New Stadium Details And Discussions

[michaelden]

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.

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

Spurs insisted today that any move to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford would not mean having to drop the name Tottenham from their title.
A leading intellectual property lawyer told the Evening Standard yesterday the club could face legal action if they move from the borough of Haringey to Newham after the 2012 Games and continue to call themselves Tottenham.

The view was backed up by Tottenham MP David Lammy who claimed today he will fight any attempts to move the club to east London.
“Locally, I will work with any new team to ensure we retain the name Tottenham,” he said.

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 and West Ham are both interested in moving to the Olympic Stadium after the Games. Both have until next Friday to finalise their bids and the Olympic Park Legacy Company will decide on their preferred bidder a week later with an announcement expected in March.

The Hammers want to upgrade the arena to Premier League standards and keep the running track whereas Spurs want to knock it down and replace it with a purpose-built 60,000 seat football stadium. Tottenham will ensure that a legacy for athletics is maintained by paying to have Crystal Palace redeveloped.

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.”



Can it be any clearer? We are not changing our name no matter what.


BT - It wouldn't bother me if we did as long as we went back to Hotspur FC tbh. There are many Citys, United etc... but only 1 Hotspur :up:

What bothers me is the constant repition of claims that we'd have to change names when it is clearly not the case. How many times do you need the facts to be highlighted before you accept them? You're a sensible adult man by all appearances, so surely you can see that I am right in this case.

 

[Lammy61]

More negative media on our proposed move to Stratford

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

Roma are building a new stadium with seating right up to the pitch, they hate the current stadium with it's running track. Saying that a stadium with a running track can be used for football doesn't necessarily mean that anyone likes it

 

[chrissivad]

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.

Bit like that we would change our name from Tottenham Hotspur :roll:

 

[RBlanch]

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.

The PL will do whatever is in THEIR best interests.

If that involves West Ham going bust to create a bigger PL brand then they'll happily do it.

 

[RBlanch]

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.

a two hundred year lease is considered a 'virtual freehold'

it's a saleable asset

 

[michaelden]

The PL will do whatever is in THEIR best interests.

If that involves West Ham going bust to create a bigger PL brand then they'll happily do it.

and suddenly I'm pro-FA again ;-)

 

[RBlanch]

and suddenly I'm pro-FA again ;-)

The FA are only chasing money themselves these days......only they need it to pay for Wembley

 

[fridgemagnet]

Have we or rather has Levy said anything about the proposed move in the last 4 weeks or is he using mafia tactics I.E letting everyone else sound off using all their ammo up before silently putting them all down with a stiletto knife between the rib cage.

What if we got the nod for the OS site put down the 20 mil deposit then the club gets a few lucrative offers in from abroad, prospective billionaires trade off one says we stay and do the NP project another says we move, General Levy chooses the NP ENIC make a big profit despite losing the 20 mil deposit on the OS.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

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?

Mate, it was a joke - others in took it in the spirit it was intended.


Sotm

 

[StartingPrice]

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

From SP Transfer Ticker

I refute this completely...I have no involvement with this Transfer Ticker (whatever it is), and shall be instructing my lawyers to look into the matter:-|

 

[michaelden]

Mate, it was a joke - others in took it in the spirit it was intended.

my mistake then, sorry.

 

[bigturnip]

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

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

Spurs insisted today that any move to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford would not mean having to drop the name Tottenham from their title.
A leading intellectual property lawyer told the Evening Standard yesterday the club could face legal action if they move from the borough of Haringey to Newham after the 2012 Games and continue to call themselves Tottenham.

The view was backed up by Tottenham MP David Lammy who claimed today he will fight any attempts to move the club to east London.
“Locally, I will work with any new team to ensure we retain the name Tottenham,” he said.

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 and West Ham are both interested in moving to the Olympic Stadium after the Games. Both have until next Friday to finalise their bids and the Olympic Park Legacy Company will decide on their preferred bidder a week later with an announcement expected in March.

The Hammers want to upgrade the arena to Premier League standards and keep the running track whereas Spurs want to knock it down and replace it with a purpose-built 60,000 seat football stadium. Tottenham will ensure that a legacy for athletics is maintained by paying to have Crystal Palace redeveloped.

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.”



Can it be any clearer? We are not changing our name no matter what.


BT - It wouldn't bother me if we did as long as we went back to Hotspur FC tbh. There are many Citys, United etc... but only 1 Hotspur :up:

What bothers me is the constant repition of claims that we'd have to change names when it is clearly not the case. How many times do you need the facts to be highlighted before you accept them? You're a sensible adult man by all appearances, so surely you can see that I am right in this case.

Thank you for those insightful pieces of information, but they don't clear up the claimed 'fact' in question. Many people on here have claimed the PL have said we can keep our name.

 

[bigturnip]

Bit like that we would change our name from Tottenham Hotspur :roll:

But I don't think anybody's claimed that we have to change our name, just that we could change our name or could be forced to change it.

 

[SpurSince57]

I'm sure that if Derby County moved to Nottingham (which isn't that much further than Tottenham to Stratford) they could keep the name Derby County. They'd still be in Nottingham, though.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

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.

After moving they could keep the name: no doubt about it. But, according to an intellectual property rights lawyer mentioned somewhere last week, they would as a football club lose the exclusive right to have 'Tottenham' in the name since they would not be based in the area any more. In other words another football club from the area could not be stopped from calling itself something with Tottenham in the name (provided it was not Tottenham Hotspur FC).


Sotm

 

[talkshowhost86]

After moving they could keep the name: no doubt about it. But, according to an intellectual property rights lawyer mentioned somewhere last week, they would as a football club lose the exclusive right to have 'Tottenham' in the name since they would not be based in the area any more. In other words another football club from the area could not be stopped from calling itself something with Tottenham in the name (provided it was not Tottenham Hotspur FC).


Sotm

True. Sort of.

Our registration of the trade mark 'Tottenham' is only for goods 'in relation to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club' so I think another club could possibly set up in Tottenham.

Spurs would have very strong grounds for opposing that though. Assuming the new club called themselves something like 'Tottenham United' then we could still challenge them for infringement of the trade mark 'Tottenham Hotspur'. A company infringes a trade mark if they use:

1. An identical mark for identical goods;
2. A similar mark for identical goods; or
3. An identical mark for similar goods.

In this case it would be number 2 as we have Tottenham Hotspur registered for sports clubs. The case law suggests that the average consumer looks at the first part of a trade mark before the second so whatever the new club put after the Tottenham may not be enough to render it different enough to 'Tottenham Hotspur'.

In my experience and having seen various relatively similar cases I think any new club would struggle to use the word Tottenham in their name should Spurs want to challenge them over it.

 

[sloth]

"Former Olympic javelin champion Tessa Sanderson will not be permitted to play any part in deciding the future of the Olympic Stadium.
Sanderson is a board member of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) who are deciding between West Ham and Tottenham's bid to take over the stadium after the 2012 Games, but also has a contract with Newham Council which is a partner of the Hammers' bid.
A statement said: 'It has come to the OPLC's attention that board member Tessa Sanderson has a personal consultancy contract with Newham Council. This had not been disclosed to the company.
'As a result, Tessa Sanderson has been excluded from all matters relating to the stadium process.
'Newham Council is in one of the two shortlisted consortia bidding to lease the Olympic Stadium and therefore this represents a conflict of interest."

 

[bigturnip]

True. Sort of.

Our registration of the trade mark 'Tottenham' is only for goods 'in relation to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club' so I think another club could possibly set up in Tottenham.

Spurs would have very strong grounds for opposing that though. Assuming the new club called themselves something like 'Tottenham United' then we could still challenge them for infringement of the trade mark 'Tottenham Hotspur'. A company infringes a trade mark if they use:

1. An identical mark for identical goods;
2. A similar mark for identical goods; or
3. An identical mark for similar goods.

In this case it would be number 2 as we have Tottenham Hotspur registered for sports clubs. The case law suggests that the average consumer looks at the first part of a trade mark before the second so whatever the new club put after the Tottenham may not be enough to render it different enough to 'Tottenham Hotspur'.

In my experience and having seen various relatively similar cases I think any new club would struggle to use the word Tottenham in their name should Spurs want to challenge them over it.

That may be true, but it would be a PR disaster for the Stratford club to try and take a Tottenham club to court about using the name Tottenham.

 

[talkshowhost86]

That may be true, but it would be a PR disaster for the Stratford club to try and take a Tottenham club to court about using the name Tottenham.

Why?

 

[bigturnip]

"Former Olympic javelin champion Tessa Sanderson will not be permitted to play any part in deciding the future of the Olympic Stadium.
Sanderson is a board member of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) who are deciding between West Ham and Tottenham's bid to take over the stadium after the 2012 Games, but also has a contract with Newham Council which is a partner of the Hammers' bid.
A statement said: 'It has come to the OPLC's attention that board member Tessa Sanderson has a personal consultancy contract with Newham Council. This had not been disclosed to the company.
'As a result, Tessa Sanderson has been excluded from all matters relating to the stadium process.
'Newham Council is in one of the two shortlisted consortia bidding to lease the Olympic Stadium and therefore this represents a conflict of interest."

That's bad news, as it was at least one vote we could count on.