sammynb 3342 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I think Chelsea are becoming a very big club to be honest. In 20 years time they'll be up there with Liverpool in club size if their current success continues. Tottenham though an Aston Villa/Sheff Wed type club at the very best. Do you honestly think Roman's got that long in him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4713 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I think Chelsea are becoming a very big club to be honest. In 20 years time they'll be up there with Liverpool in club size if their current success continues. Tottenham though an Aston Villa/Sheff Wed type club at the very best. Do you honestly think Roman's got that long in him? thing is if he sells someone big will pick them up, its not like us, they have regular trophies and CL football and will as long as roman is there cause he needs that to cover costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 However an associate of mine who does still listen to it claims Alan Brazil came out with a snorter the other day. Apparently Celtic and Tottenham supporters are without paralell on this island, fat alky jock drink drive bastard! They are Stevie-they're the most deluded and annoying twats in football. The stadium really is a copy of the Emirates, so perhaps it'll be the 'Qatar Airways Arena'. Or Mossad Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 In retrospect I can imagine them filling it with the exact people Danny-B hates, plastic jester hat sky fans. They are even selling the name of the ground, sadly for them it's still second to Arsenal's (Shock!) but then again I would still be surprised if it actually gets built. I'm not sure the extra 20'000 seats will justify the price of the stadium for the change in income unless the ticket prices are obscene. It was £47 for our match there last season. (More than a return train ticket to london) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30160 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Tottenham 'in informal talks' for 2012 Olympic stadium Tottenham Hotspur is interested in making a bid to takeover the Olympic Stadium in east London after the 2012 Games, BBC London has learned. The football club has held informal talks with the Olympic Park Legacy Company, but has not submitted a bid for the 80,000-seat Stratford stadium. West Ham is the only club to have officially bid for the venue, offering to reduce the capacity to 60,000. Entertainment firm AEG, owner of the O2 Arena, is the other main contender. The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OLPC) is about to start serious negotiations with sport and entertainment firms about the venue. The BBC has learned that Tottenham has made contact with the OLPC, although the club's officials denied they had made an official approach. A spokeswoman said: "Tottenham Hotspur has not, to date, submitted a bid for the Olympic Stadium and, all things proceeding well with our current plans to build a new stadium within Tottenham, we see no need to." White elephant fears The club is currently working on a planning application for a new 56,000-seat stadium adjacent to their current White Hart Lane ground in north London, but has faced opposition from local police and national heritage groups about their plans. In March, West Ham announced they had teamed up with Newham Council to launch a bid to turn the Olympic stadium into a 60,000-capacity venue during the winter, which could then be used for athletics in the summer. Olympics Minister Hugh Roberts said he would be in favour of any solution which prevented the stadium from becoming a white elephant. "I'd be happy to have anybody in that stadia who uses it regularly and fills it up with people," he said. "What I want to avoid at all costs is the sort of thing we'd seen in other Games, which is big empty stadia a couple of years after the Olympics has moved on, with nobody using it at all." London 2012 promised a legacy for athletics and any takers for the stadium would have to keep the running track, although it would only be used once a year for the London Grand Prix event. There are also plans for another running track to be built in the Olympic Park just outside of the stadium which would be used for training by top athletes as well as local clubs and schools. Having trouble funding their new stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Win/win for the neutrals. If Tottenham lose this bid, they will be lumbered with funding that big new stadium, if they do get in, the dildo twins at West Ham will lose out, and if AEG get the stadium both will lose out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Having trouble funding their new stadium? 'Arry usually likes to have a really big squad, mainly because he keeps buying expensive players but can't/won't sell unwanted ones. Haven't looked at their squad lately but wouldn't surprise me that, if they get knocked out of the CL, they struggle to fund wages and transfer fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gordon McKeag Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 I'm telling you now it'll be known as a bigger Darlington Arena in years to come when they're back in their natural slot of 13th, struggling to get 30,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30160 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Tottenham want public funding for new stadium Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has criticised the lack of public money that has been made available for the club's proposed new stadium. Spurs are hoping to move from White Hart Lane to either a new purpose-built ground close to the current site or the Olympic Stadium in east London. "This development has not attracted a penny of public money," said Levy, in regards to the new site in Tottenham. "Arsenal and Wembley were both awarded public sector assistance." He added: "These developments required substantial public sector intervention and assistance and would not have progressed without the injection of public sector money. "Our development has the potential to kickstart regeneration in one of the most deprived boroughs in London, where land values are poor and yet no regeneration monies are available to it." Earlier in the week, Tottenham's proposal to take over London's Olympic Stadium with AEG after the Games in 2012 was branded as "completely unacceptable" by UK Athletics (UKA). Spurs and West Ham are the preferred bidders, with Levy's club intending to transform the east London arena into a 80,000-seater venue, but with the athletics track ripped out. "Anything they might propose for an athletics legacy has to be a compromise to the stadium continuing to operate at a world-class level. To my mind that is completely unacceptable," added UKA chairman Ed Warner. They can fuck right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Wembley is the national stadium. Why should my taxes pay for that so-called big club's new stadium? I don't see Spurs helping me pay my rent. They can fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Didn't Arsenal get awarded public sector assistance on the back of what they planned to do with Highbury, rather than the development of the new stadium itself? Can't recall Spurs saying anything that they planned to do with the current WHL. In addition, Levy is citing two projects both within the M25 - what about all the other stadium builds around the country that haven't had any funding? Aside from anything else, Wembley and The Emirates were both completed in better economic times... Spurs have a decent stadium - if they want to build a bigger one, do so out of their own pocket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 They can fuck off going cap in hand for money like. Canny design though. The night time renders of it put me in mind of a miniature Santiago Bernabeu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Think yesterday proved once and for all, a move for Tottenham would be a waste of time. They've just played in the Bernabeu have an excellent chance of getting 4th again, yet there's 5,000 empty seats on a sunny day for a very important Premiership game, imagine the grief we'd get if we got 31,000 in the league. As I've always said 40,000 would be more than adequate for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 To be fair Stoke are a natural fan repellent but Spurs are always on about how it's literally impossible to get a ticket for a game at White Hart Lane and how there's a 30 thousand waiting list etc etc. If we were doing as well as them we wouldn't slip under 50'000 but I suppose we go on about it too. What % of the ground do people have to give up for away fans in the CL by the way? I remember us having to give Juventus/Leverkusen some weird seating where they had a sector in the B Paddock but also a sector in Level 7 and there was always lower crowds, kind of like Chelsea vs Man United got 37k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorthernsoul 1221 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 To be fair Stoke are a natural fan repellent Never a truer word spoken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 nice sunny day, team thrashed mid week, Stoke at home......................, the usual weekend problems on London Transport nahhh - lets go to the pub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7214 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 To be fair Stoke are a natural fan repellent Never a truer word spoken! Would have been a cracking first half to watch nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 To be fair Stoke are a natural fan repellent but Spurs are always on about how it's literally impossible to get a ticket for a game at White Hart Lane and how there's a 30 thousand waiting list etc etc. If we were doing as well as them we wouldn't slip under 50'000 but I suppose we go on about it too. What % of the ground do people have to give up for away fans in the CL by the way? I remember us having to give Juventus/Leverkusen some weird seating where they had a sector in the B Paddock but also a sector in Level 7 and there was always lower crowds, kind of like Chelsea vs Man United got 37k. I go to watch the toon to be honest, and don't care about who we're playing. That was a massive game for Tottenham on Saturday, and only 30,000 home fans could be bothered. My point is some of them compare their fanbase to ours when they're far more comparable in size on that front to Everton or the shitey Villa. Levy must know this ground scheme is a waste of time in his heart. I think he thinks if he can market the club well enough they can get new fans. I doubt it. You can't go on about recessions neither, when they're getting 30,000 home fans in, and we've had nigh on 50,000 every week in an area of higher unemployment, for the last 5 month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 ok guys seen as other clubs are getten new stadiums ie west ham using a new stadium or am i wrong there and spurs getten there new stadium. what would you guys say if st james park got replaced buy a bigger capacity stadium ie 70,000 or higher would it be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin 1 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 ok guys seen as other clubs are getten new stadiums ie west ham using a new stadium or am i wrong there and spurs getten there new stadium. what would you guys say if st james park got replaced buy a bigger capacity stadium ie 70,000 or higher would it be worth it. Word going around about us getting one of Russias stadiums when they're done with the world cup. The club would be moved to russia but still play in the premier league. What are your views on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 haha no chance of us getten a stadium from russia hell no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 ok guys seen as other clubs are getten new stadiums ie west ham using a new stadium or am i wrong there and spurs getten there new stadium. what would you guys say if st james park got replaced buy a bigger capacity stadium ie 70,000 or higher would it be worth it. Word going around about us getting one of Russias stadiums when they're done with the world cup. The club would be moved to russia but still play in the premier league. What are your views on this? I would proper protest. PROPER. Then move to Russia and wrestle a bear/ go fishing etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerbarton 24 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 In all seriousness, I'm sure that St. James' Park could easily be expanded to 60 000+. There were plans afoot towards the end of the Shepherd administration for this. Of course we'd be better off focussing on moving up the league again first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 In all seriousness, I'm sure that St. James' Park could easily be expanded to 60 000+. There were plans afoot towards the end of the Shepherd administration for this. Of course we'd be better off focussing on moving up the league again first Would cost a lot of money because we'd have to pay for strengthening the foundations around the Metro Station. I'm nee civil engineer, but have been told it's not as straight forward as sticking the stand up. The East Stand is a no no unless someone burns those Georgian student houses down. It's a shame because 60-65,000 would be about right for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 hum true i supose shame like i mean yes 52 thousnd is nice but i would prefer bigger so it beats others lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now