Say No To Stratford. Requiem for a dream.

WhiteStripe

Legen - wait for it - dary
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
13,314
#81
Would be better if as it got going, as the (awful) tune quickened, as the strings got louder and the anticipation became too much to bare the screen goes instantly black....

BOOM (like a boxer entering the ring)

BOOM (like the return of "The Undertaker" in WWE)

BOOM.....and in comes the state of the art Stratforsphere....the 60,000 seater football venue to beat all footballing venues....the music quickens, flashes of future glories fly by....VDV lifting the FA Cup....Ledley in the managers seat shouting directions....The Champions league winners badge on our shirt...the Straftford Kop singing on mass...quickening....growing in anticipation....fireworks....BOOM...black screen....

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club
We dare
We do
Stratford 2012 - The future is all white​
 

Hoowl

Dr wHo(owl)
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
6,513
#82
I started systematically replying to the points in that video but didn't get very far before I realised it generally seems to be a lot of scaremongorig and not really worth the effort.
 

ERO

The artist f.k.a Steffan Freund - Mentalist *****
Joined
Jun 8, 2003
Messages
5,446
Thread starter #83
Re the great Bill Nicholson. Sad to say that wherever we move (even if it is NPD) Sir Bill's ashes will have to removed. Although realistically, how much of them do you think are on the pitch still? Also, in terms of how he would feel if we moved into West Ham territory - isn't that where he went after he finished as our manager? :wink: And I don't think any of us really blamed him at the time because we and he knew that wherever he was, he would always be Tottenham. (Get the analogy? :grin:)
If it's one man that's close it's him, but if it's one man that would never agree he was close it's also him. Our club is way bigger than any one man, so that analogy is flawed.
 

AngerManagement

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
12,518
#84
I like the comment about moving to Woolwich to piss off the Arsenal fans....... I guarantee there is not an Gooner in the world who would remotely give a shit about that, just like there is not a gooner out there who cares when Spurs fans tell them their club were from South London before they were born
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#85
how do you know those opposed are a minority?there has been no offical poll of supporters other than levy saying it
There has been a poll by the FSF, who are about as official as it gets when representing fans, they found that Spurs' fans were 10 to 1 against a move to Stratford.
 

chrissivad

Staff
Staff
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
40,635
#86
There has been a poll by the FSF, who are about as official as it gets when representing fans, they found that Spurs' fans were 10 to 1 against a move to Stratford.
But what was the question to the poll?

was it just a simple choice of where we wanted the stadium?

If that was the case then i would have voted Tottenham, but that doesn't mean I would be against a move to Stratford.
 

ERO

The artist f.k.a Steffan Freund - Mentalist *****
Joined
Jun 8, 2003
Messages
5,446
Thread starter #87
And that's just how Levy's going to conduct the survey for Stratford. It'll be 10 to 1 against staying in Tottenham.
 

trevo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,729
#88
Wonder how much the tickets will be in the seats furthest away from the pitch, or do you get free bino's.
I've heard that you'll get a small monitor attached to the back of the seat in front of you and that TFL and Stage Coach will be facilitating pitch invasions.:)
 

WhiteStripe

Legen - wait for it - dary
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
13,314
#90
I love the way the N17 crowd are making the incorrect assumption that moving to the OS site is going to mean shit seats and a shit view. The stadium in all likelihood will be equally impressive as the one proposed under the NDP. So if the seating there is acceptable, why is the OS move any different in terms of view?

Also comments about "who is going to bother buying a season ticket when they'll get in anyway". What's that all about? By that logic the exact same principle applies with the NDP.

It seems to me that rather than concentrating on the facts, the real reasons why Spurs should stay in N17, the N17ers have to make up lies and ridiculous assumptions, basially tarnishing their whole campaign.
 

chrissivad

Staff
Staff
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
40,635
#91
I love the way the N17 crowd are making the incorrect assumption that moving to the OS site is going to mean shit seats and a shit view. The stadium in all likelihood will be equally impressive as the one proposed under the NDP. So if the seating there is acceptable, why is the OS move any different in terms of view?

Also comments about "who is going to bother buying a season ticket when they'll get in anyway". What's that all about? By that logic the exact same principle applies with the NDP.

It seems to me that rather than concentrating on the facts, the real reasons why Spurs should stay in N17, the N17ers have to make up lies and ridiculous assumptions, basially tarnishing their whole campaign.
:clap:
 

Midostouch

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
2,374
#92
If it's one man that's close it's him, but if it's one man that would never agree he was close it's also him. Our club is way bigger than any one man, so that analogy is flawed.
I'm maybe being dense but I don't understand what you are saying here. :shrug: Close to what?
All I was trying to say is that wherever Sir Bill was, he was always Tottenham as far as I was concerned - and I feel the same way about the club.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#93
Ha anyone from the anti Stratford brigade actually posted their proof/estimate of why they feel Levy's figures don't stack up ?

Only, at the moment all the figures we've been provided by Levy etc, suggest that we don't really have a choice but to seriously consider relocating.

So, to be honest, as it stands, I think those organising demonstrations, if they achieved their aim, are possibly doing more harm to the club long term than Levy.

I started off vigorously opposed to the idea of moving, but given everything we know at the moment - which isn't exactly shitloads (that's financial jargon) but would suggest a difference of circa £200m - I'm pretty much coming round to the idea of moving.

We absolutely have to move to a bigger stadium, that is blatantly obvious. If it has to be a few miles up the road then reluctantly, so be it.

It's not as if it will erase our memories. The more I think about it, the more I realise that I don't go to be in Tottenham, I go to watch Spurs play football, and I'm still going to do that if we move a few miles East.
 

dannythomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
3,380
#94
Seeing as Tottenham is East of much of the old East End that's not saying much.

All this post-code bollocks tells me, is that for many people this has little to do with being rooted in N17 and a hell of a lot to do with wanting to keep the moral high-ground in respect to Arsenal



(All figures are approximations of net expenditure)

1. Man City spend about £200m a year on players.

2. Chelsea spend about £150m - £160m a year on players.

3. Man Utd spend about £135m a year on players.

4. Liverpool spend about £115m a year on players.

5. Arsenal spend £100m a year on players.

6. Spurs spend £87m a year on players.

Of the above, for two of the clubs money is no object. Utd probably have five times the turnover we do. Arsenal, with their new stadium, make about three times as much. Liverpool have new owners who have paid off their debt.

So you explain to me how on a budget a fraction of those other clubs you think we should be getting top four every year? Or even once every so often. We're closer in size to a team like West Ham than to a team like Arsenal.

But the real sticking point is turnover. Without CL, turnover will remain low relative to those clubs who have it. In the case of Chelsea and City it doesn't matter, although Chelsea's (and soon City's I suspect) greater profile and success ensures their turnover is double ours.

Liverpool seem the weakest but over-taking them gets us fifth place.

Arsenal and Man Utd are huge money making machines. The size of their stadium means their turnover can weather failure to get CL; in other words they can keep investing in players at their current (or in Arsenal's case higher) levels.

Because wages are the single biggest trading cost, it's difficult to invest the money earned from a single year's CL qualification in a player who's cost will be felt in wages and capitalisation over the length of their contract.

You can't - and shouldn't - budget for CL qualification, but for some percentage of CL revenue over a given period, based on an estimate of the probability of CL qualification.

You can budget stadium income however.

So we're in a bind compared to those other clubs. We can't pay CL wages on the hope that we get CL qualification, but if we don't pay those wages then we're left for trying to develop young talent ala Arsenal. We also have to face the fact that we have to sell CL players in the event that we don't qualify for CL. Even if we hold onto them for one more year, the following one they'll be off because world-class players don't want to play in mid-level sides.

But if we sell our best players we're sending the wrong message out as happened with Berba and Carrick.

The only way to afford CL wages and transfer fees without the certainty of CL football is through a larger stadium and all the additional revenue we can extract from it.

Trouble is, if this is off-set by loans which are too large then our increased income is overwhelmed by our increased costs.

Given the billionaire owners in today's PL we're now falling back in comparison to the super-teams. If we stay at 36k we won't stay challenging for fourth each year and in fact the chances are we'll slip back to mid-table mediocrity.

Only this time there won't be the promise that one day we might do it. The gap will simply be too big.

We can hope that we might get a billionaire buyer of our own, but sadly if you've a choice between snapping up West Ham for peanuts in the OS with all of that potential, or Spurs, in mid-table in N17 with all that non-potential who are you going to buy?

So you lot think there's nothing wrong with staying still and that we'll be fine in Tottenham. I fear you couldn't be more wrong. Time will tell.
Nothing to do with needing to be near Arsenal. That's irrelevant.

Man City, Chelsea and to an extent Liverpool are bankrolled by their owners , it has nothing to do with the size of their stadiums. In fact the point has often been made that the first 2 clubs are always vulnerable to their owners losing interest and then they really are in big trouble. Billionaire owner ? No thanks.

The assumption is being made that suddenly if we move to the East End our wages will double so that we can bring in players at 150,000 UKP per week. Can't see it. It is very convenient for Levy to let it be known that his incompetence in window after window is all down to our low wages and moving to Stratford will fix all that.

I disagree entirely that we can only compete for CL places if we move. We succeeded last year and are up there again this year and if Levy had done his job and bought only 1 quality striker in the last 2 windows then we would be in better shape. Oh wait, I forgot, we cant meet their wage demands. We can satisfy Modric, Bale and VDV but cannot find a single striker for less than 150k per week.
 

chrissivad

Staff
Staff
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
40,635
#95
Nothing to do with needing to be near Arsenal. That's irrelevant.

Man City, Chelsea and to an extent Liverpool are bankrolled by their owners , it has nothing to do with the size of their stadiums. In fact the point has often been made that the first 2 clubs are always vulnerable to their owners losing interest and then they really are in big trouble. Billionaire owner ? No thanks.
There is some info in there about wage and turn over between ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, City and our selfs.
http://andersred.blogspot.com/2011/02/chelsea-200910-results-spin-and-red-ink.html



 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#96
Seeing as Tottenham is East of much of the old East End that's not saying much.
:rofl:

I thought the 'Spurs Community Geographer of the Year 2011' Award should go to the clown who thought the Lane was in Edmonton. Looks like I was a wee bit premature.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#97
Ha anyone from the anti Stratford brigade actually posted their proof/estimate of why they feel Levy's figures don't stack up ?

Only, at the moment all the figures we've been provided by Levy etc, suggest that we don't really have a choice but to seriously consider relocating.

So, to be honest, as it stands, I think those organising demonstrations, if they achieved their aim, are possibly doing more harm to the club long term than Levy.

I started off vigorously opposed to the idea of moving, but given everything we know at the moment - which isn't exactly shitloads (that's financial jargon) but would suggest a difference of circa £200m - I'm pretty much coming round to the idea of moving.

We absolutely have to move to a bigger stadium, that is blatantly obvious. If it has to be a few miles up the road then reluctantly, so be it.

It's not as if it will erase our memories. The more I think about it, the more I realise that I don't go to be in Tottenham, I go to watch Spurs play football, and I'm still going to do that if we move a few miles East.
The only quote we have from Levy on the difference in costs is "I've never said Stratford will be the cheaper option". The £200m figure is a figure that came from people misrepresenting a quote from the architect, David Keirle. So before you start asking us for proof of why we don't think Levy's figures add up (quite hard seeing as we don't know them) perhaps you should show some evidence for yours or stop reporting an erroneous figure that was never quoted in the first place. I suggest you reread David Keirle's quote, which has been misrepresented by many, and tell us where he says the difference for the two projects is £200m.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#98
:rofl:

I thought the 'Spurs Community Geographer of the Year 2011' Award should go to the clown who thought the Lane was in Edmonton. Looks like I was a wee bit premature.
That would be Jimmy Greaves then. :razz:
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,995
#99
:rofl:

I thought the 'Spurs Community Geographer of the Year 2011' Award should go to the clown who thought the Lane was in Edmonton. Looks like I was a wee bit premature.
Not to belabour a point, but WHL is direct north of Whitechapel tube station.

That makes WHL East of most of those old East End slums from Shoreditch, through Bricklane to Cambridge Heath Road and south down to the river.

That's also not to say that much of the traditional East End isn't East of WHL, just that much of it is West of us.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,995
Nothing to do with needing to be near Arsenal. That's irrelevant.
I think you mis-read what I wrote there :up:

Man City, Chelsea and to an extent Liverpool are bankrolled by their owners , it has nothing to do with the size of their stadiums. In fact the point has often been made that the first 2 clubs are always vulnerable to their owners losing interest and then they really are in big trouble. Billionaire owner ? No thanks.
They don't need a large stadium because they are bankrolled by billionaires. We're not bankrolled by a billionaire so we...

The assumption is being made that suddenly if we move to the East End our wages will double so that we can bring in players at 150,000 UKP per week. Can't see it. It is very convenient for Levy to let it be known that his incompetence in window after window is all down to our low wages and moving to Stratford will fix all that.
Stupid argument. Look at the figures and tell me that we should do better than we do considering the relative spend of our four or five rivals (in fact we spend less than Villa on wages).

I disagree entirely that we can only compete for CL places if we move. We succeeded last year and are up there again this year and if Levy had done his job and bought only 1 quality striker in the last 2 windows then we would be in better shape. Oh wait, I forgot, we cant meet their wage demands. We can satisfy Modric, Bale and VDV but cannot find a single striker for less than 150k per week.
And on that ridiculous note I think our conversation has ended.
 
Top