Spurs’ new stadium

This is a total fuck up from spurs. I would be more than happy if we dug our heels in, sat back and watched the fireworks go off.
 
It probably end up City not happy with what the premier decide to do and are told to fulfill the fixture even though city won’t be happy with it.
 
berryblue said:
Just emailed the FA requesting they allow Spurs to use one of the vacant Premier league grounds available on Oct. 28. The more emails they receive the more likely they will listen. email address: info@thefa.com
Click to expand...
The main issue is that Spurs have been granted permission for a second stadium in this season which is already against the PL rules. Do they need agreement from the other teams to extend this to a possible third? It makes a mockery of the rules that EVERY team agrees to at the start of each season. Making rule changes now sets a precedent for everyone to take the piss when it's their turn.

That said, shit happens. Spurs have sailed too close to the wind and gotten burned. The PL should offer up five alternate stadiums and the away team draw one out of a hat to pick which one it gets played at.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
The main issue is that Spurs have been granted permission for a second stadium in this season which is already against the PL rules. Do they need agreement from the other teams to extend this to a possible third? It makes a mockery of the rules that EVERY team agrees to at the start of each season. Making rule changes now sets a precedent for everyone to take the piss when it's their turn.

That said, shit happens. Spurs have sailed too close to the wind and gotten burned. The PL should offer up five alternate stadiums and the away team draw one out of a hat to pick which one it gets played at.
Click to expand...

I get this but what difference does it actually make? In terms of the game, i know travel arrangements for fans will be a nightmare but lets have it right neither the FA or Premier League will be arsed about that. So if it meant they had to play another "home" game in a different stadium who actually cares? if anything I would imagine it has a negative effect on them more than anyone else?
 
I'll be fuming if they move the Southampton game as a result of this farce, as I only booked the train tickets yesterday. We should refuse to move any fixtures for this mess.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
The main issue is that Spurs have been granted permission for a second stadium in this season which is already against the PL rules. Do they need agreement from the other teams to extend this to a possible third? It makes a mockery of the rules that EVERY team agrees to at the start of each season. Making rule changes now sets a precedent for everyone to take the piss when it's their turn.

That said, shit happens. Spurs have sailed too close to the wind and gotten burned. The PL should offer up five alternate stadiums and the away team draw one out of a hat to pick which one it gets played at.
Click to expand...
But there must doubt as to whether the new stadium will be ready at all for this season so why don't Spurs just bite the bullet and accept the use of another stadium for the City game and spend the rest of the season at Wembley?
 
Tom_mcfc said:
I get this but what difference does it actually make? In terms of the game, i know travel arrangements for fans will be a nightmare but lets have it right neither the FA or Premier League will be arsed about that. So if it meant they had to play another "home" game in a different stadium who actually cares? if anything I would imagine it has a negative effect on them more than anyone else?
Click to expand...
What's the point in having rules, then. I agree it probably makes no difference, but other clubs could kick up a fuss. I would hope the PL are speaking to the other teams to canvass their opinions, and if no-one objects then just go for a 3rd stadium.
 
lancs blue said:
But there must doubt as to whether the new stadium will be ready at all for this season so why don't Spurs just bite the bullet and accept the use of another stadium for the City game and spend the rest of the season at Wembley?
Click to expand...
probably lots of financial issues, refunding season ticket holders who have paid for seats / hospitality for the new stadium who they will then have to try and accommodate at Wembley (shouldn't be that much of a pain as they have done it last season, but would be a large logistical challenge as the season has already started)
 
dan05delaney said:
probably lots of financial issues, refunding season ticket holders who have paid for seats / hospitality for the new stadium who they will then have to try and accommodate at Wembley (shouldn't be that much of a pain as they have done it last season, but would be a large logistical challenge as the season has already started)
Click to expand...
Their problem, not City's or whichever other club might be inconvenienced by a different solution.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
What's the point in having rules, then. I agree it probably makes no difference, but other clubs could kick up a fuss. I would hope the PL are speaking to the other teams to canvass their opinions, and if no-one objects then just go for a 3rd stadium.
Click to expand...

I get that it's a rule but to be fair it's a daft rule to begin with. If anyone kicked up a fuss it is just for the sake of it. If Spurs gained from it in any way I would understand.
 
BlueAnorak said:
No Mace are a construction partner (so Spurs are jointly liable with Mace) and Levy has been micromanaging the project. As such, Spurs are 100% responsible.
Click to expand...
Told you Jim, you are fucking with the big boys who have way more knowledge than you.
 
I think the problems coming up now are only caused by the exception made.
There are many reasons why a club should only use 1 ground per season.
If spurs can't hand in all certificates for the new stadium, they should have had a safe plan B, in May.
Otherwise they cannot play PL that year, should be the consequence.
Rule are there to keep up quality in a multi billion business.

Now an exception is made and trouble is on:
possible fixture congestion, multiple away games, trouble for visiting fans, fairness issues for all PL clubs...

For City, I wouldn't be too much concerned about multiple away games at season end,
it might even be an advantage in case the league is won early. But for City fans it wouldn't be great.

A two days rest before the League cup match could in a way be managed by rotation, depending on the opponent,
not so much for the CL match (depends much more on the opponent). But it's a disadvantage for our players.

My biggest concern is about injuries, thinking about the Wembley pitch after the NFL period.
Who would guarantee the standard pitch quality?
Any professional greenkeepers on here??

Even if Wembley's pitch is a semi synthetical Desso grassmaster system,
damages might have an impact, especially after a rainy October.

pitch problems already turned up in 2014 (SIX days after an NFL match, not only 1 day):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...NFL-game-destroyed-surface-England-match.html
 
St.Pauli support said:
My biggest concern is about injuries, thinking about the Wembley pitch after the NFL period.
Who would guarantee the standard pitch quality?
Any professional greenkeepers on here??

Even if Wembley's pitch is a semi synthetical Desso grassmaster system,
damages might have an impact, especially after a rainy October.

pitch problems already turned up in 2014 (SIX days after an NFL match, not only 1 day):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...NFL-game-destroyed-surface-England-match.html
Click to expand...

Wasn't one of our recent games played on the USA tour this summer on an awful pitch,i think it was the new york game not sure?
 
Have had a look at the Premier League Handbook for this season and the relevant rules are:

L.12.

A League Match shall not be postponed or abandoned except:

  1. L.12.1. when on the date fixed for it to be played either the Home Club or the Visiting Club is competing in a competition permitted by Rules L.9.1, L.9.2, and L.9.3;
  2. L.12.2. with the approval of or on the instructions of the officiating referee;
  3. L.12.3. by order of the police;
  4. L.12.4. by order of any other authority exercising its statutory powers to that effect; or
  5. L.12.5. on the instructions of or with the prior written consent of the Board.
And

Failure to Play a League Match

L.15.

Except in the case of a League Match which, without either of the participating Clubs being at fault, is postponed or abandoned under the provisions of Rule L.12, any Club which causes the postponement or abandonment of a League Match on the date fixed under Rule L.1 or to which it is rearranged under Rules L.1.2, L.6 or L.7 will be in breach of these Rules.

I think this is why Spurs 'explanation' mentioned safety as the reason as L13 says a match can be postponed due to safety. The thinking there, obviously, was due to acts of God and diabolical weather, not a shambolic stadium build and lack of suitable contingency.

As I see it, Spurs will be in the same situation as Middlesbro when they failed to play the match in 1996. Docked points.

The problem from our point of view is that it is not clear what the remedy is for the non-offending team. None of the postponement ideas being put forward, including moving the match to the following Monday are neutral to the City team or fans. The only solution that keeps us whole is going to the London Stadium on the Sunday.

Is best for all concerned. So, EPL, dump the one stadium rule in this instance.

(Btw - the idea a load of West Ham fans are going to hang about outside a shopping centre is for the birds).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top