New Stadium

[Greaves357_bestever]

Greavsie,
It could be worked by making sure we are there one weekend and them the next., alternate weekends if you will.
It would be so funny and piss them off if we used the OS against their will. At the end of the day they don't have a say in what happens to the stadium on the 340 days a year that they haven't booked it.

Hi SSB, it could be, but it's not going to be easy, because it's not just about weekends, but all the midweek games that are played. Plus OS is a multi-use venue, not just for football. Also Woolwich games have to be considered in fixture issues, maybe also Orient, Milwall, whoever, am not sure of all the logistics.

Agree about pissing West Ham off, of course

That's one of the reasons I prefer the OS, besides its other attractions, but as I say it's not going to be a simple matter to resolve (IMHO)

 

[pleb]

Stadium MK is fairly nice. I have stayed in the hotel ( Double Tree Hilton ) a couple of times & it's unique to look out over a football pitch !

However, it's worth pointing out it is about 50 minutes walk from Milton Keynes Central. It is 30 minutes by Bus & 10-15 via taxi. The car parking at the Stadium does not, to me, seem big enough to cope with the potential demand. So I can only assume a delightful shuttle service from Station to Stadium awaits for many...

If coming in car via M1....it's a Pain in the arse to deal with Milton Keynes. I have to work there sometimes & travel M25 to M1 & there is almost always a delay somewhere on route. Either up or back & add in the speed cameras & local police who are not shy of ticketing on mass it can be a gauntlet of misery.

I really am anti moving to MK ( despite it being a nice stadium ) & I can't see any rational reason for not staying in London and forcing the issue and using Stratford for a year. WHU do not have a Veto after their first season so they can't stop it !

Who ever owns the taxi companies will clean up then!

 

[jimmyriggle]

From Wikipedia.......] In November 2013 it was the House of Lords' opinion that Leyton Orient should be allowed occasional use of the stadium, with Lord Harris telling Orient and West Ham to "stop squabbling like children."[147][148][149] Dennis Hone stated that he was in talks with Barry Hearn over occasional usage, but that it would not mean a permanent groundshare.[150] In early December, the LLDC said that there was nothing to stop Orient from negotiating a rental agreement with whichever firm ends up running the stadium. Orient, however, would not be able to negotiate a 99 year deal like West Ham and would only have usage of the stadium when the Hammers are not playing.[151][152] On 1 July 2014, Leyton Orient brought an end to their dispute with the Premier Leagueregarding the future use of the stadium, after a confidential agreement between the two parties was reached.[153][154]

Reads very much like no Veto on Orient so no veto on anyone !

Imagine how pissed orient will be when we take up temporary residence there

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

Interesting....I'd never looked at it from the point of view that any veto right would limit tax payers returns.

Spammers themselves claimed a right to veto for their first season, which means sweet FA as we would still be @ the Lane that season anyway ! Maybe it's all smoke & mirrors and the Tennants have no rights over the Landlords. Will they block That That or the Foo Fighters too ? Will they fuck !

Poor little West Ham. Not even got their own stadium :-(

I think that West Ham do have a veto for the first season, but as you say it's irrelevant because we won't need it. If after that we want to share, they can't stop us AFAIK.

But there are, as I say, all sorts of issues and problems surrounding a ground share there.

 

[AberdeenYid]

True, but League 1 and Championship games are played mostly on a Saturday at the weekend and we all know which day we usually play on.

Wembley is preferable but I don't think it'll happen as aren't they restricted to the number of events they are allowed each year?

I'm pretty sure that the ceiling on the number of events at Wembley is only for full capacity events. I don't think there's a limit if we reduce the capacity.

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

I think one of the main problems with Wembley is that IF we used it for Prem games, we'd have to use it for every Prem game, because I think you can only use one home ground per season for Prem games.

Most/all of the probable ground shares have problems AFAIK.

 

[Anthony Beale]

IF we are to move, the OS is my favoured option, but given how busy our season can be, there might be 'fixture clash problem' with West Ham, also the pitch might take a battering. Imagine West Ham play there Saturday, we play on Sunday, then West Ham on Tues/Wed, us on Thursday (if we're in Europa League) etc.

Of course, these problems can be resolved, but it might be a negative against such a move.

Why have west ham suddenly qualified for the champions league?

If Inter and AC can manage it for all these years, so can we.

 

[B-0-Sspurs]

Back tracking a little bit here, but the planners and other parties must have considered how not adopting the staged approach to building the stadium would impact the local business and the local economy around Tottenham. Up to 2 years without match day revenue is going to hurt a lot of local business, who do not have a way of negating a two or three year cash flow issue? Unless the construction workers are go for Chicken for their lunch over the next two years..........

 

[Mister Clark]

With regards to the OS, it's got to be in the public interest to make as much money for the local council/central government, surely?

I would think it would be similar with publicly traded companies in that the board has a responsibility to act in the best interest in the share holders.

 

[Simmo]

Hi SSB, it could be, but it's not going to be easy, because it's not just about weekends, but all the midweek games that are played. Plus OS is a multi-use venue, not just for football. Also Woolwich games have to be considered in fixture issues, maybe also Orient, Milwall, whoever, am not sure of all the logistics.

Agree about pissing West Ham off, of course

That's one of the reasons I prefer the OS, besides its other attractions, but as I say it's not going to be a simple matter to resolve (IMHO)

Scum an issue, loads of them go via Stratford and surely going to be the case with the Scammers ongoing. Millwall not far away but should mostly be South of the river, Orient shouldn't be enough attendees to impact too much.

 

[Tottenham Sean]

Some photos I took of the New Stadium site today:



As you can see progress is being made, and since I last saw the site a couple of months ago, hundreds, if not thousands of tonnes of earth have been cleared. All the heavy duty piling equipment (for the foundations) was on site as well, which is another really good sign of progress.

Hopefully 2018/19 will be our first season at the new WHL, or whoever pays for the naming rights?

Was over there Friday.First time I have really had a proper look at lilywhite house.That looks impressive on its own(for an office)

 

[alexwooty]

Scum an issue, loads of them go via Stratford and surely going to be the case with the Scammers ongoing. Millwall not far away but should mostly be South of the river, Orient shouldn't be enough attendees to impact too much.

Current situation:
Fixtures are scheduled so that Woolwich and us are never at home on the same day, or weekend. If we're home, they're away, and vice versa. At the same time, whenever WH are at home, so are we, and whenever they are away, so are we. The implication being that the potential transport clash points between Arse and WH fans are worse than between us and WH.
So that's us and WH in sync, us and Woolwich alternating, Woolwich and WH alternating. I believe WH and Millwall also alternate, but as they're non-PL it's not an issue.

If we were to groundshare with WH:
Obviously we would have to alternate with WH. Therefore Woolwich's fixtures have to be in sync with either ours or WH's. The Met would be pretty unhappy with either situation, and I'm not sure which they'd see as the lesser evil, or if either would be acceptable to them. But they would certainly have a massive say in whether this arrangement would be possible.

All of this is based on the fixtures as they are scheduled at the start of the season, ignoring the fact that on any given weekend it's highly unlikely that all 3 of us, Arse and WH will be playing on the Saturday. If the groundshare arrangement was to happen, I think it would require matches to be scheduled on the Sunday right from the start, rather than when Sky or the Europa League force them to change. So the arrangement could be for example: WH play at home on Saturday, we play away on Saturday, Arse play at home on Sunday. Or Arse play at home on Saturday, WH play away on Saturday, we play at home on Sunday. With Monday and Friday night fixtures possible too, it could definitely work (although last day of the season when all matches have to be played simultaneously could be a problem). However, it would piss off Sky/BT! They would have to make some decisions on televised fixtures for the entire season in June/July, right when the fixture schedule is put together. That's completely at odds with the way they currently do things, where televised fixtures are chosen only 4-8 weeks in advance, based on which fixtures they think will be most exciting at that point in the season.

So to sum up, if the groundshare were to go ahead, it would need a major concession from either Sky/BT or the Met Police. It wouldn't be easy.

 

[Blanchflower]

alexwooty will the fact that West Ham are playing at Stratford (with possibly the best transport infrastructure of any sporting venue in England) not alter the clash with games at the Emirates quite a lot?

(I don't know the answer to this - just a thought)

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

Hi Alex, good post. I've been pointing out many of these issues.

Given the amount of games teams like us play, and many other aspects of 'modern football', some of which you allude to, a ground share is going to be problematic pretty much with whoever we share.

As I say my gut instinct is for us to stick with our original 'stay and build' approach. If , for whatever reason(s), ENIC decide to go for a ground share,I sure hope they get it right, because it will be a massive call.

Woolwich arranged things so they didn't need to ground share. We'd best not end up looking stupid, and giving their supporters (and the rest of our myriad haters out there) another set of belly laughs at our expense.

And, before anyone mentions this, NO I DON'T TRUST ENIC to get it right. I expect them to, but I've seen too many of their fiascoes over the past 15 years to have 100% confidence in their abilities.

 

[alexwooty]

alexwooty will the fact that West Ham are playing at Stratford (with possibly the best transport infrastructure of any sporting venue in England) not alter the clash with games at the Emirates quite a lot?

(I don't know the answer to this - just a thought)

I don't know either, but I imagine the Met and TfL will have some sort of idea...

 

[alexwooty]

Hi Alex, good post. I've been pointing out many of these issues.

Given the amount of games teams like us play, and many other aspects of 'modern football', some of which you allude to, a ground share is going to be problematic pretty much with whoever we share.

As I say my gut instinct is for us to stick with our original 'stay and build' approach. If , for whatever reason(s), ENIC decide to go for a ground share,I sure hope they get it right, because it will be a massive call.

Woolwich arranged things so they didn't need to ground share. We'd best not end up looking stupid, and giving their supporters (and the rest of our myriad haters out there) another set of belly laughs at our expense.

And, before anyone mentions this, NO I DON'T TRUST ENIC to get it right. I expect them to, but I've seen too many of their fiascoes over the past 15 years to have 100% confidence in their abilities.

ENIC will get it right from a commercial POV, but not from the fans' POV

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

ENIC will get it right from a commercial POV, but not from the fans' POV

Maybe, though in the end as they mainly use fans' money to back the club, the two are massively intertwined.

 

[alexwooty]

Maybe, though in the end as they mainly use fans' money to back the club, the two are massively intertwined.

The majority of the club's income comes from a combination of:
1) Sponsors
2) TV money, which comes indirectly from armchair fans and overseas fans
Income from match-going fans is only a small proportion of the total income, and they're going to be the ones hardest hit by any ground-share arrangement.

 

[Benjoss]

To repeat, all the legal sources/sites I've seen quoted have it as the 25th. RD has quoted one on here, whether other people read people's posts in this thread, I know not, but it might save some of the repeated questions. Then again ...

Nope, my bad, don't read the earlier posts, just skim them because I'm at work.

Also this forum is full of people bickering most of the time so it helps to give the brief once over.

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

The majority of the club's income comes from a combination of:
1) Sponsors
2) TV money, which comes indirectly from armchair fans and overseas fans
Income from match-going fans is only a small proportion of the total income, and they're going to be the ones hardest hit by any ground-share arrangement.

As I correctly said ENIC 'mainly use fans' money to back the club', I didn't differentiate between 'ground attending' fans and 'armchair fans', etc.

You chose to do that, which is your right, but I am perfectly happy with the validity of my statement.

Indeed indirectly/directly Sponsors/Merchandising money and the like mainly comes from fans too.

The main reason Spurs get backed commercially by people like AIA, is because we are a big club and English football (top flight especially) is a massive brand. Why, because it attracts huge audiences, who are generally football fans.

Now ENIC may decide to please the majority of its income generators, who certainly on any given day, are not the 'ground attenders/supporters', but are the rest of the 'fans', at the expense of the 'ground attenders/supporters'.

We'll see what happens, but ENIC have an eye on all their main income streams, that's for sure. My main point was to emphasise that unlike some clubs, say Chelsea and Blackburn in the past, the club does not derive the main part, or very significant part of its income from the owners. Spurs money mainly comes directly/indirectly from football fans, not ENIC.