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 2018/19
- Thread starter FantasyIreland
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
cleavers
Moderator
I see they have been rewarded by Brent council for not having their own stadium to play in, buy being allowed a higher capacity at wembley, 62000 for 5 league games, and any further CL games at 90000, when in fact they should have been restricted to 38000 the size of their old stadium. I guess Brent council saw it as helping bring more money into wembley and the FA (not to mention their borough on match days).
I see they have been rewarded by Brent council for not having their own stadium to play in, buy being allowed a higher capacity at wembley, 62000 for 5 league games, and any further CL games at 90000, when in fact they should have been restricted to 38000 the size of their old stadium. I guess Brent council saw it as helping bring more money into wembley and the FA (not to mention their borough on match days).
Spurs are paying a lot of money to play at Wembley. Probably more than five times what West Ham pay for use of the Olympic stadium pro rata, and probably four times what City pay for use of the Etihad. As a consequence, the FA receives a windfall that can be recycled into English football - or, more likely, can be put towards paying off its debt.
I don't see what the problem is.
Spurs are paying a lot of money to play at Wembley. Probably more than five times what West Ham pay for use of the Olympic stadium pro rata, and probably four times what City pay for use of the Etihad. As a consequence, the FA receives a windfall that can be recycled into English football - or, more likely, can be put towards paying off its debt.
I don't see what the problem is.
Given how much longer the devious twunts are using Wembley for its a fucking shame the FA weren't competent to negotiate extended use clauses at 10m per extra match or something, at least that way levy would have be honest from the start with when they could actually realistically move tot he new ground.
mac
Well-Known Member
We are tenants who moved to the then Eastlands with a plan and the stadium was built to accommodate football after the Commonwealth games. We have since negotiated a very long rental agreement. You slimy fuckers have strung every tom dick and sally along with Levy’s lies.Spurs are paying a lot of money to play at Wembley. Probably more than five times what West Ham pay for use of the Olympic stadium pro rata, and probably four times what City pay for use of the Etihad. As a consequence, the FA receives a windfall that can be recycled into English football - or, more likely, can be put towards paying off its debt.
I don't see what the problem is.
Given how much longer the devious twunts are using Wembley for its a fucking shame the FA weren't competent to negotiate extended use clauses at 10m per extra match or something, at least that way levy would have be honest from the start with when they could actually realistically move tot he new ground.
No one has yet put forward an even remotely logical reason as to why this should have been a conspiracy on Spurs' part. The club to have suffered by far the most as a consequence is Spurs. Anything else that any club has suffered - even City - is minuscule by comparison. This tin foil hat stuff is as nonsensical as it is possible to be.
This is a problem predominantly of Tyco's making. They are taking an awful long time to rectify it and Spurs cannot get the stadium signed off with all safety certificates until they do.
We are tenants who moved to the then Eastlands with a plan and the stadium was built to accommodate football after the Commonwealth games. We have since negotiated a very long rental agreement. You slimy fuckers have strung every tom dick and sally along with Levy’s lies.
Charming...
Ignoring conspiracy theories, I still don't see what the problem is. Spurs are paying a huge amount to play at Wembley. Far more than other clubs pay to rent stadiums. And the money will, even if indirectly, go towards the improvement of grassroots football.
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,291
Haven't you had your best ever start to a PL season though? I suppose you'd be top of the league, if not for the stadium situation?No one has yet put forward an even remotely logical reason as to why this should have been a conspiracy on Spurs' part. The club to have suffered by far the most as a consequence is Spurs. Anything else that any club has suffered - even City - is minuscule by comparison. This tin foil hat stuff is as nonsensical as it is possible to be.
This is a problem predominantly of Tyco's making. They are taking an awful long time to rectify it and Spurs cannot get the stadium signed off with all safety certificates until they do.
Last edited:
Haven't you had your best ever start to a PL season though?
Yes. But it's no thanks to playing at Wembley. Spurs have played 10 home games, won 6 and lost 4. By comparison, during the last season at White Hart Lane, Spurs won 17, drew 2 and lost 0. Even last season at Wembley, Spurs won 13, drew 4 and lost 2 of 19 home games.
All of which makes it clear that it is Spurs' excellent away form this season that is primarily responsible for their best start to a PL season.
Besides which, it is the many millions that the new stadium delay and continued use of Wembley is costing the club that is the main issue.
Met Line Hammer
Well-Known Member
Yes. I think we should all be eternally grateful to Spurs now. The saviours of grassroots football right there.Charming...
Ignoring conspiracy theories, I still don't see what the problem is. Spurs are paying a huge amount to play at Wembley. Far more than other clubs pay to rent stadiums. And the money will, even if indirectly, go towards the improvement of grassroots football.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.