Because Wembley is not the home stadium. It's chosen until the home ground gets ready, and now it's ready.
New White Hart Lane - Delayed
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
Because Wembley is not the home stadium. It's chosen until the home ground gets ready, and now it's ready.
No, it was meant to be their stadium for 1 home game and the PL bent the rules to allow Spurs even that.
I'm personally not overly fussed about the use of two stadiums but the dishonesty and contempt for supporters that Spurs have shown over this is shameful. I'm sure they knew long before that the stadium had no chance of being ready to open in September but waited until a month before to annouce it.
I'm personally not overly fussed about the use of two stadiums but the dishonesty and contempt for supporters that Spurs have shown over this is shameful. I'm sure they knew long before that the stadium had no chance of being ready to open in September but waited until a month before to annouce it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Are people really getting weird about where Spurs play, who cares? There is a huge difference between say moving all your big home games to a local bigger stadium to get a financial advantage but playing the rest of your games at your normal home stadium. That's the reason for having one home stadium, a new stadium is a pretty much a once in 30-50 years thing at most, why anyone would care about it I really don't know.
Financially speaking I did wonder if Spurs actually gained from being at Wembley and if it would be a strange quirk that last season might be more profitable than their first full season in the new stadium as at least in the first year they had some pretty decent attendance numbers and still do for big games iirc. It's a horrible stadium though, went I think twice and never again. Stupidly it was much nicer for the game to go all the way to Cardiff to watch Brentford and Arsenal than it was to go to Wembley after. Depending on the cost per game to Wembley 80k tickets vs is it 62k could be a drop in actual income, though still way higher than before that.
In terms of first game there, I went to the Bergkamp testimonial, wasn't full, and I went to Brazil vs Argentina but I can't recall if I got to go to the first league game... general sale was probably tough as hell for that game. It's not that big a deal, it's as with the seeming test event, it's just a way to make sure there are no issues before a league/competitive game gets played. There was Bergkamp t-shirt on every seat and because we were high up behind the goal with loads of seats empty me, my friend and another 20-30 arsenal fans went around getting all the free t-shirts we could carry. Still have a bunch of them around somewhere in a box with my old Brentford and Arsenal shirts.
Financially speaking I did wonder if Spurs actually gained from being at Wembley and if it would be a strange quirk that last season might be more profitable than their first full season in the new stadium as at least in the first year they had some pretty decent attendance numbers and still do for big games iirc. It's a horrible stadium though, went I think twice and never again. Stupidly it was much nicer for the game to go all the way to Cardiff to watch Brentford and Arsenal than it was to go to Wembley after. Depending on the cost per game to Wembley 80k tickets vs is it 62k could be a drop in actual income, though still way higher than before that.
In terms of first game there, I went to the Bergkamp testimonial, wasn't full, and I went to Brazil vs Argentina but I can't recall if I got to go to the first league game... general sale was probably tough as hell for that game. It's not that big a deal, it's as with the seeming test event, it's just a way to make sure there are no issues before a league/competitive game gets played. There was Bergkamp t-shirt on every seat and because we were high up behind the goal with loads of seats empty me, my friend and another 20-30 arsenal fans went around getting all the free t-shirts we could carry. Still have a bunch of them around somewhere in a box with my old Brentford and Arsenal shirts.
That happens all the time with weather conditions though which are broadly predictable - if you play someone in August it will be warmer than playing them in January, so not the same.
Some clubs have their grounds used for other sports / concerts, so the pitch isn't in comparable condition (literally not a level playing field!).
Then consider stadium expansions, I'm pretty sure Old Trafford got increased in size mid-season so again different conditions for the teams that had to go there.
I'm not too bothered about it either way but I would've thought if they aren't going to use the new stadium properly until April they may as well have just waited until next season, I can only imagine there is some sort of financial implication.
All those things are uncontrollable though. You cannot predict the weather conditions or the state of the pitch, it's luck of the draw. This is a conscious decision to allow one side to play in two completely different stadiums. It doesn't bother me personally and who knows whether it's going to be an advantage or disadvantage to Spurs/their opponents but it's clearly not going to be the same for all, which is the purpose of the rule.
Like you, I'm struggling to see the sense in moving for the sake of 4 games. Had they waited until the opening day of next season they could have built it up and had a big grand opening, instead with just two weeks to go they don't even know when the opening will be or who it will be against. A bit of an anticlimax for a £1bn stadium. I can only assume that Spurs have been hit so hard by the spiralling costs of the stadium and costs of hiring Wembley that they've had to move ASAP.
Like you, I'm struggling to see the sense in moving for the sake of 4 games. Had they waited until the opening day of next season they could have built it up and had a big grand opening, instead with just two weeks to go they don't even know when the opening will be or who it will be against. A bit of an anticlimax for a £1bn stadium. I can only assume that Spurs have been hit so hard by the spiralling costs of the stadium and costs of hiring Wembley that they've had to move ASAP.
They are pretty predictable, the average low temp in August is much higher than the average high temp in January for example. OT getting made bigger was hardly uncontrollable, they could have capped the number of tickets and not allowed MU to sell more than that number until the following season.
Then you've got transfer windows, not really the same conditions if the opponent has made transfers between fixtures, e.g. last season depending on fixtures you might play Arsenal before or after Sanchez left, that's a conscious decision by the regulating body to permit mid-season transfers.
That said, if the rule is in place it should be adhered to, I guess it was a bit of a weird scenario because the FA have a vested interest in Wembley rather than it just being some random ground Spurs were using.
Then you've got transfer windows, not really the same conditions if the opponent has made transfers between fixtures, e.g. last season depending on fixtures you might play Arsenal before or after Sanchez left, that's a conscious decision by the regulating body to permit mid-season transfers.
That said, if the rule is in place it should be adhered to, I guess it was a bit of a weird scenario because the FA have a vested interest in Wembley rather than it just being some random ground Spurs were using.
Obviously you can have a rough guess at what the weather will be like in August compared to January but the fixtures are drawn randomly and you cannot control whether 1 side will play in perfect 20c weather and the other in a mud bath. It's the luck of the draw. I see your point regarding Old Trafford but relatively speaking that's an incredibly minor change - it's still the same stadium, changing rooms, pitch etc, just +- a few thousands supporters. As for the transfer window, iinm part of the reason why it was introduced was to make things as equal as possible during the season and that was also part of the reason why the PL moved the end of the summer window to fall in line with the start of the season. Clearly there is a need for a mid season window though and having one means that you cannot make things 100% equal but it is pretty much right in the middle of the season and any new signings/sales will/won't be available for pretty much every opposition.
You're never going to have a perfectly even playing field, where every side plays every other in the exact same conditions but it's understandable why the PL would want to put rules in place on things they can both control and where there isn't a justifiable reason for allowing some flexibility. As I've said before, it's not something that particularly bothers me as I can see it having the potential to be both an advantage or disadvantage but once the PL have put the rule in place and given their reasons regarding conditions being equal for all opponents, it seems odd for them to change it for no good reason, particularly for just 4 games.
Soldato
makes no difference where Spurs play, they will still bottle it, they are master of how to finish 3rd in a 2 horse race and will bottle top 4 this season regardless of where their home games are played.
I guess the problem was that they originally made an exception on the assumption that the new ground would be ready soon; there were supposed to be test events by early September with proper games from October or in other words only using Wembley for a couple of months this season at most. So the decision to let them use two grounds was made before the season even kicked off it is just that instead of a handful of games at Wembley it is now a handful of games at SHL. There is no guarantee that Wembley would be available even if they wanted Spurs to see out the season there, e.g. they are supposed to be playing a league game on the same day as the women's FA cup final.
Yea, I strongly suspect it was a tactic from Spurs to drip feed news of the delay. The stadium was meant to open on the 15th September and Spurs were still going with that date right up until a week after the season kicked off(?) despite there being no pitch and cranes all over the place still. Had they announced it before the season had kicked off then there's a good chance the PL would have blocked them moving into their stadium until next season.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...urs-new-home-sets-benchmark-modern-stadia/amp
Tottenham Hotspur’s new home sets benchmark for modern stadia
Tottenham Hotspur’s new home sets benchmark for modern stadia
Man of Honour
Couldn't/can't make any of the test events, but looking forward to the 3rd. I've taken the afternoon off work to have a good look round and have a beer or 3 to soak in the occasion 
A bit of a kick in the nuts for Spurs and an odd decision from the PL & Sky that the opening game isn't going to be televised. The Palace game was originally selected to be shown on Sky but they've now changed that and will be showing the City - Cardiff game instead.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 47
It's been a bumpy ride for Spurs for sure, and everyone involved (my colleagues and I included), but I'm really pleased to see it has all been worth it. The stadium looks amazing, the facilities world class and hopefully it will have the atmosphere to match.