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?
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.
