• Tottenham Hotspur Message Board

  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport

    not happy myself but looks like a done deal.



    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I wasnt too happy with the war of words a la Harry and Levy but its done now........as for relegation if it happens it happens Sfer..............no football club is beyond relegation whatever people say.......ask Leeds, Forest, Norwich etc etc.......

      All the best to you all.........a board for grown ups.


    • Redknapp says "We need a new 60,000 seater stadium because we haven't got room to accommodate all the people that want to come and watch us every week."

      hahahaha that'll cost a fortune - keep them out of contention for the next 20 years while they pay for it, just like Ar5enal - hahahahahaha

    • Sincerely hope it works out for you Irons but the facts and odds are stacked against it.

      More importantly than the ground issue, I hope you manage to stay up.

    • cheers 'Its'...................think its more than luck thats needed though.........................i love watching a game at the Boleyn.



    • If Harringey council really want us to stay, don't you think that they could help Spurs by issuing CPOs on the properties that are holding out for astronomical prices?
      I am still undecided if the OS was a bad idea. When I come to the lane it is absolute bedlam. I drive down and the traffic snarl-ups are every which way I come. So I really can understand the infrastructure upgrade necessity. But why are they trying to make Spurs pay for it all? That's how it appears to me. For the sum of money I'd want a motorway straight to the ground from the M25.
      Oh and good luck Irons hope you manage to make a success of the OS when you move in. atb

    • Spot on KM. I thought the OS bid was a shot over the bows of the Council at first and it probably was initially, but the Council called thier bluff so Levy pushed it harder knowing that by saying they would "knock it down" there was no way we would get it.

      The Council, strapped for cash as they are, are trying to squeeze as much out of THFC as they can and who can blame them for trying but they don't want to lose the club or the revenue it generates so I am reasonably confident there is a deal there to be done.

    • Shelf-Boy, while I'll be mightily relieved if West Ham do get the nod I don't think Levy/THFC will be held to ransom by the local authority - who are (presumably) desperate for the club to stay in the area. Surely it'd be cutting their noses off to impose too many stipulations or heavy financial burden as a price for redeveloping WHL. All Levy has to do is look for an alternative viable site and it's bye-bye High Road (not you HRJ!!). After all, he's already shown he's determined to explore the options with the OS bid.

      I believe Transport for London are demanding megabucks to improve the transport infrastructure to support the redevelopment, which no doubt they'd have got around to doing eventually so they appear to be looking for a fast buck on the back of our plans.

    • I bet you,ll find his contingency plans are already signed sealed and delivered......he runs a profitable football club in a largely credit based industry, the bloke aint silly...............................................



    • At long last common sense has prevailed, the board arrived at the right decision, imho.

      Britain's reputation in international sporting circles is far more important than the needs of few greedy businessmen who see the Olympic stadium as a cost cutting scheme.

      Hopefully, the soon-to-be custodian, WHU, will take a great care of it and stick to their promise for multi-functionality stadium including athletics.

      • 1 Reply to lynda AWOL
      • There is a reason athletic stadiums are not all over the place or of any large scale - they can't fill them! Apart from huge events like the World Chapionships. 48 weeks of the year the only people in them are the atheletes themselves.

        The promise to keep the OS for athletics use was made only to sway the vote to us in the first place. The chances of it becoming a white elephant are very high.

        So, keep out promise having spent millions, and end up with a rotting ediface like so many have that have gone before OR make the most of it for other things?

    • You can look on it multiple ways.
      If we did get the OS then by 2013/14 we'd be getting the increased gates. 25,000 per game at, what £50 per? £1.25m per game. And the ground development costs are far lower.

      If because we don't get the OS, we now struggle to get WHL redeveloped and that not only costs more but pushes back the development time (refer to Levy's comments re compulsory purchase) to 2014 and beyond, what is the overall cost to the club? AND does that cost also mean we can't compete in transfer markets, so don't get CL?

      All hypothetical (but I would guess by the way we now appear to be pressing for the OS, the financial benefits must be huge), but this decision will be a double edged sword whichever way it goes.

    • View More Messages