The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure if we have a thread for this already (I couldn't find 1) but it looks as if West Ham have won the Olympic stadium bid.

And I know Levy mentioned it a couple of weeks back now; Spurs have no intention of following up their plans to build a new stadium at White Hart Lane, something I said would happen the day Spurs revealed those plans :p

Tummy said:
What is everyone in the SA a short arse ala Cheets?
Click to expand...

With your head so far up his arse, G|mp must be pushing 7 foot :)
 
BaZ87 said:
Not sure if we have a thread for this already (I couldn't find 1) but it looks as if West Ham have won the Olympic stadium bid.

And I know Levy mentioned it a couple of weeks back now; Spurs have no intention of following up their plans to build a new stadium at White Hart Lane, something I said would happen the day Spurs revealed those plans :p
Click to expand...

Due to it not being viable or somesuch.

Personally, I had come around to the idea of moving to the OS.

I wonder what the fans who protested against this think now.

1: The redevelopment plans won't go ahead anyway.
2: We'll have to move somewhere. Only now it'll take longer and set the club back.
 
Without really knowing the ins and outs of each deal it appears a strange decision on the surface.

No offence to W Ham, but Spurs are more likely to fill it each week. What use is a stadium that large for the former particularly if they're relegated? With the track in place are they going to get that many more seats than the 35,000 they already have? A lot of fans who visit their new homes dislike running tracks surrounding pitch because they're further away from the pitch, e.g. I think Real Sociedad's supporters are against their multi-purpose ground.

I had thought Spurs were only going to remove the track, and upgrade the site to a 50k+ all seater site, but the latest news from the Beeb suggests they were going to knock it down and build their own ground. Got to say that does sound unappealing in a freshly developed area.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Without really knowing the ins and outs of each deal it appears a strange decision on the surface.

No offence to W Ham, but Spurs are more likely to fill it each week. What use is a stadium that large for the former particularly if they're relegated? With the track in place are they going to get that many more seats than the 35,000 they already have? A lot of fans who visit their new homes dislike running tracks surrounding pitch because they're further away from the pitch, e.g. I think Real Sociedad's supporters are against their multi-purpose ground.

I had thought Spurs were only going to remove the track, and upgrade the site to a 50k+ all seater site, but the latest news from the Beeb suggests they were going to knock it down and build their own ground. Got to say that does sound unappealing in a freshly developed area.
Click to expand...


The Spurs proposal also included redeveloping Crystal Palace.
 
They were only going to dismantle the structure above ground, they were planning on keeping all the underground infrastructure. It would also generate the best return for the Olympic committee.

Personally I think that crystal palace is where the legacy should be, it is the home of athletics. Spurs should have got it and this is coming from an Arsenal fan.
 
Spurs are just going to sit tight and watch west ham struggle to afford the ground in the championship and then make a cheeky bid on the cheap to west ham.
 
Why would West Ham struggle to afford the plan, the stadium is being built for them essentially, apparently its only 90mil upfront for the work to change it to a 60k seater stadium and filling it isn't a requirement in getting it.

If Brentford finally get a new stadium thats quite a bit bigger but has other facilities it wasn't about being able to instantly fill it to 25k(the old old plan) it was about being able to provide for future growth, and yes they could fill up a significant portion of it.

Simple fact is Spurs can build anywhere and knocking down parts of the stadium is nuts.

Part of the stadium is only temporary but Levy's public frankly lying was becoming a joke, the stadium was always designed to be cut down to 25k and cost a shedload to do, rubbish, there was an OPTION to cut down to a permanent 60k and 25k as a backup plan. Knocking down everything but the foundations, which are stupidly expensive, is still knocking down something the tax payer has paid for, when they can just build somewhere else, its madness.

Also Spurs did incredibly badly to publicise the real plans, everywhere was saying they planned to bulldoze the stadium almost in full for months on end and pretty much last week Levy came out and said "thats not correct" but Spurs really haven't gone out of their way to publicise the full plan to get public backing behind it.

As for the Crystal palace renovation offer by Spurs, the problem is, Crystal Palace themselves want to build a much better stadium there for themselves, then build a whole sports complex aswell.

In other words, West Ham get the stadium, Spurs build their own, Palace build their own and the other sports facilities are all much improved.

Spurs get the stadium, they knock it down, start (almost) from scratch, build a small complex at Palace and West Ham and Palace are screwed.

One way wastes the least money, gets the most stadiums, building, jobs, renovation of different area's, the other way, the Spurs way, is the most wasteful and harms the plans of 2 other clubs dramatically, its a pretty damn easy option.

The fact I still can't find a really detailed breakdown of Spurs plan is their ultimate failure, public backing is what you need in something like this and for all intents and purposes every promise made to build that half a billion stadium, appears to be getting broken to allow Spurs to go there.

West Ham's bid isn't exactly detailed extensively in most reports but its clearly a dramatically cheaper, simpler, quicker and track inclusive bid.

Also Brady/others are all maintaining that every seat can see every inch of the pitch and the further seats are closer than those at Wembley.

Spurs's arguments of, crap atmosphere if its not instantly filled up, or a track ruining it completely or you can't always see all the pitch are utterly retarded for so many reasons. Some are flat out wrong, some are irrelevant and some are stupid.

Some/many of the biggest footie stadiums in the world have running tracks, its not perfect, but its the modern world of 200-1billion stadiums, you need to recoup money and have as many options for revenue as possible, thats life.
 
skippi90 said:
DM, don't talk until you know all the facts.
Click to expand...

Oh dear no facts no comment. I didn't know we had that new rule. :p

We know the facts or don't you read the papers in your neck of the country?

In black and white:

1 We will keep the Olympic legacy.

2 We will keep Spurs where they belong, in North London.

3 UK Athletics will have a showcase home and not some redeveloped **** hole in South London that nobody can get to.

4 O2/AEG will have some competition with live events across the river.

5 The AEG & Spurs businesses will have to raise money and not get it for free.

6 Londoners (it's what we/they want) will benefit from the outcome.

Anyway Boris will make sure this happens. :D
 
I think its fair enough that West Ham got the stadium, they will keep the stadium with the track, and it wont seem like a big waste of public money, well initially.

I just cant see West Ham putting much more than 20K in that stadium when they are in the Championship, I mean who wants to watch West Ham vs Doncaster from miles away with a pair of binoculars? It will just turn into a dust bowel, with no atmosphere and could be the end of West Ham in a couple years.
 
simulatorman said:
Oh dear no facts no comment. I didn't know we had that new rule. :p

We know the facts or don't you read the papers in your neck of the country?

In black and white:

1 We will keep the Olympic legacy.

2 We will keep Spurs where they belong, in North London.

3 UK Athletics will have a showcase home and not some redeveloped **** hole in South London that nobody can get to.

4 O2/AEG will have some competition with live events across the river.

5 The AEG & Spurs businesses will have to raise money and not get it for free.

6 Londoners (it's what we/they want) will benefit from the outcome.

Anyway Boris will make sure this happens. :D
Click to expand...


When has a newspaper ever cared about facts? :p

Brady was rambling on about how it would be a waste of the taxpayers money for us to rebuild the stadium, when in actual fact, a very small amount would have been lost, which of course would have been reinvested by Spurs, so I don't see the problem there. Not only that, but Crystal Palace also would have been redeveloped.

Then you have the fact that the vast majority of fans do not want a running pitch in their stadium. Athletics and football cannot co-exist perfectly. The distance between the stands and the pitch is an absolute joke, and something that West Ham were also against until the OS went ahead with the running track, put the stadium up for bids and received no offers.

Spurs' proposal for the OS was financially sound, and any monkey could see that there's a much greater possibility of Spurs filling that stadium than West Ham, especially when they start to realise how much the running track will leave them feeling separated from the action. Be prepared for an expensive library in Stratford.


Part of me is glad we remain in Tottenham, but the other part believes that this will set us back a number of years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom