New Stadium Details And Discussions

[jimmyn16]

West Ham can't afford a bid which is why they aren't making one, they are relying on Newham council making one and including them as football tennants.

I thought West Ham were planning to sell Upton Park for development if their bid is successful?

 

[worcestersauce]

I thought West Ham were planning to sell Upton Park for development if their bid is successful?

Yes but there is no guarantee they will be successful, it may be that the plans they have may not suit Newham council in which case they won't get planning permission and so no money for development, unless of course they sell it to the council (I speculate)

Bigturnip, I read somwhere that it was going to become a Royal Park too.

 

[SpurSince57]

It has indeed been proposed, by the London Borough of Newham, no less. Toadies.

 

[bigturnip]

It has indeed been proposed, by the London Borough of Newham, no less. Toadies.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...gh-wants-to-make-olympic-site-a-royal-park.do

It does indeed seem that way, but obviously Newham believe the £3m per year upkeep is more than the tax/rates they can collect from any tenants (Westfield is not in the park so they wouldn't lose that revenue). As far as I know the Royal Parks Agency are effectively their own council, they charge rates and tax which then go towards the upkeep of the parks, I know they're always a good place to park as the council have no power to issue tickets.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

Royal park?

So THFC could change its name to 'Royal Stratford'.

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as Real Madrid.

 

[michaelden]

No we shouldn't and don't have to. How many times does it need saying? The FA are happy we keep our name, the club is happy we keep our name and Lammy doesn't have a legal case.

 

[michaelden]

SotM - you say you don't spin, just ask questions. Then why do you persist in spreadign misinformation regarding Spurs having to change their name?

 

[SpurSince57]

Royal park?

So THFC could change its name to 'Royal Stratford'.

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as Real Madrid.

And we can't go for Queen's Park Hotspurs either.

AEG Stratford Soccerballz?

 

[worcestersauce]

Or perhaps just Tottenham Hotspur, by Royal Appointment

 

[bigturnip]

SotM - you say you don't spin, just ask questions. Then why do you persist in spreadign misinformation regarding Spurs having to change their name?

He said could, not have to. Not that I'm really sure why you'd be bothered if the name was changed, after all to you it will still be the same club.

 

[jimmyn16]

From the Telegraph today:

"The Spurs bid is also expected to promise a "significant" return to the taxpayer. When Manchester City took over the City of Manchester Stadium, they gave a proportion of ticket revenue above a certain capacity to the city council, which funded the stadium. Spurs and West Ham will propose similar deals."

Does anyone know what Man City's deal is?

http://tinyurl.com/5vonnqs

 

[MattyP]

From the Telegraph today:

"The Spurs bid is also expected to promise a "significant" return to the taxpayer. When Manchester City took over the City of Manchester Stadium, they gave a proportion of ticket revenue above a certain capacity to the city council, which funded the stadium. Spurs and West Ham will propose similar deals."

Does anyone know what Man City's deal is?

http://tinyurl.com/5vonnqs

I know it's wiki, but there are some details of it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Manchester_Stadium


With regards to the name changing debate, I can only recall reading that the Premier League stated that us moving to Stratford does not contravene their rules.

I don't ever recall reading them explicitly stating we can keep our name - can someone provide me with the link please.

Only reason I make that distinction is that one of the premier league rules is that they need to consider whether the name of the club fits in with the proposed location of the new ground.

In the absence of an explicit promise (which may exist - I just don't recall reading it) that could mean one of two things - that they have deemed that Stratford and Tottenham are close enough that calling ourselves Tottenham Hotspur is still relevent, or that we will drop/replace the name Tottenham.

So, if someone can provide me with the link whereby they explicitly state the former, I'm happy to never discuss the dropping of "Tottenham" again.

 

[sloth]

With regards to the name changing debate, I can only recall reading that the Premier League stated that us moving to Stratford does not contravene their rules.

I don't ever recall reading them explicitly stating we can keep our name - can someone provide me with the link please.

Only reason I make that distinction is that one of the premier league rules is that they need to consider whether the name of the club fits in with the proposed location of the new ground.

In the absence of an explicit promise (which may exist - I just don't recall reading it) that could mean one of two things - that they have deemed that Stratford and Tottenham are close enough that calling ourselves Tottenham Hotspur is still relevent, or that we will drop/replace the name Tottenham.

So, if someone can provide me with the link whereby they explicitly state the former, I'm happy to never discuss the dropping of "Tottenham" again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...tion-Tottenham-switch-to-Olympic-Stadium.html

 

[MattyP]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...tion-Tottenham-switch-to-Olympic-Stadium.html

That states that we would not be in breach of premier league rules, not that we categorically would not have to change our name.

It's the only thing that I have ever read on the subject.

 

[worcestersauce]

From the Telegraph today:

"The Spurs bid is also expected to promise a "significant" return to the taxpayer. When Manchester City took over the City of Manchester Stadium, they gave a proportion of ticket revenue above a certain capacity to the city council, which funded the stadium. Spurs and West Ham will propose similar deals."

Does anyone know what Man City's deal is?

http://tinyurl.com/5vonnqs

No they won't, absolutely no way.

West Ham will have to in order to get the bid with Newham, we however are going there with the plan of building a new ground with a higher capacity so why would we pay anybody else the revenue from the higher capacity above our existing 36k.
If we go to the Olympic park we will own the stadium ourselves and so keep all gate receipts.
I think I'm right in saying that Manchester City don't own the stadium, I'm sure it's one of the options the owners are considering, buying it that is.
Don't forget that when City took on the stadium they were an ordinary club toying with relegation worries, they would never take that same deal now.

Edit:
Just read some of the posts on name changes which I missed before. For what it's worth people needn't worry about name changes, we are Tottenham Hotspur and we can keep that name should we move, as some people have quoted:shrug:, to Birmingham or Peking. It is the name of the club it is not the representative selected team for the borough of Tottenham, there used to be one of those, it was called Tottenham Boys, I know as I once had a trial for them, but they were closed when Haringey was formed in 1965, nobody challenged that then not even the local MP.

 

[jimmyn16]

We won't own the stadium. We are bidding for a long-term lease, probably 200 years. No one has said publicly what the leasing arrangements will be.

 

[tototoner]

More negative media on our proposed move to Stratford

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/london_2012/9366610.stm

A key figure behind London's successful 2012 bid has hit out at Tottenham's plan to remove the running track from the Olympic stadium after the Games.


"It would be extremely regretful," said International Olympic Committee executive board member Sir Craig Reedie. "We would lose credibility."
Reedie prefers the rival proposal from West Ham to convert the arena into a venue for football and athletics.


"It seems an ideal use of a converted stadium in the Olympic Park," he added.
Premier League clubs Tottenham and West Ham are competing against each other to become the tenant of London's £527m Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games, with the deadline for all bidders on Friday.


Spurs are bidding in collaboration with entertainment and sports giants AEG, which runs the O2 Arena beside the Thames in Greenwich, south London.
The club want to demolish most of the stadium, removing the track to ensure fans are close to the pitch.


Tottenham have promised to invest in London sport as part of their proposal to take over the stadium, pledging to contribute to the refurbishment of the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace.


West Ham say they will retain most of the structure, although they will reduce the venue's capacity from 80,000 to 60,000 to create an arena for football, athletics, concerts and community use in a collaboration with Newham Council.
The Olympic Park Legacy Company has a board meeting on Friday, 28 January when it is expected to decide on its preferred bidder.


Its recommendation then has to be ratified by two government departments - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of Communities and Local Government - and the London Mayor's office.


Reedie, former chairman of the British Olympic Association, said Tottenham's proposal would undermine London's pledge to provide a track legacy for the stadium.


"We would lose all credibility [if the running track was moved]," he added.
"If we have one tenant of a major football club and it is going to keep the athletics track, that is my chosen option.


"It was sport that generated the Olympic Park in the first place.
"The only correct long-term usage is to have a stadium which can be used as the centre of future bids for major sports events, probably concentrating on what is the Olympic Games' leading sport."


Countering the argument that running tracks are incompatible with football, Reedie cited the example of Italian clubs Roma and Lazio, who share the Olympic Stadium in Rome.


The Spurs proposal has already attracted criticism for its lack of provision for athletics, with UK Athletics (UKA) labelling the initiative "completely unacceptable".

 

[bigturnip]

Just read some of the posts on name changes which I missed before. For what it's worth people needn't worry about name changes, we are Tottenham Hotspur and we can keep that name should we move, as some people have quoted:shrug:, to Birmingham or Peking. It is the name of the club it is not the representative selected team for the borough of Tottenham, there used to be one of those, it was called Tottenham Boys, I know as I once had a trial for them, but they were closed when Haringey was formed in 1965, nobody challenged that then not even the local MP.

Another one of those mysterious 'facts' that people keep 'quoting', but never provide the quote for, I guess if enough people keep saying it then it must be true. I am still waiting for the quote on the £200m cost saving, which I've never discovered yet. I still can't get my head around anyone who states their preferred option is to stay in Tottenham and then actively promotes a move to Stratford by repeating 'facts' that actually have no basis other than tabloid speculation and internet rumours.

 

[tototoner]

a Spammers view on the situation - not one I agree with

From SP Transfer Ticker

1447: Michael Gray has e-mailed in with his thoughts on Spurs' relocation. He says: "In response to Richard, would Spurs really fill 60,000 at Stratford? I can’t see it – here’s why.

They can’t fill White Hart Lane every week and only average approx 1500 fans at home more than West Ham – which is about the same difference in their capacities. West Ham have more or less sold out their ground every week, and with the improved transportation links, would probably get at least 45000 to 50000 every week.

It’s a shame that their fans don’t realise that Spurs’ status in the Premiership was only saved by a West Ham man (through & through) in dear old ‘Arry. History shows that every team he has managed has been relegated (and suffered financial troubles) within 3 years of him leaving….

When he leaves Spurs, they will be back to the bottom of the table again. With the money Spurs have invested in just squad players (paying £8m for the likes of Jenas, £10m for Woodgate, £15m for Bentley, £8m for Hutton, etc, etc),not including the over inflated prices for some of the 1st team regulars and just general lack of good business in the transfer market (e.g. selling Defoe to Portsmouth, then buying him back 1 year later for twice the price they sold him and paying double the wages he was on first time round at Spurs – and selling Bent for £6m less than they paid for him - a player that has out-scored Defoe in every season e.g. from 2005/06 to present. Defoe, 59 league goals, Bent 81 league goals), the expense of a new ground will not enable Spurs to compete in the transfer market with the likes of Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal or Chelsea.

In that time, Redknapp will become England boss and Spurs will struggle and we all know what their crowds are like when they struggle - the most fickle fans in London. So, 60k Spurs fans at Stratford? Yeah, right! Stick to the poorest and most deprived borough in London, and try to regenerate it like you promised the local authorities when you were being allowed to buy up properties and businesses in the area for the sole purpose of re-developing White Hart Lane.

 

[Achap]

Another one of those mysterious 'facts' that people keep 'quoting', but never provide the quote for, I guess if enough people keep saying it then it must be true. I am still waiting for the quote on the £200m cost saving, which I've never discovered yet. I still can't get my head around anyone who states their preferred option is to stay in Tottenham and then actively promotes a move to Stratford by repeating 'facts' that actually have no basis other than tabloid speculation and internet rumours.

The Club - and others who maintain that they will not be subject to a name-change - have likely based their stance on this advice.

"But a Spurs source has branded the claims blatant scaremongering' and reassured fans there will be no change to the name Tottenham Hotspur that was adopted in 1884 following their formation in 1882 as Hotspur FC.
Spurs employ Field Fisher Waterhouse on its trade mark and licensing issues. They have advised officials there are plenty of instances of teams moving and retaining their names such as QPR, Millwall, Grimsby, Everton, Notts Forest, Bournemouth and Aston Villa.

Field Fisher Waterhouse spokesman Lewis Cohen said: “While the historic origin of the word Tottenham' in Tottenham Hotspur' relates to the geographic location of Tottenham, Tottenham Hotspur is and has, for a very long time, been associated exclusively with the football club.
“There is no doubt that fans associate Tottenham Hotspur with the football club. No matter where the club are located or play their matches they will always be Tottenham Hotspur.

“Tottenham Hotspur is a trade mark which fans recognise as being clearly associated with the football team and there is absolutely no chance of anyone being misled about the origin of Tottenham Hotspur goods or services no matter where the club is located.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...tottenham-we-will-not-be-changing-our-name.do