New Stadium Details And Discussions

[tommyt]

Hey buddy. There is a new stadium to pay for. Going to MK for a season or 2 will put us in further debt.
(£45m current home revenue down to what £25-£30m say).
I would not expect many fans at all to travel to the USA. And that is pretty bad. But it's a means to an end.
Going by the US pre season tours, the grounds would be packed and it would be lucrative.
The Americans love their sport and the stadiums are large - I see no reason why we couldn't generate £100m match day income for the year, after renting the facilities.
Plus the commercial side would be fantastic - we currently generate £40m - we could double that.
Maybe Levy has all the stadium finances worked out..., but a £100m boost surely wouldn't do any harm.
It would only be 1 game for each of them. Premiership players are from all over these days and think nothing of flying off to the otherside of the world for a break. The away fans would love a trip to the sunny states, especially the sides not in europe. The clubs would get more exposure. Would mourinho and wenger moan? Of course.
Perhaps we could request a set of home fixtures or away fixtures for xmas? We are promoting the premiership's product to one of their key markets. Something could be worked out for 1 season.
They would be in the top hotels with their families and a good season would open up opportunities for them to play in the states later in their careers.
Half the squad would be using it, plus all for pre-season which is arguably the most important time.
And all the kids coming through would be using it. This is desperate stuff!!

They'd have to package it differently, but with co-commentators Klinsmann and Beckham, the marching bands and scantily clad cheer leaders, celebrity interviews.. it would be like a minor superbowl every week but with a decent game worth watching in the middle of it. Mostly.

Sold

 

[shelfmonkey]

Gazza's nuts

Tell us something we don't know!

 

[Always Offside]

They'd have to package it differently, but with co-commentators Klinsmann and Beckham, the marching bands and scantily clad cheer leaders, celebrity interviews.. it would be like a minor superbowl every week but with a decent game worth watching in the middle of it. Mostly.

They would need subtitles ...... and not for Jurgen.

 

[Wellspurs]

I think it's a great idea. Won't be able to go to Milton Keynes so will be watching it on tv. The players might get a bit of the hump though, having to move to America for a season.

Probably not Yedlin?

 

[CockOnBall]

Some have argued that we should be in favour of moving to MK for one season because it will get the new stadium move underway.

Yet, why are the two being implicitly linked?

I don't think anyone has argued that we don't need to move away. Most have long since accepted that the phased building approach is no longer financially viable.

The question has to be why MK? If this is such a "no brainer" (as I have seen some argue), I challenge those to show evidence they suggested so before it was mooted in the media.

In the event that Stadium:MK is selected, surely we must demand from the club an extensive feasibility study explaining why at least half a dozen more closer venues have been dismissed.

My preference is the Olympic Park. West Ham's right of veto is for the first season only (2016/17). We need one for 2017/18. This is a stadium owned by the public and given the quite generous terms West Ham secured to use it, you would think the OPLC will be ripe for the taking. They have already welcomed an approach by the club.

If that's impossible, fine. I just want to see the club publicly announce why it was dismissed. This way, they can be held up to scrutiny.

 

[Lilbaz]

Some have argued that we should be in favour of moving to MK for one season because it will get the new stadium move underway.

Yet, why are the two being implicitly linked?

I don't think anyone has argued that we don't need to move away. Most have long since accepted that the phased building approach is no longer financially viable.

The question has to be why MK? If this is such a "no brainer" (as I have seen some argue), I challenge those to show evidence they suggested so before it was mooted in the media.

In the event that Stadium:MK is selected, surely we must demand from the club an extensive feasibility study explaining why at least half a dozen more closer venues have been dismissed.

My preference is the Olympic Park. West Ham's right of veto is for the first season only (2016/17). We need one for 2017/18. This is a stadium owned by the public and given the quite generous terms West Ham secured to use it, you would think the OPLC will be ripe for the taking. They have already welcomed an approach by the club.

If that's impossible, fine. I just want to see the club publicly announce why it was dismissed. This way, they can be held up to scrutiny.

I've heard people say that WH only have a veto for the first season. But where does this information come from? It would be a bit weird for it to be in the contract negotiations unless it was a permanent veto.

 

[CockOnBall]

I've heard people say that WH only have a veto for the first season. But where does this information come from? It would be a bit weird for it to be in the contract negotiations unless it was a permanent veto.

David Sullivan admitted so on sky sports. I saw the interview myself but can't find a link. Numerous press reports on it. One below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...s-stadium-move-away-from-White-Hart-Lane.html

 

[shelfmonkey]

Aren't Americans entitled to an opinion?

No! They've had enough already!

 

[spursfan77]

Some have argued that we should be in favour of moving to MK for one season because it will get the new stadium move underway.

Yet, why are the two being implicitly linked?

I don't think anyone has argued that we don't need to move away. Most have long since accepted that the phased building approach is no longer financially viable.

The question has to be why MK? If this is such a "no brainer" (as I have seen some argue), I challenge those to show evidence they suggested so before it was mooted in the media.

In the event that Stadium:MK is selected, surely we must demand from the club an extensive feasibility study explaining why at least half a dozen more closer venues have been dismissed.

My preference is the Olympic Park. West Ham's right of veto is for the first season only (2016/17). We need one for 2017/18. This is a stadium owned by the public and given the quite generous terms West Ham secured to use it, you would think the OPLC will be ripe for the taking. They have already welcomed an approach by the club.

If that's impossible, fine. I just want to see the club publicly announce why it was dismissed. This way, they can be held up to scrutiny.

I've been thinking about this for a bit. Imagine the outcry had Levy come out and said it could be the Olympic stadium. He'd get battered from all sides. It would immediately put in jeopardy any negotiations that may be going on.

I still think it might be an option but I fail to see any positives by saying such things rights now

 

[Bobbins]

Hey buddy. There is a new stadium to pay for. Going to MK for a season or 2 will put us in further debt.
(£45m current home revenue down to what £25-£30m say).
I would not expect many fans at all to travel to the USA. And that is pretty bad. But it's a means to an end.
Going by the US pre season tours, the grounds would be packed and it would be lucrative.
The Americans love their sport and the stadiums are large - I see no reason why we couldn't generate £100m match day income for the year, after renting the facilities.
Plus the commercial side would be fantastic - we currently generate £40m - we could double that.
Maybe Levy has all the stadium finances worked out..., but a £100m boost surely wouldn't do any harm.
It would only be 1 game for each of them. Premiership players are from all over these days and think nothing of flying off to the otherside of the world for a break. The away fans would love a trip to the sunny states, especially the sides not in europe. The clubs would get more exposure. Would mourinho and wenger moan? Of course.
Perhaps we could request a set of home fixtures or away fixtures for xmas? We are promoting the premiership's product to one of their key markets. Something could be worked out for 1 season.
They would be in the top hotels with their families and a good season would open up opportunities for them to play in the states later in their careers.
Half the squad would be using it, plus all for pre-season which is arguably the most important time.
And all the kids coming through would be using it. This is desperate stuff!!

They'd have to package it differently, but with co-commentators Klinsmann and Beckham, the marching bands and scantily clad cheer leaders, celebrity interviews.. it would be like a minor superbowl every week but with a decent game worth watching in the middle of it. Mostly.

Fuck me you're actually serious?! I thought you were on the wind up!

 

[yiddopaul]

Fuck me you're actually serious?! I thought you were on the wind up!

I know, strange isn't it. Currently, we moan because we have to travel 2-3 hours in the EL and how it effects our season! The poor lambs are usually needing to be rotated after the first month at the start of a new season. We would most certainly be looking at being in a relegation battle as we would be (legitimately) knackered before Christmas. JUST STOP THIS NONSENSE NOW!
I know Americans love their sport, but football is still largely mocked/disliked amongst most sports fans (too boring, not enough goals etc). Yes, initially there will be a lot of support due to the novelty factor, but the stadiums will not be packed over an entire season.

 

[yiddo23]

just got in here, is there really a long convo going about playing a season in the states lol? we might as well just all be goat fuckers while we are at it, wheres that joint thats being passed around in this forum?

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

https://twitter.com/archwaysm/status/585817637143326721/video/1

Archway being destroyed....

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

**Deleted**

See 0-Tibsy-0's post above

 

[THFCSPURS19]

https://twitter.com/archwaysm/status/585817637143326721/video/1

Archway being destroyed....

**Deleted**

See 0-Tibsy-0's post above

That was quick. I thought they wouldn't do it until 'later this year', as per the NDP update.

Good news, I think.

 

[markiespurs]

That's not Archway being demolished, but a building that's been derelict for a couple of years.

Archway is the big metal shed a few feet further down the road.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

That's not Archway being demolished, but a building that's been derelict for a couple of years .

Archway is the big metal shed a few feet further down the road.

Even if it is, I think this:

Peter | Archway®‏@archwaysm
Moving Forward - Paxton Road forever in our hearts. #spurscpo #archway #TTID


suggests that it's only a matter of time.

 

[CockOnBall]

Archway own that building which is being demolished. But it's by no means all of their premises.

 

[markiespurs]

Archway own that building which is being demolished. But it's by no means all of their premises.

That would explain why that building was left standing when virtually all the other buildings surrounding it were demolished last year.

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Looks as though we've seen the sad demise of the Dancing Man of Paxton Rd!!