we can in the White Hart.

They sponsor the new stadium.

Didn't the original name come from the pub or brewery donating the land anyway?

Please don't let it be Apple with their awful human rights record and penchant for over-priced and under-performing crap. Worse than Sony.

Perhaps the original name had something to do with it being off White Hart Lane:stupid:

Levy is a very clever man.

how about The Puma Mansion........... we can incorporate the kit and team sponsors!!!

And if you know your history...

"The club decided that the ideal site was to be found on a Nursery plot behind the White Hart Inn on Tottenham High Road. The land was owned by a local brewery and the club agreed a tenancy, which guaranteed attendance's of 1,000 for first team matches and 500 for the reserve team matches. The club could easily match these numbers with an average crowd of 5,000, with no other club in the surrounding area."

If we can't have White Hart Lane.......how about "the Holsten Stadium" :up:

The Emirates isn't called Highbury because it's not in the same location. I've never been a fan of corporate names which is why I always refer to their ground as Ashburton Grove. In the same way that Man City play at Eastlands.

The official name of the ground should remain as White Hart Lane, but we can agree to call it something else publicly for lots of money. When the agreement ends we call it White Hart Lane again. That or given that it's called the Northumberland Development Project we could always revert to the name of our previous home, Northumberland Park.

Yea I've never understood why the gooners don't just try to insist that they play at Ashburton Grove and happily accept the immigrants toilet seat as their stadium name.

we should just refer to it as WHL or at least a geographic name

Yes, he has neatly avoided criticism at the EGM for his mismanagement of the club on and off the pitch by sacking the manager and technical director, changing the system and announcing an unfunded new ground that doesn't have planning permission or a timetable. Clever, indeed.

How about naming it "The Mansion"

I think off the pitch there has been no mismanagement of the club. The old system was not to everyone's taste, but there was nothing inherently wrong with it aside from Levy apparently trusting Comolli over swapping out Jol for Ramos - which went horrifically wrong.

We've obviously only changed the system because there's no need for a director of football with having changed to a manager who is used to also dealing with the transfer market, something we hadn't had in a while.

I've seen comments from people almost proclaiming Comolli as satan for the players he signed and such, and that so many players didn't make the grade. Then these same people seem to think Redknapp is the saviour because he doesn't need Comolli.

Well, let's just look at how many of those "Comolli signings who did or didn't make the grade" Harry has either signed or been linked with. There's obviously either something wrong with Harry's and Comolli's judgement, or not much wrong with either's. It can't work both ways that one is crap and one is great, yet both like the same players.

Perhaps you'd best not turn up for the next five years if that's what you think .