-
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
In honour of David Bentley: The Skip.
'Bill Nicholson's Wall'
For short...
'The Wall' or...
'Bill's Wall' (Which I love because it's also named after me!)
For short...
'The Wall' or...
'Bill's Wall' (Which I love because it's also named after me!)
Bill Nicholson Bank
Bill Nic Bank
I know there is the Ood Highbury North Bank thing but we could steal it....
Not going to happen but it would be immense if it was all standing too.
At the end of the day it may even get called the AEG Stand, or the Heineken Hill, or the Snickers Stand..... :harryfacepalm: :vdv:
Bill Nic Bank
I know there is the Ood Highbury North Bank thing but we could steal it....
Not going to happen but it would be immense if it was all standing too.
At the end of the day it may even get called the AEG Stand, or the Heineken Hill, or the Snickers Stand..... :harryfacepalm: :vdv:
we could call it the yidfam stand, that would be super duper cool :harryfacepalm:
Should be something that fits in with tune of we're the Park lane Tottenham.
Too much to be saying we're the Bill Nicholson Stand, Tottenham
Although if they keep the layout the same with that stand at the South of the ground, that Park Lane chant will probably stick anyway for a generation or two.
As the song says it all comes down to knowing your history.
Too much to be saying we're the Bill Nicholson Stand, Tottenham
Although if they keep the layout the same with that stand at the South of the ground, that Park Lane chant will probably stick anyway for a generation or two.
As the song says it all comes down to knowing your history.
Not sure if this has been covered anywhere?
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs/N ... 90212.page?
Sainsbury's Stand?!
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs/N ... 90212.page?
Sainsbury's Stand?!
Yeah, it was covered here by ESPN's Soccernet podcast presenter.Dru said:
Pretty damned unimpressed with the joke, but the fellow, a West Ham fan whom I usually like listening to on the podcast, has some manichean opinions on the NDP. I had a lengthy discussion with him about it and the OS last week where I granted him basically everything I could—Levy is in it only for the money, Levy will limit how much he has to "give back" to the community if he can, etc.—and still I was dismissed as being delusional about Spurs' behaviour during the OS process.
It boiled down to my saying that I did not think that Spurs were 100% at fault for the fact that UK taxpayers would have to pay for the undersoil heating at the OS, and he disagreed.
Ugh, what a frustrating conversation that was...
Have I missed something? why are Spurs responsible for the public having to pay for the OS undersoil heating? Surely the people who decided to build the OS using taxpayers money are responsible for any cost involved?
Because if Spurs hadn't threatened indefinite legal action over the awarding of the stadium to West Ham, then West Ham would be getting the stadium and would be (conceivably) paying for the heating.linnet_spur said:
Since Levy's venal machinations forced the Legacy Cmte to bin the deal with West Ham, all costs incurred by taxpayers in avoiding turning the OS into a white elephant are, therefore, Spurs/Levy's fault.
At least that's the position against which I was arguing.
Still fail to see how that's Spurs fault. We haven't held a gun to the chuckle brothers and slags r us collective heads and told them to drop the OS have we? The only people who should be pissed off about Spurs going for the stadium are us fans and local Tottenham people. For everyone else it would have been the best option
I think the real shame in that whole fiasco is that Leyton Orient was completely ignored. Their defense was, in my opinion, extremely credible, but since they aren't a "big club" they got run over.
Well, the logic is that even though the judge told Spurs (and Leyton) not to continue appealing the decision, they did so anyway. The LC, fearing that these legal challenges would go on forever, trashed the deal with West Ham and decided to start from scratch.
The issue (for Mason, afaict) isn't that Spurs went for the stadium, but that they didn't respect the decision of the LC to award the stadium to West Ham, [allegedly] broke the law in digging up dirt on West Ham's bid, and threatened legal limbo as long as the West Ham deal remained alive. (It's a fact that Spurs called off their legal challenge right after West Ham's deal for the stadium was scrapped).
The problem with this is that, now that West Ham isn't getting the stadium, it's a burden on the taxpayers, a burden that is, again, in Mason's view, from how I read him, entirely Spurs' fault. So Spurs did not just screw over West Ham (no one will cry for that). They also screwed over the taxpayers.
Leyton was pursuing the challenges along with Spurs--riding their coattails, as it were.
The issue (for Mason, afaict) isn't that Spurs went for the stadium, but that they didn't respect the decision of the LC to award the stadium to West Ham, [allegedly] broke the law in digging up dirt on West Ham's bid, and threatened legal limbo as long as the West Ham deal remained alive. (It's a fact that Spurs called off their legal challenge right after West Ham's deal for the stadium was scrapped).
The problem with this is that, now that West Ham isn't getting the stadium, it's a burden on the taxpayers, a burden that is, again, in Mason's view, from how I read him, entirely Spurs' fault. So Spurs did not just screw over West Ham (no one will cry for that). They also screwed over the taxpayers.
Leyton was pursuing the challenges along with Spurs--riding their coattails, as it were.
Still don't see how the burden on the taxpayer is anything to do with Spurs. When they decided to build the Stadium with taxpayers money they must have known there is always a chance that it wouldn't be recouped.
Levy and Spurs did what any good business would do and made sure they weren't screwed. Like I say, I don't agree with us going for the OS but don't see why we should now be held accountable for it. Guy seems a typical bitter Wham fan
Levy and Spurs did what any good business would do and made sure they weren't screwed. Like I say, I don't agree with us going for the OS but don't see why we should now be held accountable for it. Guy seems a typical bitter Wham fan
Well, that was the point I was making. That he sounds like a bitter West Ham fan, and he said, no, this is a political issue. So I said it should be taken up with politicians.
Frankly, I don't know what a clusterfuck the 2012 games are for London. I just know that I followed the Chicago bid for 2016 very closely because of the fact that it was all going to be centered in the park right by my university. I had about 30 seconds in which I said to myself, "ooh! Chicago games! What fun that would be!" Then, at the 31st second, I said to myself, "the Chicago taxpayers are going to be fucked for generations."
Even though the Chicago bid was going to cost "no" public money, the city still ended up spending a king's ransom to put the (failed!) bid together--and this is a city that already has no money. The folly of chasing a legacy for Mayor Daley (and, by extension, Obama) was offensively short-sighted to basically anyone who wasn't in line to make a killing on the games.
If the OS costs the London/UK taxpayers, it's the fault of the government that got gulled by businessmen into believing that having an Olympics was a good idea.
Frankly, I don't know what a clusterfuck the 2012 games are for London. I just know that I followed the Chicago bid for 2016 very closely because of the fact that it was all going to be centered in the park right by my university. I had about 30 seconds in which I said to myself, "ooh! Chicago games! What fun that would be!" Then, at the 31st second, I said to myself, "the Chicago taxpayers are going to be fucked for generations."
Even though the Chicago bid was going to cost "no" public money, the city still ended up spending a king's ransom to put the (failed!) bid together--and this is a city that already has no money. The folly of chasing a legacy for Mayor Daley (and, by extension, Obama) was offensively short-sighted to basically anyone who wasn't in line to make a killing on the games.
If the OS costs the London/UK taxpayers, it's the fault of the government that got gulled by businessmen into believing that having an Olympics was a good idea.
Éperons said:
On the flip side - the costs incurred by THFC in being encouraged to pursue the OS when they could never win the bid are the OLC's fault and therefore they should be reimbursing the club.....
