bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
what? so there will be a track running across the pitch and one goal mouth will also hold a platform? What a fucking shitty excuse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Spurs’ new stadium
- Thread starter Chris Holmes
- Start date
what? so there will be a track running across the pitch and one goal mouth will also hold a platform? What a fucking shitty excuse.
Maybe it was the only option, or the best option for our fans, that was offered
They were able to move grounds at a drop of a hat fro a LC game. The options should have have been keeping the original date rather than City allow fans to be fucked about in such a disgusting way, and even have to go to that shit hole again.
They were able to move grounds at a drop of a hat fro a LC game. The options should have have been keeping the original date rather than City allow fans to be fucked about in such a disgusting way, and even have to go to that shit hole again.
Totally agree it should be on the original date. Possibly they’ve been trying to get an alternative venue but maybe there is no suitable stadium available on that date, which is why it’s dragged on.
Hopefully City have been pushing for the best deal for our fans and (maybe naively) I’m hoping the 2 clubs and the PL are still in discussions about compensation for blues who have already paid out
Totally agree it should be on the original date. Possibly they’ve been trying to get an alternative venue but maybe there is no suitable stadium available on that date, which is why it’s dragged on.
Hopefully City have been pushing for the best deal for our fans and (maybe naively) I’m hoping the 2 clubs and the PL are still in discussions about compensation for blues who have already paid out
There are 80 suitable stadiums that the ground could be held at, maybe half unavailable, but it would mean spurs losing money.
Compo for fans never happens, the early train fares are no much compared to two days off work, and no trains back on the Monday. Maybe they will allow £400 per fan for attending in liquidated damages. More realistically this should be free for City fans now.
Totally agree it should be on the original date. Possibly they’ve been trying to get an alternative venue but maybe there is no suitable stadium available on that date, which is why it’s dragged on.
Hopefully City have been pushing for the best deal for our fans and (maybe naively) I’m hoping the 2 clubs and the PL are still in discussions about compensation for blues who have already paid out
From what I understand, the Monday night, Wembley agreement is just a contingency at this stage. Spurs still hope that the issue with the safety systems will be resolved by then and that the game will go ahead in the new stadium.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,955
They're in trouble for sure but selling Harry Kane in two seasons time for £250m (min price by then) will help them out somewhat.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,955
The Wembley pitch will be a turnip patch after 3 weeks of NFL players rucking it up. Totally unsuitable for football.From what I understand, the Monday night, Wembley agreement is just a contingency at this stage. Spurs still hope that the issue with the safety systems will be resolved by then and that the game will go ahead in the new stadium.
crazyg
Well-Known Member
I did read it carefully, and the definition of a benefactor in the OED is "a person who gives money or other help to a cause". If he hadn't given money to your club when they were in dire straights, somone else may have done, or you really would have been in the shit. To me that's a benefactor. Forget any altruistic reasons, that's what he did. Now he owns the club, he doesn't want to let the moths out of his (rather large) wallet and invest as our owner has done. That's his choice.Try reading a little more carefully, mate. I very specifically and deliberately wrote "in the absence of a superrich benefactor". Joe Lewis might well be superrich. But he most certainly isn't a benefactor.
Either that, or like a lot of other superrich owners, he's only in it for the money and reflected prestige for if and when you eventually win something.
You've got what you deserve then,....mate.
;-)
I did read it carefully, and the definition of a benefactor in the OED is "a person who gives money or other help to a cause". If he hadn't given money to your club when they were in dire straights, somone else may have done, or you really would have been in the shit. To me that's a benefactor. Forget any altruistic reasons, that's what he did. Now he owns the club, he doesn't want to let the moths out of his (rather large) wallet and invest as our owner has done. That's his choice.
Either that, or like a lot of other superrich owners, he's only in it for the money and reflected prestige for if and when you eventually win something.
You've got what you deserve then,....mate.
;-)
Eh? Spurs were last in "dire straits" after the Irving Scholar fiasco in the early 90's. And they had to earn / sell / cut costs their way out of it. Alan Sugar wasn't going to give any money to anybody. Ever. Joe Lewis wasn't involved at all back then. And since he has been involved, there have been a couple of small share issues. That's all.
I respect that you have an opinion about Spurs and that it's not an especially flattering one. But I do hope that you can at least accept that I naturally know rather more about the goings on at Spurs than you do. ;-)
As to getting what I deserve, that seems to be something of a non sequitur. Perhaps you could clarify what point you're trying to make? Cheers.
crazyg
Well-Known Member
Sorry for the delay in replying, but I've just got back from our game.Eh? Spurs were last in "dire straits" after the Irving Scholar fiasco in the early 90's. And they had to earn / sell / cut costs their way out of it. Alan Sugar wasn't going to give any money to anybody. Ever. Joe Lewis wasn't involved at all back then. And since he has been involved, there have been a couple of small share issues. That's all.
I respect that you have an opinion about Spurs and that it's not an especially flattering one. But I do hope that you can at least accept that I naturally know rather more about the goings on at Spurs than you do. ;-)
As to getting what I deserve, that seems to be something of a non sequitur. Perhaps you could clarify what point you're trying to make? Cheers.
So what you seem to be saying is that for at least 25 years, your club has been run by, basically, owners who have deeper pockets than their arms can reach the bottom of? Is that an apt description as that's how it looks from the outside. I have visions of Topol singing "If I was a rich Man" for some reason. ;-)
As for my opinion of Spurs I can not disagree that you know more about them than I do. It's only natural that you would. My only thoughts about them as a club are clouded by Ricky Villa's goal in 1981! It was an awful drive home that night. I've been to WHL many times in the past with no problems.
My final point is somewhat interlinked with my comments re your first point. The old expression "you have to speculate to accumulate" seems very true in a comparison between our respective owners. One has invested heavily, and one (or a series of owners) has not. One club has reaped the benefits of that investment, the other.............
This has got a little away from the topic at hand, but thanks for your time and patience.