New Stadium Details And Discussions

[RBlanch]

Quite surprised by those here who are getting sucked in by a combination of the Stratford boosting spin-machine and lazy journalism.


Stratford £200m cheaper?
Myth. This figure (i) assumes an unusually low cost of £250m for the combined costs of the Stratford stadium and the rebuild of Crystal Palace; (ii) does not take into account the planned income from the NDP (supermarket, hotel, flats).

Better transport connections to Stratford?
Maybe for tourists and corporates, but not for the mass of supporters who attend regularly on matchday.

A good athletics legacy at Crystal Palace?
Not for anyone in athletics.

Haringey and Lamy could have done more to identify funds to keep THFC in Tottenham.
Myth. There is no money.

Haringey put obstacles up during the planning process.
Myth. They were very cooperative and facilitated an unusually rapid progress to consent.

Haringey are asking for too much money.
Myth. The planning obligation is £17m, a small amount for a project this size.

Stratford is not in Orient or West Ham territory.
Myth. Totally.


I think those who actively want to go to Stratford, at any cost, will believe the spin.

But those who are unsure should see the spin for what it is.


Sotm

The THFC board and the fans interests are fundamentally the same - there is no spin, they will do whatever gives the club the greatest chance of success on and off the pitch.

I honestly don't care what happens to Haringey, Lammy, the Olympics, Crystal Palace, West Ham or Leyton Orient....

 

[andyw362]

Quite surprised by those here who are getting sucked in by a combination of the Stratford boosting spin-machine and lazy journalism.


Stratford £200m cheaper?
Myth. This figure (i) assumes an unusually low cost of £250m for the combined costs of the Stratford stadium and the rebuild of Crystal Palace; (ii) does not take into account the planned income from the NDP (supermarket, hotel, flats).

Better transport connections to Stratford?
Maybe for tourists and corporates, but not for the mass of supporters who attend regularly on matchday.

A good athletics legacy at Crystal Palace?
Not for anyone in athletics.

Haringey and Lamy could have done more to identify funds to keep THFC in Tottenham.
Myth. There is no money.

Haringey put obstacles up during the planning process.
Myth. They were very cooperative and facilitated an unusually rapid progress to consent.

Haringey are asking for too much money.
Myth. The planning obligation is £17m, a small amount for a project this size.

Stratford is not in Orient or West Ham territory.
Myth. Totally.


I think those who actively want to go to Stratford, at any cost, will believe the spin.

But those who are unsure should see the spin for what it is.


Sotm

Who cares about the spin.

Fact is, its cheaper, will make us more money, easier for the fans to get to and its in London. Deal.

 

[StartingPrice]

1) The aim of language is to communicate, if the message is understandable, the spelling's incidental.

2) In 50 years there will be no distinction between the different your/you're.

1) It is. So what happens when incorrect spelling/poor grammar causes poor communication:shrug: Or even conflict through misunderstanding:shrug:;

2) Do you know this for certain? I would suggest current trends within certain demographics would hint towards this. But it would also be possible to create an argument to the contrary. For instance, more and more folk able to communicate in the same language. From a historical perspective, there have always been trends, attitudes, opinions, etc. that appeared very much on the way out, and yet survived and thrived. The opposite has also been true, with things seeming set to dominate indefinitely, and then 'as if from nowhere' collapsing and sinking into obscurity or extinction. So I don't agree with you, and think you are attemtping to impose your personal predilections and cultural norms upon a wider community.

Other than that...I agree...with you...totally:grin:

 

[drthfc]

SP. For whats it worth?!!!! You spelt communication wrong!

Only joking I couldn't give a toss!! More so since I got this poxy iPad and it's predictive text coupled with my fat fingers!!

 

[StartingPrice]

I got pwned!!!!!

I guess I kinda did, too, as I really didn't expect to find an entry for it at all

We should just console ourselves that it is poor grammar, and a muddled, mismatch of a word, that doesn't alter the meaning of the base word one iota:grin:

 

[StartingPrice]

SP. For whats it worth?!!!! You spelt communication wrong!

Yeah, but that's just because I am in a hurry; not anally retentive; and could possibly be dyslexic (well, okay I'm not, but I 'could have' been):razz:

Or maybe it was a deliberate slip to demonstrate the type of catastrophies that poor communeikeasion can causify:razz:

 

[jimmyn16]

Just to clear up any confusion about the involvement of Sir Keith Mills and Mike Lee in London 2012, they were both members of the bid team, which went to Singapore in 2005.

These are the extracts from the bid presentation that refer to the OS:

1) There are only two permanent venues left to develop an indoor sports arena and the Olympic Stadium. The stadium will be a purpose-built home for athletics for generations to come.

2) The Olympic Stadium will become the home of the London Olympic Institute a new world centre of sporting excellence. It will house national governing bodies, medical experts and educators. And it will be an international resource for NOCs. Offering young athletes from around the world the opportunity to learn and train.

3) The Stadium and the four other permanent venues in the Olympic Park will allow London to host world championships and elite competition in many sports. Each of the venues has an agreed and clear long-term future. Each has a 25-year business plan already in place.

Here's the full transcript: http://tinyurl.com/669s3ue

 

[Chris12345]

1) It is. So what happens when incorrect spelling/poor grammar causes poor comunication:shrug: Or even conflict through misunderstanding:shrug:;

I specifically said when it is understandable

2) Do you know this for certain? I would suggest current trends within certain demographics would hint towards this. But it would also be possible to create an argument to the contrary. For instance, more and more folk able to communicate in the same language. From a historical perspective, there have always been trends, attitudes, opinions, etc. that appeared very much on the way out, and yet survived and thrived. The opposite has also been true, with things seeming set to dominate indefinitely, and then 'as if from nowhere' collapsing and sinking into obscurity or extinction. So I don't agree with you, and think you are attemtping to impose your personal predilections and cultural norms upon a wider community.

Other than that...I agree...with you...totally:grin:

Well, obviously, I don't know for certain, but if you look at the history of English, it is constantly evolving, and there has never been any successful attempt at 'standardization'... look at the 'same' texts from as recently as 100 years ago and they are severely different from the 'same' texts produced today...

And I'd counter that the increased usage of English would mean that it would evolve slower/standardize more is more likely to have the opposite effect, you say it yourself... devices like text messages/email/IM mean that written English is used more and more than it would've been in history, and that the speed of communication encourages the 'streamlining' of 'stupidly' spelled words... I haven't got the figures to hand, but a larger proportion of young people now spell 'through' as 'thru', which makes a lot of sense, because 'through' is, nowadays, pronounced 'thru', the spelling dates back to a time when it wasn't said in that way.

As for the point about me 'imposing' these conditions on other... it's quite the opposite, as I said, it's impossible to standardize the English language, I could try and tell everyone that 'Rough' should be spelt 'Rroutgvh', of course, it wouldn't catch on... however, if I started spelling it 'Ruff', it may well, as it is less letters, and is inline with the modern pronunciation.

But other than that, I completely agree with you :wink:

 

[StartingPrice]

SP. For whats it worth?!!!! You spelt communication wrong!

Only joking I couldn't give a toss!! More so since I got this poxy iPad and it's predictive text coupled with my fat fingers!!

You have fat fingers:evil:

SP dons his pointy Transylvanian peasant hat, and summonses an unruly horde of pitch-forking wielding, flaming torch carrying psychopat...er...:think:...countryfolk, for a good, old-fashioned witch-hunt against the freak outcasts of society. "With me, brothas, on to Castle Dracula...let's destroy this pestilence that infects out fair land, for once and for all":-|

 

[andyw362]

It's more a drip-feed of advantage- more corporate at higher prices, more conferencing at higher prices on non-match days, AEG chipping in something (assuming they don't buy us, but even if they do), a better naming rights deal, much improved proximity to central London, next to the biggest shopping centre in Europe. Plus, when we go to the banks for the money, it's not outrageous to suggest they'll be keener to finance Stratford than Tottenham, and that will be reflected in the rate we can borrow at. Building a hotel in Tottenham is not a sure-fire thing.

Somebody cut this out and yse it as the definitive answer to we must move.:stupid:

 

[Chris12345]

Wow, I really overused the inverted commas there :lol:

(not that it matters of course, since I got the message across :wink

 

[StartingPrice]

I specifically said when it is understandable

But I didn't understand...and therefore you caused confuision with your 'weirdo FCUK jargon':razz:


Well, obviously, I don't know for certain, but if you look at the history of English, it is constantly evolving, and there has never been any successful attempt at 'standardization'... look at the 'same' texts from as recently as 100 years ago and they are severely different from the 'same' texts produced today...

And I'd counter that the increased usage of English would mean that it would evolve slower/standardize more is more likely to have the opposite effect, you say it yourself... devices like text messages/email/IM mean that written English is used more and more than it would've been in history, and that the speed of communication encourages the 'streamlining' of 'stupidly' spelled words... I haven't got the figures to hand, but a larger proportion of young people now spell 'through' as 'thru', which makes a lot of sense, because 'through' is, nowadays, pronounced 'thru', the spelling dates back to a time when it wasn't said in that way.

As for the point about me 'imposing' these conditions on other... it's quite the opposite, as I said, it's impossible to standardize the English language, I could try and tell everyone that 'Rough' should be spelt 'Rroutgvh', of course, it wouldn't catch on... however, if I started spelling it 'Ruff', it may well, as it is less letters, and is inline with the modern pronunciation.

But other than that, I completely agree with you :wink:

I'm not entirely convinced. It is a fashionable view, ATM, granted, but reflection does not always support the conclusions you reach. Frankly, through personal observation having lived in Wales for 13 years, I reached the conclusion that that truly is a country where there was no political unification under a strong centralising power (although there were Cyclical Chiefdoms whose leadership attempted to innovate in this direction), and so the language truly never was standardised. The effect of this is most apparent in learning the language. Almost every phrase has several variants that are equally valid, as ther is absolutely nothing to say one os more correct than the others. A caveat, however, would be that there clearly is a Welsh language, with fairly standardised grammar which developed in spite of the lack of political unification. The most glaring case in point being Patagonia.

English just is not like that, is it. There was a strong centralising power, and language did become standardised, even if local variation was retained at ground level it wasn't within the higher apparatus of the state.And that still holds true even today. It is true that certain political innovations have attempted to minimize this, but these innovations are not neccessarily irreversible. Speaking from experience, I pretty much did grow up 'outside of school and on the wrong side of the tracks', and when I went back to school, I did discover that eventually the onus was on me to learn how to communicate effectively in 'standard' or 'Queen's' English - though I did do that only academically, and even today am quite happy to discuss most things without altering my register away from the patois I grew up with. But do have to admit, I am drifting towards BBC more and more, over time, and frown at the 'jibberish' my erstwhile friends use to convey their thoughts (one classic example being when I called an old friend and asked how he was and his response was "I'm fucking fucked"Eek:grin.

I believe a clear distinction needs to be drawn between informal and formal speech, don't you:shrug: English has a formal speech and many informal speeches, Welsh, for instance, has many formal speeches and a difficulty in assigning even the most remote and ephemeral of slangs as 'informal'.

Other than that, I agree with everything you say:hello:

 

[bigturnip]

Before people starting pointing a finger they must remember that three are pointing back at them.

Does that even make any sense in English? 'Before people starting pointing a finger...'

 

[Chris12345]

It's a fashionable view at the moment, because it's supported by lots of peer reviewed research :wink:

Although, linguistically, we are entering uncharted territory in the past century, whereas previously, written language(from memory the rate at the start of the 20th century was around 70% for men and 50% for women) was the preserve of the upper and middle classes... whereas now the literacy rate in the UK is 99%, not to mention the English literate people in the rest of the world, and there're publications ranging from Medical Journals through to self published zines and glossy gossip mags... not to mention the internet...

I'll certainly agree that the future is uncertain and it's an exciting time for linguistics... but I still think that the trend for evolution will continue... but yeah, you can never be certain...

But yeah, the new stadium, ay... :lol:

 

[Chris12345]

Oh, and no, I don't think there's any need for a distinct informal and formal language.

 

[bigturnip]

Somebody cut this out and yse it as the definitive answer to we must move.:stupid:

Let's not, it's pure supposition, the one actual fact in there about Westfield Stratford City being the largest shopping centre in Europe is wrong anyway.

 

[SpurSince57]

Stratford being £200m cheaper? The only one's who know for sure are the one's saying it will be £200m cheaper.

I know that personally getting to Stratford from Kentish Town will be a lot easier. I'm sure the it's the same for a lot of people in London who are fans.

When was the last time you watched athletics at a stadium? So why so concerned now?

Newham have been able to help secure loans for West Hams bid, why didn't Haringey offer something similar? If they have I've not heard it.

Sotm yes there is spin, but why would Spurs want to move there in the first place if there are no benefits? If you say that it is because they want to sell the club then you are the one believing in spin.

Sorry, but you have it arse-about-face entirely. It's the developer that slips councillors big wads of used twenties in manila envelopes, not the other way around.

On a more serious note, Haringey has had almost £90m sliced off its budget by the government; we're facing major job losses and cuts in services, and the strong possibility of a huge influx of families from Inner London boroughs due to the government's cap on the rent allowance. Therefore, you must forgive me if the notion of taxpayers and the local authority of one of the most deprived areas in the UK subsidising a highly profitable plc is a bit of a joke. I have no idea what happens in Newham, and, quite frankly, couldn't care less.

This bid simply wouldn't have happened if AEG and the Spammers hadn't fallen out over who got the bigger slice of the profit pie. The Spammers teamed up with Live Nation instead; AEG couldn't have that, so they got in touch with Li'l' Dan.

Whether Li'l' Dan was wearing his Spurs or ENIC hat when he picked up the phone I have no idea.

 

[StartingPrice]

It's a fashionable view at the moment, because it's supported by lots of peer reviewed research :wink:

Although, linguistically, we are entering uncharted territory in the past century, whereas previously, written language(from memory the rate at the start of the 20th century was around 70% for men and 50% for women) was the preserve of the upper and middle classes... whereas now the literacy rate in the UK is 99%, not to mention the English literate people in the rest of the world, and there're publications ranging from Medical Journals through to self published zines and glossy gossip mags... not to mention the internet...

I'll certainly agree that the future is uncertain and it's an exciting time for linguistics... but I still think that the trend for evolution will continue... but yeah, you can never be certain...

But yeah, the new stadium, ay... :lol:

I know all of this. That is the point I am making. It is called playing Devil's Advocate.
There is a cosy view, nowadays, and I am prepared to challenge it...rightly or wrongly.
Hence my introduction of a language other than English into the debate. You really need to stop being so Anglo-centric. As I said, consideration of Welsh clearly shows that there clearly is a standardised English language, which exists alongside the many non-standardised ones. It may be fashionable to denigrate it and attempt to show a certain degree of 'right-on-ness' by including all non-standard English langauges as equally valid, but that just begs the question IMHO.

You seem to be confusing 'standard' with 'evolving'. A language can be 'standard' without ossifying, surely.

And I am not attempting to invalidate non-standard modes of expression...just pointing out that they are still non-standard, that there is a standard, and it exists for clearly defined historical reasons. The fact that some folk 'pretend' to reject it, whilst clearly operating within it's parameters, (i.e. 'cool' types), hardly alters this IMHO.

And because of this...

Oh, and no, I don't think there's any need for a distinct informal and formal language.

...I really can't agree with this. Though I don't think you understood. I didn't ask if there was a need, I was pointing out the fact that there is a distinction, whether you think it right or wrong.

I am familiar with the arguments - I did actually grow up within a traditionally non-establishment community, and speak my own dialect well-enough. But, on reflection I personally reached the conclusion that society does indeed benefit from an education system and a means for the exchange of ideas where the glue is a mutually comprehensible mode of communication. The example I would give would be the scientific revolution where the glue, like it or not, was the Latin which was an intrinsic part of their education.

I do understand the point you are making, but surely if we go into some Babel-Babble about universal translators, etc, then really we are saying that all people will speak a standardised language, it is just that the fabric of this is within the matrix of the translator and not the grey matter of the individual communicators:shrug:

And it always presupposes a certain intelligence whilst playing the equality card. I personally know people who would twat you because you are 'talking shit you weirdo FCUK' purely because you don't communicate within their non-standard mode of expression. Suggesting their mode of expression is of equally validity to standard expression (that they couldn't learn because they were either not very bright, or too fcuked up, or a bit of both), kinda mitigates towards their actions being justifiable. Why couldn't you make yourself clear to them...it is sheer ignorance on your part, surely:shrug::razz:

Other than that, yeah, I agree with you:grin:

Yeah, er, the stadium...actually, I think we are better sticking to this...it is less emotive:wink:

 

[Achap]

Just to clear up any confusion about the involvement of Sir Keith Mills and Mike Lee in London 2012, they were both members of the bid team, which went to Singapore in 2005.

These are the extracts from the bid presentation that refer to the OS:

1) There are only two permanent venues left to develop an indoor sports arena and the Olympic Stadium. The stadium will be a purpose-built home for athletics for generations to come.

2) The Olympic Stadium will become the home of the London Olympic Institute a new world centre of sporting excellence. It will house national governing bodies, medical experts and educators. And it will be an international resource for NOCs. Offering young athletes from around the world the opportunity to learn and train.

3) The Stadium and the four other permanent venues in the Olympic Park will allow London to host world championships and elite competition in many sports. Each of the venues has an agreed and clear long-term future. Each has a 25-year business plan already in place.

Here's the full transcript: http://tinyurl.com/669s3ue

Not that it matters one iota in the context of this thread, but the two ex-London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) officials mentioned above, and now working for the club, did not specify or develop the design of the Olympic Stadium, and were not responsible for its construction. That was the remit of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). It is the ODA who are criticised in the report prepared for the London Assembly in September, 2010, regarding the Legacy aspect of the Olympic Stadium - not LOGOC. As administrative members of the bid team they would have put the best shine possible on the bid, and do therefore bear some part of the collective responsibility - but by no means the major part. That belongs to the ODA, whose dream was to have an athletics stadium for 25,000 spectators - but without for one minute thinking through how athletics would finance the £800,000 per year maintenance costs. They also apparently did not take into account that a few thousand spectators attending 4 or 5 events per year would not provide the footfall necessary to make the stadium part of a vibrant community. In other words, they designed a white elephant in terms of legacy.

LOGOC fulfilled its mission to bring the 2012 Games to London, and therefore members of its staff seem to me to be ideal employees for the Club's attempt to acquire the Olympic Stadium. However, as the subject doubtless holds little interest for other members of this forum, perhaps we should just agree to disagree on their suitability.

 

[Chris12345]

:lol: My desire to respond is fighting my desire to watch QI and MotD uninterrupted!

The anglo-centrism is due to my study of English Language specifically, albeit some time ago... so it's all gone out of my head a bit, and I may well be stating out of date ideas/'facts'.

As for people starting on you cos you speak propa... I grew up in Cambridge and now live in the north... I'm well aware of it! :lol:

I will respond to you properly later, unless the mods tell us to stfu... I've missed linguistics/the history of English... one of the few subjects at school I genuinely enjoyed!