Spurs’ new stadium

[Gordyola]

UEFA would. When the Icelandic volcano went off, they told Barca to get a bus to Milan to play Inter or forfeit the game. In that scenario, they'd tell City to get the eurostar or ferry and fly from France, or forfeit the game.
So not really the best analogy.

True but there was more than one day than in the scenario that Jim described

 

[Machiavelli]

It looks a terrific stadium though. People whinge about the times it’s taking, past deadline etc but once it’s open these things will be long forgotten. I’ll check it out. Think about the old stadiums for a minute and then think of them now. No comparison. Progress. Believe.

Where have you been for 7.5 years?

 

[JimB]

[

Jim
Para 1: thanks for proving my point

Not sure how it proves your point, mate. I've said that moving to the new stadium won't improve results against the lower teams because it's impossible to improve upon a 100% record. I've additionally given good reasons why your claim (that the new stadium is likely to have an adverse effect on results) is also likely to be wide of the mark. In other words, I expect there to be no inconsistency in performance attributable to a move to the new stadium this season.

Para 2: The other factors you mention are consistent across the whole competition

The loan system is not equal for all teams. The idea that certain clubs can stockpile good players and loan them out to other teams in the same competition, thus strengthening those other teams for all games other than against the parent club is just wrong. Infinitely more damaging to the integrity of a league than a team playing at two different stadiums during one season could ever be.

And no, the fixture schedule doesn't treat all teams equally, as I demonstrated in my previous post. I'm not saying that it's deliberate or a conspiracy. Just that it can clearly make some clubs' tasks more difficult than others.

Para 3: Spurs are responsible to the PL and the competition NOT Mace

Indeed. And clearly the Premier League and its constituent clubs are quite happy to accept that this is a situation of a third party's making; that Spurs are already taking a huge financial hit; that their fans are also suffering; and that punishment would be inappropriate. Which makes it all the more puzzling that some on here are so incensed about the situation.

Using an example of a last minute problem, "force majere" is ridculous to compare it to a Project Plan that was put in place before a brick was moved from OWHL. But to amuse you if City took all normal measures to fulfilled the requirements of the compettion, that is arriving in the host City 24 hours prior to KO, and due to circumstances totally beyond their control ie a unscheduled outage of control systmes, and it was impossible to get there by other means then City would not be punished. Its akin to suggesting that City should have been punished a few seasons agon for the Police cancelling a ECL at the last minute due to a storm making it dangerous to travel

Of course no analogy is perfect. But the point, about where true responsibility really lies, still stands. As I've said before, Spurs are not a construction company. They are not able to look at architectural plans to determine how long a build will take. They don't have the knowledge to hire the best subcontractors for each specialist element of the build. They can't supervise ongoing work and know and intervene when something is done wrong. They hired a construction manager to do all these things. Every decision that Spurs took on this stadium build will have been on the best advice of top construction industry professionals. But Spurs were let down - by the construction manager; and by subcontractor(s).

Yes, I know that senior management must take responsibility for fuckups by junior staff. But to cite such in this instance is a misapplication of the principle. Such responsibility, by definition, only applies within a company. It doesn't mean that a chairman of a company which has hired another company for a specific purpose has to take responsibility for the other company's fuckups. In this instance, it means that the buck stops with the chairman of the construction management company and with the chairman of the subcontractor(s) whose fuckups caused the delay.

Let me try another analogy, since you didn't like the last one! Imagine you have planning consent to build a new house. You hire one of the most experienced and highly regarded house builders in the country to bring the plans to fruition. You rent a house in the meanwhile. You know nothing about building houses so your only major role in the process is to pay the bills. Little over a month before the house is due to be finished, the builder tells you that there is a problem; that one of their staff has made an almighty fuckup; that complicated, extensive remedial works will be required; and that completion will consequently be delayed by six months. If you are to be consistent, I take it that you would blame yourself, right? And, since you would deem your situation to be of your own making, you would think it perfectly fair for you to face harsh penalties for extending your rental agreement?

 

[Machiavelli]

[

Not sure how it proves your point, mate. I've said that moving to the new stadium won't improve results against the lower teams because it's impossible to improve upon a 100% record. I've additionally given good reasons why your claim (that the new stadium is likely to have an adverse effect on results) is also likely to be wide of the mark. In other words, I expect there to be no inconsistency in performance attributable to a move to the new stadium this season.



The loan system is not equal for all teams. The idea that certain clubs can stockpile good players and loan them out to other teams in the same competition, thus strengthening those other teams for all games other than against the parent club is just wrong. Infinitely more damaging to the integrity of a league than a team playing at two different stadiums during one season could ever be.

And no, the fixture schedule doesn't treat all teams equally, as I demonstrated in my previous post. I'm not saying that it's deliberate or a conspiracy. Just that it can clearly make some clubs' tasks more difficult than others.



Indeed. And clearly the Premier League and its constituent clubs are quite happy to accept that this is a situation of a third party's making; that Spurs are already taking a huge financial hit; that their fans are also suffering; and that punishment would be inappropriate. Which makes it all the more puzzling that some on here are so incensed about the situation.



Of course no analogy is perfect. But the point, about where true responsibility really lies, still stands. As I've said before, Spurs are not a construction company. They are not able to look at architectural plans to determine how long a build will take. They don't have the knowledge to hire the best subcontractors for each specialist element of the build. They can't supervise ongoing work and know and intervene when something is done wrong. They hired a construction manager to do all these things. Every decision that Spurs took on this stadium build will have been on the best advice of top construction industry professionals. But Spurs were let down - by the construction manager; and by subcontractor(s).

Yes, I know that senior management must take responsibility for fuckups by junior staff. But to cite such in this instance is a misapplication of the principle. Such responsibility, by definition, only applies within a company. It doesn't mean that a chairman of a company which has hired another company for a specific purpose has to take responsibility for the other company's fuckups. In this instance, it means that the buck stops with the chairman of the construction management company and with the chairman of the subcontractor(s) whose fuckups caused the delay.

Let me try another analogy, since you didn't like the last one! Imagine you have planning consent to build a new house. You hire one of the most experienced and highly regarded house builders in the country to bring the plans to fruition. You rent a house in the meanwhile. You know nothing about building houses so your only major role in the process is to pay the bills. Little over a month before the house is due to be finished, the builder tells you that there is a problem; that one of their staff has made an almighty fuckup; that complicated, extensive remedial works will be required; and that completion will consequently be delayed by six months. If you are to be consistent, I take it that you would blame yourself, right? And, since you would deem your situation to be of your own making, you would think it perfectly fair for you to face harsh penalties for extending your rental agreement?

How to do the blue box quotes?

 

[Gordyola]

[

Let me try another analogy, since you didn't like the last one! Imagine you have planning consent to build a new house. You hire one of the most experienced and highly regarded house builders in the country to bring the plans to fruition. You rent a house in the meanwhile. You know nothing about building houses so your only major role in the process is to pay the bills. Little over a month before the house is due to be finished, the builder tells you that there is a problem; that one of their staff has made an almighty fuckup; that complicated, extensive remedial works will be required; and that completion will consequently be delayed by six months. If you are to be consistent, I take it that you would blame yourself, right? And, since you would deem your situation to be of your own making, you would think it perfectly fair for you to face harsh penalties for extending your rental agreement?

At no stage have I ever said Spuds should be fined. My point is that they should have taken the responsibility for the problem and moved to Wembley for the full season to ensure the integrity of the competition, failing that the PL should have ordered this after the first extended delay.

If my builder had admitted a fuck up then I would be expecting them to pay for my extended stay at the rented house Lets see if Mace face any action by Spuds to recover costs they might want to include the expense that City accepted to cover the costs faced by fans for the rearranged game as well

 

[JimB]

At no stage have I ever said Spuds should be fined. My point is that they should have taken the responsibility for the problem and moved to Wembley for the full season to ensure the integrity of the competition, failing that the PL should have ordered this after the first extended delay.

If my builder had admitted a fuck up then I would be expecting them to pay for my extended stay at the rented house Lets see if Mace face any action by Spuds to recover costs they might want to include the expense that City accepted to cover the costs faced by fans for the rearranged game as well

No but others on here have been calling for fines, 3 point penalties (for every home game, even!), floggings, hangings, crucifixion..... ;-)

 

[aguero93:20]

How to do the blue box quotes?

Little page button, select quote, put text in the middle of it.

 

[aguero93:20]

No but others on here have been calling for fines, 3 point penalties (for every home game, even!), floggings, hangings, crucifixion..... ;-)

All far too good for spuds.

 

[Machiavelli]

Woohoo blue boxy thingy

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Where have you been for 7.5 years?

He lost his voice.