- Aug 14, 2005
- 2,833
- 5,063
Then safe standing would be pointless!!
Ughhhh
What about the atmosphere? Always better when we are all on our pegs singing it loud
Then safe standing would be pointless!!
Ughhhh
What about the atmosphere? Always better when we are all on our pegs singing it loud
Are you taking the pith? Bananas had an appeal. There was a split verdict.All this appealing, there's got to be some banana, orange related gag in here somewhere.
Lucoz aid?
I'll get my coat.
Then safe standing would be pointless!!
I agree with that, but Levy certainly won't splash extra spondooly for a better atmosphere!!
OK Thanks !!! Didn't get all that info..No, it states that the appeal was rejected and is simply showing the 'window' for appeal, not an application
http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20150115
I believe he would.
For starters, the extra cash required would be comparatively minor.
More importantly, we shouldn't underestimate how important a stadium with a good atmosphere could be to the club's finances. Corporate seats at sporting venues are generally taken so that companies can treat their clients / suppliers etc to the experience of the "event". And the more impressive the atmosphere, the more the "event" seems like an "event" and, therefore, the more valuable and in demand the corporate seats become.
The same applies to ordinary seats, particularly with reference to football tourists. We may mock or deride such "fans" but when we have a 61K stadium to fill for maybe 30 games a season, they will be an important source of revenue.
It's probably also fair to say that, if every other club adopts safe standing, Spurs will not wish to be the only club without.
The window starts on 4th March?!??!?!??!No, it states that the appeal was rejected and is simply showing the 'window' for appeal, not an application
http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20150115
The window starts on 4th March?!??!?!??!
No, it states that the appeal was rejected and is simply showing the 'window' for appeal, not an application
http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20150115
That link is coming up "Forbidden"??
Not totally.
Of course it would be better if standing also allowed, say, a 50% capacity increase in standing areas. But there would still be benefits to standing areas even if there is no increase in capacity.
Lots of people prefer to stand and they cannot currently do so. Or, at least, if they do do so, they do so at the expense of those who wish only to sit. Safe standing areas would solve both problems. Those who wish to stand would be able to do so. Those who wish to sit would be able to do so without having their view blocked by others persistently standing in front of them. Win / win.
Nah! it's just a building industry magazine/blog they don't know anymore than we do...................building the 58,000-seat stadium....
I've seen 56,000 reported, and 61,000 suggested.
Have I missed something?
I see this:I think it's irrelevant as the case status said it's been rejected?
Case results:
Dismissed on 02-Feb-15
I see this:
I could be wrong, but I think that is the dismissal of the high court appeal, but they could still appeal that appeal, which the window for appeal starts on the 4th and ends on the 25th, according to that site. Meaning Archway will file something asking for permission to appeal the rejected appeal on the 25th.
Yeah but the case results says case dismissed on february 2nd.It does, but it also says:
Track Your Case:
Current Status: Matter Dealt with - see Case Results