New Stadium Details And Discussions

[davidmatzdorf]

The article is inaccurate speculation and the writer has no understanding of how building programmes are set up.

 

[bomberH]

The article is inaccurate speculation and the writer has no understanding of how building programmes are set up.

I think he may have done my extension last year. The bastard!

 

[matthew.absurdum]

Everytime I watch West Ham at home, I feel very lucky that we are not using the london stadium

 

[spursfan77]

Everytime I watch West Ham at home, I feel very lucky that we are not using the london stadium

We were never going to use it like that though were we!

Without going over old ground again, it wouldn't be in existence if we'd of won the bid.

 

[Roynie]

The article is inaccurate speculation and the writer has no understanding of how building programmes are set up.

Good enough for me, it's LOB!!

 

[kmk]

I'm no expert on construction, but common sense tells me that this is nigh on impossible. It's one thing to build the main construction, but the retractable pitch, internal fittings etc are another thing all together.

Must be pie in the sky, surely?

Exactly, also there is no way they can construct the roof with 3 sides built.

 

[LDNYid]

Exactly, also there is no way they can construct the roof with 3 sides built.

The logistics of it all aside, surely we don't want to play in a half finished stadium? I say do the job properly and begin our life at our new home with it the complete 'world class' venue we've been promised... then we can truly make it ours, with the acoustics right and a chance to create/continue and galvanise an atmosphere that helps us achieve and feel at home. Sure, there may be some teething problems, but not on the shame scale as the spammers, as our stadium has been designed from scratch to meet our needs.

I can understand the arguement for not leaving our turf for a whole season, especially considering our poor showings at Wembley in the CL, but I just think a half finished (potentially rushed in some regards) stadium wouldn't be right either.

 

[Hoopspur]

Personally I feel that the prospect of playing in a half finished stadium would place an increased timescale on the part unfinished. I just don't see this as realistic.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

There are extensive complications to playing in a partly completed stadium and many of them are related to approvals, especially on health and safety matters: the obvious one is fire escape, but there are other examples.

For instance, there is an acoustic strategy in the planning consent that shows how the stadium can contain most of the crowd noise inside and thus avoid creating a nuisance to nearby residents and the public. That would be ineffective in a stadium missing one side, so it would be difficult to get the stadium approved for use in that state.

As @Hoopspur observed, occupying part of the stadium would slow down the completion of the remainder. It would also increase the cost, because the finishing works needed to get the stadium open would have to be brought forward and done out of sequence - then the same trades would have to be brought back on site months later.

Issues like these were behind the decision to abandon the original plan for phased construction and move to Wembley instead. I don't see how any of those factors have changed.

The club management are not going to let a possible effect on football results for one season affect strategic decisions about the construction of the stadium. Only fans would think like that. If they change their minds about moving to Wembley, it will be because of financial considerations, not footballing ones.

 

[UpTownSpur]

Some posters on SSC are coming around to the idea that it may be possible to move into the new stadium next season. I think we will at some point, perhaps January 2018. It won't be completed of course, the executive boxes, for example, may not be ready. And maybe the capacity will be limited to 30-40k.

I think the club will give it every chance before committing to Wembley for a whole season, and it's certainly the preferential option, given the negative experience of Wembley this season. Until they make an announcement about Wembley, it remains a possibility imo.

 

[kmk]

Some posters on SSC are coming around to the idea that it may be possible to move into the new stadium next season. I think we will at some point, perhaps January 2018. It won't be completed of course, the executive boxes, for example, may not be ready. And maybe the capacity will be limited to 30-40k.

I think the club will give it every chance before committing to Wembley for a whole season, and it's certainly the preferential option, given the negative experience of Wembley this season. Until they make an announcement about Wembley, it remains a possibility imo.

Even if the stadium is ready in January 2018, you can't move in midway through a season. Premier League rules won't allow it.

 

[UpTownSpur]

Even if the stadium is ready in January 2018, you can't move in midway through a season. Premier League rules won't allow it.

Show me the rule that says that. We may need some kind of special dispensation but I'm sure the PL would agree to it, why wouldn't they?

The football results must come first. We need to take on board the lessons learnt by us at Wembley and West Ham at the OS. I very much doubt Poch or Levy agrees with the sentiments of @davidmatzdorf - poor results next season and failure to qualify for the the CL could cost us tens of millions in sponsorship and make another the club the beneficiary of our misfortune.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Show me the rule that says that. We may need some kind of special dispensation but I'm sure the PL would agree to it, why wouldn't they?

I can't be bothered to Google it now, but it has been well-publicised from multiple sources and there must be a score of posts on this site referring to it.

 

[kmk]

Show me the rule that says that. We may need some kind of special dispensation but I'm sure the PL would agree to it, why wouldn't they?

The football results must come first. We need to take on board the lessons learnt by us at Wembley and West Ham at the OS. I very much doubt Poch or Levy agrees with the sentiments of @davidmatzdorf - poor results next season and failure to qualify for the the CL could cost us tens of millions in sponsorship and make another the club the beneficiary of our misfortune.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/17/tottenham-premier-league-richard-scudamore-wembley

Tottenham told Premier League home matches must all be at one ground
• Spurs had looked at splitting matches between Wembley and Milton Keynes
• Richard Scudamore warned that sharing two stadiums ‘won’t be allowed’

Tottenham Hotspur have been told by the Premier League that they will not be allowed to host matches at two different grounds in one season while they build their new stadium.

Tottenham need somewhere to play matches during the 2017-18 season while they construct their new 61,000-seat arena, adjacent to their current White Hart Lane ground, and had looked at staging their games at Wembley Stadium or Milton Keynes.

With Chelsea also considering Wembley while they redevelop Stamford Bridge, a compromise idea was for the north London club to split games between the two venues. They are said to have canvassed supporters’ groups on the subject, with Wembley and stadium:mk topping the list of possible temporary homes.

But the Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Scudamore, has revealed that would be against its regulations. “They’d have to play in the same stadium for the entire year,” he said. “For the integrity of the competition. You can’t have 19 home games with 10 at Milton Keynes and nine at Wembley – completely, completely unfair. That won’t be allowed in our competition.”

Scudamore did not, however, rule out the possibility of Chelsea and Tottenham groundsharing at Wembley or any other venue. He would encourage local rival clubs to set aside their differences and build stadiums together, so long as they are able to comply with the Premier League’s pre-determined fixture list.Matches are worked out on the basis that neighbouring teams play at home on alternate dates, meaning Arsenal and Tottenham do not both host matches in the same rounds of games.

Scudamore, in Singapore where he is representing the Premier League at the Barclays Asia Trophy, said: “They know the rules and what we require. They have to provide a stadium. We can’t have a fettered fixture list. Clubs have to be able to deliver 19 home games in the slots that are required. So if they share with a rugby league club, we can’t be fettered as to when those clubs can play. It’s up to them to work out with Wembley or where they want to play, can they deliver that level of commitment to us.

“The positive is that Premier League clubs are paired – Liverpool and Everton, Tottenham and Arsenal, Manchester United and Manchester City etc – so it’s perfectly possible to have two teams playing in one stadium. And you might argue that in some circumstances it would be desirable, but I do know the reason why it’s difficult.”

 

[UpTownSpur]

I wouldn't trust anything that maggot says. We all know he's a gooner and he didn't care too much about integrity in 2006. I want to see the rule in black and white, not his interpretation of it.

And let's not forget this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_39

That man has the integrity of a sewer rat

 

[g_harry]

Sounds like he's made that up.

Sounds like he's made that up.

its not exactly unfeasible. The only thing that make me think it may not happen is the roof construction. However the sliding pitch is not needed to allow the stadium be used early. The boxes don't need to be completed, possibly only one side. The changing rooms under east stand can be fitted out later. Some toilets and concession areas can be phased. it would be some challenge for the construction team.

 

[whitesocks]

There is an urban myth on the web stating that the Kop is a steel frame and can be built very quickly. There is a chance allegedly that we could play in a 'horseshoe stadium next season'.

I asked this here months ago, but the new roof redesign is apparently supported by tensioned cables and needs support from all stands. And yet would Levy have thrown away the backup option to move into the 3/4 built stadium so lightly?

Without looking at the plans again and talking of the top of my head, maybe the whole roof can be supported with minimum structure at the 'kop' end. Maybe a couple of large curved beams connecting the east and west stands and the rest of the roof can be supported by cables, smoke and mirrors....
If there are delays, this would save a years rent, and I think I read on here that the loans cannot be refinanced until the roof is up.
In which case the roof takes priority over the kop and retractile pitch. Everything really.

Could this kop be built after the roof is up? Who knows, but this is no ordinary stand as it is all metal. Perhaps it could be bolted together on the ground and lifted up into position. I don't see noise pollution being a great a problem - we played a season with no west stand and fans were much noisier then. I still remember watching the buses going past.

 

[tommyt]

What I can't see is a grand opening of a 3/4 completed stadium.

 

[Flashspur]

It's a shit hole but I fucking love Tottenham

It wont be for long...look at the rising house prices. Should have kept my Grandads place and not sold it.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

There's a great deal of over-confident and uninformed speculation going on here, from people who don't know very much about building programmes, planning law and development finance. I am reading a lot of brash statements about matters that their authors do not properly understand.

I think it is possible to move into a partly-completed stadium without a roof, or under a temporary roof. Physically, it could be done. But it would be spectacularly disruptive and horrendously expensive and there would be a plethora of administrative and legal obstacles, many of which could not be overcome.

A late mega-change-in-plans of this nature would also piss off the entire development team, I guarantee it. You don't want to do that, not if you want your building completed to a high standard and on time and especially not if you want to control costs.

I return to my original point from my earlier post. I do not know whether the idea of moving into the partly-completed stadium is being considered again. I do know that the internet-opinion-piece upon which this internet-factoid discussion is being based has been written by someone who knows virtually nothing about the building industry and the development process.

Draw your own conclusions from that. The people who are prone to confirmation bias and conspiracy theories will inevitably conclude one thing, because they see the evidence that they want to see and disregard the rest. I will wait and see, as usual.