The anti-Stratford protests begin!

[talkshowhost86]

1. A new ground can be built there. Any savings or extra earnings from moving to Stratford are either a. illusory, b. would be corporate-based or c. would be taken by the PLC. The new ground would enable us to raise the money to compete with Chelsea and Arsenal.

I still don't understand this argument. (1) If the savings were 'illusory' why would we pick that. Whatever Levy's motives he wouldn't plow cash into 'illusory' savings. (2) This whole corporate argument is rubbish. If anything the cheaper stadium means less corporate involvement (if we have to use that blanket term) and wherever we move the 'corporate' section will be bigger than it is now. (3) Why is the money that would be taken from the OS any more likely to go to the PLC than money made from the NDP?

2. To move would be to betray the local community in Tottenham, an area of great deprivation.

Much as the area would suffer, it's not the club's job to keep the area going. That may be a harsh assessment but I don't pay my £810 quid per year for a season ticket to help the area around the stadium. I pay it to watch the football team and that is what needs to come first.

3. To move would be to betray our heritage as a north London club, turning us into a franchise club similar to Arsenal. We would surrender moral authority over Arsenal, and North London would, in no sense, be ours.

This is the only real argument for staying in the area at this stage and we will see how important this turns out to be. Our heritage is important (though 'moral authority' over Arsenal is not) but is it worth potentially limiting the club's future? And I say potentially because we still don't really know the cost differences between the two stadia. It may come down to how much everyone thinks our heritage is worth.

4. We would betray the promises made by the Olympic Bid, denying athletics the legacy it deserves.

(1) It is 100% not our job to keep the promises made by an Olympic bid that didn't involve us at all. If they wanted to keep those promises they should have sorted out an anchor tenant before they started building. (2) Our plan actually includes (at this stage) refurbishing the existing national athletics stadium which is far more sensible anyway as there won't be a single athletics event in Britain after the Olympics that needs a 60,000 seater stadium.

There be my views

 

[MattyP]

There be my views

Couple of points.

In respect of 1) The figures touted out by Keirle last week of £200m are not comparing like for like. Comparing like for like he actually stated the cost of building the new stadium would be roughly the same.

The additional £200m of cost is in relation to the hotel, housing, supermarket. Presumably we are not going to spend £200m building these and then give them away for free? Presumably we would even look to make a profit on them.

In respect of 2) You may pay your £810 a year to support the club, but you do spend money in facilities around the area, like the B&H.

In respect of 3) See response to 1 above.

In respect of 4) Were we to bid for the World Championships and are awarded it I'd expect the 100 metre finals could attract a liven audience of 60,000.

 

[chrissivad]

Apart from being Spurs fans I have no idea who organised it.

WeareN17 have been pretty decent at communicating when things are/have been planned, so I'd imagine if and when they get involved it will be a lot more co-ordinated than Sunday.

If they (WeareN17) did in fact organise Sunday, then it's no surprise there were so few people there as they didn't tell people who had actually signed up to support their cause.

it was WeareN17 that did the protest on Sunday.
one of the guys (was interviews for SSN for WeareN17) was talking about it on COYS.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Couple of points.

In respect of 1) The figures touted out by Keirle last week of £200m are not comparing like for like. Comparing like for like he actually stated the cost of building the new stadium would be roughly the same.

The additional £200m of cost is in relation to the hotel, housing, supermarket. Presumably we are not going to spend £200m building these and then give them away for free? Presumably we would even look to make a profit on them.

In respect of 2) You may pay your £810 a year to support the club, but you do spend money in facilities around the area, like the B&H.

In respect of 3) See response to 1 above.

In respect of 4) Were we to bid for the World Championships and are awarded it I'd expect the 100 metre finals could attract a liven audience of 60,000.

1) I'm sure that's all correct but again I ask, if there isn't a financial gain by moving to Stratford why would Levy even consider it? There seems to be some belief that he's always had evil plans to move us to Stratford and I suspect there's only a 0.000001% chance that's the case.

2 + 3) Whichever way it's spun, Spurs' decision needs to be based on what's best for the club, not what is best for the area. Spurs are a business, however much people don't want that to be the case, and they therefore need to base a decision of this magnitude on what is best for the club, not the surrounding area.

4) :grin:

 

[michaelden]

1. A new ground can be built there. Any savings or extra earnings from moving to Stratford are either a. illusory, b. would be corporate-based or c. would be taken by the PLC. The new ground would enable us to raise the money to compete with Chelsea and Arsenal.

2. To move would be to betray the local community in Tottenham, an area of great deprivation.

3. To move would be to betray our heritage as a north London club, turning us into a franchise club similar to Arsenal. We would surrender moral authority over Arsenal, and North London would, in no sense, be ours.

4. We would betray the promises made by the Olympic Bid, denying athletics the legacy it deserves.

Sooo... basically you don't want to move so in an arguement with an Arsenal fan you'll still have the moral high ground?

 

[MattyP]

it was WeareN17 that did the protest on Sunday.
one of the guys (was interviews for SSN for WeareN17) was talking about it on COYS.

I know that they were outside the B&H, but if you look at the footage of the protest outside the main gate / the one that closed the High Road, there did not seem to be a single WeareN17 banner there.

But if it was them, maybe they should have communicated that it was taking place. :shrug:

 

[michaelden]

In respect of 4) Were we to bid for the World Championships and are awarded it I'd expect the 100 metre finals could attract a liven audience of 60,000.

mg: That is one hell of an expensive 10 second race!

 

[SpurSince57]

1) I'm sure that's all correct but again I ask, if there isn't a financial gain by moving to Stratford why would Levy even consider it? There seems to be some belief that he's always had evil plans to move us to Stratford and I suspect there's only a 0.000001% chance that's the case.

2 + 3) Whichever way it's spun, Spurs' decision needs to be based on what's best for the club, not what is best for the area. Spurs are a business, however much people don't want that to be the case, and they therefore need to base a decision of this magnitude on what is best for the club, not the surrounding area.

4) :grin:

I am sure that someone (Peanut?) posted that we hadn't succeeded in flogging the naming rights to the New Lane yet. What the hell's happened to Robofan? I've a feeling that a lot of this has to do with AEG, and where's that going to lead us?

 

[Samson]

Sooo... basically you don't want to move so in an arguement with an Arsenal fan you'll still have the moral high ground?

They aren't my reasons- I think the finances argument is wrong, though sincerely argued. They're the arguments against.

It needs to be said when talking about our heritage that we've placed much more value on our origins in North London than the average club, even within London- the pride of London, an essentially, originally North London, in fact. It's a massive factor- it's for good reason that our fans sing an adapted version of an anti-Arsenal song against the Stratford move. "No more North London derby", as a few people have mentioned.
That is deeply engrained in us.

 

[AngerManagement]

Sooo... basically you don't want to move so in an arguement with an Arsenal fan you'll still have the moral high ground?

There is no moral high ground, Arsenal moved in 1913. I seriously doubt there is an Arsenal fan alive who cares in the slighest when spurs fans call them Woolwich or thinks they have some sort of moral highground over them because historically Arsenal come from South East London.

It's petty and foolish and it means nothing, we don't have anything over Arsenal as a result of them moving locations. It's just a part of their history, does anyone actually think Arsenal fans care when Spurs fans go on about this shit?

To me it comes down to what is best for the club, I really don't care if we stay or go I will follow SPURS regardless and I just want the best for the club and it's future (so it can continue to progress and compete at the top level)

If Stratford is best for us from this respect I am all for it, and this Say No to Stratford protest outside the ground just looks pathetic with a bunch of half a dozen knuckle draggers singing a shit song while a few people stand around to see what's going on.

Poor turn out really, surely such a weak effort does more harm than good for their cause.

To me the only reason to stay in Tottenham is the importance of the clubs heritage, personally i don't care as I am one who believes the past and our memories can never be erased whether we stay or go, but i understand why people feel this would be reason enough to stay.

The money is key though, IF moving to Stratford saves the club hundreds of millions of pounds or enables us to generate much more money in the long run then I think the club has to do what is best for itself, obviously there are conflicting reports as to what the finiancial ramifications of each option may be but personally I am think Levy and Enic would not be looking to Stratford unless the move were significantly better for the club.

But then there are those of you who believe the board to be selling the club down the river with this move for their own gain, I'm not of this opinion but I can understand the concern.

I will just wait and see if we even get awarded the bid before I think too hard about the subject. Whatever happens with factors beyond my control i will support the club no matter if we stay or move.

 

[talkshowhost86]

I am sure that someone (Peanut?) posted that we hadn't succeeded in flogging the naming rights to the New Lane yet. What the hell's happened to Robofan? I've a feeling that a lot of this has to do with AEG, and where's that going to lead us?

Isn't being able to sell the naming rights a financial benefit?

 

[MattyP]

I am sure that someone (Peanut?) posted that we hadn't succeeded in flogging the naming rights to the New Lane yet. What the hell's happened to Robofan? I've a feeling that a lot of this has to do with AEG, and where's that going to lead us?

Hardly surprising really. Through their actions, or inaction, our own Board are conveying a message that they do not believe in the merits of the NDP.

How can we therefore expect any other company to part with £100m-£150m for naming rights?

 

[SpurSince57]

Isn't being able to sell the naming rights a financial benefit?

Of course it is. :shrug:

 

[talkshowhost86]

Of course it is. :shrug:

Sorry we seem to be arguing the same thing.

 

[jimmyn16]

it was WeareN17 that did the protest on Sunday.
one of the guys (was interviews for SSN for WeareN17) was talking about it on COYS.

The WeareN17 guys did not organise the protest outside the main entrance. They were collecting signatures for their petition outside the Bell and Hare and made it clear before the match that they were not organising a protest or march.

 

[EastLondonYid]

tottenham till i die

 

[roosh]

tottenham till i die

tottenham [hotspur] til i die.....I'm from Ireland

EDIT:

East London Yid

 

[roosh]

Couple of points.

In respect of 1) The figures touted out by Keirle last week of £200m are not comparing like for like. Comparing like for like he actually stated the cost of building the new stadium would be roughly the same.

The additional £200m of cost is in relation to the hotel, housing, supermarket. Presumably we are not going to spend £200m building these and then give them away for free? Presumably we would even look to make a profit on them.

The thing is, we will have to spend £200m on them upfront, and incur the associated interest charges, as well as having to devote resources away from the core competencies of the club, such as time, money and manpower to maintain and manage these. We will also have to try and look to turn a profit on these, in an economic climate that is not necessarily conducive to large scale property development.


The last bit is very anecdotal on my part, but in the current economic climate, turning a profit on those will be much harder, plus they will divery resources from the core competencies of running a football club.

 

[roosh]

personally, my own opinion would be that we should stay, as long as that is what is in the best, long term interests of THFC (which is inextricably linked with TH plc). Whichever option maximises the future prospects of the club is what we should go for.

It would be great if that meant staying where we are, but if not, then I wouldn't be opposed to the move.

 

[spursman85]

I'm not in favour of the move, but I've just tracked down this Independent article which says we may not have much choice.

"The Independent on Sunday understands the alternative of a redeveloped White Hart Lane as part of the Northumberland Park Development is gradually being considered a less viable option because of costs involved and demands being put on the club by the local authority."

Would people accept the move if it meant we were able to grow and redevelopment wasn't an option?