Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,846
Not sure why proof is needed. Even without proof, surely it displays poor governance.
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
Not sure why proof is needed. Even without proof, surely it displays poor governance.
prestonibbo_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Imagine the reaction in Liverpool if the game couldn't be played and we were given the 3 points.
The city would be flooded with wax
Edited for accuracy ;-)
Not sure why proof is needed. Even without proof, surely it displays poor governance.
Because it would be fraud.
The
Upon completion of the agreed works - and the main contractor feels they are complete to a satisfactory and safe standard - Practical Completion is achieved legally which hands the stadium over from the main contractor to the client - in this case Spurs. Until that happens, the contractor is still liable for anything that goes wrong on site - not the client (i.e. Spurs). I know of exceptions that have been made to partially occupy parts of half-built/delayed buildings for office workers and issue Practical Completion for that zone of completed works. 8 First Street in Manchester is a prime example.
However we are not talking about office workers on the average wage - we are talking about 22 highly paid millionaires to play in a stadium they still effectively are responsible for and are liable for anything that goes wrong. No sane contractor and their insurance company is ever going to allow that to happen. That could be anything from something serious like an incomplete roof falling in and landing on someone, to one of the footballers slipping on a mislaid tile in the showers or an unsecured plasterboard falling on them and suffering an injury. Freak accidents yes but a contractor and insurance company would never countenance that against millionaire footballers and clubs which make millions.
I work in construction and Tottenham haven't got a prayer of playing in an incomplete stadium that the main contractor is still responsible for - and more importantly liable for if anything goes wrong on site. I wish people would stop saying stuff like "whack some turf on it and let them play in an empty stadium". It's not as simple as that.I'm sure there's a way to avoid a forfeit. Personally I wouldn't want that, it would cause a huge uproar among the other teams, and rightly so.
Maybe they can get a safety certificate to play matches with just some of the stands open (full away complement of course). I don't know what's failing at the moment so this might not even be possible.
Upon completion of the agreed works - and the main contractor feels they are complete to a satisfactory and safe standard - Practical Completion is achieved legally which hands the stadium over from the main contractor to the client - in this case Spurs. Until that happens, the contractor is still liable for anything that goes wrong on site - not the client (i.e. Spurs). I know of exceptions that have been made to partially occupy parts of half-built/delayed buildings for office workers and issue Practical Completion for that zone of completed works. 8 First Street in Manchester is a prime example.
However we are not talking about office workers on the average wage - we are talking about 22 highly paid millionaires to play in a stadium they still effectively are responsible for and are liable for anything that goes wrong. No sane contractor and their insurance company is ever going to allow that to happen. That could be anything from something serious like an incomplete roof falling in and landing on someone, to one of the footballers slipping on a mislaid tile in the showers or an unsecured plasterboard falling on them and suffering an injury. Freak accidents yes but a contractor and insurance company would never countenance that against millionaire footballers and clubs which make millions.
I think it's possible. The idea it's impossible because other clubs in the league wouldn't allow it or Sky would be angry is irrelevant. It's not the opposition's fault if a club cannot host a fixture due to incompetence. I don't think they'll beThis is certainly a valid point. Apparently they won't be allowed to use Twickenham so they're very limited in terms of options for this game.
I can genuinely see them forfeiting the game, we'll know it all by the 28th August anyways.
TheRemainsOfTheDave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 6,491
Steady on there fella. All I've read is the stadium has failed 'critical safety systems' and did state that I didn't know what the intricacies were, so wasn't suggesting it was possible. If you know what this quote means, then please enlighten me.The
I work in construction and Tottenham haven't got a prayer of playing in an incomplete stadium that the main contractor is still responsible for - and more importantly liable for if anything goes wrong on site. I wish people would stop saying stuff like "whack some turf on it and let them play in an empty stadium". It's not as simple as that.
Upon completion of the agreed works - and the main contractor feels they are complete to a satisfactory and safe standard - Practical Completion is achieved legally which hands the stadium over from the main contractor to the client - in this case Spurs. Until that happens, the contractor is still liable for anything that goes wrong on site - not the client (i.e. Spurs). I know of exceptions that have been made to partially occupy parts of half-built/delayed buildings for office workers and issue Practical Completion for that zone of completed works. 8 First Street in Manchester is a prime example.
However we are not talking about office workers on the average wage - we are talking about 22 highly paid millionaires to play in a stadium they still effectively are responsible for and are liable for anything that goes wrong. No sane contractor and their insurance company is ever going to allow that to happen. That could be anything from something serious like an incomplete roof falling in and landing on someone, to one of the footballers slipping on a mislaid tile in the showers or an unsecured plasterboard falling on them and suffering an injury. Freak accidents yes but a contractor and insurance company would never countenance that against millionaire footballers and clubs which make millions.
I think it's possible. The idea it's impossible because other clubs in the league wouldn't allow it or Sky would be angry is irrelevant. It's not the opposition's fault if a club cannot host a fixture due to incompetence. I don't think they'll be
brummie blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 9,456
Fuck em, give us two home games against them.
this isn't such a daft idea, City have refused Spurs request to switch fixtures - away/home to home/away.
The only other alternative is Spurs using another ground - possibly Milton Keynes
bavarian blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,780
That is the sensible option .this isn't such a daft idea, City have refused Spurs request to switch fixtures - away/home to home/away.
The only other alternative is Spurs using another ground - possibly Milton Keynes
shevtheblue
Well-Known Member
How dare you, it's a great idea and that's why I said it [emoji16]this isn't such a daft idea, City have refused Spurs request to switch fixtures - away/home to home/away.
The only other alternative is Spurs using another ground - possibly Milton Keynes
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Why not? All the forfeit would do is harm our goal difference.What about the London Stadium, or MK Dons
Forfeiting the game surely won’t happen
Imagine if we win the league by 2 points. Don’t know about anybody else but it just wouldn’t feel right
whp.blue
Well-Known Member
I can see this game being played in Cardiff.
The Spurs v City game was supposed to be on Sky and is still listed on the Premier League website - though Sky have taken it off their listing.
I can see a deal being done by the Premier League and the game moved to the London Stadium. West Ham are away that weekend, though they play Spurs there the weekend before. The London Stadium is effectively a neutral venue anyway and I'm sure Sky would be happy with that rather than a venue they haven't been to before for football.
Very interesting being taken off the Sky website. I reckon it will be postponed.
If the rags or scousers finish 2nd, it sounds idealWhat about the London Stadium, or MK Dons
Forfeiting the game surely won’t happen
Imagine if we win the league by 2 points. Don’t know about anybody else but it just wouldn’t feel right
If the rags or scousers finish 2nd, it sounds ideal
Or joint second ... both finishing with same amount of points which happen to be two less than us ;)
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Would be funny as fuck and the moaning would go on for eternity but without sounding like a rag I'd be a bit upset if we were only that far in front of them both.Or joint second ... both finishing with same amount of points which happen to be two less than us ;)
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
I thought there was some PL rule about playing home matches in more than 2 venues (as in you can't).Very interesting being taken off the Sky website. I reckon it will be postponed.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Good shout.I can see this game being played in Cardiff.
Gray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2004
- Messages
- 28,754
- Team supported
- ABU & The Bus Wreckers
I have been told that the fire suppressant system is not working properly and that only about 10% is functioning correctly.
They will not get this Stadium ready for some considerable time yet.
They will not get this Stadium ready for some considerable time yet.
The rules. Particularly relevant K.5 and K.6
I don't see how they can play at two different grounds during the season.
I doubt anyone could object if they played at Wembley but if they play there, they have to play all their
games there in my opinion.
Ownership of Ground and Training Facilities
K.3. Each Club shall either own its Stadium and training facilities or have a legally
enforceable agreement with its owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier
than the end of the current Season.
Ground Sharing
K.4. No Club shall have or enter into a ground-sharing agreement in respect of its
Stadium unless the agreement contains legally enforceable provisions to the effect
that:
K.4.1. the playing of the Club’s League Matches at the Stadium shall always take
precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement; and
K.4.2. the Club shall have the ability to postpone other activities scheduled to
take place on the pitch in the 48 hours immediately preceding the kick-off
of a League Match where, in the reasonable opinion of the Club, there is a
risk that such activity might result in the subsequent postponement or
abandonment of the League Match.
Ground Registration
K.5. Each Club shall register its Stadium with the Board and must play all matches in the
competitions listed in Rule L.9 for which it is the Home Club at the Stadium. No Club
shall remove to another Stadium (either on a permanent or temporary basis) without
first obtaining the written consent of the Board, in accordance with Rule K.6, below.
K.6. In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all
the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to, the factors set out in this
Rule K.6) and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
K.6.1. would be consistent with the objects of the League as set out in the
Memorandum;
K.6.2. would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the
locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is
traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish
its Stadium;
K.6.3. would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials,
Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest
in its activities;
K.6.4. would not have a material adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;
I don't see how they can play at two different grounds during the season.
I doubt anyone could object if they played at Wembley but if they play there, they have to play all their
games there in my opinion.
Ownership of Ground and Training Facilities
K.3. Each Club shall either own its Stadium and training facilities or have a legally
enforceable agreement with its owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier
than the end of the current Season.
Ground Sharing
K.4. No Club shall have or enter into a ground-sharing agreement in respect of its
Stadium unless the agreement contains legally enforceable provisions to the effect
that:
K.4.1. the playing of the Club’s League Matches at the Stadium shall always take
precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement; and
K.4.2. the Club shall have the ability to postpone other activities scheduled to
take place on the pitch in the 48 hours immediately preceding the kick-off
of a League Match where, in the reasonable opinion of the Club, there is a
risk that such activity might result in the subsequent postponement or
abandonment of the League Match.
Ground Registration
K.5. Each Club shall register its Stadium with the Board and must play all matches in the
competitions listed in Rule L.9 for which it is the Home Club at the Stadium. No Club
shall remove to another Stadium (either on a permanent or temporary basis) without
first obtaining the written consent of the Board, in accordance with Rule K.6, below.
K.6. In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all
the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to, the factors set out in this
Rule K.6) and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
K.6.1. would be consistent with the objects of the League as set out in the
Memorandum;
K.6.2. would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the
locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is
traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish
its Stadium;
K.6.3. would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials,
Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest
in its activities;
K.6.4. would not have a material adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;
Very interesting being taken off the Sky website. I reckon it will be postponed.
But that is a huge disadvantage for City especially if the game is played next year when we will already have a fixture backlog because of cup runs etc. Spurs messed up and yet it could harm us. People are saying play it at Cardiff but there is a reason there are rules, these f*ckers think they can just ignore them, they have already been allowed to play some games at Wembley so 2 grounds in one season, why a third ?