A lego stadium would be cool though. And you can expand or reduce the capacity easily. Seats might not be that comfy though.
Id happily donate my Harry potter lego from 2001 to the cause
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Id happily donate my Harry potter lego from 2001 to the cause
He's right, though.
It's entirely irrational to enjoy the transformation from Premier League-also rans to topping Man U at Old Trafford and finishing 4th, 5th, 4th, 5th, reaching the quarter-final of the CL against Real Madrid, seeing one of our own being mentioned in the same breath with Messi and Ronaldo, and being an attractive prospect for world class talent.
It's delusional, because stadium capacity is the only important measure of how big a club is.
It's entirely irrational to enjoy the transformation from Premier League-also rans to topping Man U at Old Trafford and finishing 4th, 5th, 4th, 5th, reaching the quarter-final of the CL against Real Madrid, seeing one of our own being mentioned in the same breath with Messi and Ronaldo, and being an attractive prospect for world class talent.
It's delusional, because stadium capacity is the only important measure of how big a club is.
A lego stadium would be cool though. And you can expand or reduce the capacity easily.
Seats might not be that comfy though.
BTW, I agree that these billionare owners are a bad thing, though there is one positive that people always forget, which is that their money and the players they bring in to the league increases the marketability of the whole league (more good teams, good players = more people want to watch it and pay to do so) and that means more money for all the teams, which in turn helps each team sign better players, relative to much of the rest of Europe.
Well said, except for the part about the billionaire owners, who for Spurs would be a good thing, if they spent the money so we could buy Benteke, Lloris earlier, etc.
The boost City gave to the Prem by pipping Utd was massive. Take away City and Chelsea and the lge becomes more boring than Scotland as Utd win title after title.
So you want everyone to have billionaire owners to make the league more competitive?
I reckon it would be just as competitive (and cheaper for the fans) if no owners were foreign billionaires and clubs that earned their cash rather than what Chelsea and Man City have done.
Please drop your agenda, it's getting rather boring.
The summary of the argument against this: "It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. And we of Spurs have set our sights very high, so high in fact that even failure will have in it an echo of glory."
Aiming high involves doing it, as we always have, the Tottenham way. Frankly, a victory gained by chucking money that we could never hope to repay is ludicrous, and a betrayal of our history. We aim to do things our way and I, along with many others on here, were drawn to Spurs for this very reason. We stay for that reason. The tag line for TFC is 'love the shirt' but really, that's what Liverpool do - love the shirt without questioning it. A lot of us would simply find another club if we became another Chelsea, Man City, PSG or Anzhi.
So I'd rather aim high and fail (by not building a new stadium in 13 years, but having plans and attempting to push it through) than rush it through and with someone else's chequebook. Because the only guarantee that brings is more plastics and a worse football club.
The world is a very different place in respect of raising money for speculative property developments
ENIC/Levy actually scrapped plans sugar had in place for the expansion of the East Stand.
http://www.certusdesign.co.uk/resources/downloads/Planning Statement.pdf
Arguably if city and Chelsea weren't currently being bankrolled by financial doping we'd have finished top 3 or 4 in the last few seasons. With that extra cl money we may have pushed for the title, or had enough extra to get the stadium done.
In no way is billionaire owners running clubs at a huge loss any good for the rest of the teams in the league. If anything it's much harder now to bring in say a klinsmann or a bergkamp because they would cost over 25 million and demand stupid wages, meaning only that same handful of clubs could afford them.
In no way is billionaire owners running clubs at a huge loss any good for the rest of the teams in the league. If anything it's much harder now to bring in say a klinsmann or a bergkamp because they would cost over 25 million and demand stupid wages, meaning only that same handful of clubs could afford them.
Most of the premier leagues top five sides have bigger capacities than they did 13 years ago.
Only because the Scousers have turned into non-competitive shit cunts. Then it would be more teams that haven't
dont get me wrong, I want a new stadium, and i think its vital.........but how did teveryone else get the bigger capacities:
1)Man Utd. built it themselves. Man U have always generated their own cash, and only have any debt because of the leveraged buy out nonsense.
2)man City. Council owned, peppercorn rent
3)Chelsea: went into 100 odd million debt, were on the verge of administration when Abramovich bought them, but did build it themselves, some with chunks of Matthew Harding money.
4)Woolwich. built themselves.
dont get me wrong, I want a new stadium, and i think its vital.
Just had a thought, something to ponder...
When ENIC bought us out, the 2005 Athletics World Championship was still going to be at Picketts lock. which is 3 miles away from WHL.
tell me those two little events werent connected? Ask me, the original plan ENIC had was to shift us there, with a rebuild of the stadium that was going to be built, to better suit football. Pretty much the plans for Stratford, just years earlier.
1)Man Utd. built it themselves. Man U have always generated their own cash, and only have any debt because of the leveraged buy out nonsense.
2)man City. Council owned, peppercorn rent
3)Chelsea: went into 100 odd million debt, were on the verge of administration when Abramovich bought them, but did build it themselves, some with chunks of Matthew Harding money.
4)Woolwich. built themselves.
dont get me wrong, I want a new stadium, and i think its vital.
Just had a thought, something to ponder...
When ENIC bought us out, the 2005 Athletics World Championship was still going to be at Picketts lock. which is 3 miles away from WHL.
tell me those two little events werent connected? Ask me, the original plan ENIC had was to shift us there, with a rebuild of the stadium that was going to be built, to better suit football. Pretty much the plans for Stratford, just years earlier.
An amazingly well worded statement.....
Most not all.....13 not 15 (let's round up?) years.....
OK Carlito, we know you exist here simply to troll and I shouldn't feed you, but you haven't a clue.
Anyone who loves Tottenham the football club needs to respect Tottenham the place. Do we really want to turn into another Liverpool? Anfield is a wreck of a place, people were forced out years before their homes were demolished in the name of regeneration, and what has the club got to show for it? A load of twaddle about how much they love the city, but nothing real for anybody.
The campaigners are right that public money shouldn't be used for the stadium. In the long run, stadiums don't bring a huge net benefit to surrounding neighbourhoods, no matter how much we may like them. Yeah, fans may spend money in the local shops, but it's not massive. Tottenham is one of the poorest places in England. People living on next to nothing are right next to a temple of excess where men are paid more in one week than a lot of N17 residents see in a year. I think it's shameful that Haringey Council let Spurs off the hook for all those payments and housing commitments. 100 homes? The club couldn't build 100 affordable homes? That's a few blocks of flats. Sad. The club wouldn't pay £1.2 million toward education when a school just a few streets away (John Loughborough) is being permanently shut down next month because the quality of education there is absolutely abysmal? That would be a drop in the bucket for the club. Of course the community isn't going to get £100 million - you always aim high when making demands in hopes of getting a decent fraction of it - but Spurs can do better than the less-than-£500K required. These amounts aren't paid all at once. And if we can't stump up a few million for good will then maybe we have no business building a new stadium.
And you dare call local residents cunts. You probably wouldn't last a week living there.
Anyone who loves Tottenham the football club needs to respect Tottenham the place. Do we really want to turn into another Liverpool? Anfield is a wreck of a place, people were forced out years before their homes were demolished in the name of regeneration, and what has the club got to show for it? A load of twaddle about how much they love the city, but nothing real for anybody.
The campaigners are right that public money shouldn't be used for the stadium. In the long run, stadiums don't bring a huge net benefit to surrounding neighbourhoods, no matter how much we may like them. Yeah, fans may spend money in the local shops, but it's not massive. Tottenham is one of the poorest places in England. People living on next to nothing are right next to a temple of excess where men are paid more in one week than a lot of N17 residents see in a year. I think it's shameful that Haringey Council let Spurs off the hook for all those payments and housing commitments. 100 homes? The club couldn't build 100 affordable homes? That's a few blocks of flats. Sad. The club wouldn't pay £1.2 million toward education when a school just a few streets away (John Loughborough) is being permanently shut down next month because the quality of education there is absolutely abysmal? That would be a drop in the bucket for the club. Of course the community isn't going to get £100 million - you always aim high when making demands in hopes of getting a decent fraction of it - but Spurs can do better than the less-than-£500K required. These amounts aren't paid all at once. And if we can't stump up a few million for good will then maybe we have no business building a new stadium.
And you dare call local residents cunts. You probably wouldn't last a week living there.
True, but to be fair, THFC (or any other football club) is very small fry compared to the multinational corporations in the City.
What a load of bollocks. The club does pay our players alot of money, but lets not forget that the tax rate is 50% (Not including NI) for people who earn more than £150k per year.
These players, (invariably the club) are paying the government up to a £500K a week in tax! (Worked out by 20 players and an average of a £50k wage)
I wonder how much the whole Tottenham High Street contributes in tax per month. I bet it isnt above the figure that the Spurs players are paying!
Thats £2,000,000 a month for the government to reinvest back into the local community. We as a club have NO obligation to provide anything for the residents, infact i'd go as far as to call them scumbags for the way they treated the area during the riots and the way its presented at the moment anyway.
Fuck 'em and bring THFC to Enfield..
Oh and I know some smart Alec is going to say "But Enfield had riots too!" - Its a well known fact that the boys from Edmonton/Tottenham travelled up here to do so..
I was talking about since EN
Although I would like to point out I'm wrong, I have since discovered that our capacity has increased by a whacking great 70 thanks to some minor seat shuffling in 2006..
Some smart Alec might also point out that the residents you brand as scumbags weren't all involved in the riots, apart from, you know, being the people directly impacted by them.
The riots were probably at their worst in Croydon and the people worst affected by them were the residents in the most burnt down areas. People lost their businesses and homes. That doesn't make them 'scum'. To say so is real idiocy.