What's new

So White Hart Lane it is then.

millsey

Official SC Numpty
Dec 8, 2005
8,735
11,504
my problem is when did a committee or government EVER make the right or sensible choice!i think the os has gone to west ham.these days even if it were just on the basis on saving face and not wanting to look silly,then they are going to give it to west ham

this is a very worring time for spurs.we NEED to move.asap.every few months that goes by we are running out of time to compete with the other clubs that are moving on.who here waited hours today for an ac milan ticket?can u imagine if they had another 30 thousand for sale.we would have got our tickets,and watching a great game in a great stadium.we cant stay at whl for much longer and if it takes years searching for another site,which wont be in tottenham,i fear the modics of the world will go.
what i want to know is,levy says northumberland park is no longer viable,but is there a reason he wont tell us why?if he came out and said this is what it will cost and the council are scewing us i would understand?or is he playing poker with them?if he is they obv dont car as they havent changed there minds and now we are even more desperate they are hardly going to be accommodating.i would rather watch a great spurs team in another part of london,than an average one is tottenham.but thats my view
 

jolsnogross

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2005
3,729
5,431
One thing I've seen repeatedly on here is how this whole thing has brought shame and embarrassment on the club if we aren't nominated as the preferred bidder. It's such a stupid meme it was worth ignoring, but then I've seen it repeatedly so I wont ignore it.

No person or institution goes through life without the disappointment of failure or rejection. Neither is embarrassing nor shameful, and the idea that winners always win is childish and moronic. I'm no fan of the Stratford move and I'm a critic of Levy's, but he put together a perfectly defensible proposal and competed hard against one other bid to win over the opinions of committee members. This isn't an entirely objective process, it was largely about subjective persuasion.

Neither Spurs nor West Ham are shamed or embarrassed by their pursuit of it. The only possible shame is the vast waste of money spent on a 3 week jolly for heavily funded 'amateurs' to run around or throw stuff. Spurs and West Ham are doing their best to make use of this lavish publicly funded development without bleeding the public purse even further.
 

millsey

Official SC Numpty
Dec 8, 2005
8,735
11,504
One thing I've seen repeatedly on here is how this whole thing has brought shame and embarrassment on the club if we aren't nominated as the preferred bidder. It's such a stupid meme it was worth ignoring, but then I've seen it repeatedly so I wont ignore it.

No person or institution goes through life without the disappointment of failure or rejection. Neither is embarrassing nor shameful, and the idea that winners always win is childish and moronic. I'm no fan of the Stratford move and I'm a critic of Levy's, but he put together a perfectly defensible proposal and competed hard against one other bid to win over the opinions of committee members. This isn't an entirely objective process, it was largely about subjective persuasion.

Neither Spurs nor West Ham are shamed or embarrassed by their pursuit of it. The only possible shame is the vast waste of money spent on a 3 week jolly for heavily funded 'amateurs' to run around or throw stuff. Spurs and West Ham are doing their best to make use of this lavish publicly funded development without bleeding the public purse even further.

well said!i saw last week that weve embarrassed the club in the transfer window!yeah we are a joke to bid 35 mill for some superb players!better to be like arsenal and not bid for anyone eh!
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
jolsnogross

It's not the shame of being rejected that concerns me but the shame of trying to muscle in on somebody else's territory, spiking their opportunity, when we have opportunities of our own closer to home.

Why should W.Ham be shamed by their application?
 

StokeSpur

Banned
Aug 10, 2005
3,053
1
So if the post is to be believed, we have tarnished our reputation by:
  1. Offering a sound, economic plan to save Londoners years of additional tax burden.
  2. Build two outstanding state of the art and viable stadia,
  3. Bring jobs to three areas of London
  4. Local investment in a number of boroughs and sports.
  5. Additional sustainable tourism, from a very short move to another borough of London
  6. Needing no public money or loans from councils who generally are pleading poverty and making severe cut-backs in all services.
  7. Having the honesty to say the running track is not viable whereas we know the Spam will do this in a few years time.
Whereas the winners plan means:
  1. A running track will be preserved that was used for two weeks in the rain during the summer in 2012.
  2. Part of a stadium too large for the new tennants or athletics will survive.
  3. The spam football club needs public money to even bid.
  4. The Athletics legacy will be for a maximum of 20 days in any one year.
  5. The stadium will be a legacy as the worst atmosphere in the league the spam play in. I have experienced several desolate match days at Montjuic olympic stadium in Barcelona with larger crowds than the Spam will ever get they'll and the running track just makes it worse.
  6. The usual collection of backward looking fans (in the name of 'tradition' of course), gutless politicians and talentless committee men have won out.
  7. The Spam plans are financially optimistic at best but probably disasterous as they stand.
If this is how things are done now in the UK, you really are in trouble and a real opportunity has probably been missed.

Spot on, cant this be used as part of Levy's bid?.

The theory that this leak is nothing to do with the actual outcome of the meeting is, in a word, crapola.
theres no smoke without fire and as stupid as it is, i believe that WHFC will win the bid, i think it is all but 'arranged'. The people that are dealing with this will not want to lose face and they will foresake what they know is the better bid just to spite this.

Its hard for them to turn around and say they are wrong after they have spent so much time and effort saying they are right, that is what the pompas english are good at, pretending theres no problem and carrying on regardless just to save their face.

This move would have been ace for us, it would have put us where we want and need to be much sooner and with less cost. if wet spam get it we will have a longer wait for the promised land and we will not be able to compete for the players that we need.
 

asher

Member
Dec 7, 2006
352
28
It surprises me that Enfield have not tried to entice Spurs to their borough. Much better transport links than Haringey and the amount of revenue and jobs it would bring to their borough would be immense. Great kudos for the borough and we remain in North London. Surely they must have some undeveloped land that they could sell us cheap!!!
 

eddiev14

SC Supporter
Jan 18, 2005
7,173
19,679
Aren't solicitors the lawyers that make all the money? My understanding is that the barristers get all of the glory but less of the gold.

Anyway, I get what you're saying.

Jesus, look at me, I'm not normally such a pedant!

Oh... Go Levy! :)
 

jolsnogross

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2005
3,729
5,431
jolsnogross

It's not the shame of being rejected that concerns me but the shame of trying to muscle in on somebody else's territory, spiking their opportunity, when we have opportunities of our own closer to home.

Why should W.Ham be shamed by their application?

Fair enough Jimmy, I wasn't targeting my comment at your article, although you do say if there's one thing worse than trying to mug someone, it's failing at trying to mug someone. So you're suggesting we aught to be even more ashamed if the bid proves unsuccessful.

My post was directed at commenters on this thread and others - I don't agree with moving to Stratford but the club isn't embarrassed by the bid because it is just responding to a request for proposals and the bid wasn't an unprofessional one.

But I agree that we're muscling in on Orient, contravening FA and League rules, and that's a shame. West Ham are guilty of the same.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
So if the post is to be believed, we have tarnished our reputation by:
  1. Offering a sound, economic plan to save Londoners years of additional tax burden.
  2. Build two outstanding state of the art and viable stadia,
  3. Bring jobs to three areas of London
  4. Local investment in a number of boroughs and sports.
  5. Additional sustainable tourism, from a very short move to another borough of London
  6. Needing no public money or loans from councils who generally are pleading poverty and making severe cut-backs in all services.
  7. Having the honesty to say the running track is not viable whereas we know the Spam will do this in a few years time.
Good point. There is a lot of good that would have arisen from our plan. A cogent, viable business plan and bringing benefits to local and/or regional communities are not mutually exclusive, and 'business' isn't a dirty word.

jolsnogross
It's not the shame of being rejected that concerns me but the shame of trying to muscle in on somebody else's territory, spiking their opportunity, when we have opportunities of our own closer to home.

Why should W.Ham be shamed by their application?
I agree that, morally, we perhaps should not have tried to 'muscle in' on somebody else's territory. But that 'somebody' is not Wet Spam, it is Leyton Orient. That is the main reason why they (Spam) should be shamed by their application; that and their hypocrisy. They continually bleated about us moving into their 'manor' when it isn't theirs to start with, and their presence there could sound the death knell for Orient in a way that ours - I believe - would not.

They should also be ashamed of the disgraceful way that they - principally in the form of one K. Brady - have conducted a campaign based on lies and propaganda. (Shame which, incidentally, the BBC and other media outlets should share for their inaccurate, poorly-researched and biased reporting.)

As regards your point about our public image being damaged, Jim, if people are so easily swayed by obvious lies and vitriol, does their opinion really matter to you?
 

HotspurFC1950

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2011
4,223
2,623
I agree with you. This whole process has damaged our pride and our reputation and that really hurts.

I have never wanted anything but the Tottenham plan to go ahead and if we need backing and get no help from Haringey, there are other huge consortiums and companies out there who would very likely be willing to step in - AEG might even do that even if the Stratford option is out of the picture, because we are a valid business prospect now. Haringey could have been included in any future profits so they will lose out in the long run which is a pity for the run-down place that N17 is nowadays.

Of course I am proud of our past glories, but I fully accept that we need to move on and grow to compete at the highest level, where we truly belong.

Stratford was never the solution. There will be another and better one.


The decision is a disaster.

C'mon Daniel pull a rabbit out of the hat.
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
I agree that the decision will be a disaster for W.Ham and JuanRebelde's analysis is substantially correct.
But it is a political not a financial decision.

Let's hope that Levy can manipulate the NDP situation as skillfully as he has manipulated the fans.

Spud.
I take your point about Leyton Orient but the principle is the same.
 

Sweetsman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2011
6,673
6,588
Excellent article, JimmyG2. The worst aspect of the whole episode is the disdain, and from some posters downright bile, towards the locals of Tottenham. They have been next-door neighbours for over a century. The bollocks spoken about not being able to compete is belied by the consistently positive financial results, as well as the football we are still managing to produce.
I still think that the decision will go in favour of Spurs and then Lewis/ENIC can cash in selling the club. It's franchise football, folks!
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
For another view on the subject here is a post on this article from my blog by a Man. City fan.
Filed under 'Be careful what you wish for'

tublu said...
be careful what you wish for spuds. does it -really- affect your feelings for your club if you can't get an extra 20,000 day trippers and corporate tossers into a home game ? really ? I'm a neutral here (man city fan) and have some experience, moving to a new stadium is not all good. the atmosphere stinks for years. we're only just starting to get one going now. We have hundreds of 'greeters' ushering suits from limos to the posh seats at games, huge sections of the stadium full of corporates politely clinking their champagne flutes when city score etc etc. that's not what I signed on fo in the 70's. You should cherish what you have at whl. make it a bit bigger if you can but FFS don't throw it away. once it's gone it's gone....
10 February 2011 22:30

He may be wrong about the financial aspect of the extra 20,000 but I take his word for the rest.
 
Top