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 challenge 2012 stadium decision
- Thread starter fbloke
- Start date
The 'athletics legacy' is best seved by updating and redevoloping the existing facilities at Crystal Palace, which Spurs have agreed to fund as part of their proposal.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
THFC6061 said:The 'athletics legacy' is best seved by updating and redevoloping the existing facilities at Crystal Palace, which Spurs have agreed to fund as part of their proposal.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
This is a pointless argument with you because you a re a spurs fan and if i was you i would feel the same but that doesnt mean the tax payer should pay so you can have free land. Crystal Palace is no legacy mate i live in Crystal Palace its fucking out the way with no good transport links direct to it and is mainly used as a training facility
THFC6061 said:The 'athletics legacy' is best seved by updating and redevoloping the existing facilities at Crystal Palace, which Spurs have agreed to fund as part of their proposal.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
Ahh but there is an intention of hosting the World Athletics Championships as well so that another part of you argument chipped away at ;-)
pissedagain
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 3,226
stop moaning its west hams..always was
Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,169
THFC6061 said:The 'athletics legacy' is best seved by updating and redevoloping the existing facilities at Crystal Palace, which Spurs have agreed to fund as part of their proposal.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
Crystal Palace is not a suitable location.
You appear to support the move to Stratford. All the ST holders I know are from North London and each one is dead set against the move. It's those from Herts and Essex who support the move. Maybe they are more concerned about parking and public transport facilities, than the history and tradition of the club. The 'T' in 'THFC' means something to proper fans.
If you move outside North London your club will be nothing more than a franchise in my eyes. The lowest of the low. Pondlife, like MK Dons.
u2fme2
Well-Known Member
they don't have a cat in hells chance
fbloke said:THFC6061 said:The 'athletics legacy' is best seved by updating and redevoloping the existing facilities at Crystal Palace, which Spurs have agreed to fund as part of their proposal.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
Ahh but there is an intention of hosting the World Athletics Championships as well so that another part of you argument chipped away at ;-)
I stand corrected.
Another potential 10 days in the 80-year life of the stadium will obviously make a massive difference.
THFC6061 said:The 'athletics legacy' is best seved by updating and redevoloping the existing facilities at Crystal Palace, which Spurs have agreed to fund as part of their proposal.
There is no possible use for a 60,000-seater athletics stadium after the Games are over and a 60,000-seater athletics stadium is a wholly inappropriate venue to hold football matches.
Talk sense, if you honestly believe the poor argument of a legacy at crystal palace you are deluded. At least city redeveloped a stadium and this was included in the design. To suggest knocking down a stadium which as just been built for your own self interest is stupid. Even if the stadium is half empty the majority of the time it is better than the spurs option.
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
THFC6061 said:fbloke said:Ahh but there is an intention of hosting the World Athletics Championships as well so that another part of you argument chipped away at ;-)
I stand corrected.
Another potential 10 days in the 80-year life of the stadium will obviously make a massive difference.
Yes it another 10 potential days on top of the other days it would be used by West Ham rather than Spurs knock it down 2 years into its life span