michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,458
- 21,824
triks - were can I sign up to move then?
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
StartingPrice
Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
- Feb 13, 2004
- 32,568
- 10,280
:rofl: Nice and pithy...piTHy
Reverse, reverse...though, according to some, the Borough haven't neglected any responsibilities, and have been reeet helpful to the club.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
As a Spurs fan and a long-time Tottenham and Haringey resident, (you might at least have the courtesy to spell 'Haringey' correctly), could I just say that I find this kind of mind-numbingly ignorant guff pretty insulting?
arnoldlayne
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2007
- 1,109
- 1,174
Not sure what impact the following will have on the situation:
http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/f...move-could-hit-tottenhams-olympic-stadium-bid
Crystal Palace potential move could hit Tottenham's Olympic Stadium bid
TOTTENHAM Hotspur's bid to relocate to the Olympic Stadium after London 2012 could be dealt a blow after Crystal Palace revealed they are looking to relocate to the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
THING OF THE PAST? Should Crystal Palace secure a move to the National Sports Centre and do away with the athletics track, the sport could be left without a home in London altogether (Reuters)
Palace will unveil plans at a press conference on Thursday to return to the original home of the club when it was formed in 1905 before moving to Herne Hill running track.
Tottenham are locked in a two-way battle for tenancy of the Olympic Stadium after the conclusion of the Games. Rivals West Ham remain committed to retaining both the stadium and the athletics track but Spurs want to demolish the £500m venue and rebuild a new ground, specifically for football.
The Olympic Park Legacy Company are expected to announce their preferred bidder in the next fortnight but Tottenham's plan have incensed many - not just their own fans but also UK Athletics officials, who claim their sport would be the big loser, despite Spurs promise to develop the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace for athletics sole use.
In contributing to the development of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, Tottenham believe they would be honouring the commitment to an athletics legacy - something the London 2012 bid team pledged to the International Olympic Committee back in 2005 upon securing the Games.
When Crystal Palace came out of administration last year, relocation from Selhurst Park was towards the top of their new consortium's agenda.
At present the outdated and rundown National Sports Centre has a capacity of 15,500 while Tottenham would be looking to modernise the arena and increase it to 25,000 seats.
It remains to be seen if Crystal Palace would intend to keep the athletics track should their plans be successful or do away with it, much like Spurs plan to with the Olympic Stadium.
If Crystal Palace do secure a move to the National Sports Centre and do intend to remove the athletics track, Spurs would be forced to come up with another way of honouring the London 2012 athletics legacy.
http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/f...move-could-hit-tottenhams-olympic-stadium-bid
Crystal Palace potential move could hit Tottenham's Olympic Stadium bid
TOTTENHAM Hotspur's bid to relocate to the Olympic Stadium after London 2012 could be dealt a blow after Crystal Palace revealed they are looking to relocate to the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
THING OF THE PAST? Should Crystal Palace secure a move to the National Sports Centre and do away with the athletics track, the sport could be left without a home in London altogether (Reuters)
Palace will unveil plans at a press conference on Thursday to return to the original home of the club when it was formed in 1905 before moving to Herne Hill running track.
Tottenham are locked in a two-way battle for tenancy of the Olympic Stadium after the conclusion of the Games. Rivals West Ham remain committed to retaining both the stadium and the athletics track but Spurs want to demolish the £500m venue and rebuild a new ground, specifically for football.
The Olympic Park Legacy Company are expected to announce their preferred bidder in the next fortnight but Tottenham's plan have incensed many - not just their own fans but also UK Athletics officials, who claim their sport would be the big loser, despite Spurs promise to develop the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace for athletics sole use.
In contributing to the development of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, Tottenham believe they would be honouring the commitment to an athletics legacy - something the London 2012 bid team pledged to the International Olympic Committee back in 2005 upon securing the Games.
When Crystal Palace came out of administration last year, relocation from Selhurst Park was towards the top of their new consortium's agenda.
At present the outdated and rundown National Sports Centre has a capacity of 15,500 while Tottenham would be looking to modernise the arena and increase it to 25,000 seats.
It remains to be seen if Crystal Palace would intend to keep the athletics track should their plans be successful or do away with it, much like Spurs plan to with the Olympic Stadium.
If Crystal Palace do secure a move to the National Sports Centre and do intend to remove the athletics track, Spurs would be forced to come up with another way of honouring the London 2012 athletics legacy.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Simon Jordan tried to take it over a few years ago.
MattyP
Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
- May 14, 2007
- 14,041
- 2,980
I cannot copy and past the article, but here's a link of a letter/email sent to Haringey Council and the response.
http://triffictottenham.co.uk/haringey-council-respond/
Interestingly, they state the section 106 and 278 agreement contributions are a total of £15-16m and that, unsurprisingly, Spurs would have to make a section 106/278 contribution there.
http://triffictottenham.co.uk/haringey-council-respond/
Interestingly, they state the section 106 and 278 agreement contributions are a total of £15-16m and that, unsurprisingly, Spurs would have to make a section 106/278 contribution there.
StartingPrice
Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
- Feb 13, 2004
- 32,568
- 10,280
Apparently. Otherwise folk may be confused into thinking he is describing a hirsute homosexualEek
arnoldlayne
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2007
- 1,109
- 1,174
Do you know who's responsible for this latest Crystal Palace bid?
Pretty much sums up what SS57 has been trying to say to others who have 'suggested' Haringey have put barriers in place during the planning and milking Spurs dry!
I mentioned that Spurs would need to provide a S106 contribution at the OS a few pages back but it was pretty much ignored! :-| I would be surprised if there would be any s278 contributions though?? It's another neutral cost though when considering the costs between the two sites.
Spurs would also need to submit a new planning application, so whilst I'm sure consultations would take place and it would be replacing a 'existing' stadium there is a element of risk (for a while), especially if the £20 million bond is paid?
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
The current owner is a bloke called Steve Parish, who owns some big marketing company or other.
arnoldlayne
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2007
- 1,109
- 1,174
John Nicholson from football365's take on this:
http://www.football365.com/john_nicholson/0,17033,8746_6667611,00.html
Don`t Make Spurs East End Franchise...
Posted 17/01/11 11:28
When I lived in California in the early 90s, I thought I'd try and absorb the local culture. For a while this largely involved drinking tequila sunrises and saying the word 'dude' a lot, but after a few months I thought I'd give the local sports a try.
Thus I turned up at The Forum in Inglewood to watch the LA Lakers play something called basketball.
Just being at The Forum was exciting because it was a famous rock 'n' roll venue - one which Led Zeppelin and just about any other band of note played many times in the 70s. The thrill of attending a venue at which some of your favourite bootlegs have been recorded is perhaps one that only a rock 'n' roll obsessive might understand, but it's not an uncommon pleasure.
At the time I was 'collecting' famous rock locations and venues from The Whiskey, to Kezar Stadium, to the Troubadour and The Rainbow Bar & Grill, it was like paying personal homage to the history of rock 'n' roll. So this was another one to tick off my list.
But as well as being host to some of the biggest bands of the era, it had also been the Lakers' home since 1967. I knew and continue to know almost nothing about basketball. My only exposure to it was via the Harlem Globetrotters programmes which were always on TV during bank holidays in the 70s. They also featured in a cartoon series solving various crimes with only the aid of outrageous basketball skills, as you do.
This was the 1993-94 season and the Lakers were a bit rubbish and failed to make the play-offs that year, whatever that might mean. However, they won the game we saw by a hell of a lot of points to almost as many points, against the Sacramento Kings. It was fun but apart from seeing Jack Nicholson there it wasn't so much fun that I wanted to go again. Oddly, it was the second time in a week that I'd seen Jack, having walked passed him coming out of the toilets at Fashion Island in Newport Beach. I nearly introduced myself as a distant relation but I was sober and so lacked courage.
We got talking to some old-timers next to us who had been following the Lakers since the early 50s when they played in Minneapolis, the name Lakers deriving from its locality to The Great Lakes. These old lads had followed the team out to the west coast when they had relocated to Long Beach with their work in the early 60s. They told me that this was not unusual, indeed the Sacramento Kings had started life in Rochester, New York after the war before moving on to Cincinnati and then Kansas before ending up at the Californian capital city of Sacramento.
I found this hard to understand. How could a side relocate from one place to another and be the same team? If Liverpool moved to play in Bradford, would they still be Liverpool? No, obviously not. Our teams are inextricably linked to the towns that gave birth to them. MK Dons aside, there has never been a franchise that could be sold and moved elsewhere. It is fundamentally against our sporting and civic culture. We hate the idea of our clubs being a mere brand that could play in Sao Paulo, San Diego or Severodvinsk and be thought of as the same club.
However, the Lakers fans didn't have any problem with this concept. it was as though they supported the Lakers brand and claimed they would still follow them wherever they were located. I suppose this is a bit like supporting or following a band. if they're playing in your home town you go and see them, but if they're playing their nearest gig 200 miles away, you might still go.
That's the closest parallel for us in the UK. However, it may be something Spurs fans need to consider very soon. They are proposing to move to the Olympic Stadium after the games in 2012. The problem is, the stadium is not in Tottenham, it's in the east end. In America this would not be a problem - Spurs would be a moveable franchise and could play in Aberdeen if necessary.
But our football cubs are intrinsically local entities and usually bear the name of the area or town that gave birth to them. Scottish clubs are often named by wholly more obtuse thinking, but that need not trouble us here. Tottenham in Stratford are not Tottenham any more. They may well be The East End Hotspurs, but that is not the same thing now, is it?
This goes to the core of our football tribalism. We have so much history and culture built up at our football grounds that moving out of them is traumatic enough - but to move to an entirely different place is almost unthinkable.
Every modern ground is a better facility than its predecessor but they rarely have a better atmosphere, rarely have the same unique feel and are more usually little more than a flat-pack, out-of-the-box package.
That must be the fear of Spurs fans. White Hart Lane has been home to so much fantastic football history and can be a really noisy, atmospheric place on big nights such as that legendary game against Inter Milan. On Sunday against United it was kicking up a storm of noise. This is the WHL that we know and many love. Does that have to end? Do they really want to lose all of that in favour of a stadium located in a place unrelated to the club.
If they do move, does that mean an east end kid will see Spurs as their team? That doesn't seem right. What about kids born in Tottenham? Are they all going to be Arsenal fans in future as the only remaining north London club? I know it's not exactly a long trek from White Hart Lane to Marshgate Lane but it feels like a different world and that matters a lot. The east end is not north London. It's a vastly different culture and football clubs are an expression of those different cultures. Even the air feels different in the east end to north London They are simply not interchangeable.
Because Spurs don't want a running track around the ground, and rightly so as being separated from the action by an eight-lane track is one of the most soulless experiences in football, they are perhaps not favourites to take over the stadium, though whether West Ham - who are a more natural fit geographically - could fill it is open to question. But I would question the sense of Spurs even bidding for it. It feels against the natural order and the natural order is important.
While football fans are prone to be too conservative and reactionary when it comes to their clubs, there has to be a line in the sand which can't be crossed. Clubs are what they are because of where they are and where they originated. To cut away the roots of the club is a dangerous move and risks transforming it from a club and all that means into little more than a commercial franchise; a Spurs football facility.
Football has always been about much more than 22 members of the lumpen proletariat just kicking a ball around, it's been about the people's local history and the people's local culture, about local people. Our clubs have been fixed points in our lives around which we can orbit. Do Spurs fans really want to give all that up? And do we as football fans really want to see this Rubicon crossed for one of England biggest and most important old clubs? I hope not.
http://www.football365.com/john_nicholson/0,17033,8746_6667611,00.html
Don`t Make Spurs East End Franchise...
Posted 17/01/11 11:28
When I lived in California in the early 90s, I thought I'd try and absorb the local culture. For a while this largely involved drinking tequila sunrises and saying the word 'dude' a lot, but after a few months I thought I'd give the local sports a try.
Thus I turned up at The Forum in Inglewood to watch the LA Lakers play something called basketball.
Just being at The Forum was exciting because it was a famous rock 'n' roll venue - one which Led Zeppelin and just about any other band of note played many times in the 70s. The thrill of attending a venue at which some of your favourite bootlegs have been recorded is perhaps one that only a rock 'n' roll obsessive might understand, but it's not an uncommon pleasure.
At the time I was 'collecting' famous rock locations and venues from The Whiskey, to Kezar Stadium, to the Troubadour and The Rainbow Bar & Grill, it was like paying personal homage to the history of rock 'n' roll. So this was another one to tick off my list.
But as well as being host to some of the biggest bands of the era, it had also been the Lakers' home since 1967. I knew and continue to know almost nothing about basketball. My only exposure to it was via the Harlem Globetrotters programmes which were always on TV during bank holidays in the 70s. They also featured in a cartoon series solving various crimes with only the aid of outrageous basketball skills, as you do.
This was the 1993-94 season and the Lakers were a bit rubbish and failed to make the play-offs that year, whatever that might mean. However, they won the game we saw by a hell of a lot of points to almost as many points, against the Sacramento Kings. It was fun but apart from seeing Jack Nicholson there it wasn't so much fun that I wanted to go again. Oddly, it was the second time in a week that I'd seen Jack, having walked passed him coming out of the toilets at Fashion Island in Newport Beach. I nearly introduced myself as a distant relation but I was sober and so lacked courage.
We got talking to some old-timers next to us who had been following the Lakers since the early 50s when they played in Minneapolis, the name Lakers deriving from its locality to The Great Lakes. These old lads had followed the team out to the west coast when they had relocated to Long Beach with their work in the early 60s. They told me that this was not unusual, indeed the Sacramento Kings had started life in Rochester, New York after the war before moving on to Cincinnati and then Kansas before ending up at the Californian capital city of Sacramento.
I found this hard to understand. How could a side relocate from one place to another and be the same team? If Liverpool moved to play in Bradford, would they still be Liverpool? No, obviously not. Our teams are inextricably linked to the towns that gave birth to them. MK Dons aside, there has never been a franchise that could be sold and moved elsewhere. It is fundamentally against our sporting and civic culture. We hate the idea of our clubs being a mere brand that could play in Sao Paulo, San Diego or Severodvinsk and be thought of as the same club.
However, the Lakers fans didn't have any problem with this concept. it was as though they supported the Lakers brand and claimed they would still follow them wherever they were located. I suppose this is a bit like supporting or following a band. if they're playing in your home town you go and see them, but if they're playing their nearest gig 200 miles away, you might still go.
That's the closest parallel for us in the UK. However, it may be something Spurs fans need to consider very soon. They are proposing to move to the Olympic Stadium after the games in 2012. The problem is, the stadium is not in Tottenham, it's in the east end. In America this would not be a problem - Spurs would be a moveable franchise and could play in Aberdeen if necessary.
But our football cubs are intrinsically local entities and usually bear the name of the area or town that gave birth to them. Scottish clubs are often named by wholly more obtuse thinking, but that need not trouble us here. Tottenham in Stratford are not Tottenham any more. They may well be The East End Hotspurs, but that is not the same thing now, is it?
This goes to the core of our football tribalism. We have so much history and culture built up at our football grounds that moving out of them is traumatic enough - but to move to an entirely different place is almost unthinkable.
Every modern ground is a better facility than its predecessor but they rarely have a better atmosphere, rarely have the same unique feel and are more usually little more than a flat-pack, out-of-the-box package.
That must be the fear of Spurs fans. White Hart Lane has been home to so much fantastic football history and can be a really noisy, atmospheric place on big nights such as that legendary game against Inter Milan. On Sunday against United it was kicking up a storm of noise. This is the WHL that we know and many love. Does that have to end? Do they really want to lose all of that in favour of a stadium located in a place unrelated to the club.
If they do move, does that mean an east end kid will see Spurs as their team? That doesn't seem right. What about kids born in Tottenham? Are they all going to be Arsenal fans in future as the only remaining north London club? I know it's not exactly a long trek from White Hart Lane to Marshgate Lane but it feels like a different world and that matters a lot. The east end is not north London. It's a vastly different culture and football clubs are an expression of those different cultures. Even the air feels different in the east end to north London They are simply not interchangeable.
Because Spurs don't want a running track around the ground, and rightly so as being separated from the action by an eight-lane track is one of the most soulless experiences in football, they are perhaps not favourites to take over the stadium, though whether West Ham - who are a more natural fit geographically - could fill it is open to question. But I would question the sense of Spurs even bidding for it. It feels against the natural order and the natural order is important.
While football fans are prone to be too conservative and reactionary when it comes to their clubs, there has to be a line in the sand which can't be crossed. Clubs are what they are because of where they are and where they originated. To cut away the roots of the club is a dangerous move and risks transforming it from a club and all that means into little more than a commercial franchise; a Spurs football facility.
Football has always been about much more than 22 members of the lumpen proletariat just kicking a ball around, it's been about the people's local history and the people's local culture, about local people. Our clubs have been fixed points in our lives around which we can orbit. Do Spurs fans really want to give all that up? And do we as football fans really want to see this Rubicon crossed for one of England biggest and most important old clubs? I hope not.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 26,996
- 45,305
I know of a site that may become vacant along Tottenham High Road
Stratford is not and never has been the EAST END!! ffs:evil:
The fans will be told, if they get Stratford. There'll be a scheme on the land's that bought, probably a better one that that currently proposed, but it will lose a shedload.
If no Stratford, then they will maintain (the fiction?) that they will be able to do it, until they are able to do it, or until someone else buys the club who can either do it or is prepared to maintain (the fiction) that they are able to do it for a little longer.
Reading which makes me see the point about the division between the Plc and "club".
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,325
- 47,570
- Staff
- #4,257
Is there any way on the petition of checking whether people are actually Spurs fans or actually people who go to the games?
Chimbo!
Well-Known Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,607
- 3,357
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...gainst-manager-Avram-Grant-article675881.html
If you read between the lines I think you will notice that the Olympic Stadium has to go to us. I think it will boil down to money because West Ham, as attractive offer as they have for the OS, will not be able to fulfill the promises of their bid. That will be the deciding factor.
They are a club in turmoil.
If you read between the lines I think you will notice that the Olympic Stadium has to go to us. I think it will boil down to money because West Ham, as attractive offer as they have for the OS, will not be able to fulfill the promises of their bid. That will be the deciding factor.
They are a club in turmoil.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
But the OPLC aren't fulfilling the promises of the Olympic bid, so they should have a natural affinity to West Ham.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,325
- 47,570
- Staff
- #4,260
They can't have a natural affinity to a club that is quite likely to not be able to carry out their own planned project.
If West Ham can't afford the project then they won't be fulfilling the promises of the Olympic bid any more than we are.
