New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Kendall]

I thought he sold his remaining 10% or so a couple of years back. Even then people were speculating that Levy was about to do a bunk.

 

[Azrael]

I thought he sold his remaining 10% or so a couple of years back. Even then people were speculating that Levy was about to do a bunk.

Yeah, I think he did.

Aren't there some fans who hold a single share?

 

[Kendall]

Yeah, that remaining 10% or so is pretty well spread. I don't think they'll be keeping too many shareholders ecstatic with 5p dividends each month... :lol:

 

[Azrael]

Better than a kick up the arse! :lol:

 

[Hoowl]

More likely more money for the shareholders, if it does actually save money, but following Levy's recent comments that looks unlikely.

It's not money we have though, it's money we dont have. It's money we need to borrow. The more we have to borrow, the larger the risk that we might struggle to pay it off.

 

[Hoowl]

Is there a link to the drawing mentioned on the Guardian showing the OS with the Upon Park inside it?

 

[michaelden]

 

[michaelden]

 

[michaelden]

 

[michaelden]

 

[Hoowl]

Cheers, have you got a link to where those images are?

 

[Hoowl]

Also, if I'm interpreting the images correctly, WHam are aiming to add a large amount of movable seating over the track.

 

[worcestersauce]

Beautiful.

Your song continues something like this:

"Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high,
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby.

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue,
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true.

Someday I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far
Behind me.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me.

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow.
Why then, oh why can't I?

If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?"


Sotm

How sad, like I said, smacks of desperation.

Actually It's more:-

Glory Glory Alleluia and the Spurs go marching on!

"It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. And we of Spurs have set our sights very high... so high, in fact, that even failure will have in it an echo of glory!"

I'm no longer satisfied with second best and it's arguments like yours that have convinced me!

 

[StartingPrice]

Mate, you're floundering. Funny, 'cos that is exactly what I think you are doing.

On (1), squawk. Cap fits...:-|

As for the rest...

Your blinkered argument has decided that I 'point blank refuse to move'. That's in your head, a little invention of yours, fella. How can I have blinkered arguments if I look at the issue form all sides, and ask questions correspondingly. You ask only negative questions because, by your own admission you are a sceptic. That is the very definition of being blinkered:-|

Keirle shoots his mouth off and Levy in effect corrects him by saying Stratford is not cheaper. It all depends on the deal available from the OPLC. I've explained this to you once. I find it really tedious when I have to repeat myself. Your understanding of 'spin' and how it works is so limited as to be almost childlike. Keirle wouldn't have 'shot his mouth off' (do your really believe these people 'shoot their mouths off' - there aren't 16 year olds in the pub after their first pint, y'know) if it hadn't been discussed and sanctioned at the highest level. Besides which, and this shows just how little you have understood the argument I have made. I don't really care whether it is cheaper or not. My argument, which I maintain to the point of stating that anyone who doesn't understand it is either deliberately blind or plain stupid, was, and is, that the OS makes sense financially otherwise Levy and the powers that be wouldn't be pursuing it. Are you just really niave? Do you believe Levy and co. have 'just' decided to move the club out of N17 on a whim, just to annoy loads of people like you:shrug: Whether it is 50 pence cheaper or £200 million is neither here nor their to me. The point is that it is obvious that it will benefit the club financially. Go back and check my arguments - which you obviously haven't read very clearly. Not only do I not go on about £200 million savings, as you claimed, but I do, consistently state that moving to the OS WILL be of financial benefit to the club. So, if the saving is £50 million (still substantial in my book), and the earning potential is increased by, say £10 million a year (to be extremely) conservative, overthe NDP, what does that give? £100 million in 5 years - enough to buy Cristiano Ronaldo and some. That is of substantial benefit to the club, is it not? I am waiting for you to provide an even half-arsed argument to give a semblance of an argument in favour of the OS being financially less beneficial than the NDP. In other words, failing to do this, you are negative spin scare-mongering...because it is obvious that the OS will be financially beneficial to the club, otherwise (please provide reasoned intellectual argument that hasn't already been refuted several times) why would Levy & co want to do it:shrug:

You've always been convinced Stratford is cheaper, and still am^ and you repeat it again, willingly though you weren't sufficiently naive to swallow the Keirle line (as others were) arguement demonstrated to be flawed, twice. But Levy has said something quite different, Levy has 'spun', something you seen to be so keen to highlight, except in this instance, when it seems (marginally) to be supporting your arguement, as explained in my previous post, as well as above, but you 'choose' to ignore - how blinkered or niave is that! now, in an extended interview where he couldn't get away with porkie pies where he 'spins'. Which bit of this don't you get? I don't get, or you don't get?

You are obsessed not really, would just like you to recognise it for what it is with the conviction Yes, I am absolutely convinced that I am 'spinning' even though I have said, time and again, that I am asking questions and I have explained time and again that you are asking only negative questions with a specific 'spin' to them - otherwise how could any sane person actually believe tht Levy & co would move the club to the OS, in the face of so much hostility, when there were no apparent financial benefits:shrug:. You really need to look the word 'spin' up in a contemporary dictionary. Spin is to do with public relations: it is professional. BY definition. There is no such thing as an amateur spinner.
From the OED:
spin
verb (spins, spinning, spun)
6 informal give (a news story) a particular emphasis or bias.
noun
3 the presentation of information in a particular way, especially a favourable one.
PHRASES
spin a yarn tell a long, far-fetched story.
ORIGIN
Old English spinnan 'draw out and twist (fibre)'.
I have selected only the relevant definitions. From a verbal point of view, you are quite correct...but it is only an informal usage, and such usage usually lends itself more readily to wider as well as narrower definitions. So, although it may seem somewhat unusual to you that I should choose to apply the term 'spin' to your arguments, it is quite justified in this instance, as I am merely applying an informal usage to a person who is arguing about a professional matter as though he, too, were a professional and an expert on the subject (it is not as though you are describing a zebra as two legged, in a totally informal discussion, and I am accusing you of spin, is it...unless it has had a leg amputated, or summitEek). But via the usage attributed to the noun, spin, in the same context, (from whence, I should imagine, the verbal form is taken), to whit "the presentation of information in a particular way, especially a favourable one" I am wholly justified in using the noun-phrase 'what you say is spin', as you present information, disguised as questions, and interpret information wholly to suit your totally negative arguments (again, this has all been explained to you before).

There is a Spurs spin machine at work, we agree on this. Of course, everyone spins. But, as with all other kinds of spin, you have to treat its output with a good deal of scepticism except for when it is Daniel Levy being careful with what he says in a specific situation (where he doesn't want to add fuel to the Karen Brady polemic that the Spurs bid is motivated wholly by avarice), in which instance you will believe exactly what he says, exactly at face value, as though there couldn't be any spin in it - and this has also been explained to you before. When I do that, you accuse me of spinning, which is both a misunderstanding of the word No, it's not^ and a refusal to question what must always be questioned Dear Lord, it's Perry Mason...what part of 'I ask negative questions and have demonstrably done so' is it you don't understand...that there, refusing to acknowledge that I have asked negative questions and instead typing a sentence asserting the opposite is spin, my fiend.

I'm a sceptic. Which is what I said about 30 pages ago. It colours all of your questions and all of you arguments...you spin from a sceptical point of view. I'm prepared to believe that Daniel Levy is sincere when he says he will not sell the club if it will be profitable but would harm the club. And I have seen the development of the club...so do not accept that he, Lewis and co are asset stripping. But I explained all of this to you ages ago. You have yet to make a reasoned argument as to why we should share you scepticism, despite repeated requests. You have no reason to question their motives, and it just defies logic that successful businessmen, like them, would actually be favourable of something that will be financially harmful to the club, especially as they know it will piss a substantial number of supporters off.

But, like a kind of religious zealot (do you know the origin of the word? Seems more applicable to your position, actually), you blindly Oh, Eek I thought I was looking at the question from all sides and it was you who refuses to look at it from any angle other the most negative, and not very logical one believe that (a) Stratford must be cheaper (when Levy has actually said something else) Levy didn't say it wasn't cheaper, he asserted that he hadn't said it was cheaper in very specific circumstances, can you see the difference? , (b) that it must have advantages to the club, DOH, why would they be in favour of it if it didn't:think: and (b) that it cannot be possible that Levy is mistaken spinning again, as I specifically stated, in response to a similar accusation, that of course he can be mistaken but, given the choice between your position and his I think it more likely that you are mistaken (well, if you actually said anything other than "doom, doom I tell'ya":roll:. In fact you appear to believe that Levy is actually infallible.:roll:
It's a kind of head-in-the-sand approach:rofl: I look at the argument from all sides, whilst stating over and over again that I want the club to remain in Tottenham and will sign a well-worded petition to that effect, but accept that moving may be inevitable, and you refuse to consider any option other than the most negative even if it means the club remaing in a 36,000 capacity WHL and becoming a cipher, AND IT IS ME WITH MY HEAD IN THE SANDmg:
p.s. on this last note, I was actually the only person on this forum to say that if we did end up staying in a 36,000 capacity WHL it wouldn't neccessarily be a catastrophy as another option for development would probably present itself - but that is because I look at the argument from all sides (unlike some)..
An ostrich as well as a parrot? So, I never parroted anyone, and demonstrated that to you, but you decide to repeat ity anyway, inspite of the evidence against which I gave in my last post, and I have refuted the ostrich accusation and cast it upon you. What next? Will you descend into real insults:shrug:
Sotm

SP

 

[bigturnip]

As much as I am against moving from Tottenham I don't see how anyone can argue that a stadium that is double the capacity and will likely sell out every league game can possibly not improve investment back into the side....especially when there will be no Emirates style debt.

No debt? Where have you heard that?

As for wanting increased capacity, I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with you.

 

[bigturnip]

I like how 102% of their non-season ticket holders voted. :rofl:

 

[StartingPrice]

No debt? Where have you heard that?

As for wanting increased capacity, I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with you.

You did.
When pushed on this specific point a few pages back in the thread you stated without caveats that you would rather stay in a 36,000 capacity WHL than move outside Tottenham, didn't you:shrug:

 

[bigturnip]

You did.
When pushed on this specific point a few pages back in the thread you stated without caveats that you would rather stay in a 36,000 capacity WHL than move outside Tottenham, didn't you:shrug:

Of course I would stay in Tottenham over Stratford, but that doesn't mean I don't want an increased capacity. :duh:

 

[michaelden]

I like how 102% of their non-season ticket holders voted. :rofl:

Not my maths, that is off the WHU website

Of course I would stay in Tottenham over Stratford, but that doesn't mean I don't want an increased capacity. :duh:

Levy said NDP is not going ahead, so its the OS, or move elsewhere outside of Tottenham or remain at 36000. Now what are your options?

You've talked yourself into a corner, you might as well stop supporting Spurs now since we are moving.

 

[StartingPrice]

Of course I would stay in Tottenham over Stratford, but that doesn't mean I don't want an increased capacity. :duh:

You didn't say you would stay in Tottenham 'over' Stratford, you said you would stop supporting the club if it moved to Stratford, even if that meant the only option was that there was no increase in the stadium capacity...in other words, increased capacity is not your priority.

So...:shrug:...you want increased capacity only uder terms where it will be well-nigh impossible to icrease capacity:duh: