New White Hart Lane - Delayed

Spurs will be really crossing their fingers that it's just the Liverpool and Cardiff games that they're not ready for. Their next home game is vs City on the same day that Wembley is being used for a NFL game. Spurs might have to go cap in hand asking Arsenal, Chelsea or West Ham to borrow their ground for the day.
 
Yea, my comment was tongue in cheek. I'm certain postponing the game won't be an option either. I'd guess they'll switch the City game to Manchester and play at home when they were meant to play City away.
 
Yes, I've read that City aren't willing to agree to a switch because it will mean 3 away games on the bounce at the business end of the season. Who knows what will happen.

I do wonder how economical with the truth Spurs have been about all this. A couple of years ago the PL were saying that it wasn't possible for a team to play at 2 different stadiums during the season. You have to wonder whether the PL would have agreed to more than the initial 1 game being played at Wembley had Spurs proposed that to begin with.
 
Another update on Spurs new stadium:

https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/ne...champions-league-group-stage-fixtures-update/

They still aren't in a position to provide a new opening date and as such have now moved the City game to Wembley (which has been moved to a Monday due to NFL being held at Wembley on the original date), as well as all 3 CL group games.

It's already been announced that Spurs are trying to move their League Cup tie to Milton Keynes, which Watford aren't too happy about. It's interesting to see whether Spurs are allowed to do this - I remember when we had to play our first few games away from home due to work on our new main stand, we agreed prior to the draw that we would play our League Cup game away from home.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
It's been quite painful to be honest. Venue, date and time switches leaving me not sure were I am with all this. It's bad enough the likes of Sky and BT changing the fixtures..

I spent a whole ****** day last week on holiday trying to claim last years seat for the Liverpool game at Wembley which I eventually got it at 10pm.. I learnt later their servers were down so they can't even get that right. As a season ticket holder, I shouldn't have had to go though all that. Fortunately, they didn't charge any admin or booking fees as that would have been a real kick in the teeth.
I'm happy to wait for the new stadium as and when it comes. Safety has to come first but I don't understand why the Watford game can't be held at the Olympic Stadium as a one off.
Click to expand...

Being the cynic that I am, I don't believe this "critical safety systems" line from the club. The stadium was due to host the Liverpool game in 12 days time and before it could it needed to hold multiple test events first - you only have to look at the latest pics (you can see regular updates on skyscrapercity) to see that there wasn't a chance in hell that the stadium would be complete in 12 days time, let alone before that to hold these test events, regardless of any safety systems that need fixing.

I don't know a thing about construction, let alone construction on this scale but if you look back at comments within the thread on skyscrapercity from those with some understanding, for the past 6+ months there's been regular posts stating that there's no chance the stadium will open on time. I really struggle to believe that Spurs didn't know, when the fixtures were announced less than 3 months ago, that the Liverpool game was never possible.

It really does look like Spurs have drip fed news of the delay to protect season & corporate ticket sales for the new stadium and or because they were concerned that the PL wouldn't allow them to move into the stadium in November had that been the initial proposal.
 
Janesy B said:
Fixtures always change because of TV scheduling anyway. Spurs aren't being pandered to, it's just that the actual people running the game (and the other clubs who approve these fixture changes) understand the complexity of a project and punishing the players and fans with points deductions because of delays in construction is just the fantasy of salty opposing fans.

Liverpool were allowed to play a row of fixtures away to accommodate renovation works, same with West Ham who can't use their stadium sometimes because it's not actually theirs. It happens more often than people realise.

I wanted to go to Man Utd away, but it was 8pm on a Monday bank holiday meaning I wouldn't get home until about 4 in the morning. Newcastle still stick fans right at the back of the tallest tier despite the rules stating that there should be an away section by the pitch, and Newcastle's excuse is 'fans might die' if they are placed near the pitch near home fans. Where is the points deduction there?
Click to expand...

Without getting into whether Spurs should be docked points, your comparisons aren't fair. Yes, games get moved for TV but this was already done - these games have been moved a 2nd time, after supporters have bought tickets, made travel & hotel arrangements.

You mention Liverpool playing 3 games away from home in a row - that's correct, they requested and stuck to an agreement that a single game would be reversed. It should be pointed out that Liverpool did encounter delays in the building of our main stand which were out of our control - due to us playing an unprecedented amount of home games in the previous season (32-33(?) games due to runs in both the League Cup and Europa League) numerous build days were scrapped and resulted in the stand not being complete for the opening of the season. Even to open in September required Liverpool to focus on completing the actual stand/facilities for the general public and we used portable changing rooms for the opening few months while these were being finished. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we also agreed that our League Cup game would be away from home regardless of the draw. We did not request to play home games at two different venues - something that Richard Scudamore said would not be possible in the PL.

Tottenham haven't simply been allowed to reverse a single fixture. Initially they were also allowed to play a single home game at Wembley, something that we were previously told wasn't possible. They've then not been able to stick to that agreement and been allowed to move a further 2 home games to Wembley after the fixture announcements, are trying to get permission to play a League Cup game as the home team at a neutral venue and now again moved another home game to Wembley and had the date moved, which has had knock on effects to other games too. And still can't say when the stadium will be ready to open. I think it's fair to say Tottenham have been pandered to.

I'm not massively fussed about whether Spurs should be allowed to play home games at two stadiums but the moving of fixtures after they've been announced and after the TV dates/times have been set is not on. My biggest issue though is that I don't believe for one moment that this is simply a case of unforeseen construction delays as you've suggested and is that a justifiable reason anyway? Again, I'm not a construction expert and maybe I'm completely wrong but you only had to look at the state of Spurs stadium 2-3 months ago (when the fixtures were announced) to see that the Liverpool game wasn't realistic - why did Spurs wait until after the start of the season, just a month before this game was due, to tell us this? Given that the stadium was still not nearly complete and they had to host multiple test events before they could play a PL game there, surely they knew well in advance? Why have they waited another 3 weeks before announcing (at least) a further 6 week delay? Is it because Spurs feared that the PL wouldn't agree to letting them play 4-5 home games at Wembley before moving into their new ground had they proposed that to begin with? Is it because Spurs realised it would massively hit season & corporate ticket sales had they announced it in the summer? It could even be as simple as to protect themselves from further fan backlash after a lack of transfer activity. But even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and they did genuinely intend to be in the new ground for the Liverpool game - ultimately they set themselves an unrealistic target. I've read reports that there's no penalty clauses in contracts with the contractors because Spurs acknowledge that they were working to a tight (impossible?) deadline. Given the rules and what Scudamore said re playing all home games at one stadium, I think it's fair that if Spurs weren't in a position to guarantee that the new stadium wasn't going to be ready in time that they should have been forced to open next season.
 
Janesy B said:
That is not true, no tickets were sold. Ticket sales weren't even open to Tottenham fans for the Man City game.
Click to expand...
Tickets may not have been sold for the Spurs game but what about the other games that have been moved as a result of this change? I know that Liverpool for example, start selling tickets for all games in the first half of the seasons as soon as the dates have been set.

edit: and of course just because tickets may not have been on sale yet, that doesn't mean that supporters haven't already made travel and hotel arrangements.
 
Janesy B said:
30th of August was when season ticket holders from last year could get their ticket, 31st for Members and the tickets have gone on general sale today.

The date and time for the Liverpool game is the same, both Wembley and WHL are accessible from the tube - if Liverpool fans are in London they can still go. Most will just take the coach/train on the day.

As for the Man City fixture, that would have been 2 months notice that the fixture would be rescheduled.

I wouldn't book anything without tickets, fixtures are always subject to change due to TV, domestic and European cups.

It's a rubbish situation for everyone, including Spurs fans but it's not a huge inconvenience.
Click to expand...
I agree, the Liverpool game isn't a major issue however the date changes for the other fixtures are. And I was referring to the Utd - Everton game that's supposed to have been moved when I said 'what about other games...'. I have no idea if they have gone on sale already btw, I'm just speculating but if they have then their supporters will have massively been put out as a result of this. And while you may not book anything without having your ticket, numerous fans do and have. You say that fixtures are subject to change due to TV but aren't acknowledging that these matches were already moved due to TV and it's fair to assume that the date & time that was originally set would be the date and time the game will be played. The vast majority of City supporters that would have been traveling to the Spurs game would have probably known, even if they hadn't physically purchased their ticket, that they met the criteria to get a ticket and are very likely to have made plans for this game. The situation is far worse for Utd supporters - they have large numbers of supporters that travel from Ireland & Scandinavia (and other parts of the world) every week and these supporters would have made plans and purchased packages (packages being sold even if tickets weren't officially for sale) well in advance.

You're right, it's a rubbish situation but as I said in reply to you originally, the lack of clarity (and imo honesty) from Spurs has caused these issues. These problems being faced now are exactly the reason why, if Spurs weren't in a position to guarantee that the stadium would open on time (and that includes leaving enough leeway for possible hiccups along the way) then they should have been forced to open next season. And if they did provide guarantees that the stadium would open on time then they should be faced with some penalties - points deductions may seem extreme but at the very least a fine well into the millions.
 
HangTime said:
Now approved, seems a bit out of order to me as further to travel for both sets of fans than switching it to Watford would have been. WHL, Wembley and Watford are all travelcard destinations whereas MK is not. Not to mention people could have booked travel / hotels etc in advance.
Not really clear what it means for gate receipts etc either; presumably Spurs won't make much money out of it so that MK Dons can be sufficiently incentivised, so rather than make everyone a loser why don't they do the honourable thing and switch to Watford?
Click to expand...

It is a strange situation. Any extra revenue from a home tie will be minimal at best, especially once they've paid MK Dons to use their stadium so it's not a financial decision. Equally as a PR move it doesn't make much sense either - I know they've tried to sell it to their fans by saying they wanted to have more tickets available but had Spurs announced before the draw that they'll play away from home regardless, I really don't believe a single Spurs fan would have cared. In fact, asking Spurs fans to play a home game in Milton Keynes is probably going to upset more fans than had they played away from home.

The only possible explanation is that Spurs wanted to have some sort of competitive advantage by playing at home or probably more accurate, not being away from home.
 
Moses said:
Depends how much of the additional costs have to be covered by contractors because of fixed cost contracts/penalty clauses/etc. But yeah, they’ll be affected... but hard to know how much as things stand.
Click to expand...
Levy confirmed sometime ago that due to the complexity of the build and timescale involved that the contractor wouldn't work at a fixed cost nor would there be any penalty clauses for any delay.
 
Vanquish-Storm said:
Really? Bad bit of business surely.

It's just building work at the end of the day, if the contractor wants a blank cheque find a different contractor.
Click to expand...
Really:

DL stressed this was all at the Club’s risk – Mace wouldn’t work to a fixed price contract with this build as there were too many variables and Mace would not be responsible for any overruns. This is a complicated demolition and build
Click to expand...
http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thfcthst-board-to-board-meeting-2-may-2017-report#

You have to assume that due to the complexity of the build, any contractors that were willing to work at a fixed price were asking for well in excess of what Levy thought they could get it done for.
 
Even if the stadium was ready by March, their first game would be Arsenal and it's been reported for a few weeks now that the police won't allow them to have that as their opening game which would mean the earliest possible opening would be the 16th vs Palace. Assuming it's ready for the Palace game, they'll play 5 games at their new ground this season. It's surely reached a stage where it's in everyone's interests if Spurs just commit to staying at Wembley for those few extra games even if it costs them an extra £500k-£1m, get the ground 100% completed, including all the small things that are still not completed and have a proper opening at the start of next season.
 
The fact that they've not made that decision already makes me think they genuinely are going to move into the new ground for 4-5 games. I suspect the additional costs have hit them so hard that Levy wants to avoid any additional fees for hiring Wembley, no matter how insignificant they may seem in the grand scheme of things.
 
I guess another announcement can't be too far away now - Iinm Levy said 2-3 weeks in his last statement which was over 3 weeks ago now. The cynic in me wonders whether Levy's trying to delay releasing yet more bad news to protect Wembley attendances falling any further. With the exception of the Utd game, Spurs attendances have been consistently well below 50k and yesterday dropped below 30k.
 
Judging by Poch's comments today it looks like it's going to be Wembley for the rest of the season. I can understand the financial pressure Spurs are under to make the move asap but surely a proper opening at the start of next season is best for all concerned.
 
As I said before, I know money is tight but surely it makes more sense to open properly at the start of next season? To open with barely a month of the season to go and to not even know the date or opposition until a little over 2 weeks before the game just seems a bit of a farce, although I suppose that is in keeping with the whole situation.
 
It's not really a nonsense arguement. There's no knowing whether Spurs moving into their new stadium will be an advantage or disadvantage but the point is it's not an even playing field for everybody. That was the entire reason why the PL had the rule about 1 stadium for the entire season

And you can't compare a club fielding a weakened team to this. You cannot plan for this or predict who will be in the latter stages of the CL, whether they have anything to play for in the PL and whether they need or will rest players. This situation is clear cut - 4 teams will play under different conditions than the other 15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom