New Stadium Details And Discussions

[SpurSince57]

All of which rather makes you wish the Frogs had got this overhyped circus.

 

[RickyVilla]

Hear hear

 

[sloth]

You are absolutely right, sloth, this is not constructive, not good for the debate. Why? You know why. Because you say I don't know what I'm talking about without justifying your position.

Furthermore, look at my post and read it properly. All I want is to see unspinned figures on both sides that demonstrate Stratford to be cheaper. I haven't seen anything convincing.

Is what you know, but won't let on, reliable? Is what you know free of spin? We don't know precisely because you refuse to articulate the argument.

Is your response that of a spin-struck Stratford booster? Prove me wrong by making an argument rather than insulting your opponent.

Go on, do it.


Sotm

I'm sorry mate, but I've lost all confidence in having a constructive debate with you.

Unlike others arguing against the move to Stratford I think the method and manner of your argument is dishonest.

Here's my reasoning (since you asked for it)...

Either:

You really can't see all the errors in your reasoning, the spin and the sophistry in the way that you argue. In which case there's no point debating with you.

Or:

You can see the errors, the spin and sophistry in your arguments are deliberate and again, if this is the case, there's no point debating with you.

Needless to say, I am of course happy to debate this or any other subject with you if you're prepared to engage in good faith.

 

[StartingPrice]

Forget the OPLC - here's a more sensible way to settle the issue. One on one.

Coe admits links to ICF

24-01-11

SEBASTIAN Coe has revealed he was once a leading member of West Ham's notorious Inter City Firm.

As he backed the club's bid for the Olympic Stadium, the Tory peer, sporting a tattoo of Bobby Moore headbutting a policeman, warned that Tottenham Hotspur's rival bid would be rigorously opposed on a patch of wasteground.

Upton Park, you mean?

BigTurnip - I think some folk, myselfincluded, are fed up debating with the likes of you and SOTM, for the very simple reason that you keep on asking for 'proof' of financial figures, etc., but whenever it is offered you sole response is that the source is THFC and therefore you refuse to trust it.

And it just doesn't make any sense. Why would the club 'pretend' that the OS was considerably more financially viable than the NDP? Because they will make a profit? Well, that means that it would be less viable to sell, and therefore less economically viable to develop, the NDP. And the reason for that being...? Presumably because the profit after taking away production costs would be greater for the OS...suggesting that the production costs would, indeed, be lower for the OS. And, of course, the developed OS would make more financially than the NDP - of course, because it will be easier to fill, so, if (as the conspiracy theorists are to be believed) the new owners will offset any costs than they accrue more easily than at the NDP because the NDP would be more expensive and harder to fill due to infrastructure problems, etc.

And so your argument is totally circular: you do not believe the OS will be considerably cheaper because the people saying it is are the people who would save money by developing the OS, who are the people who would be spending money to develop the OS...and they 'might' be lying:shrug:

Well, yeah, it's like saying your are gonna buy fish & chips for a fiver, but then choosing to go to a different chippy, further away, where it will cost a tenner but because it is further away and your community want you to patronise local businesses you tell them it will cost £2,50 for the fish & chips, there. Does that make sense? No. You would either be going there because the fish & chips were, indeed, cheaper, or they tasted considerably better.

Continuing your circular argument that you oppose the OS not just because it is not in Tottenham, but also because there is no proof that it is cheaper, because the only proof that it is cheaper comes from the people who would actually know, is, frankly, futile. And that is why so many folk can't be bothered arguing with you anymore. Not because they don't have 'proof', or because you have won the argument, or anything. just because your sole reason for continuing the debate is that you don't trust the people stand to gain or lose a considerable amount of money (sic.) depending on whether the OS is or is not cheaper than the NDP.

So, let's try this: the OS is going to cost the same or more than the NDP, and will be no easier (and therefore no more profitable) than the NDP (profit that, ultimately, will decide the success or failure of the club on the field in the long run). They just want to do it, anyway...I suppose 'cos they like wasting money or prefer the scenery, or summit:shrug:

And that is why folk are telling you to use your common sense.

SOTM - we have dealt with this concept of spin for your twice, already. Yeah, the club spins, so do you.

 

[danielneeds]

If you don't think the future of this club is worth debating then that's your opinion, but I'm happy to debate it every waking moment if I have to.

I have no idea why people who say they want to stay in Tottenham keep repeating such misleading figures from the media, we have very few facts and a whole lot of speculation, it seems to me that a lot of people are believing the speculation over the facts.

I don't hide my agenda, I want to stay in Tottenham at all costs, I'm happy to furnish people with both facts and speculation that back up that position, but I'm still at a loss as to what the agenda is of the people talking up Stratford on speculation, would they actually prefer a move to Stratford?

Of course, none of us know the actual figures, but you have to read all the information available and use your analytical abilities together with common sense to come to some conclusions. My point is that you are so partizan, you are writing off any logical points garnered from the evidence from the other side of the debate.

 

[danielneeds]

BTW This lunchtime BBC London News are going to run as their top story a poll they have had commissioned which shows 3/4 of Londoners favour West Ham's bid over ours.

That is going to put some serious pressure on the OPLC to lean in the direction of the mob.

 

[CosmicHotspur]

The debate has lost its fire for me as it seems to have been decided that, whatever the outcome, the Lane will become a ghost stadium and Tottenham(?) Hotspur will no longer live there.

If not Stratford, where I wonder? Sadly.

 

[StartingPrice]

The debate has lost its fire for me as it seems to have been decided that, whatever the outcome, the Lane will become a ghost stadium and Tottenham(?) Hotspur will no longer live there.

If not Stratford, where I wonder? Sadly.

Me, too, Cos...the main concern I have now is that we don't tear ourselves apart over this.

 

[danielneeds]

The debate has lost its fire for me as it seems to have been decided that, whatever the outcome, the Lane will become a ghost stadium and Tottenham(?) Hotspur will no longer live there.

If not Stratford, where I wonder? Sadly.

We have to look to the future wherever that may be. What can we do if WHL does not have the communication links needed for a modern stadium?

Wherever Spurs end up I am sure we will honour our past and write a glorious new future.

 

[danielneeds]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12286340

Tottenham Hotspur's plans to dismantle the £500m Olympic Stadium and build a football ground are not supported by most Londoners, a BBC poll has found.

Some 81% of Londoners were against the proposals to rip up the athletics track, according to the ComRes phone poll carried out for BBC London.

The poll of 1,001 adults between 21 and 23 January suggests people are adamant there must be an athletics legacy.

Some 70% said the venue should be able to be used for athletics after 2012.

But 26% of respondents disagreed, according to the poll

London promised to leave an athletics legacy for the capital when it was bidding for the Games.

But Spurs believe the stadium will not work for football and athletics and have proposed to meet the legacy promise by modernising track and field facilities at Crystal Palace.

Leading British and international athletics officials, including 2012 chairman Lord Coe, have opposed the plans and back the bid of rivals West Ham who want to keep the track and use the arena for football and athletics.

Asked which bid should win, West Ham's was supported by 72% of Londoners, with only 13% supporting the Spurs bid.

Some 12% thought neither club should be allowed to take over the stadium.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company is currently studying the two bids and officials are expected to make a decision on their preferred candidate in the next few weeks.

The views of Londoners are important because the city's mayor Boris Johnson, together with the government, will have the final say on which bid is successful.

If the Olympic Park runs at a loss in the future, it is also the mayor who is likely to have to fund it.

That could also affect the bills of council taxpayers in the city.

OLYMPIC POLL RESULTS

The stadium should be used for athletics after 2012: 70% agree, 26% disagree
After the Olympics there is no need for an athletics stadium: 16% agree, 77% disagree

Which bid should win? West Ham 72%, Tottenham 13%, neither 12%

It would damage the legacy if the stadium cannot hold athletics after 2012: 63% agree, 31% disagree

The stadium should be dismantled and rebuilt as a football stadium after 2012: 14% agree, 81% disagree

Athletics is not popular enough to justify keeping a purpose-built athletics stadium: 25% agree, 68% disagree

Stadiums should not be used for both athletics and football, as an athletics track would make football less enjoyable: 28% agree, 59% disagree

 

[PT]

I would imagine that if you took any one of the London Clubs, if they had to a) modernise or b) relocate that club would pretty much find the same quagmire of obstacles as we are.

 

[Rocksuperstar]

I would imagine that if you took any one of the London Clubs, if they had to a) modernise or b) relocate that club would pretty much find the same quagmire of obstacles as we are.

I bought this up in a new thread, whether it was actually possible for any of the remaining clubs with small stadiums to have a new stadium inside the capital - i just don't see how it would be possible anymore without plunging the club involved into massive debts (or from the underhanded, sugar-daddy, brown-envelope passing route).

As with industry and engineering, this country used to lead the way, but mountains of red tape, beuracracy and other departments/groups/quangos need to be involved, has led to this situation where not even self-funding ventures can get the green light without jumping through hoops, dancing for pennies and wrestling a bear.

 

[sloth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12286340

Tottenham Hotspur's plans to dismantle the £500m Olympic Stadium and build a football ground are not supported by most Londoners, a BBC poll has found.

Some 81% of Londoners were against the proposals to rip up the athletics track, according to the ComRes phone poll carried out for BBC London.

The poll of 1,001 adults between 21 and 23 January suggests people are adamant there must be an athletics legacy.

Some 70% said the venue should be able to be used for athletics after 2012.

But 26% of respondents disagreed, according to the poll

London promised to leave an athletics legacy for the capital when it was bidding for the Games.

But Spurs believe the stadium will not work for football and athletics and have proposed to meet the legacy promise by modernising track and field facilities at Crystal Palace.

Leading British and international athletics officials, including 2012 chairman Lord Coe, have opposed the plans and back the bid of rivals West Ham who want to keep the track and use the arena for football and athletics.

Asked which bid should win, West Ham's was supported by 72% of Londoners, with only 13% supporting the Spurs bid.

Some 12% thought neither club should be allowed to take over the stadium.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company is currently studying the two bids and officials are expected to make a decision on their preferred candidate in the next few weeks.

The views of Londoners are important because the city's mayor Boris Johnson, together with the government, will have the final say on which bid is successful.

If the Olympic Park runs at a loss in the future, it is also the mayor who is likely to have to fund it.

That could also affect the bills of council taxpayers in the city.

OLYMPIC POLL RESULTS

The stadium should be used for athletics after 2012: 70% agree, 26% disagree
After the Olympics there is no need for an athletics stadium: 16% agree, 77% disagree

Which bid should win? West Ham 72%, Tottenham 13%, neither 12%

It would damage the legacy if the stadium cannot hold athletics after 2012: 63% agree, 31% disagree

The stadium should be dismantled and rebuilt as a football stadium after 2012: 14% agree, 81% disagree

Athletics is not popular enough to justify keeping a purpose-built athletics stadium: 25% agree, 68% disagree

Stadiums should not be used for both athletics and football, as an athletics track would make football less enjoyable: 28% agree, 59% disagree

This sort of thing is precisely why people shouldn't be consulted on subjects which require more than a cursory knowledge.

Ask Londoners do they want the OS to become a white elephant after the olympics and they'll tell you no.

Ask whether they want to keep pumping money into the stadium after the olympics through their council tax and they'll answer you no.

Ask them how much thought they've given to the subject and the majority will tell you virtually none.

The same thing happened with Boris and the bendy buses. The majority of people didn't like them for a variety of petty or misinformed reasons. The main one was that they were more dangerous which wasn't supported by the evidence. The unadmitted reason was they replaced Routemaster (or at least were seen to do so), for which most of us had a deal of affection. And for motorists, particularly in affluent London, they were seen as blocking the road with their extreme length.

I'm a Dad with two children, both under five, you try going to do a shop at Sainbury's with a child in a buggy and carrier bags on the back and another child in tow. It's not easy. But then when the bus driver tells you in the wet and cold there's no room on the bus unless you fold your buggy. And the next one tells you the same. And the next one. And that's what bendy buses catered for.

I saw it happen the other day on the 149, a young mum forced to wake a sleeping baby, the buggy tip over backwards and her shopping scatter, the bus not move for a couple of minutes while she sorted it out, all with a screaming baby under one arm.

But the majority don't experience it and they vote in their ignorance on small petty reasons and subject the affected minority to their decision.

[/rant]

 

[danielneeds]

And the good thing about bendy buses are that they are free if you judicious with your Oyster swiping!

 

[jimmyn16]

From Matthew Beard's blog in the London Evening Standard today:

Stadium poll exposes Spurs strategy
Today's BBC London poll emphatically giving backing to the West Ham stadium bid shows Spurs have some way to go convincing Londoners of their plan. It also raises questions of their PR strategy, devised by top sports spin doctor Mike Lee, to trigger a national debate at the expense of informing Londoners. This reached absurd levels when Brazilian football legend and Viagra ambassador Pele was rolled out to speak in favour of the Spurs plan. Not sure how that would have resonated along Stratford High Street or whether it would have swung too many votes on the board of the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Spurs have repeatedly rejected requests by London media to explain their bid, so it can hardly come as a surprise that today's poll shows them looking so out of touch.

http://bit.ly/guJ62p

 

[PT]

From Matthew Beard's blog in the London Evening Standard today:

Stadium poll exposes Spurs strategy
Today's BBC London poll emphatically giving backing to the West Ham stadium bid shows Spurs have some way to go convincing Londoners of their plan. It also raises questions of their PR strategy, devised by top sports spin doctor Mike Lee, to trigger a national debate at the expense of informing Londoners. This reached absurd levels when Brazilian football legend and Viagra ambassador Pele was rolled out to speak in favour of the Spurs plan. Not sure how that would have resonated along Stratford High Street or whether it would have swung too many votes on the board of the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Spurs have repeatedly rejected requests by London media to explain their bid, so it can hardly come as a surprise that today's poll shows them looking so out of touch.

http://bit.ly/guJ62p

Isn't the London Evening Standard press banned from White Hart Lane for spurious reporting of Spurs related news?

 

[Azrael]

Isn't the London Evening Standard press banned from White Hart Lane for spurious reporting of Spurs related news?

Indeed.

 

[Tottenham_OZpur]

This sort of thing is precisely why people shouldn't be consulted on subjects which require more than a cursory knowledge.

Ask Londoners do they want the OS to become a white elephant after the olympics and they'll tell you no.

Ask whether they want to keep pumping money into the stadium after the olympics through their council tax and they'll answer you no.

Ask them how much thought they've given to the subject and the majority will tell you virtually none.[/rant]

You would think that, but look at the dodgy result at the bottom, how more people thought a track wouldn't make football less enjoyable is a joke :roll:

No football fan wants a track, not even West Ham supporters and Leyton Orient have dismissed that too, being the other club in the talks, that vote is wrong and only makes the poll look suspicious.

 

[Hoowl]

I thought there'd be more details coming out today. I'm sure I heard the full bids could be disclosed today. Maybe that's changed now the decision has been delayed.I wonder if either side still want to conceal certain elements from their rivals.

Anyway, it seems that our bid is likely to live or die by its finances. It will be interesting to compare the financial aspects of the two. Spurs have lead us to believe we're a much sounder option in this respect, and the fact west ham need further public funding bears this out to some extent, but are ee a much better bet? There must be a large number of estimates going on. How many supporters will each club attract, what happens if west ham get relegated, or default on the loan?

I wonder how many of the taxpayers realise how much has already been spent and what further spending may be required. Coe et al seem to be very blue skiee about this but the government will have to live with it. Mind you, politics is usually about short term thinking to gain public approval

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to point out the financial errors already made by the Olympics team lest it harm our chance. dont bite the bane that feeds you. We have to bear being portrayed as the monster and hope some journalist pick up on the realities of Coe et al messing things up by ignoring football clubs and refusing to deal with the realities of the legacy until the stadium was already sorted.

West ham and spurs are opportunistic businesses looking to leverage large amounts of public money for their own gain. Neither west ham or spurs spent this money.

 

[jonnyrotten]

West ham and spurs are opportunistic businesses looking to leverage large amounts of public money for their own gain.

Quite. I am waiting for the "Olympic Park Scheme is now unviable" talk from Levy next, stating we can only afford it long term if we ground share with West Ham and half the costs.

It is business after all.